Connect with us

Culture

Majority of Anti-Defamation League Funding Goes to Employees

Published

on

The Anti-Defamation League is under scrutiny after publishing a “target list” of people they deem to be “alt-right” or “alt-light,” and now one of those named on the list is demanding answers about the organization’s funding.

The organization reports that they take in approximately $52 million in funding annually — while paying out over $32 million to their employees, which is over 60%.

https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/888854711423598593

Trending: Grassroots Leaders Send Final Warning to GOP Establishment: Rejecting Trump Means Death of Republican Party

According to the ADL’s page on the Charity Navigator, they claim to spend on 12.0% on administrative assets, 15.9% on fundraising expenses, and 71.9% on program expenses. The website gave the organization one star out of four on their financial spending.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Jonathan Greenblatt reported $168,665 “compensation from affiliates” as the Chief Executive Officer in 2015, while the former National Director Abraham H. Foxman received $446,748.

Greenblatt served as the Special Assistant to President Barack Obama as well as his Director of the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation in the United States Domestic Policy Council. He is now the National Director and CEO of the ADL.

In December, the New York Post reported that “Jonathan Greenblatt is Destroying the ANTI-Defamation League.” Their reason for this was that he had visited Israel and told leaders that anti-Semitism in the US is now comparable to that in Germany during the Holocaust, and blamed President Donald Trump and his supporters for the rise he claimed existed.

“Anti-Semitism has wound its way into mainstream conversations in a manner that many Jews who lived through Nazi Germany find terrifying,” Greenblatt had stated.

Prior to Greenblatt taking over, the organization held a firm non-partisan stance, as their mission statement to “fight anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry” finds support from both parties.

“Greenblatt came to the job directly from serving as a special assistant to President Obama. Before that, he directed an initiative at the Aspen Institute, a George Soros-financed, left-leaning nonprofit. And his bias is showing now in his opposition to anything associated with right-wing politics and in the ADL’s championing of leftist positions, even when they run against the interests of the Jewish community,” the Post reported.

Under his leadership, the organization has become arguably obsessed with internet trolls and the “alt-right” while largely ignoring anti-Semitism from the left — such as the incident where a Jewish flag was banned from a Chicago Pride march. They also openly support Black Lives Matter, despite the group’s open disdain for Israel and support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

As we previously reported, last week the ADL ironically published a list defaming and lumping together 36 people, all with unique views and opinions, as being “alt-right” or “alt-light” in an attempt to squash right-wing voices.

The report, titled “From Alt Right to Alt Lite: Naming the Hate,” is listed under the organization’s tab for “Anti-Semitism in the US,” but includes several people who are themselves Jewish — including Gateway Pundit’s White House Correspondent Lucian Wintrich.

“The ADL, led by a childish Barack Obama staffer, is acting like a group that makes lists of undesirables and targets them for hate. Their lies and smear about me, and their threats against my family will not make us stop exposing the evils of the Left and fighting to take back our country,” author Jack Posobiec, who is named on the alt-lite list, told Big League Politics.

Big League Politics has reached out to ADL for comment for this report and will update upon receiving a reply.

Free Speech

Does the Arizona Constitution Provide Means for Lawmakers to Crack Down on Big Tech Censorship?

Does the Arizona Constitution provide protections from Big Tech?

Published

on

The Arizona Constitution provides stronger protections for freedom of speech than the First Amendment does, potentially providing legislative solutions to Big Tech censorship in the state at a moment where political censorship is more pervasive than ever.

Article 2 Section 6, Arizona Constitution states that “Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. “

This differs greatly from the federal constitution in that it doesn’t limit the powers of a legislature to restrict freedom of speech. The US Constitution identifies “Congress” as the body it’s restricting from making a law abridging the freedom of speech.

The speech rights established by the Arizona Constitution are thus expressed positively; recognizing a right belonging to the people, as opposed to negating an infringement of said right.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Quite obviously, the Arizona Constitution was written in an 1910, an era in which the internet would’ve been just as inconceivable as it was in 1789.

In a 2019 Arizona Supreme Court case, the state’s highest court recognized in a 4-3 judgement that the Arizona Constitution provided greater protections than the federal constitution. The case recognized that violations of the First Amendment would represent de facto violations of the

It’s not outside the realm of possibility that the Arizona Attorney General, or state legislature, could hold Big Tech oligarchs to account for violating the Article 2 Section 6 rights of Arizona citizens- especially in a context the major platforms are collectively adjudicated to be acting as a trust in order to suppress competition and silence lawful speech.

Three Arizona legislators called upon Attorney General Mark Brnovich to begin an antitrust investigation into Big Tech oligarchs following the coordinated deplatforming operation against Parler, in which both Amazon and Apple colluded to restrict the free speech platform from the internet.

In an era where the overwhelming majority of free speech is communicated online, the censorious actions of Big Tech very plausibly represent an assault of the right of free expression guaranteed in the Arizona Constitution. Both chambers of Arizona’s legislature remain Republican, even as the state has become purple, and action against Big Tech censorship on the state level could become a real possibility in the coming years.


Follow me on Gab @WildmanAZ, Twitter @Wildman_AZ, and on Parler @Moorhead.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending