The far left loonies at the Southern Poverty Law Center
have continued their trend of adding anything that is American or that stands for American values on its list of hate groups. The latest victims are several groups I disagree with, but nonetheless find simply stupefying to put on any sort of hate list - unless of course it was a list of people who hate fun.
The three groups I will cover below are mainstream groups in this country. They represent the social conservatives. You know the ones, the church going crowd that likes to mix religion with their politics to create a semi-theocracy in this nation. Well, they'd deny that, but the forceful groups like those below want to outlaw some things even though it would conflict with the Constitution to do so. All in the name of the Bible.
As you can guess I am not a social conservative, I am a fiscal conservative alone. To see these groups attacked as "hate" groups though? - well that's beyond the pale and someone had to say something about it.
Back in 2006 I began a boycott against the group called the American Family Association. They had, at the time, began a boycott of CITGO because it was owned by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. I agreed with their boycott of CITGO (and have maintained my boycott to this day), but at the same time I boycotted the American Family Association group also for their intrusions into individual's lives. I wrote at the time:
... this boycott seems to be credited to The American Family Association, the anti-fun Nazi's who are against porn, video games, TV, movies and every other fun thing there is in this world. They're almost as bad as people wanting women to wear burqas ... If it was up to them they'd ban Bambi because it's too violent.
The American Family Association is opposed to individual liberties in general - unless they agree with those liberties of course. They are the group that continues to try and have violent video games banned, porn removed in all forms and anything else that they don't agree with deleted from American culture. They are certainly a threat to people's choice and individuality, but a hate group? I think not.
Groups like the American Family Association have a right to voice their opinion about beliefs. When they intrude on civil liberties and civil rights they have the right also to be stopped via court and via outrage. That is not the way the Southern Poverty Law Center sees things though.
Back in August 2009 I put out a report called Hate and Slander for Profit which detailed some of the tricks the SPLC uses to deem people a racist or hate group and how they were doing so for profit and donations. While that report mainly focused on their attacks on groups against illegal immigration, their tactics remain the same. They are still up to their old tricks, but have widened their targets a bit to ensnare even more groups who they disagree with.
The reasoning behind the SPLC listing of the American Family Association on their hate watch list is mainly because the AFA opposes the current push in this country for gay marriage. Gay marriage is a far-left love child and anyone opposed to it must be shut down immediately. Gay marriage is one means to an end, but the truth is that they are on the opposite political spectrum from the SPLC. They are not of the same political "sex", and nothing pisses the SPLC off more than not getting to be a "bottom" for those of their own sex.
The sad thing about the SPLC is that they do not realize their own hypocrisy (actually I believe they do). They have continued to do exactly what they accuse their "enemies" of. They demonize those they don't agree with, putting them on a "hate list"; they call them names and slander their leaders with personally damaging accusations. Yet, in their introduction to including the American Family Association to their hate list they state these exact same things about the groups they intend to vilify.
... a hard core of smaller groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities.
Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods - claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities - and repeated, groundless name-calling.
If you take a look at the tactics the SPLC uses you could substitute "SPLC" above in place of the groups they are demonizing and see that they are doing precisely the same thing. You would end up with something like this:
"The SPLC is a hard core small group, of the left-wing religious ideology, continuing to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at groups whose ideas they don't agree with - though they base it on no fact.
"Generally, The SPLC listing of these groups is based on their own propaganda of falsehoods - many of which have been discredited as incorrect, full of factual errors or of their own making - and they continue to use repeated, groundless name calling of racist, hater and homophobe."
That sounds much better and much more realistic to our current issue being addressed.
Now, let's take a little in-depth look into the "reasoning" behind three groups in particular that the SPLC has added as hate mongers.
(The SPLC listing I am referring to can be found below - I refuse to link to them)
American Family Association
The claimed basis behind the SPLC listing the American Family Association on their hate group list is almost solely due to a man the AFA hired last year named Bryan Fischer
. The SPLC claims that Fischer, in a blog post of which I cannot find or verify (other than those quoting what the SPLC claims he said), put forth a theory that Adolph Hitler was gay and went in search of homosexuals for his military because they were more vicious than straight people.
Like I said, I cannot find this actual post and with the SPLC track record of fabrication, who knows if what they say is true. The only sources to be found are those of their little children followers on the net who just republish, verbatim, anything the SPLC puts out.
Another claim is that Fischer is in favor of "reparative therapy" for homosexuals. I can find that believable because of the nature of the American Family Association. They'd probably like to put those who watch porn or play video games into "reparative therapy" as well.
Fischer, though, is not the American Family Association. He is one person they hired to handle their government and policy analysis. The SPLC also tries to tie the AFA into some sort of anti-semitism, but really? Fischer sounds pretty Jewish to me. When you lob around the racist or anti-semite accusations you better have a long list of proof. In the SPLC's case though who needs proof when you can just slander for profit? They provide no real proof.
Another claim by the SPLC is that the American Family Association released an "action alert" in 2010 to members. The SPLC quotes it as saying the following: if homosexuals are allowed to openly serve in the military, “your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals.”
Well, wouldn't they? If Don't Ask Don't Tell is removed and soldiers can be openly gay, then it stands to reason that people's sons and daughters will indeed be forced to share showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals. I challenge anyone of logic or reason to refute such. I won't hold my breath for the SPLC to respond as they have neither of the aforementioned traits.
Having been in the Navy and lived on a ship and slept in a berthing area with 150 other guys (bunk-beds were three men high) - you may ask yourself were some of them gay? Who knows! However, if there was not a policy in place that sexual orientation had no place in being brought up and acted upon, I can indeed see something just like the AFA suggests happening. Of course, I can guess that probably no one in the SPLC has ever been in the military and has no idea what they are talking about on military matters. But it seems pretty obvious that you'd have one openly gay guy in the shower room in the morning.
The SPLC tries really hard to make their case on another point of reasoning. They dub the American Family Association as hateful because they oppose the "Ground Zero mosque" in New York City.
Yes, you did read that right. They are arguing that the AFA should be on the "homosexual hater list" because they oppose the ground zero mosque. They also claim that Fischer said "Islam is a totalitarian political ideology." That is one man's opinion, but I'm pretty sure that others hold the same view and don't hate homosexuals. The SPLC reasoning to add the AFA hinges almost entirely on Fischer's opinion.
To finish out their "repeated, groundless name calling" and "demonizing" the SPLC puts forth this little parable:
And then there are the promiscuous. On his May 26, 2010, radio show, Fischer recounted the biblical story of Phineas, who used a spear to kill a man and a woman who were having sex. Citing the nation’s “rampant sexual immorality,” Fischer said, “God is obviously looking for more Phineases in our day.”
As if Fischer is the first man in all of history to claim that God will smite those dead who "act immoral". Or are they insinuating that Fischer is calling for people to pick up spears and stab them through people while they're copulating? Either point is ridiculous.
Oh you want more? You want more reasons why the SPLC put the AFA on their hate-list?
Maybe the hanging of a black man? Maybe the beating of a woman because she was of the wrong gender? Maybe a stringing up of a homosexual on a barbed wire fence?
Well, if you were looking for any of that logic and reason for adding the group to a "hate list" you will find none here. The AFA has done none of those things and not called for anyone else to do so either. They have simply interpreted the Bible to find homosexuality as immoral and they have spoken out against it.
Calls for Helping Do Not Equal Hate
And when you think about it for just a second, the SPLC actually makes themselves look like dimwits by including the part about Fischer calling for "reparative therapy" for homosexuals. What group or individual - slandered as hateful individuals, and insinuated as just one step away from calling for the death of all gays - would actually call for helping those they supposedly hate rather than just calling for their heads?
No hate group would do such a thing and that is why, once again, the Southern Poverty Law Center is proven a fraud.
Just for shits and giggles though let's take a little look at two other groups the SPLC added as additions to their "hate list" for being "anti-gay".
Concerned Women for America
Concerned Women for America
(CWA) was founded by Beverly LaHaye
, the wife of the Left Behind
series' author Tim LaHaye
, in 1979. It was a group counter to the National Organization for Women (NOW) who were pushing the far-left feminist movement. So, of course this group just has
to be put on a hate group list. It challenges one of the left-wing sacred god groups and we can't have that!
The SPLC can't simply throw them on the hate list though without trumping up some charges other than "they oppose NOW". So they came up with some quotes where the CWA points out that the gay community supports left-wing agendas. *gasp*. And just think, up until this point I thought the gay community stood for far-right social conservative values. Who woulda thunk it! Throw them on the hate list for such blasphemy and damn them to hell!
They insinuate that LaHaye has said that some homosexuals were pedophiles. Don't let facts get in the way though SPLC. Some homosexuals are indeed pedophiles! As are some non-homosexuals!
The kicker here though is that the SPLC is pissed off because CWA council Matt Barber challenged figures that were probably provided by the SPLC itself regarding the number of "hate crimes" against homosexuals.
While at CWA, on April 12, 2007, Barber suggested against all the evidence (see story, p. 29) that there were only a "miniscule number" of anti-gay hate crimes and most of those "may very well be rooted in fraudulent reports." In comments that have since disappeared from CWA's website, Barber demanded a federal probe of "homosexual activists" for their alleged fabrications of hate crime reports.
They challenged the numbers! They did so on the grounds that massive and sweeping hate crimes laws were being put forth based off of these numbers. Rather than being a responsible organization, the SPLC just criticizes them rather than joining them in such an effort. Why not ensure that the numbers being reported are actually true before enacting laws based on these numbers? It's quite simple really.
It has been found that time and again somehow the SPLC has managed to finagle its numbers into reports and the briefs of congressman and even law enforcement. I have a hunch that some or all of the homosexual "hate crimes" numbers that were being challenged could indeed have been supplied by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They saw this court challenge as a direct threat to their credibility when the numbers were shown to be overblown and fraudulent.
The SPLC did the same thing with the numbers for hate crimes against Hispanics in 2008. They claimed an increase of 40%+ in hate crimes against Hispanics. They claimed to use the FBI statistics and "cherry picked" the comparison years of 2003 (lowest) vs 2007 (highest). Ruth of Illegal Protest took up the challenge and got those FBI stats and guess what was found? The number of hate crimes against Hispanics actually declined from 2006 to 2007 (being the latest years that data was available for in Dec 2008. It should also be noted that there were only 775 hate crimes against Hispanics in 2007, out of 45+ million people - not exactly a hate crime wave as the SPLC hyped it back then and continues to do so now). It should be noted that this was during the height of opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens where claims were made that hate groups would roam the streets beating Hispanics and La Raza and the SPLC started the "We Can Stop the Hate" campaign (it seems no hate materialized for them.). So, there is documented reason to doubt their numbers. (As for trumping up additional false claims, that is in their interests as well - higher numbers = higher hype = higher donations).
The next claim by the SPLC is based - as with the American Family Association above - entirely on one man's opinion. Robert Knight
was brought in to set up CWA's Culture and Family Institute. He has since departed, but the SPLC seized on this man's opinion to condemn the whole CWA organization.
The SPLC says that Knight claims that "homosexuality carries enormous physical and mental health risks" and "gay marriage entices children to experiment with homosexuality."
Big deal. There are others of this opinion across this country. It does not mean that the individuals actually hate gays and want them dead or wish to bash them in the streets. Rather than rebutting Mr. Knight with their own sets of facts, the SPLC would rather slander him by highlighting him in a so-called "hate list" and condemn any group associated with him. Individuals like Mr. Knight should file a lawsuit in my opinion, because they are indeed trying to destroy him personally, financially and career wise by highlighting him in such a manner.
And now we come to the most disgusting claim by the SPLC because it is a direct attack on the moral stance of the Concerned Women for America. The CWA watched as people were demonized and chided by those who supported gay marriage. They put forth concerns that groups pushing the gay agenda were entering schools and promoting it as a normal life choice. Indeed they were and are. Anyone who tries to claim that there is no such agenda is an ostrich with their head in the sand. There is undeniable evidence that keeps rearing its ugly head of "homosexual friendly" books and other material that keeps popping up in schools. Most of the time this was not addressed with the parents ahead of time, but was slipped in without their knowledge, and many parents were outraged when they found out.
This of course goes to the core of Concerned Women for America's belief system. But the SPLC simply marks that off as another charge that they are a hate group. Claiming all of their concerns are "dubious".
Today, CWA continues to make arguments against homosexuality on the basis of dubious claims. President Wendy Wright said this August that gay activists were using same-sex marriage "to indoctrinate children in schools to reject their parents' values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree.
Indeed they were. A two second search of the internet brings up a bunch of stories of people harassed because they would vote against gay marriage.
" Last year, CWA accused the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a group that works to stop anti-gay bullying in schools, of using that mission as a cover to promote homosexuality in schools, adding that "teaching students from a young age that the homosexual lifestyle is perfectly natural ... will [cause them to] develop into adults who are desensitized to the harmful, immoral reality of sexual deviance."
Who is the SPLC to sit as judge, jury and executioner as to what is morally right to these people and for their concerns based on fact? Why does the SPLC get to deem them as a "hate group" to be shunned by all?
As I said at the beginning, when it comes to the Concerned Women for America the attacks on them had a lot more to do with destroying the competitor of the National Organization for Women than it had with them being a hate group. The SPLC just had to put more twists than a screw has in it in order to make their reasoning stick...
... but it doesn't stick does it?
Family Research Council
The third group I'd like to point out that the SPLC "put the screws to" is the Family Research Council.
The SPLC slams them as being against homosexuals. Well, sure they are, based on their moral grounds, which are based in the Bible as they interpret it. There's no hate-sin in that. Among their general "they think homosexuals are immoral" the SPLC throws out this gem...
"FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey
... and Peter Sprigg
... have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia ... Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation 'identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,'
and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that 'homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses'
and similarly asserted that 'homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.'
Let's tear this apart for a second. (but remember that these two are simply research people and not the head of the organization)
1. Are Sprigg and Dailey wrong by asserting that most men who molest boys "identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual"? (One would also question why the SPLC wrote it as "same-sex child molestation" when they were talking about male molesters - too harsh to point out they were little boys SPLC?)
What kind of "straight" male child molester would molest boys? Of course most male child molesters who molest boys would classify themselves as homosexual or bisexual. I'm not even sure how to take that attempt at accusation by the SPLC to make them hateful.
2. Sprigg and Dailey claimed 'homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses'. I'm not an expert, but if they are incorrect why does the SPLC simply not respond to their charges with facts as most normal individuals do? No, they go straight on a hate list for this.
3. Sprigg and Dailey similarly asserted that 'homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.' Well, I don't have the numbers before me and I haven't read their book or looked at their sources. The SPLC just assures us that things like this are all based on "junk science" in their intro to the report. If the SPLC was truly concerned they would refute why their findings were wrong, not just put them on "the List".
The next tack by the SPLC is to bring the illegal immigration debate into the mix as the SPLC loves to demagogue on the illegal immigration issue and claim all opposed to illegal immigration are racists and should be put on the "hate list". They point to Sprigg in 2008 saying he would "much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.". He was referring to an immigration plan at the time to allow gays to bring their partners to the United States. For the record I oppose homosexual "union" in the immigration process, the marriage reason for immigration is too rife with fraud as it is. Introducing such a measure would be unenforceable.
The next charge against Sprigg (and note that these charges are against individuals, not the official stance of the group) is that he thinks homosexuality should be a criminal act. The SPLC claims that in February 2009, he told told MSNBC host Chris Matthews, "I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior." "So we should outlaw gay behavior?" Matthews asked. "Yes," Sprigg replied.
So, Sprigg is a Theocrat, big surprise. But isn't the SPLC itself a Theocratic organization? They feel that people like Sprigg should be treated as criminals by plastering their name everywhere calling them a danger to society and dubbing groups they've worked with as hate groups. They insinuate by their addition to these lists that these groups are just chomping at the bit to get out there and kill some gay people. They are theocratic according to the religion of diversity and multiculturalism and those who do not follow those beliefs - even based on their own moral grounds - should be shunned and put down as sinners - and in this case, attempt to have them criminally charged in a court of public opinion.
For the record there are still sodomy laws on the books. So Sprigg can take comfort in such a fact.
Last but not least, the SPLC goes back to its old tried and true method of dubbing someone a racist. They tie someone to a group that the SPLC has itself dubbed a "hate group" using their unscrupulous methods as has been demonstrated above.
The head of the Family Research Council is former Louisiana State Representative Tony Perkins
. There are claims made by the SPLC that Perkins has ties to David Duke because he bought a mailing list when he was running a political campaign for someone for US Senate in 1996. Now I don't know the full story and whether the mailing list was even that of David Duke's or whether they bought grouped bundles of mailing lists in general and later found out that one was that of David Duke's, but of course the SPLC sees a conspiracy around every corner.
"Perkins and Duke are obviously lovers," the SPLC people might whisper to each other with glee over daiquiris on a tropical island that they took a cruise to with donor money. In the end Perkins was fined $3,000 for something or other - the SPLC says it was related to the list, but who knows and even if he bought the list does that mean he's a KKK racist or did he just want to get as many names as he could to send mailings to?
On top of this the SPLC then makes the claim that Perkins once spoke at a group called the Council of Conservative Citizens, a "white supremacist group". And who dubbed the Council of Conservative Citizens a "white supremacist group"? Why, the SPLC of course!
I'm not an expert on this group, but doing just a bit of research shows that they are not a hate group. They are a "western civilization" group which stands for White-European rights. They do not call for the death of other races. They call for the remaining of the United States as a European based culture. Here are some other things they stand by: The US is a Christian nation; oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples; illegal immigration must be stopped; placing troops on our borders; illegal aliens must be deported; legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted; oppose all efforts to mix the races; oppose so-called "affirmative action". They believe that these things are destroying the fabric of our country. They oppose the UN, are for states rights, oppose overseas meddling using our troops, oppose a new world order and push traditional values.
I am not a member of that group and would not join it. However, they have the right to hold those beliefs. Their beliefs fall in line with those of the NAACP or the National Organization for Women, who claim to be looking out for members of their race or gender. I see nothing hateful as far as being a threat. They do not call for the destruction of other nations or races. As a matter of fact if you are going to dub the Council of Conservative Citizens a hate group or racist group, then you would have to thus dub the country of Japan as a hateful and racist nation of people, as they hold almost all of the above beliefs as a general rule in that country. They oppose race mixing and want to keep Japan as a Japanese based nation. Japan is not alone, almost every nation is like that except for the United States and a handful of other western nations.
So, Perkins not knowing all of this gave a speech to this - SPLC deemed "white supremacist" - group one time in 2001 and therefore he is a racist and his group must be put on a hate list forever. Such is the logic of the SPLC.
The Reality of the SPLC Hate List
The reality that we can all see clearly through this is that time and time again the SPLC refers back to its own reports and numbers. If anyone associates with groups listed in its hate list - or questions their numbers - they are put on the hate group watch list. Perkins is their latest victim along with his entire group the Family Research Council and all of its members; The American Family Association and the Concerned Women for America and all of their members; along with the 15 other groups listed in their hate group watch list just under the "anti-homosexual banner".
When the SPLC ties people to groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens you must remember that the SPLC has put that group on its hate list for a reason. They are pro-enforcement and against illegal immigration for one. That's enough to get a group on the list by itself. In the Council's case though they pretty much stepped on every single part of the goat hoof of a foot the SPLC has; from gun rights to traditional family values to opposing the UN and world governance. To the SPLC groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens must be stopped at all costs - even if that means destroying someone's life or family.
It now seems that the SPLC has gone to the point where the mainstream groups of America are now its target. All three of the groups I mentioned above have millions of members. They stand for the "religious right" and if it wasn't some sort of hate list for "anti-homosexual" beliefs, then the SPLC surely would have put them on some other "hate list" eventually. Maybe it would be the list they are putting together for next year. If my guess is correct It will probably be something titled along the lines of "Those Hateful American Citizens". The list will include every single person in this country who believes in the greatness of this nation, the rule of law, its founders and those want to end the festering wound and travesty of a tumor that has grown on this country that is summed up with the four letters
S P L C
For more on the SPLC see my report Hate and Slander for Profit