The Southern Poverty Law Center and Violent Bullying


#1

The Southern Poverty Law Center and Violent Bullying
By Tony Perkins , CP Op-Ed Contributor
February 25, 2013|2:59 pm
ChristianPost.com

Bullying is not a new phenomenon; it’s as old as man. But bullying has reached a point of near epidemic proportions, with one in four children experiencing bullying and up to 35 percent of the U.S. workforce reporting being bullied at work. Bullying is wrong, and should have no defenders.

Bullying knows no boundaries. It’s not just boys on the playground or people at work; it can even be organizations on the national stage as was revealed in a federal courtroom on February 6th.

What was unveiled in the court chambers was the reality that some of the nation’s biggest bullies hide behind the façade of being against bullying!

The SPLC said the school district’s anti-bullying policy that was neutral toward homosexuality, declaring it was neither a moral right or moral wrong, was “discriminatory” and sued the District. PAL, which opposed the SPLC’s imposition of their pro-homosexual bullying policy, was then placed on the SPLC’s national hate group list along with the Klan.

Who is the real bully?

Lest one might think this was an isolated case of bullying, in January 2013, a federal magistrate judge in Colorado called out the Southern Poverty Law Center for their tactics.

In this case Eugene Delgaudio, the president of the Public Advocate of the United States, a non-profit advocacy organization, had opposed political candidates in Colorado, who supported the redefinition of marriage, and used a photograph of two homosexual men to illustrate his opposition to the candidates. The SPLC teamed up with the two homosexual men to file suit against Delgaudio’s organization and in their public filings posted Delgaudio’s home address for the sole purpose of intimidation.

“Racism”, “Sexism”, “Tolerance”, “Hate Crimes”, “Bullying”: real problems that have been hyped and hijacked to smoke screen and serve social advocacy purposes! Eventually each smoke screen wears out, is dumped, and a new one ginned up. Society is harmed; the real targets of the social advocates are harmed; people facing the real problem used as a smoke screen are harmed (by the Wolf-crying); the disingenuous social advocacy people cynically move on to their next smoke screen. Where have we heard this before? "The end justifies the means."


#2

Pete, if you read the SPLC’s website, you’ll see they have very good reasons for listing Perkins’ organization as a hate group:

Family Research Council | Southern Poverty Law Center

Just as one example:

In 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Woody Jenkins against Mary Landrieu, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Klan chieftain David Duke. The campaign was fined $3,000 (reduced from $82,500) after Perkins and Jenkins filed false disclosure forms in a bid to hide their link to Duke. Five years later, on May 17, 2001, Perkins gave a speech to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.”

If you look into any of the stories he mentions, I think you’ll find that he lies about them as easily as he lies about himself. All these people stand for is hatred and dishonesty.


#3

The SPLC stands for hatred and dishonesty. They were a good organization that got hijacked by crazies. I don’t believe anything that comes from their website. They are so obsessed with linking support of traditional marriage to racism that they would lie about the FRC.


#4

Leave me out of this!


#5

They spread hateful lies:

“One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”
—1999 FRC publication

They believe in sending gay people to prison:

In March 2008, [FRC senior fellow Peter] Sprigg responded to a question about uniting gay partners during immigration by saying, “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than import them.” He later apologized, but in February 2009, he told 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.

Here is Perkins claiming that if the Supreme Court rules against DOMA, it will spark an armed revolution:

They are called a hate group because that’s what they are. Hatred is their business. No honest person could deny that unless they simply weren’t familiar with their record.


#6

Here is Perkins claiming that if the Supreme Court rules against DOMA, it will spark an armed revolution:

Very cute smear, Caudi. Perkins did not advocate armed revolution. Perkins did not say he or his group favored, would lead or would join in armed revolution. Perkins did not say who the revolutionaries might be. He only said that the reaction against such a USSC decision could be as strong as a revolution. In fact, his tone indicated that he saw such a possibility as something to be feared rather than favored.

FRC Answered the SPLC’s smears a couple of years ago. I assume your comment, “I think you’ll find that he lies about them as easily as he lies about himself,” may at least partly anticipate the following quotes from FRC’s response:

Instead of being chastened by these events, the SPLC has merely repeated its defamatory accusations against FRC. Here are brief answers to some of the distortions of our positions by the SPLC and those who have embraced the “hate group” charge:

Does FRC claim that “gay people are child molesters?”

FRC has never said, and does not believe, that most homosexuals are child molesters. However, it is undisputed that the percentage of child sex abuse cases that are male-on-male is far higher than the percentage of adult males who are homosexual. This suggests that male homosexuality is a risk factor for child sexual abuse. Homosexual activists argue that men who molest boys are not actually “homosexual;” but scholarly evidence undermines that claim. It also cannot be disputed that there is a sub-culture within the homosexual movement that advocates “intergenerational” sexual relationships. FRC’s writings on this topic–unlike the SPLC’s–have been carefully documented with references to the original scholarly literature.

Does FRC want to “criminalize” homosexuality?

FRC has made no effort to reinstate sodomy laws since the U.S. Supreme Court struck them down in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas. In a 2010 interview on a different topic, the question of whether we should “outlaw gay behavior” in U.S. civil law was raised not by an FRC spokesman, but by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. The spokesman affirmed that FRC (like three Supreme Court justices) believed Lawrence was wrongly decided; but the interview left some viewers with the mistaken impression that “re-criminalizing” homosexuality is a policy goal for FRC. It is not.

Does FRC want to kick homosexuals out of the country?

Just days after an interview was posted online in 2008, an FRC spokesman publicly apologized on the FRC website for having used the words “import” and “export” as metaphors for voluntary immigration and emigration by homosexuals. The interview related to legislation which would grant special preference in immigration to foreign nationals who are the homosexual partners of American citizens.

Does FRC support the execution of homosexuals in Uganda ?

This charge was refuted as soon as it appeared in 2010. FRC has publicly opposed the much-publicized bill (never adopted) in Uganda that would have imposed criminal penalties for various offenses related to homosexual conduct, and the death penalty for something known as “aggravated homosexuality.” We responded to requests from Congressional offices for advice on the wording of a resolution condemning the Uganda bill–then reported those contacts as “lobbying,” as is required by law. FRC did not “lobby” against the resolution; our advice was limited to suggestions for language that would accurately describe the Uganda bill and the state of international law.

In 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Woody Jenkins against Mary Landrieu, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Klan chieftain David Duke.

The response by Tony Perkins and FRC:

Tony Perkins was the manager of the 1996 U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Woody Jenkins in Louisiana where Impact Media was contracted to make pre-recorded telephone calls for the campaign. In 1999, an unrelated federal investigation uncovered that David Duke had a financial interest in the company, which he did not report to the IRS, resulting in his conviction on federal tax evasion charges. This connection was not known to Mr. Perkins until 1999. Mr. Perkins profoundly opposes the racial views of Mr. Duke and was profoundly grieved to learn that Duke was a party to the company that had done work for the 1996 campaign.

BTW, Caudi, is there a reason you and your source of the David Duke accusation failed to mention that David Duke was one of Jenkins’ opponents in that US Senate race?

You can believe as your blind hatred leads you, Caudi, but the SPLC’s accusations and your claim about that video don’t hold up. Even you didn’t see fit to mention the SPLC’s (and other Progs’) claim that the FRC favored that failed Uganda bill. Maybe you knew that claim was false?


#7

Oh shut up, Pete. I didn’t say he “advocated armed revolution”. I said he suggested “it will spark an armed revolution” if the Supreme Court rules against DOMA. I’m tired of you not bothering to read anything and then misattributing shit to me afterward.

In any case, though, you would have to be deaf not to understand the implications of what he said.

And as for this:

FRC has made no effort to reinstate sodomy laws since the U.S. Supreme Court struck them down in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas. In a 2010 interview on a different topic, the question of whether we should “outlaw gay behavior” in U.S. civil law was raised not by an FRC spokesman, but by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. The spokesman affirmed that FRC (like three Supreme Court justices) believed Lawrence was wrongly decided; but the interview left some viewers with the mistaken impression that “re-criminalizing” homosexuality is a policy goal for FRC.

“Policy goal” or not, their senior fellow clearly said that gay behavior should be a crime. It hardly makes any difference that they, at present, allegedly, do not consider this a “policy goal.” They clearly would like to criminalize same-sex intercourse if they could.

Because it’s irrelevant.

<Insult deleted~ JStang> <Broad insult deleted~ JStang> Good luck in life.


#8

“One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”
—1999 FRC publication

A link to the publication (or even a title!) - to check accuracy, context, and provenance - would have been nice. But I thought it would be worth nosing around FRC.org to see what they have to say, and maybe even find cited publication. What I found shows that FRC represents the complexity of the place of NAMBLA-type groups and individuals in the decades-long history of the gay rights movement:

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
frc.org

PEDOPHILIA IN GAY CULTURE The Historical Connection between Pedophilia and the Gay Rights Movement

David Thorstad is a homosexual activist and historian of the gay rights movement.[48] He is a former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a prototype activist group founded in December 1969. The GAA at its inception opposed age of consent laws, which prohibited adults from having sex with children.[49] Thorstad is also a pedophile and founding member of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

Thorstad argues that there is a natural and undeniable connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. He expresses bitterness that the gay rights movement has, in his view, abandoned pedophilia. Thorstad writes: “Boy-lovers were involved in the gay movement from the beginning, and their presence was tolerated. Gay youth groups encouraged adults to attend their dances. . . . There was a mood of tolerance, even joy at discovering the myriad of lifestyles within the gay and lesbian subculture.”[50]

The inaugural issue of the Gay Community News in 1979 published a “Statement to the Gay Liberation Movement on the Issue of Man/Boy Love,” which challenged the movement to return to a vision of sexual liberation. It argued that “the ultimate goal of gay liberation is the achievement of sexual freedom for all–not just equal rights for ‘lesbian and gay men,’ but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children.”

In the early years there was some reluctance to accept pedophilia, primarily among feminist and lesbian activist groups. In March 1979 the Lesbian Feminist Liberation (LFL) accusing “so-called Man/Boy Lovers” of “attempting to legitimize sex between children and adults. . . . Feminists easily recognize this as the latest attempt to make palatable the sexual exploitation of children.” The coalition went on record as opposing “the sexual abuse of children by heterosexual or homosexual persons.”[51]

Despite this opposition, Thorstad claims that by 1985 homosexual pedophiles had won acceptance within the gay movement. He cites Jim Kepner, then curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles: “A point I’ve been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today.”[52]

In 1985 NAMBLA was admitted as a member in New York’s council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations as well as the International Gay Association–now the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). In the mid-1990’s ILGA’s association with NAMBLA and other pedophile groups cost the organization it’s status as a Non-Governmental Organization in the United Nations.

ILGA’s renewed attempt to gain admittance to the UN was rejected again in April 2002 because the organization “did not document that it had purged pedophile groups such as [NAMBLA].” The Washington Times reports that Ishtiag H. Anrabi, Pakistani delegate to the UN Economic and Social Council, expressed concern that ILGA was continuing to be secretive about ties with pedophile groups: “For more than a year, the ILGA has refused to provide documentation or allow review of its membership list to demonstrate that pedophilia groups have been expelled.”[53]

This quote - an entire section of the document - starts about halfway down a very long page. The section immediately following it documents the place of pedophilia - hopefully “just” a corner thereof - in gay-oriented literature. So, contrary to the SPLC’s seeming contention, FRC does not create a threat out of thin air. FRC represents a complex relationship, neither exaggerating nor denying it (can the latter be said of the SPLC?), and documents it.

So this is yet another SPLC accusation that does not hold up when fact-checked. Like I’ve said for a year or two, “Until false accusers receive the consequences the falsely accused would have received, false accusations will continue to abound.” Maybe some of the SPLC’s false accusations - and their elitist arrogance - are finally catching up with them.


#9

Just a corner? Please read what FRC said again, since apparently you didn’t comprehend it the first time:

“One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”

If you read outside of hate group literature, you’ll find that the ILGA is accredited by the United Nations and has repeatedly stated its opposition to pedophilia. It coordinates over 750 LGBTI groups around the world. If even one of them was pedophile-related (and not one is), it would not make it one of the “primary goals” of the “homosexual rights movement” to legalize pedophilia or exalt pedophiles as “prophets”. You are totally hopeless if you believe that.


#10

So this is yet another SPLC accusation that does not hold up when fact-checked. Like I’ve said for a year or two, “Until false accusers receive the consequences the falsely accused would have received, false accusations will continue to abound.” Maybe some of the SPLC’s false accusations - and their elitist arrogance - are finally catching up with them.

How can you even say that after falsely accusing the entire LGBT rights movement as having as “one of our primary goals”, to “recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order”? You belong with the FRC, Pete, you really do.


#11

Hand in hand with Nabmla. Sheep lovers will be able to marry their ewes, and what we commonly call “child predators” now will be protected.
They’ll all be wearing shirts saying “Hey, don’t judge me! I was born this way!”

Meanwhile lawsuits will be filed against the churches, and the liberal judges will side with their buddies, forcing the churches to change their doctrines or be fined into submission, and eventual elimination.