Long before homosexual activist Floyd Corkins entered the D.C.-based Family Research Council (FRC) with the intent to commit mass murder, I warned from the rooftops that the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center’s anti-Christian “hate group” propaganda might spur such bloodshed. With a column headlined, “Liberal violence rising,” I wrote, “The SPLC’s dangerous and irresponsible (‘hate group’) disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence.”

Tragically, my deepest fears were realized.

Then, in August, days after Corkins was heroically disarmed by FRC employ Leo Johnson, whom Corkins shot in the arm, I penned another column titled “Fanning the flames of left-wing violence.” I plead with the SPLC to end its “dishonest and reprehensible” strategy of “juxtaposing FRC and other Christian organizations with violent extremist groups” in a transparent effort to marginalize them.

“I appeal to your sense of goodwill. This is not a game. Lives are at stake,” I implored. “I know you have good employees (I’ve met some) who believe they’re doing the right thing; so, please, validate that belief. It’s time to remove your metaphorical ‘hate group’ Star of David from mainstream Christian organizations before another of your ideological allies spills blood.”

I no longer believe the SPLC has a sense of goodwill. In fact, based on FBI evidence and the group’s own actions (and inaction), I and many others are left with no other inference but this: The SPLC – a left-wing extremist fundraising behemoth – may be intentionally inciting anti-Christian violence.

Just days ago, Corkins pled guilty to a number of charges, including domestic terrorism. FBI evidence revealed that he was both motivated by and utilized the SPLC’s “anti-gay hate map” to target and locate his intended Christian mass murder victims.

Further evidence reveals that the “hate map” – more accurately labeled “hit map” – even provided the exact location of FRC and other Christian groups found on Corkins’ hit-list with little red dots to helpfully pinpoint their precise locations.

Corkins told the FBI after the shooting that he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches (which he brought with him) in victims’ faces.” Prosecutors said that he planned to leave FRC after the attack and go to another conservative group to continue his reign of terror. A handwritten list of three other groups was found with his belongings while an investigation of Corkins’ computer revealed that he identified his targets on the SPLC website. The other groups were also maliciously listed by the SPLC as “hate groups.”

Motive to kill? Fomented. Who to kill? Provided. Where to kill? Pinpointed, with easy access to driving directions. The only thing the SPLC did not do was purchase Corkins’ gun and drive him to the crime scene.

Here’s why, to my own aghast bewilderment, I’m left with little choice but to believe the SPLC may be intentionally inciting anti-Christian violence. As noted by the FRC, “Even after an attempted mass murder of the FRC staff, the ‘hate map’ is still prominently featured on the SPLC website today – which shocks most conservative pundits.”

“Shocks” is an understatement.

“When Congresswoman Giffords and several others were shot in Arizona by Jared Loughner, the left went into overdrive blaming Sarah Palin for a map that had a list of political targets on it. After the fact, we learned that Loughner was apolitical and he clearly had not used Sarah Palin’s map of political targets. That did not stop the left from blaming the right,” noted RedState’s Erick Erickson. “By the way, Palin took down her target map after the controversy. The Southern Poverty Law Center? Crickets …” 

What other explanation is there? I understand that it’s difficult to admit you’re wrong, especially when the scheme seemed so delicious at the time. But once FBI evidence conclusively proves that you were, to a large degree, responsible for inciting an act of domestic terrorism, most reasonable people would take a deep breath, take a step back, admit fault and hobble forward in an effort to rehabilitate a reputation in ruin.

Is the SPLC a left-wing extremist group? Absolutely. Are they anti-Christian? Without a doubt. But few would have believed, until now, that they might intentionally, with malice aforethought, seek to incite anti-Christian bloodshed.

Scandalously, the Barack Obama administration continues to maintain deep ties with this radical organization.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center has a long history of maliciously slandering pro-family groups with language and labels that incite hatred and undermine civil discourse,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “In the issues of family and marriage, Christians are literally in the crosshairs of radical homosexual activists, and the SPLC is fueling the hatred and providing the targets. The SPLC should be held accountable for its reckless acts. Even more disturbing than the SPLC’s irresponsible behavior is the fact that the Obama administration is in bed with this group,” said Staver.

“It is ironic that Christians who believe in natural marriage have been isolated by radical homosexual activists and demonized as ‘homophobes’ and ‘haters,’” he concluded.

Weeks before Corkins pleaded guilty of terrorism and assault with intent to kill, a study from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far Right” said the “violent far right” exhibits an intense fear or dislike of foreign people, “including people with alternative sexual preferences.” The SPLC’s warped view of reality has been adopted by the Obama administration.

“What the SPLC and other homosexual activists are doing is intentional and dangerous,” said Staver. “It is time to end the dangerous rhetoric and resume a civil discourse on the subject of natural marriage and morality.”

Indeed if, God forbid, this SPLC “hate group” propaganda leads to another act of left-wing terrorism like that at FRC, this dangerous group should be held legally – perhaps even criminally liable.

In the meantime, to the media, I say this: If you dare, even for a moment, give any credence whatsoever to this deadly SPLC “hate group” nonsense, you too will have blood on your hands.

SPLC, you’re no longer fooling anyone.

Stop fooling yourselves.

A university employee who was suspended from her job because of her support for the institution of marriage has been reinstated to her position.   Angela McCaskill was relieved of her job last October as the chief diversity officer for Gallaudet University, one of the nation’s leading colleges serving the deaf and hard of hearing. 

McCaskill was shown the door when it was learned that she had signed a petition in support of placing Question 6 on the Maryland statewide ballot.  Passage of Question 6 would have reversed action by  the Maryland Legislature redefining marriage to include homosexual unions. 

McCaskill, who is African-American, had been employed by the Gallaudet for 23 years.  University officials said that McCaskills’ views were inconsistent with those necessary for a chief diversity officer.   

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, and other Christian leaders had taken Gallaudet University to task.  “The University’s action underscores that far more is at stake in redefining marriage than what two people walk down the aisle,” Perkins had said.  “If marriage is redefined, we can expect more of these discriminatory actions against those who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” 

McCaskill’s case is similar to that of Crystal Dixon, another African-American human resources administrator.  Dixon was fired by the University of Toledo after she wrote a letter to a local newspaper objecting to an editorial comparing the “gay rights” movement to the civil rights movement. 

Dixon is appealing her dismissal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  Her attorney, Robert Muise, says the case is an example of the “one-way diversity” of many universities. 

“Anti-Christian bias and bigotry is a hallmark of the diversity crusade promoted in our public institutions.  This case is an egregious example of its pernicious impact on our fundamental rights.” 

The future of the institution of marriage in the United States will be decided next year as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules on two landmark cases.  The High Court has agreed to hear legal challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and to a California constitutional amendment preserving the definition of natural marriage.

In the most momentous case, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which was approved by California voters in 2008.  Proposition 8 amended California’s state constitution to affirm that marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman.  The passage of Proposition 8 reversed a unilateral decision of the California Supreme Court which mandated that marriage be redefined to include homosexual unions.

Proposition 8 was struck down by a homosexual U.S. District Judge whose ruling was broadly criticized as a “gay rights” manifesto,  rather than a reasoned examination of constitutional law.  That decision was upheld by the Ninth U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in a bizarre ruling that applied its result only to the state of California, rather than the entire Ninth Circuit.  The ruling by the Ninth Circuit has been on hold pending what is now a successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Leading voices in the pro-marriage movement are calling the decision by the Supreme Court to hear the California case welcome news.  “We believe it is a strong signal that the court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8,” says John Eastman, chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage.

“Had the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ decisions invalidating Proposition 8, it could simply have declined to hear the case,”  Eastman continues.  “It’s a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings that have come out of San Francisco.”

“Marriage between a man and a woman is a universal good that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western civilization,” says Jim Campbell, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.  “We look forward to advocating before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the people’s right to preserve this fundamental building block of civilization.”

Forty-one states currently have laws on the books defining marriage in historical terms as the union of one man and one woman — including Illinois.  Thirty of those states have incorporated definitions of traditional marriage in their state constitutions.  

The Proposition 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, has the potential to be the Roe v. Wade of the national debate over the institution of marriage.  Should the Supreme Court uphold the Ninth Circuit decision, it would almost assuredly lead to the invalidation of all state laws protecting marriage, much like Roe v. Wade nullified all state laws protecting the unborn child.

Brian Brown, President of the National Organization of Marriage, believes such an outcome “would launch a national culture war.”  “The majority of Americans who have voted to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman are never going to go away.”  A Supreme Court decree mandating so-called “same-sex marriage” on the nation would result in an explosive legal, cultural, and religious civil war more intense than the decades-old national struggle over legalized abortion.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, agrees, saying  “Should the Supreme Court decide to overturn the marriage laws of 41 states, the ruling would become even more divisive than the court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision.  Voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution.”

The other case the Supreme Court agreed to hear, United States v. Windsor, involves a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  This federal DOMA protects states who have preserved the institution of marriage from being required to acknowledge same-sex unions approved in other states. 

However, the legal challenge to the federal DOMA regards another provision that provides that government spousal benefits can only be extended to someone in a valid marriage between a man and a woman.   The plaintiff, Edith Windsor of New York’s Greenwich Village, claims she should not have to pay inheritance taxes on the estate of her lifelong lesbian partner.   The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal benefits section of DOMA is unconstitutional, echoing a decision made by a Boston appeals court in another DOMA challenge.

The Supreme Court will have to decide whether that section of DOMA is constitutional in its entirety, or whether it is unconstitutional as applied in states where marriage has been redefined to include homosexual unions.  In a stunning example of dereliction of duty, President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Justice Department not to defend the federal DOMA in court.  The U.S. House of Representatives stepped forward to provide its own legal defense of the federal DOMA in the absence of Justice Department attorneys.

Some homosexual activists believe momentum is on their side following the decision by voters last month in Washington, Maine, and Maryland to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions.  Those three states join the states of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa, where so-called same-sex “marriage” has been mandated by state courts or state legislatures.

Other homosexual activists are wary of an unfavorable High Court decision that could prove to be a major setback for their agenda.  Even if the Supreme Court were to force same-sex “marriage” on the entire country, some legal voices in the homosexual community believe that such a decision would be premature, prompting a potent backlash that would refuel the defense of traditional marriage.

The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to hear oral arguments in March, and issue a decision by late June.  Please be praying for all the Justices, particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is expected to be the crucial vote in determining the outcome of these cases. 

In light of the recent attempted murder of employees at the Family Research Council (FRC), several pro-family organizations, including IFI, and private citizens are asking Fox News to discontinue guest appearances by homosexual agitator Wayne Besen on the popular O’Reilly Factor TV show. 

Besen has a long history of slandering conservative groups and the ex-gay community in language that foments hatred and undermines civil discourse.  

Last week Fox News reported that Tony Perkins, FRC’s president, blamed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and its rhetoric of hateful lies against FRC for helping to create a climate that led to shooter Floyd Corkins’ actions, (attempting to kill conservative Christians at FRC for opposing ‘gay’ marriage).
 
The SPLC and Wayne Besen are united in demonizing conservative organizations and individuals.  Despite repeated complaints about Besen’s appearances, producers of the O’Reilly Factor continue to feature Besen, a radical homosexual activist aligned with the SPLC, as a guest commentator.

SELECT HERE TO READ A FULL LIST OF PRO-FAMILY LEADERS SIGNING THIS PETITION.

Last year the controversial Besen and the SPLC ally jointly staged a protest  outside of FRC’s Values Voters conference, falsely accusing FRC and the American Family Association of hatred and lies.  Besen publicly labeled FRC’s conservative speakers as “certifiable lunatics with dangerous agendas.”  Both Besen and the SPLC took out an ad in the Washington Post falsely blaming FRC for gays being more likely “to be victimized by violent hate crimes” and “driven to suicide by relentless bullying.” 

Besen and the SPLC also target the ex-gay community, claiming that former homosexuals are a ” “ and that ex-gays are not entitled to the same rights and respect that gays currently enjoy.  In a bizarre move, Besen and SPLC are now filing complaints against therapists who counsel homosexuals with unwanted same-sex attractions, thereby denying gays the right of therapeutic self-determination.  (Read more HERE.)
 
Condemnation of the SPLC’s — and by extension Wayne Besen’s — designation of pro-family groups as “hate groups” comes from both the political Right and Left. Rich Lowry of National Review wrote, “The SPLC’s promiscuous labeling of organizations it disagrees with as ‘hate groups’ came to the fore last week when someone tried to shoot up one of its targets.” 
 
And liberal journalist Dana Milbank echoed Lowry’s criticism: “[T]he Southern Poverty Law Center should stop listing a mainstream Christian advocacy group alongside neo-Nazis and Klansmen.”
 
It is time that the O’Reilly Factor cease using Besen as a guest commentator. Providing Besen with a forum lends credibility to his pernicious tactics and enables Besen to exploit his appearances for fundraising purposes.
 
When Fox News provides a forum to a radical homosexual activist known for employing inflammatory and hateful language in the service of promoting lies, the network becomes complicit in the damage done to the victims of Wayne Besen’s and the SPLC’s smear campaigns.
 
We ask the News Corporation, Fox News, and Bill O’Reilly to find more ethical spokespersons for the liberal view of sexuality.  In their infamous Washington Post ad accusing FRC of hateful values, Besen and the SPLC claim that “words have consequences.”  Yes, they do.  And Besen’s may lead to violence.

TAKE ACTION FOUR WAYS:

1) Click HERE to sign our free petition now, write a free comment, and we will deliver your first name, state, and comments to FOX NEWS and Bill O’Reilly.

2) Send Bill O’Reilly an email (oreilly@foxnews.com) and ask him to “Stop Inviting Wayne Besen and Stop Helping Anti-Christian SPLC.”

3) Tweet these words to your friends:  “Tell Bill O’Reilly to STOP giving airtime to SPLC anti-Christian haters. Sign the Petition: http://dld.bz/bKfu3 “

4) After you sign below, please share our petition widely on facebook, twitter, and email. 

LET’S STOP THE VIOLENCE AGAINST CHRISTIANS WHO DEFEND MARRIAGE = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN.

It’s probably too much to hope for, but perhaps the day of reckoning for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has come. Perhaps the shooting last week at the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington D.C. will bring scrutiny to and condemnation of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s pernicious “hate group” list on which the Family Research Council (FRC), American Family Association (AFA), and we, the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), are included.

All three organizations are included on the SPLC’s ever-expanding list of hate groups that also includes “neo-Nazi” groups, ”racist skinhead” groups, and the Ku Klux Klan. FRC, AFA, and IFI are listed as “anti-gay hate groups.”

News reports revealed that shortly after the FRC shooting, the FBI contacted the Traditional Values Coalition, another conservative Christian organization on the SPLC’s “anti-gay hate group” list to notify them that the shooter, Floyd Corkins, had its address in his backpack. The Traditional Values Coalition is so small that very few conservatives have even heard of it, so where might Corkins have learned about  it? Hmmmm, let’s see… Could it be from the SPLC’s hate group list?

In an interview following the shooting, FRC President Tony Perkins said, “I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology.” While Mark Potok, editor-in-chief of the SPLC’s ironically named “Intelligence Report” and “Hatewatch” blog continues to spew defamatory lies, he takes umbrage at this criticism of the SPLC’s ethics.

Countless liberal bloggers, political pundits, and the mainstream press repeat the SPLC’s specious designation of conservative Christian groups as “hate groups.” But one wonders how many of those who repeat the SPLC’s fallacious claims bother to read the criteria that the SPLC uses to determine who goes on its “hate group” list. Do any journalists, law enforcement agencies, or gullible acolytes of the SPLC bother to analyze the soundness of the evidence the SPLC provides for the inclusion of groups on their “hate group” list?

And do disciples of the SPLC know that it included groups on its “anti-gay hate group” list prior to the establishment and publication of any criteria to determine which groups would go on it?

SPLC’s “hate group” criteria center on social science research and policy speculation with which the SPLC disagrees.

The SPLC has been harshly criticized for its anti-religious bias, even—irony of ironies—its hatred of orthodox Christians. In an obvious attempt to distract attention from the truth of that criticism, Potok and his accomplices Heidi Beirich, Evelyn Schlatter, and Robert Steinback manufactured a set of criteria in 2010 that would enable them to include groups like the FRC, AFA, and IFI on their “anti-gay hate group” list. They apparently counted on Americans not noticing that their criteria bear no resemblance to actual hatred: no expressions of hate, no calls for violence, no claims that those who identify as homosexual are less valuable as human beings.

What the SPLC has done is create an elastic definition of hatred that centers on social science research,  facts, or propositions that the SPLC doesn’t like.

One criterion that the SPLC uses to establish “hate group” status is whether an organization makes any predictions that the SPLC doesn’t like about the potential legal consequences of law or policy related to homosexuality.

The SPLC claims that groups warrant inclusion on its “hate group” list if they propagate “known falsehoods” about homosexuality. I’m not sure if Potok and his compeers actually understand what a “known falsehood” (also called a lie) is. A known falsehood is a statement that is objectively, provably false and is known to be false when made.

The SPLC has said, for example, that if an organization argues that hate crime legislation may result in the jailing of pastors who condemn volitional homosexual acts as sinful, the organization is guilty of “anti-gay” hatred and will be included on the SPLC’s “hate group” list.

And any organization that argues that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military will damage the military in some way merits inclusion on its “anti-gay hate group” list.

How can Potok sensibly claim that speculating that hate crimes legislation may lead to the jailing of pastors who condemn homosexuality is a known falsehood? It is a prediction of possible future events that may result from the logical working out of a law. This prediction may not come to fruition, but at this point it cannot reasonably be deemed a “known falsehood.”

And how can a prediction about the effects of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military be a known falsehood. Certainly, there are differences of opinion on the effects of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but liberal speculation that such a change will not damage the military is not a known truth.

Another criterion used by the SPLC to determine whether an organization is a “hate group” is whether the organization cites any social science research that the SPLC doesn’t like.

According to the SPLC, if an organization says that “gays are more prone to mental illness and to abuse drugs and alcohol,” it goes on the SPLC’s hate groups list. I’m sure this is not news to Potok, but there is a lot of research showing just that.

The SPLC engages in some tricksy rhetoric to defend this intellectually and ethically bankrupt criterion. Schlatter and Steinback argue that mental health organizations no longer consider homosexuality a mental disorder, which is true, but has no relevance to the fact—which even the SPLC concedes—that homosexuals experience much higher rates of mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse.

What really sticks in the craw of the SPLC is that conservative organizations don’t agree with the unproven speculation by the  SPLC and some social scientists that the reasons for the increased incidence of mental disorders and drug use are social stigma and “discrimination.”

The SPLC deems hateful the claim that same-sex parents harm children. Of course, Potok and his minions don’t feel any obligation to define harm and apparently reject a whole body of social science research that claims that children fare best when raised by a mother and father in an intact family. Even President Obama in his Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations argued that both are essential to the welfare of children.

While homosexual activists revel in even the most poorly constructed social science research if it reinforces their presuppositions, they reject better constructed studies that undermine them. The truth is that if organizations don’t accept the ever-fluid, controvertible, and highly politicized social science research that the SPLC favors, they go on the “hate group” list.

“Hate group” designation relies on the redefinition of terms

In addition to marshaling only that social science research that fits their subversive sexual worldview, the SPLC does what virtually every homosexuality-affirming organization does, which is redefine terms to silence dissent and enable them to promote fallacious charges of hate with carefree abandon.

Among the many terms that homosexuality activist organizations like the SPLC have redefined are “hatred,” “tolerance,” “acceptance,” “bias,” “discrimination,” and “safety.” What the new definitions share in common is their utility in humiliating, intimidating, and silencing those who believe that same-sex attraction is disordered, that homosexual acts are immoral, and that  marriage is the inherently procreative union between one man and one woman.

The SPLC is continually telling people who identify as homosexual that those who believe homosexual acts are immoral hate them. The tragic effect of propagating that ugly lie is not only that it may lead unstable people to commit acts of violence. The truly tragic effect is that it undermines the potential for relationships between people who hold diverse moral views and effaces the potential for dialogue.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.  Please consider standing with us.

Click here to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Click here to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts only.

You can also send a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

To borrow from President Obama’s Black Nationalist mentor, Jeremiah Wright, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate-baiting chickens “have come home to roost.” The hard-left group has become everything it presumes to expose.

On Wednesday, homosexual activist Floyd Corkins entered the Washington-based Family Research Council (FRC) armed with a gun and a backpack full of ammunition. He also had 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches (FRC recently defended the food chain’s COO Dan Cathy for pro-natural marriage statements).

The only thing standing between Corkins and mass murder was FRC facilities manager and security specialist Leo Johnson. As Corkins shouted disapproval for FRC’s “politics,” he shot Johnson who, despite a severely wounded arm, managed to tackle Corkins and disarm him (of course, this is all impossible as it’s illegal in Washington, D.C., to carry a concealed weapon).

Of Johnson’s actions, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said, “The security guard here is a hero, as far as I’m concerned.”

I agree.

Upon hearing of Leo’s selfless act of heroism, I was reminded of John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

But according to the SPLC, Leo’s heart is, instead, full of hate. In fact, everyone at FRC is hateful. After all, in 2010 the SPLC, with much fanfare, “officially certified” FRC as a “hate group” for its orthodox Christian positions on marriage and family.

Alongside violence-charged photos of actual hate groups like the Aryan Brotherhood and the KKK, the SPLC lists on its website the decidedly mainstream and always peaceful FRC.

It’s a clever strategy, dishonest and reprehensible though it may be. By juxtaposing FRC and other Christian organizations with violent extremist groups, SPLC has engaged in intellectual sloth at its worst (the organization has repeatedly declined to debate FRC President Tony Perkins over its “hate group” smear).

Rather than debating – on the merits – mainstream Christian groups with which it has ideological disagreement, SPLC has chosen, instead, the coward’s way out: demonization and marginalization through false guilt by association.

It’s a scheme not only slimy, but extremely dangerous.

If ever there were a time I’d prefer not to have been right, now is that time. Back in November 2011, I essentially predicted both the FRC shooting and the SPLC’s undeniable complicity therein.

With a column headlined, “Liberal violence rising,” I wrote, “The SPLC’s dangerous and irresponsible (‘hate group’) disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence.” (If anyone deserves to be taken out – rationalizes the unbalanced SPLC dupe – its members of this or that evil “hate group” whom, as he’s been repeatedly told, mean him great harm.)

That was before the fact. After the fact – one day after the shooting – Tony Perkins addressed exactly that which I forecast:

“Let me be clear that Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday,” he told Washington reporters. “But Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”

The SPLC “should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology that is leading to the intimidation and what the FBI here has categorized as an act of domestic terrorism.”

Regrettably, Mr. Perkins finds himself in a uniquely credible position to make this charge.

Still, although there remains a vast ideological divide between the SPLC and the tens of millions of Christian Americans represented by the Family Research Council, the Southern Poverty Law Center now finds itself with a brief window of opportunity to both do the right thing and rehabilitate its badly damaged reputation.

To the SPLC, I say this: Your cynical efforts to dehumanize Christians and equate biblical truth to “hate” are working better than I think even you expected. It’s now within your power to right a horrible wrong and restore a sense of peace and security to the rattled folks at FRC. What a gift that would be.

I appeal to your sense of goodwill. This is not a game. Lives are at stake. I know you have good employees (I’ve met some) who believe they’re doing the right thing; so, please, validate that belief. It’s time to remove your metaphorical “hate group” Star of David from mainstream Christian organizations before another of your ideological allies spills blood.

And to homosexual activists and other liberal groups, I say this: Rise above the fray. Let’s come together. Here is something on which even we can agree. Publicly encourage SPLC to lift this veil of fear.

Media, you, too, are on notice. Remember Wednesday’s shooting next time you even think about repeating SPLC’s “hate group” brand while addressing the Christians upon whom it’s tattooed. You also have share in the blame.

SPLC, hear me now: If, God forbid, something like this – or even worse – happens in the future and you have yet refused to retract and apologize for your “hate group” propaganda, then your hands will forever be stained with the blood of innocents.

Still, either way, we Christians are commanded to speak the truth of Christ “even unto death.”

FRC will not be deterred. “We’re not going anywhere,” Tony Perkins told reporters Thursday. “We’re not backing up; we’re not shutting up,” he vowed. “We feel that – we don’t feel, we know [that] we have been called to speak the truth. Speak it in love, but to speak the truth nonetheless – and we will not be intimidated, we will not be silenced.”

“I was there as [Leo] came to from the anesthesia,” said Perkins, “and I told him, ‘Leo, I want you to know you’re a hero.’ And he thought about it for a minute and he said, ‘You know, this hero business is hard work.’”

Heroes don’t work for “hate groups,” and FRC’s hard work is heroic indeed.

I’m proud to count them my friends.

You should be, too.

Wednesday morning at the offices of the Family Research Council (FRC) in Washington D.C., a man entered the building and made remarks about “not liking FRC’s politics.” An FRC security guard, Leo Johnson, took interest in the man’s intentions for being in the building, at which point the man retrieved a pistol from his backpack and shot several rounds at the guard. Johnson was wounded in the arm but subdued the suspect and wrestled away his gun, and another guard held him until police arrived.

Leo Johnson underwent surgery on his arm, and FRC’s President, Tony Perkins, reports Johnson’s surgery went well.

According to the FBI’s report, the alleged gunman, Floyd Corkins II of Herndon, VA, was carrying a backpack with an additional 50 rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. Other media reports claim that Corkins is a volunteer at a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender clinic.

Family Research Council issued an early statement praising Leo Johnson for his quick actions and bravery, stating that his recovery was the organization’s highest concern, and thanking people around the world for their encouragement and prayers.

Please continue your prayers to God for Leo Johnson, the employees and families of FRC, and the Corkins family, and offer up praise for the response of FRC’s security team and the DC police force.

When it comes to supporting God’s design for marriage, Illinois Family Institute isn’t “chicken,” and neither is Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy.  Christian-owned Chick-fil-A is under attack because Mr. Cathy has publicly affirmed his belief in the biblical definition of marriage. 

As a result, homosexual groups have launched un-relenting and vicious public attacks against Chick-fil-A. Here in Illinois, Equality Illinois, a pro-LGBT activist group, is calling for a “Kiss-In” this Friday, August 3rd.  According to news reports, Equality Illinois says, “LGBT supporters will show their disdain for Chick-Fil-A’s policies with public displays of affection in front of their restaurants.”  And in the process they will once again be demonstrating just how intolerant, insensitive and disrespectful the Left is in pushing its “anything goes” agenda.  

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is being promoted by Gov. Mike Huckabee, Senator Rick Santorum, Gov. Sarah Palin, American Family Association, Family Research Council, WallBuilders and Illinois Family Institute.  This is a great way of showing our support for a company whose owners believe in marriage as one man and one woman.

IFI encourages you to patronize a local Chick-fil-A restaurant on August 1st,  if you are able.  If you cannot make it this Wednesday, please visit one sometime this week. For a list of Chick-fil-A locations in the state of Illinois, click HERE.

And when you do, please take a moment to thank the staff and management by letting them know you appreciate the company’s Christian values.

Some Fighting Illini are battling to block the opening of a new fast-food franchise on the University of Illinois campus.  A collection of students, faculty and staff contend Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A embraces a corporate culture that is “anti-gay” and doesn’t match the diversity of the university’s environment. 

Recently, student government members at the University of Illinois Springfield tabled supporting a proposal to bring a Chick-fil-A restaurant to its campus.

Equality Matters reports that Chick-fil-A’s WinShape foundation, the company’s charitable arm, has donated between $1.3 million and $1.6 million to pro-family groups between 2003-08.  In 2009 alone, it contributed $2 million to organizations such as Exodus International, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.  

“At Chick-fil-A, we have a genuine commitment to hospitality for all of our guests,” Dan Cathy, president and COO of Chick-fil-A, said in a media statement. “We are not ‘anti- anybody’ and have no agenda, policy or position against anyone as some continue to confuse with misleading reports. Instead, we have a 65-year history of providing hospitality for all people and, as a dedicated family business, serving and valuing everyone regardless of their beliefs or opinions.”

The chain that serves up chicken sandwiches and various other items has received widespread support from the evangelical Christian community over the years.  Many Christians appreciate its mission “to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us” as well as its commitment to keeping the stores closed on Sundays.

It’s these values that keep many Christians coming back for more. 

“I love Chick-fil-A and will continue to support it as long as they hold true to their biblical values,” said David E. Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute.

Dan Gilgoff, CNN Belief Blog co-editor, believes the food chain could see more confrontation as it tries to grow beyond the Bible belt in the Deep South.

“Considering Chick-fil-A’s conservative Christian mission, perhaps the most striking feature of the recent controversy is how unusual it is for the company,” wrote Gilgoff. “As the chain continues to grow, they may find it more difficult to avoid the culture war.” 

The University of Illinois isn’t the only school to attempt blocking the chain’s expansion efforts. Students at Northeastern University have blocked the company from opening a restaurant on its Boston campus, citing the chains financial support of pro-family rights organizations. 

There are 14 Chick-fil-A restaurants in Illinois.  Please consider supporting their Christian mission by voting with your wallet.

In Aurora @ 4435 Fox Valley Center Dr Aurora, IL 60504 

In Bloomington @ 1 State Farm Plz Bloomington, IL 61710 

In Carbondale @ 1255 Lincoln Dr Carbondale, IL 62901 

In Charleston @ 600 Lincoln Ave Charleston, IL 61920 

In Chicago @ 30 E Chicago Ave Chicago, IL 60611 

In Edwardsville @ University Ctr Edwardsville, IL 62026 

In St. Clair @ 281 Saint Clair Sq Fairview Heights, IL 62208

In Lombard @ 717 E Butterfield Rd Lombard, IL 60148 

In Moline @ 4500 16th St Moline, IL 61265 

In Orland Park @ 15605 S La Grange Rd Orland Park, IL 60462 

In Schaumburg @ 935 E Golf Rd Schaumburg, IL 60173 

In Urbana @1401 W Green St Urbana, IL 61801 

In Wheaton @ 301 E Loop Rd Wheaton, IL 60189 

by Malcolm A. Kline –Accuracy in Academia

Now that the President is poised to sign the repeal of the ban on homosexuals serving in the U. S. military, academics are prepared to welcome the armed forces they have banned from their campuses with open arms, at least metaphorically. San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin will actually be at the White House signing ceremony, according to Renna Communications.

Meanwhile, Harvard is letting the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) come back to Cambridge. Harvard deans evicted ROTC during the Vietnam War.

“In the meantime,” the Center for Military Readiness(CMR) notes, “Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos drew criticism from a gay activist group, sparked by his statement expressing concern for his Marines if the current law is repealed:

-“Fox News: Marine Corps Chief: ‘Distraction’ of Gays Serving Openly Could Cost Marines Limbs

“Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) who was recently seen sponsoring a rally with Lady Gaga in Maine, issued a statement demanding that Gen. Amos resign. Sarvis’ attitude demonstrates ‘zero tolerance’ of dissent-a strategy of intolerance recommended to make the new LGBT Law or policy ‘work.’ Marines who have a problem with the “New Gender Order” will have no recourse but to leave the Corps.”

As CMR discovered, many will choose to do just that:

1.) “Defense Secretary Robert Gates has repeatedly denied that the survey was a ‘referendum.’ He has nevertheless allowed the media to keep trumpeting the Working Group’s misleading claim that 70% of service members predicted that repeal of the current law would have a ‘positive, mixed, or no effect.’ The carefully crafted money quote, spun up from an innocuous inquiry asking personnel whether they knew or liked someone at work who is gay, quickly morphed into the false claim that 70% of military people surveyed favored repeal of the law.

“To the contrary, as Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council has reported, the highlighted question included ‘mixed’ results indicating that 62% of respondents also believed that repeal would have at least some negative effects:

–Pentagon Report on Homosexuality Buries the Lead: The Majority of Views Expressed Are Opposed to Repeal

“Furthermore, the views of military people on repeal or retention of the current law cannot be stated with certainty because the question was not even asked in any of the Working Group’s survey instruments and focus groups. Nevertheless, the administration is trying to use calculated misrepresentation of the survey results in order to switch sufficient votes to win in the Senate.

2.) “Secretary Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson, Co-Chairman of the Working Group, also have claimed that risks associated with repeal would be ‘low.’

-“The claim is belied by specific findings about the strong opposition of combat soldiers and Marines. On page 74 of the DoD Working Group Report available here,and Implementation Plan posted here, we read that ‘Nearly 60% of respondents in the Marine Corps and in Army combat arms said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit’s effectiveness in this context; among Marine combat arms the number was 67%.’

-“Question 81 of the ‘2010 DADT Survey,’ asking active-duty and reserve troops whether repeal of the current law would affect future career plans, found that 12.6% of personnel in the Military Services Overall said they would leave sooner than planned-a percentage that potentially equates to 264,600 of the 2.1 million active-duty/reserve force. Another 11.1% said they would think about leaving sooner than planned, and potential losses for the Army and Marine Corps would be even higher. (p. 210, DoD Report)

-“Cross-tabbed data displayed in the 2010 DADT Survey indicate that potential losses would be highest among troops described as ‘combat arms.’ Among Army combat arms personnel, 21.4% would leave sooner than planned, and 14.6 would think about leaving the Army.

-“Marine combat arms would be weakened even more, with 32% of Marines leaving sooner than planned, and 16.2% considering an early end to their Marine Corps careers. (See 2010 DADT Survey data, available here, Appendix J, p. 53, for Army figures, and Appendix L, p. 47, for Marine Corps figures.)”

Malcolm A. Kline is the Executive Director of Accuracy in Academia.

If you would like to comment on this article, e-mail mal.kline@academia.org.

International Planned Parenthood Foundation’s recently released report, “Stand and Deliver: Sex, Health and Young People in the 21st Century,” advocates policies that jeopardize the well-being of children’s health, the importance of parents and the moral values of our society, says Family Research Council.

The report promotes contraceptive sex education for children as young as ten years old. Most disturbingly, the report advocates that children as young as ten be “empowered” to “develop satisfying and pleasurable sexual lives.” The report demands that children 10 and older be given a “comprehensive sexuality education” by governments, aid organizations and other groups, and that young people should be seen as “sexual beings.”

This report represents an ideological point of view that over sexualizes children and attempts to remove parents from being the primary conveyor of what their child learns and from whom. Illinois citizens will be shocked and outraged by what this report recommends. Parents should find out what is being taught in their child’s school and understand their rights under the law.

Moreover, polls show parents overwhelmingly believe that sex education should reflect the values taught at home. Contrary to parental desires, Planned Parenthood seeks to undermine parental and religious influence by advocating for a ‘human right’ to unlimited contraception and mandating so-called comprehensive sex education for children as young as ten.

You can read the report online HERE.