A Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) investigation discovered that the left-wing nonprofit is closely tied to four of the largest tech platforms on the planet, which routinely consult or collaborate with the SPLC in policing their platforms for “hate groups” or “hate speech,” and the findings were corroborated by Facebook itself.

“[The SPLC is on a list of] external experts and organizations [that Facebook works with] to inform our hate speech policies,” Facebook Spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja informed the DCNF in an interview.

Facing users away from the right

Budhraja explained how outside groups are consulted by Facebook through one to three meetings in order to fashion its hate speech policies, but she would not name which specific organizations it worked with and insisted that they represent all political affiliations.

She then used a May 8 SPLC article that accused Facebook of inadequately censoring “anti-Muslim hate” in an attempt to prove the social media giant does not fully submit to the SPLC.

“We have our own process, and our processes are different and, I think, that’s why we get the criticism [from the SPLC], because organizations that are hate organizations by their standards don’t match ours,” Budhraja insisted, according to the DCNF. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a process in place, and that definitely doesn’t mean we want the platform to be a place for hate, but we aren’t going to map to the SPLC’s list or process.”

Following right-leaning users’ numerous complaints over the years about the bias of Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube, dozens of nationally renowned conservative leaders banded against the Internet platforms last month by issuing a statement condemning them for their censorship and suppression of conservative speech.

“Social media censorship and online restriction of conservatives and their organizations have reached a crisis level,” their joint statement read, according to Newsbusters. “Conservative leaders now have banded together to call for equal treatment on tech and social media.”

At the time, the SPLC was already suspected for contributing to the platforms’ liberal bias.

“The participants called for the tech giants to address the key areas of complaint, including lack of transparency, when removing content and deleting accounts and the imbalance of liberal content advisers – such as the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Fox News reported.

Amazon and the SPLC – a perfect left match

But Amazon trumps Facebook when it come to collaborating with the SPLC.

“Of the four companies, Amazon gives the SPLC the most direct authority over its platform, the DCNF found,” the DCNF’s Peter Hasson reported. “While Facebook emphasizes its independence from the SPLC, Amazon does the opposite: Jeff Bezos’ company grants the SPLC broad policing power over the Amazon Smile charitable program, while claiming to remain unbiased.”

In fact, an Amazon spokeswoman announced where the Internet giant gets its final word, but she would not say whether her company considers its leftist source as being unbiased.

“We remove organizations that the SPLC deems as ineligible,” the company’s spokeswoman told the DCNF. “[Amazon grants the SPLC that power] because we don’t want to be biased whatsoever.”

One of Amazon’s charitable programs under scrutiny for being in cahoots with the SPLC’s political agenda was targeted.

“The Smile program allows customers to identify a charity to receive 0.5 percent of the proceeds from their purchases on Amazon,” Hasson pointed out. “Customers have given more than $8 million to charities through the program since 2013, according to Amazon. Only one participant in the program, the SPLC, gets to determine which other groups are allowed to join it.”

It was found that the Smile program frowns upon conservatives, Christians and Jews, alike.

“Christian legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom – which recently successfully represented a Christian baker at the U.S. Supreme Court – are barred from the Amazon Smile program, while openly anti-Semitic groups remain, the DCNF found in May,” Hasson noted. “One month later, the anti-Semitic groups – but not the Alliance Defending Freedom – are still able to participate in the program.”

Another excuse was also given by Amazon for the way it directs its users to charities using its own – and the SPLC’s – standards and criteria.

“Charitable organizations must meet the requirements outlined in our participation agreement to be eligible for AmazonSmile,” an Amazon spokesperson told Fox News. “Organizations that engage in, support, encourage or promote intolerance, hate, terrorism, violence, money laundering or other illegal activities are not eligible. If at any point an organization violates this agreement, its eligibility will be revoked. Since 2013, Amazon has relied on the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Southern Poverty Law Center to help us make these determinations. While this system has worked well, we do listen to and consider the feedback of customers and other stakeholders, which we will do here as well.”

Tweeting for the SPLC

The other social media giant also determines its enemies and allies, according to the SPLC.

“Twitter lists the SPLC as a ‘safety partner’ working with Twitter to combat ‘hateful conduct and harassment,’” Hassan impressed. “The platform also includes the Trust and Safety Council, which ‘provides input on our safety products, policies and programs,’ according to Twitter. Free speech advocates have criticized it as Orwellian.”

Twitter admitted it worked with some social policy groups, but would not single out the SPLC.

“[Twitter is] in regular contact with a wide range of civil society organizations and [nongovernmental organizations],” a Twitter spokeswoman told the DCNF.

Googly over the SPLC

And the world’s biggest web browser also taps into the SPLC’s political profiling scheme.

“Google uses the SPLC to help police hate speech on YouTube as part of YouTube’s ‘Trusted Flagger’ program … citing a source with knowledge of the agreement, [and] following that report, the SPLC confirmed [in March that] they’re policing hate speech on YouTube,” Hassan recounted. “The SPLC and other third-party groups in the ‘Trusted Flagger’ program work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, according to YouTube.”

The strategic process effectively weeds out conservatives so users can get their fill of leftist content.

“First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel,” he continued. “Second, the groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers who design the algorithms policing the video platform, but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.”

But this underhanded scheme has gone virtually undetected – with good reason.

“The SPLC is one of over 300 government agencies and nongovernmental organizations in the YouTube program – the vast majority of which remain hidden behind confidentiality agreements,” Hassan divulged.

The SPLC’s fake labels abound

Adding insult to injury, the SPLC has a track record showing that its designations are based more on left-leaning sentiments and emotions than on fact.

“The SPLC has consistently courted controversy in publishing lists of ‘extremists’ and ‘hate groups,’” the DCNF reporter maintained. “The nonprofit has been plagued by inaccuracies this year, retracting four articles in March and April alone.”

The SPLC’s anti-Trump agenda was recently exposed when it had to retract a series of its stories a few months ago.

“The well-funded nonprofit – which did not return a request for comment – deleted three Russia-related articles in March after challenges to their accuracy followed by legal threats,” Hassan recalled. “All three articles focused on drawing conspiratorial connections between anti-establishment American political figures and Russian influence operations in the United States.”

Its pro-Muslim bias was exposed the following month.

“The SPLC removed a controversial ‘anti-Muslim extremist’ list in April, after British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz threatened to sue over his inclusion on the list,” Hassan continued. “The SPLC had accused the supposed-extremists of inciting anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

Those who have been vocal against Islamic Sharia law and Muslim militancy have regularly been targeted by the SPLC – including Somali-born women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who also made SPLC’s list.

“Ali – a victim of female genital mutilation who now advocates against the practice – is an award-winning human rights activist, but according to the SPLC’s since-deleted list, she was an ‘anti-Muslim extremist,’” Hassan informed.

Last August, Ali condemned Apple CEO Tim Cook for donating major funds to the SPLC and described the leftist nonprofit the following way:

“[The SPLC is] an organization that has lost its way, smearing people who are fighting for liberty and turning a blind eye to an ideology and political movement that has much in common with Nazism,” Ali declared, according to the DCNF.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Benjamin Carson was emblazoned on the SPLC’s “extremist watch list” in 2015 because his political worldview aligns with conservatives.

“When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong,” the neurosurgeon Carson proclaimed on Facebook after discovering his name on SPLC’s list. “It is important for us to, once again, advocate true tolerance. That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment. It is nothing but projectionism when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters.”

It took four months of backlash from conservatives for the SPLC to apologize and remove the “extremist” label from the 2016 Republican presidential candidate, who is now serving under the Trump administration.

And there have been severe consequences to the SPLC’s intentional mislabeling, as witnessed six years ago.

“Floyd Lee Corkins – who attempted a mass shooting at the conservative Family Research Center in 2012 – said he chose the organization for his act of violence because the SPLC listed them as a ‘hate group,’” Hassan noted.

Anyone or any group not aligned with the SPLC’s ultra-leftist ideas is a prime candidate for the nonprofit’s smear campaign, and its credibility has been challenged on a regular basis.

“The SPLC receives criticism from across the political spectrum for its smearing of conservative and centrist individuals and organizations,” Breitbart News reported.

As a result of the smears, some nonprofit organizations are hit financially by receiving less contributions.

“Conservative groups, like the Alliance Defending Freedom, also face regular smears by the SPLC,” Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari stressed. “As a result, they are barred from Amazon’s charity program.”

Even former President Barack Obama at one time chastised the SPLC for its extremist agenda.

“The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center was [even] too extreme for the Obama administration – but it’s just fine for Silicon Valley,” Fox News commented. “The Obama-era Justice Department once scolded the SPLC for overstepping ‘the bounds of zealous advocacy,’ after the organization labeled the non-profit Federation for American Immigration Reform a ‘hate group.’”

This article was originally published at OneNewsNow.com

There’s a troubling piece titled “Time for a Compromise on Transgenderism” posted on National Review online and written by purportedly conservative, “gay vegetarian”  J. J. McCullough. In condescending language, McCullough argues that it’s time for Americans to hop on the fast train to the Shangri-La of polymorphous perversity. In McCullough’s view, now that Americans have ceased “judging” homosexuality, they should cease “judging” the science-denying “trans” ideology.

He engages in the worst kind of demagoguery in his unholy effort to normalize the “trans” ideology by insulting those who find the ideology destructive and the demands of its advocates tyrannical.

McCullough makes this myopic statement about the cultural transformation of America on the issue of homosexuality:

Disinterest in judging homosexuality is not an attitude government has coerced Americans into, it is the product of a free people’s informed knowledge.

In McCullough’s presumptuous worldview, “informed knowledge” leads inevitably to “disinterest in judging homosexuality.” For clarity—something in which McCullough seems little interested—let’s establish from the outset that judging homosexuality is distinct from judging homosexuals. Judging homosexuality means to make a judgment about the moral status of homosexual activity. Informed, knowledgeable, wise, and loving people can, do, and should make the judgment that homosexual activity is not moral and jeopardizes the temporal and eternal lives of those who engage in and affirm it.

McCullough goes on:

To the extent that America is still having any political debate about homosexuality, it has evolved into a more substantial conversation about religious liberty…. These are difficult debates but are also far more useful than those of earlier eras, which mostly centered on demagogic judgment of the gay ‘lifestyle’ untethered to any tangible constitutional principle or policy objective.

His description of the debates of earlier eras makes me wonder how much he knows about those debates. Countless debates of earlier eras were both useful and substantive.

Surely McCullough is aware that there are non-demagogic bases other than “tangible constitutional principles or policy objectives” on which to debate or to which to tether debates on homosexuality. In fact, debates tethered to ontology, epistemology, theology, and philosophy are far more substantive and essential than those tethered to tangible constitutional principles and policy objectives. And these are the bases on which a free and informed people should be debating.

But “progressives” aren’t interested in debates so-tethered when epithet-hurling, bad analogies, and false claims work effectively to change public views and silence dissent. You know the epithets commonly hurled, like “hater” and “bigot.” McCullough raised epithet-hurling to an art form, calling those who still make moral judgments about sexual behavior immature, unfair, dishonest, ostentatious, insensible, boorish, petty, cruel, and regressive.

Can anyone claim—I mean, with a straight face, truth-telling lips, and a small, perky nose—that Americans have freely arrived at their “informed,” non-judgmental view of homosexuality? Government schools advance the leftist sexuality ideology and censor dissenting views. Corporate America advances the leftist sexuality ideology (look at which organizations they support and look at their ads) and punishes dissenters. Remember Brendan Eich? The mainstream press is in the tank for homosexuality, celebrating as “heroic” those who announce their predilection for erotic activity with persons of the same sex and scorns those who come to reject their prior “gay” identities. The politicized professional medical and mental health communities are controlled by leftists, and small committees create homosexuality-affirming policies that they imply to the public are uniformly embraced by all members. Let’s not forget the arts and Madison Ave, or the wolves in sheep’s clothing who are infiltrating churches. Just try saying in any public forum that you believe homosexuality is immoral. You’ll likely end up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list and out of a job. Freedom doesn’t taste so free anymore.

McCullough then moves on to a harsh indictment of anyone who rejects the “trans” mythology, criticizing as “theatrical” the natural and wholly sound repulsion people feel about barbaric amputations of healthy breasts and castrations. McCullough evidently believes that the perduring presence of a human phenomenon is some sort of argument in favor of its normalization:

[M]ost adults could admit [transgenderism] does seem like a rather persistent aspect of humanity…. If we concede that transgenderism is not going away, and is not something anyone intends to exert effort toward ending, then Americans, especially conservative ones, should reflect on our culture’s honest and fair attitude toward homosexuality and acknowledge that the most sensible path out of the present acrimony will probably require similar compromise. Some degree of cultural ceasefire and consensus seems the only path for both sides to maintain a degree of pride while avoiding a more radical, disruptive societal transformation.

McCullough doesn’t explain how unwavering commitments to sexual truth and morality are inconsistent with maintaining a “degree of pride.” Assertions without evidence are more his gig.

Here McCullough is tilting in the direction of a “naturalistic fallacy,” which suggests that because something exists, it’s good. Does he believe Americans should “compromise” on every “persistent aspect of humanity” that isn’t going away? If not, on what basis does McCullough decide which persistent aspect of humanity ought not be accommodated? What sorts of compromises are Americans obliged to make and who decides? So many questions untethered from tangible constitutional principles or policy objectives.

I would argue that radical, disruptive societal transformation has been caused by the “trans” ideology and will be exacerbated in intensity and extent by further compromise, resulting in incalculable harm to countless lives.

McCullough then again ridicules conservatives in his morality-untethered effort to compel acquiescence to compromise:

Part one of the compromise will be borne by cultural conservatives and traditionalists. It asks for broad tolerance for the reality that transgender men and women exist, and are entitled to basic human dignity, just like everyone else. This… impl[ies] that acts like ostentatiously calling people by pronouns they don’t want… are boorish and petty. It means acknowledging that arbitrary discrimination against transgender people is a cruel bigotry like any other.

Can I get a “wowzer”?

1.) Conservatives have never denied that “transgender men and women exist” (and by “transgender men and women,” McCullough means men and women who pretend to be the sex they are not).

2.)  Conservatives agree that those who embrace a “trans” identity are entitled to human dignity—which their embrace of a “trans” identity undermines. McCullough’s implied proposition—which is wholly untethered from tangible constitutional principles and policy objectives—is that respect for the dignity of “trans”-identifying persons requires silence on the “trans” mythology.

3.)  Without warrant, McCullough characterizes as “ostentatious” opposition to bearing false witness (i.e., calling “trans”-identifying persons by incorrect pronouns). Maybe he could tell conservatives how they can live in accordance with their belief that lying is wrong without acting “ostentatiously”?

4.)  What is “arbitrary” discrimination? Would prohibitions of objectively male persons in women’s private spaces be arbitrary discrimination? If so, how is it more “arbitrary” to believe that access to private spaces should correspond to objective, immutable biological sex than to believe it should correspond to subjective, internal feelings about one’s “gender identity”?

Perhaps McCullough doesn’t believe sex-segregated private spaces are arbitrary. Perhaps his claim that “Tolerance does not necessitate a purge of any and all public manifestations of the gender binary in the name of extreme exceptions to the rule,” means he approves of sex-segregated private spaces. The problem is we don’t know, because he doesn’t say.

Unfortunately, his maybe-sop to conservatives was followed by yet another insult:

Transgenderism seems to be the issue on which many on the right prefer to let loose their inner reactionary, which then further rationalizes petty tyranny on the left.

McCullough believes that opposition to the science-denying myth that men can, in reality, be women or vice versa is “reactionary,” and that any who cling to that rational belief are responsible for “trans” tyranny. Conservatives just can’t win. Refuse to embrace irrationality and they’re reactionary and culpable for the unethical responses of the irrational.

On one aspect of this debate, McCullough demonstrates a modicum of wisdom:

[T]he risk of psychologically and physically damaging children by encouraging or enabling them to embrace transgender identities before pubescence must be acknowledged as a valid concern backed by credible evidence. Protecting children from the confusing, anxious, dangerous world of adult sexuality and sexual identity before their developing minds can fully conceptualize its complexities is not bigotry, it is good sense, and the sovereign right of every parent. It should be the responsibility of the public education system as well.

But read carefully: McCullough applies this sound warning only to pre-pubescent children—not to all minors.

McCullough concludes with more manipulation, this time employing two types of fallacies (i.e., chronological snobbery and appeal to emotion):

American history teaches that it is neither the radical nor the regressive who are ultimately vindicated in their response to cultural disruption, but rather those cautious conservatives who assign themselves the difficult task of thoughtfully working through the new and unexpected in the cause of preserving a social order as peaceful and free as the one that came prior.

Who will now rise to that task?

Well, history teaches lots of things. It also teaches that not everything new and unexpected is good or can contribute to preserving a peaceful, free social order. It teaches that cultural disruption often follows the embrace of false, destructive ideologies and that people can be mightily influenced to acquiesce by propaganda, sophistry, peer pressure, and coercive policies untethered from sound ontology, epistemology and morality. And it teaches that cautious thoughtfulness can include courageous commitment to transcendent, enduring moral truth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/National-Review-Online-Demagogue-Taunts-Conservatives.mp3

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here: goo.gl/O0iRDc to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Written by Carol Swain, PhD

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says its primary mission is to fight hatred, teach tolerance, and seek justice. These are noble goals for most Americans, but this is not a noble organization. It is the exact opposite. Given the SPLC’s power and influence over the media and members of Congress, this once highly-regarded civil rights organization deserves fresh scrutiny. Here are seven reasons why the SPLC fails to serve the public interest:

The SPLC ignores basic standards of scientific research in selecting and classifying hate groups and extremists. 

The SPLC’s definition of “hate” is vague. It defines a hate group as one with “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” SPLC President Richard Cohen testified in December 2017 that its assessment of hate is based on opinion, not objective criteria. (See minutes 43-48 of his testimony.)

George Yancy, a University of North Texas sociologist, documented the SPLC’s subjective nature in a 2014 study, “Watching the Watchers.” Yancy said the group’s methodology seemed more geared to mobilizing liberals than cataloguing hate groups.

The SPLC uses guilt by association to engage in ad hominem attacks against individuals.

Hannah Scherlacher, a Campus Reform worker, found her name listed in the SPLC’s “Anti-LGBT Roundup of Events and Activities” after the conservative Family Research Council interviewed her. Surprisingly, Scherlacher’s interview had nothing to do with LGBT issues. In 2009, soon after I criticized the SPLC for having mission creep, it labeled me “an apologist for white supremacy.”

I committed the crime of endorsing a film produced by a man the SPLC considers a racist.

The SPLC ignores threats posed by leftist, anti-American groups such as ANTIFA, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Despite the growing threat of jihadist violence, the SPLC has been reluctant to add Islamic groups with terrorist ties to its list of extremists. It also ignored how, in 2004, the FBI found plans for a “grand jihad” in America within the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. Yet, the SPLC has applied the hate label to Muslim critics of Islam, such as Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Both are listed in its Field Guide to Muslim Extremists.

The SPLC attacks and smears mainstream public service organizations, including churches, ministries, and various pro-family entities.

Targeted organizations include the American Family Association, Alliance Defending Freedom, Act for America, the Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Security Policy, D. James Kennedy Ministries, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel and the Traditional Values Coalition*. These groups are lumped together by the SPLC with the Aryan Nations, KKK, and neo-Nazis. Preposterous.

Note: labelling an organization as a hate group hurts its fundraising and hinders access to credit card-processing vendors, search engine rankings, and ministry partners.

The SPLC bashes conservatives while pushing a liberal agenda that empowers and supports leftists, communists, and anarchists.

The SPLC regularly bashes President Donald Trump, blaming him for the growth of white nationalism. Their analysis fails to acknowledge that the rise of white nationalism predates the election of Trump by more than two decades. Much of what the president says or does is framed as an attack on civil rights.

Curiously, after violence in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017, the SPLC republished a map detailing the location of more than 1,500 Confederate monuments and symbols. Consider the map a field guide for anarchists.

The SPLC’s labeling of groups and individuals has inspired acts of violence against its targets.

The SPLC is the common thread in two violent hate crimes against conservatives. After the SPLC listed the Family Research Council (FRC) on its hate map, Floyd Lee Corkins II entered FRC headquarters in August 2012 intending to commit mass murder. He was subdued by a security guard who was shot in the process. Likewise, James T. Hodgkinson, who in 2017 shot U.S. House Majority Whip Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.), was an SPLC social media fan.

The SPLC is an irresponsible public charity.

The SPLC has violated the public trust. Nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations are expected to operate in a nonpartisan manner with the public interest at heart. The SPLC, however, is a radical activist group dedicated to suppressing political dissent.

As of 2016, the SPLC had $319 million in net assets with $69 million parked in offshore accounts. Despite its name, the SPLC does not fight poverty. Its salaries are bloated, and only a fraction of its annual contributions are used to support its programs. Writing for Philanthropy Roundtable, a nonprofit group informing the public on philanthropic activity and groups, executive director Karl Zinsmeister wrote:

The SPLC is a cash-collecting machine. In 2015 it vacuumed up $50 million in contributions and foundation grants, a tidy addition to its $334 million holdings of cash and securities and its headquarters worth $34 million. They’ve never spent more than 31 percent of the money they were bringing in on programs, and sometimes they spent as little as 18 percent. Most nonprofits spend about 75 percent on programs.

A strong case can be made to strip the SPLC of its nonprofit, tax-exempt status.

Congress and the media need to take a fresh look at the SPLC. It no longer serves the public interest.

****

[*Editor’s note: The Illinois Family Institute is also on the SPLC “hate groups” list. Read more here and here.]

Carol Swain is a former associate professor of politics at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and former professor of both political science and law at Vanderbilt University. She holds a master of studies in law from Yale University and a Ph.D from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

This article was originally posted at AmericanThinker.com

There are myriad reasons why young people are abandoning conservative principles, one of which is that our publicly funded schools are run by and our children are taught by fools who revile truth. Neil Rigler, an English teacher at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, is one such teacher.

Last week, Rigler posted a link to an article from the far Left website PinkNews that criticized President Trump’s appearance at the Values Voter Summit, which is sponsored by the Family Research Council. Rigler added this comment:

Why isn’t this the lead story on national news? [Trump] endorses this hate group and supports legalized discrimination. Horrific. (Yet again).

Evidently Rigler is a disciple of the ethically impoverished, anti-Christian hate group known euphemistically as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has deemed the Family Research Council (and IFI) “hate groups.”

But why such a designation for organizations that actually denounce hatred?

The SPLC and Rigler hurl the epithet “hate group” at organizations that hold theologically orthodox views on the moral status of volitional homosexual activity and biological-sex rejection. The SPLC and Rigler evidently believe that moral positions with which they disagree constitute hatred of persons.

Of course, it’s unlikely they apply their underlying principle consistently. It’s unlikely they believe that all moral disapproval of volitional acts constitutes hatred of persons. It’s unlikely they would hurl the epithet “hater” at someone who believes homoerotic love between two consenting brothers is immoral or at someone who opposes the legal recognition of poly-marriages.

Foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little Leftist minds.

Government employee Rigler posted his feckless, pernicious comment on his Facebook page where anyone with a Facebook account can see it, including former, current, and future students. Presumably some of them are theologically orthodox young people.

And Rigler fancies himself “inclusive.”

Unfortunately, Rigler is not alone among our taxpayer-subsidized propagandists who identify as educators and who accuse those who hold values and beliefs with which they disagree of being hateful. Rigler’s comment is emblematic of the openly contemptuous attitude many of our  public school teachers have toward those who hold conservative beliefs and values.

There’s Jason Spoor-Harvey, former Fremd High School social studies teacher and current history department chair at Oak Park and River Forest High School. Spoor-Harvey is “married” to a man and has posted pictures on his Facebook page of his faux-marriage as well as his hearty support for Planned Parenthood. When he was a teacher at Fremd, he posted pictures of Che Guevara and Karl Marx on his official school web page along with this image titled “Evolutionary Theory”:

Rigler and Spoor-Harvey have every right to express their foolish beliefs and values  on their Facebook pages, and parents have every right to say these men are poor role models for their children and refuse to place their children under the their tutelage. The mere fact that Spoor-Harvey is legally “married”—though not in reality married—to a man teaches young people a harmful, untruthful lesson and renders him an unfit role model.

But Rigler and Spoor-Harvey don’t restrict expressions of their political and moral views to their Facebook pages. They express their views in the classroom both through their comments and the materials they choose, like homosexual writer Tony Kushner’s essay titled “American Things,” which Rigler has taught. In this essay, Kushner compares the homosexuality-affirming revolution to the Civil Rights Movement and calls moral disapproval of homosexuality a “social evil.”

There are countless teachers like Rigler and Spoor-Harvey who see themselves as “change agents” and view it as their right and responsibility to use their publicly funded positions to transform the political and moral views of other people’s children. Sometimes they do so by bringing in representatives from partisan organizations to disseminate destructive ideas to children as unassailable truths.

Just last month, Public School District 150 in Peoria, Illinois invited the Central Illinois Pride Health Center (CIPHC) to teach eighth-graders a lesson on “Sexual Orientation and Gender Stereotypes.”

The executive director and founder of the CIPHC is Len Meyer (on the left below), a lesbian who masquerades as a man and is “married” to a woman.

In March 2017, Meyer partnered with Illinois State University for its 19th annual drag show charity fundraiser with proceeds going this year to CIPHC. Meyer said, “I have always been a supporter of the drag show…as a person of the community. I think it is a great opportunity to give students a chance to get involved and get exposure of the cause.”

Do PSD 150 administrators, teachers, and school board members really believe this is the kind of person who should be teaching 13-year-olds? Do they really believe this is the kind of person most parents in their community want to teach their children about sexuality?

The troubling and very hard-to-find “Sexual Orientation and Gender Stereotypes” lesson on the PSD 150 website lists a handout titled the “Genderbread Person,” as a “needed” material for this class. This infamous handout teaches children to sever the connection between one’s sex and gender, or in the words of the Genderbread Person, to break through the “binary.” The lesson outline includes teaching students the meaning of “key terms” like “cisgender,” “queer,” and “intersex,” which is defined as “actually quite common!”

What is never discussed in the lesson is whether the beliefs of the “LGBTQ” community are objectively true or good. No dissenting views are included.

Christian parents should not allow their children to be trained up by men and women who view Scripture as hate-filled, ignorant bigotry.

Christians should not allow their children to be trained up by men and women who do not recognize the intrinsic value of all human lives—and all means all—including those yet in their mothers’ wombs.

Christian parents should not allow their children to be trained up by adults who don’t recognize and respect the immutability and profound meaning of sexual differentiation.

Christian parents should not allow their children to be trained up by adults who believe that inclusivity and compassion demand the affirmation of sexual perversion or confusion or the relinquishment of physical privacy.

Christians parents should not allow their children to be trained up by those who cannot see that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual complementarity and without which a union is not in reality a marriage.

Churches must begin today to create affordable schools for their church families. For diverse reasons, many families are unable to homeschool and unable to afford Christian private schools. Churches should view the education of children in their flocks as a mission field, with mission funds going toward making disciples of them. No matter how nice they are, people like Neil Rigler, Jason Spoor-Harvey, and Len Meyer cannot properly educate children.

Thomas More College of Liberal Arts professor Anthony Esolen offers this parable to illustrate where we are culturally:

Imagine a scene of wholesale destruction. Every old and venerable structure has been reduced to rubble. People relieve themselves in the street. Sometimes they copulate there, too. Their “music” is little more than grunting and groaning. Their rulers are on the take. There are hundreds of thousands of old books in the mountain of stone and mortar that used to be the library. Most of those books are far beyond the capacity of the people to read. They sneer and snort at Shakespeare, because they can’t understand him. They’ve never even heard of Virgil. A lot of these people have taken to cannibalism.

Now then—you have retained some vague memory of a more noble way of life.  You have therefore arrived at a great truth. It’s perfectly obscure to most of your fellow rubble-pickers, who mock you and call you a prude, a Neanderthal, a medieval monk, a madman, a hater of the hungry, and so forth. Your precious truth is simply this: it is wrong to eat human flesh.

Well, that is no great burst of enlightenment, but it is a beginning. So what do you do?  Will you be content to say, “My children will do everything that everyone else is doing, but they will not eat human flesh?” They will be subhuman and subcultural, but their taste in dining will be restricted just a little?  Is that all?

Will you say, “Our family is not anthropophagous, but we will send our children to be taught by the same fellow that all the other parents use,” the one with the squalid leer, dabbling in excrement, contemptuous of any wisdom from the past?

…

What do you do, then?  Turn back, O man.  It’s time to recover and rebuild.

Churches should start the recovery and rebuilding project now. We’re very late. Some of our children are cannibals.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

Given its prominence in current public discourse, one would think that hate, not love, is a many splendored thing.

The perfectly good word, which oozes out of every media pore, is now so overused that it means next to nothing.  Every time you turn around, someone is accused of “hate” merely for expressing disagreement.

This is not just a matter of semantics. It’s serious. When you cheapen a word, it discourages honest discussion and leads to more confusion and conflict, which is how the devil likes it. We have it on good Authority that the underworld thrives on mayhem.

One large organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center, has made hundreds of millions of dollars trafficking in hate. That is, they hatefully and falsely accuse others of hatred, even those whose only crime is to advocate traditional moral values.

The SPLC once performed a valuable service identifying genuine hate groups, such as neo-Nazis, and alerting the authorities to them. Now, it boasts a kitty of more than $300 million, stashes millions in cash in overseas accounts, and smears anyone opposing its increasingly radical sexual agenda.

In a full-page ad in the Washington Post this past week, the SPLC explained why it continues to label the Family Research Council a “hate group” on its online “hate map.” They quoted from FRC statements that warn that homosexuality is “unnatural,” has “negative physical and psychological health effects,” and is being peddled to children. They don’t bother trying to refute any of this because they can’t. And they don’t mention that a would-be assassin, inspired by SPLC’s hate map, tried to commit mass murder at FRC’s headquarters in 2012, thwarted only by heroic building manager Leo Johnson, who took a bullet.

While the SPLC spins out of control in its hateful obsession to criminalize Christian morality, it has plenty of ideological company that also plays the “hate” card. Name the cause, and if you’re not on the progressive side, you’re – what else? – a “hater.”

If you oppose extreme environmentalism and think Al Gore’s a bit overcooked, you “hate” the planet. And Bambi.

If you think that NFL players should stand out of respect for the flag when the national anthem is played, you “hate” black people and want police to abuse them.

If you believe marriage is as God ordained it – the union of one man and one woman – you “hate” homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, and polyamorists.

If you believe that America should defend its borders and have orderly, lawful immigration, you “hate” immigrants.

If you believe that militant Islam poses a serious threat, you “hate” all Muslims.

If you oppose the government takeover of the nation’s health care system, you “hate” poor, sick people.

If you support voter ID laws and other common-sense reforms that discourage voter fraud, you “hate” minorities.

If you oppose more government spending, deeper federal debt and higher taxes, you “hate” poor people.

Conversely, if you don’t hate President Trump, you are a monster. And a bigot. And a hater.

As with any emotion, hate in and of itself is not wrong. In Psalm 119, for example, we’re told to “hate every false way.” There are plenty of other verses where that came from by which we are exhorted to hate evil and favor what is good.

Personally, I hate the evil scheme to geld the Boy Scouts of America. This past week, the Scout leadership, if you can call it that, created the Unisex Scouts of America by eliminating the requirement that Boy Scouts be boys. Actually, they did that earlier when they welcomed girls who think they are boys, right after opening up to boys and even leaders who are sexually attracted to males. It’s hard to believe that the Scout headquarters is in Texas, where most people know cowboys from cowgirls and bulls from heifers.

The whole point of Scouting from its origin in 1910 was to help boys become masculine, virtuous, God-fearing men. The camping, knot-tying, merit badges and civic engagement are important, but they should not be confused with the organization’s raison d’etre – raising boys to be men.

In recent years, radical groups have charged the Scouts with “hate” for maintaining their policies even as the culture slid into decadence. Despite consistent court rulings favoring the Scouts, the pounding obviously took its toll on the weaker sisters at the top of the Scout food chain. So they caved. And caved. And caved.

All this to say, if you hate America, you must love the moral chaos swirling around us.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com

“If you believe in traditional marriage and historic Christianity — watch out — there is a powerful organization that is trying to marginalize you by designating you as a hater — and they could even put your life in danger.”

With those words, Frank Wright, President and CEO of D. James Kennedy Ministries begins the 30-minute video “Profits of Hate: The Southern Poverty Law Center Special.”

The SPLC is redefining the word hate so it applies to anyone who disagrees with the radical left-wing agenda of the SPLC.

In this informative presentation, leaders of Christian organizations are interviewed about the growing danger of the SPLC’s influence in the media and in culture. Too many people believe the organization is an unbiased arbiter. Much of that is because the organization’s reputation is based upon the fact that it did some good work towards the end of the civil rights era.

As genuine hate groups like the KKK began to fade, the SPLC looked for a new way to keep the money flowing into the organization. Calling Christian organizations “hate groups” to raise money from radical Leftists has turned out to be very profitable. The organization’s coffers contain roughly $300 million dollars, with a sizable chunk of that money stashed in overseas accounts.

The video cites two shootings that are directly tied to the SPLC. In 2012, a man using the SPLC “hate” list, attempted to kill several people at the offices of the Family Research Council. Earlier this year, another fan of the SPLC sought to assassinate several Republican members of Congress.

Frank Wright states that it is a “modern form of insanity” for anyone to believe that Christian historian David Barton should listed alongside admitted racist David Duke on the SPLC’s “hate” map.
The mask has come off the Southern Poverty Law Center, and this video needs to be seen by millions of Americans. Please watch it and help spread the word.

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

The Illinois Family Institute has been covering the scandal surrounding the Southern Poverty Law Center for years, and now IFI has joined forces with the leaders of over three dozen conservative organizations from coast to coast to raise awareness about the true nature of the SPLC.

Here is the opening of a letter signed by leaders of those conservative organizations:

Dear Members of the Media:

We are writing to you as individuals or as representatives of organizations who are deeply troubled by several recent examples of the media’s use of data from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC is a discredited, left-wing, political activist organization that seeks to silence its political opponents with a “hate group” label of its own invention and application that is not only false and defamatory, but that also endangers the lives of those targeted with it.

The Illinois Family Institute’s David E. Smith was one of the letter’s signatories. Smith was joined by leaders of groups such as the Media Research Center, the Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, and Liberty Counsel.

The heavily footnoted 8-page letter also includes this:

The SPLC is an attack dog of the political left. Having evolved from laudable origins battling the Klan in the 1970’s, the SPLC has realized the profitability of defamation, churning out fundraising letters, and publishing “hit pieces” on conservatives to promote its agenda and pad its substantial endowment (of $319 million). Anyone who opposes them, including many Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and traditional conservatives is slandered and slapped with the “extremist” label or even worse, their “hate group” designation. At one point, the SPLC even added Dr. Ben Carson to its “extremist” list because of his biblical views (and only took him off the list after public outcry).

To associate public interest law firms and think tanks with neo-Nazis and the KKK is unconscionable, and represents the height of irresponsible journalism. All reputable news organizations should immediately stop using the SPLC’s descriptions of individuals and organizations based on its obvious political prejudices.

The letter has been released to the media, and is currently circulating to CNN, MSNBC, AP, ABC and others.

A hard-hitting social media post from the Family Research Council opens with this:

The Southern Poverty Law Center was too intolerant for the U.S. Army, too controversial for the FBI, and too inflammatory for the Obama Justice Department. Now, after receiving harsh criticism from conservatives across the country, GuideStar has decided to temporarily remove SPLC’s hate labels from their website. In addition to these prominent entities distancing themselves from the extremist group, two lawsuits involving SPLC are now in place: one from Liberty Counsel and one from former Islamic extremist turned anti-extremist activist, Maajid Nawaz. But despite SPLC’s baggage — which also includes connections to two liberal gunmen – they continue to be cited as a credible source by mainstream media and others. With SPLC in the spotlight, we must expose this organization for what it really is – a leftwing smear group who has become exactly what they set out to fight, spreading hate and putting targets on people’s backs.

The social media campaign is up and running, and IFI supporters are encouraged to help spread the word.

Here are other articles of note about the letter:

Newsbusters broke the story: Conservatives Urge Media: Cut Ties With SPLC Over Dangerous ‘Hate Map’

PJMedia was right behind with their own story: 47 Nonprofit Leaders Denounce the Southern Poverty Law Center’s ‘Hate List’ in Open Letter to the Media

This scandal is also worthy of greater attention: The Southern Poverty Law Center Has $69 Million Parked Overseas

Please share through all your channels — this effort needs to be recognized by as many outlets as possible. Also, please share new content as it comes out today. Here are some of FRC’s tweets with links to stories today:

Conservatives Urge Media: Cut Ties with @splcenter over Dangerous 'Hate Map' @k_yoder @newsbusters https://t.co/upxxzIiYX4 #SPLCexposed

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

JUST IN: Conservative Movement Releases Open Letter to the News Media: Beware of the Southern Poverty Law Center https://t.co/pFikHv7vV0

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

We're joining 47 conservative leaders, orgs to ask the media to stop using data from discredited @splcenter. Letter: https://t.co/ulYk0qmvRF pic.twitter.com/me632tP1Ik

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

All news outlets should immediately stop using SPLC’s descriptions of individuals/orgs based on its obvious prejudices. #SPLCexposed pic.twitter.com/I0BRpDm6kW

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

.@splcenter has realized the profitability of defamation. This is what they're really about. https://t.co/ulYk0q4V07 #SPLCexposed pic.twitter.com/8Isn3lEZcq

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

To associate public interest law firms and think tanks with neo-Nazis and the KKK is unconscionable. https://t.co/pFikHv7vV0 #SPLCexposed pic.twitter.com/H2b0bBuu0r

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI,
please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  

It does make a difference.

SPLC, once a valued organization fighting for civil rights of minorities, refocused some time ago. Part of that “refocusing” resulted in the group’s publication of a “hate map” several years ago. James Wright, head of D. James Kennedy Ministries, is very familiar with the hate map.

“Initially it was related to the question of marriage and the gay agenda,” he shares. “[But] these days if you’re on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate map, it might be anything from your stand on immigration, to radical Islam, to the sanctity of human life, to marriage, to whatever.”

GuideStar has re-published the hate map and Amazon’s charitable contributions don’t go to those groups listed thereon. That includes D. James Kennedy Ministries, which has filed suit in Alabama federal court alleging discrimination and libel against all three organizations.

Wright argues that SPLC, GuideStar, and Amazon have labeled his organization and many others as hate groups for one simple reason: “To try to silence us,” he says. “They don’t want to deal with us on the issues. They want to silence us and make us a marginal voice in the culture.”

He goes on to say “their definition of hate is both morally and intellectually dishonest, unjustifiable” – and that the only way to deal with it is to have the three groups prove their definition of hate before a jury of peers. Thus, the lawsuit.

Apple’s profits going to the SPLC

A spokesman for another group on the “hate map” says it’s dangerous when people are so blinded by their ideology that they finance organizations such as the SPLC. That comment comes in the wake of Apple Corporation CEO Tim Cook announcing his company is donating $1 million to the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League.

Abraham Hamilton III, general counsel and policy analyst for the American Family Association, responds to the donation.

Hamilton offers a solution to deal with Apple’s announced plan to use profits from the sales of its products to support organizations like the SPLC – organizations he says “encourage hate” and are “radically, ideologically driven” and pro-abortion.

“[When] you see this happening, the best way to respond is to vote with your pocketbook,” he tells OneNewsNow.

In other words, consumers will decide whether Apple’s move is good for public relations.

In the wake of the Charlottesville melee, the mainstream press is citing the disreputable Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and its “hate” groups list ad nauseum with nary a peep about the repeated criticism of the SPLC as a bastion of anti-Christian bigotry.

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI) is included on the “hate” groups list alongside white supremacist and white separatist groups for no reason other than our biblical view of marriage as a sexually differentiated union and our biblical views of sexual morality—views that are shared by the Roman Catholic Church, many Protestant denominations, many non-denominational churches, Orthodox Judaism, 2,000 years of church history, and the Bible.

Read more…

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

In the wake of the Charlottesville melee, the mainstream press is citing the disreputable Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and its “hate” groups list ad nauseum with nary a peep about the repeated criticism of the SPLC as a bastion of anti-Christian bigotry.

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI) is included on the “hate” groups list alongside white supremacist and white separatist groups for no reason other than our biblical view of marriage as a sexually differentiated union and our biblical views of sexual morality—views that are shared by the Roman Catholic Church, many Protestant denominations, many non-denominational churches, Orthodox Judaism, 2,000 years of church history, and the Bible.

It’s not just IFI that finds the SPLC and its leaders unethical. The avaricious founder of the SPLC, Morris Dees, and the dishonest editor-in-chief of the “Intelligence Report” which is responsible for the corrupt “hate” groups list, Mark Potok, have come under sustained criticism from many people for many years. (Click here, here, and here  to read more.)

Several months ago, one such critic, Real Clear Politics writer Carl Cannon, wrote an exposé of the SPLC, to whom Cannon attributes blame for the anti-free-speech assault on political scientist Charles Murray at radical Middlebury College in Vermont.

Civil rights attorney Dees co-founded the lucrative non-profit SPLC in 1971, ostensibly to combat the racism endemic to the South, and on the way, he’s made a boatload of money that has enabled him to live the luxurious lifestyle to which he and his five serial wives had become accustomed. His clients? Well, they didn’t fare quite as well financially.

Cannon explains that when the Ku Klux Klan’s power waned and racism diminished, the SPLC had to find new ways “to frighten people into still donating.” He says that “Scaring the bejesus out of people requires new bogeymen, and lots of them.” Further, Cannon claims that “mainstream conservative groups” are among the bogeymen.

Cannon reports that the “most scathing assessments of Dees and his group have always come from the left” like “Stephen B. Bright, a Yale law professor and president of the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights,” who describes Dees as a “con man” and a “fraud.”

Even the far-Left magazine The Nation indicts Dees as “the archsalesman of hatemongering,” accusing him of stuffing “mailbags…with his fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of a hate-sodden America in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC…. Dees and his hate-seekers scour the landscape for hate…it’s their staple.”

While useful idiots in the mainstream press disseminate the SPLC’s propaganda, thus smearing Christian organizations and lining the pockets of Dees, the FBI has stopped using the SPLC as a resource.

The SPLC has perfected the tactics espoused by homosexuals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen who in 1989 wrote what they deemed a “gay manifesto for the 1990’s” titled After the Ball, in which they urged “progressives” to utilize the mainstream media in a campaign to eradicate conservative moral beliefs—what they call “homohatred”—or “silence” the expression of such beliefs in public:

[L]ink homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary…. Gays must launch a large-scale campaign…to reach straights through mainstream media. We’re talking about propaganda…. Gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection…. Make victimizers look bad…. The public should be shown images of ranting homohaters whose associated traits and attitudes appall and anger Middle America. The images might include: Klansmen… Hysterical backwoods preachers… Menacing punks, thugs, and convicts who speak coolly about the “fags” they… would like to bash… [or] A tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

The SPLC employs all of these propagandistic tactics to stigmatize and marginalize Christian organizations like the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, Liberty Counsel, and the Illinois Family Institute for our beliefs about sexuality and marriage that derive from Scripture and for our willingness to express them publicly.

These are a few of the organizations that have not fallen prey to ravenous wolves or been taken “captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

For their faithfulness, Christ-followers will be hated, but enduring such trials brings blessings:

“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:11-12).

The cost of discipleship has been minimal in America for over two hundred years, but the cost is rising due to the unholy efforts of “LGBTQQAP” activists.

While Jesus says, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me,” many Christians—entire denominations—are choosing instead friendship with the world, ignoring the words of James:

“Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4).

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

Frustrated by its inability to win elections, the left is attempting to silence opponents through intimidation, either in the streets or in the courts.

The latest example is the hijacking of Guidestar USA by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Guidestar is a database of more than 2 million nonprofit and non-governmental (NGO) organizations. It’s considered the foremost authority on nonprofits, and had a self-avowed reputation for “remaining neutral.”

That changed when a left-wing activist, Jacob Harold, came aboard in 2012. Mr. Harold, whose bio boasts of donating to the Obama campaign, extensive activism on behalf of climate change groups, and hosting a NARAL Pro-Choice DC men’s event, tweeted a photo of himself holding a sign protesting President Trump at the radical Women’s March in January.

Apart from Vermont ice cream magnates Ben and Jerry, it might be hard to find a more radically leftist major CEO. So it’s no wonder that Mr. Harold welcomed the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority on “hate groups.” Using SPLC’s “hate map” as a resource, Guidestar smeared 46 organizations, many of them Christian, as “hate groups.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a long history of abusing nonprofits and individuals with whom they disagree. They tar innocent people and may have inspired at least two terrorist incidents. The SPLC’s “hate map” lumps Christian and conservative organizations with neo-Nazis, skinheads and other violence-prone groups. The most common offenses? Failing to salute the brave new world of sexual anarchy or unlimited illegal immigration.

On Aug. 15, 2012, a disturbed young man, Floyd Corkins II, who later told the FBI that he had been inspired by the SPLC’s “hate map,” attempted to commit mass murder at the DC-based Family Research Council. He had a knapsack full of extra rounds and Chick-fil-A sandwiches that he had planned to stuff into the mouths of his victims. Stopped by Leo Johnson, a courageous guard who was shot while subduing him, Corkins became the first person in U.S. history to be convicted under Washington, DC, law of domestic terrorism.

On June 14, Bernie Sanders follower James T. Hodgkinson, who had “liked” the Southern Poverty Law Center on Facebook, shot up Republican congressmen and their staffs at a baseball practice in Alexandria, critically wounding Republican Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and injuring four others. The Louisiana congressman had been singled out by the SPLC for an alleged connection to a white power group, a charge he denies.

Earlier this month, Guidestar began adding the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate group labels to 46 nonprofits. Last week, Guidestar – and the SPLC by implication – began getting major pushback.

On June 21, a group of 41 Christian and conservative leaders, including former Attorney General Edwin Meese, signed a letter to Guidestar demanding deletion of the defaming labels, which Guidestar did – sort of. The labels were removed but the damage was done and the information is available upon request.

Next, Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal foundation, filed a defamation lawsuit on June 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Guidestar for posting a label on Liberty Counsel’s Guidestar page describing it as an SPLC-designated “hate group.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which built its reputation years ago by monitoring the Ku Klux Klan and other violent groups, still raises money by the boatload with its scare tactics and has a $300 million endowment. That allows it to do things like send a dozen attorneys to New Jersey, where a jury under a liberal judge in a kangaroo court in 2015 found a small Jewish group, Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH), guilty of consumer “fraud” for directing people to counselors who aid people in overcoming unwanted same-sex desires.

The Southern Poverty Law Center also listed former Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson in the “hate” category for his stances on marriage and biblical morality before public outrage made them withdraw the label.

Three years ago, the FBI dropped the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source for identifying hate groups. In March 2016, the U.S. Justice Department accused the Southern Poverty Law Center attorneys of “lack of professionalism” and “misconduct” for falsely characterizing the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Immigration Reform Law Institute as “hate groups.”

Maajid Nawaz, a moderate Muslim who opposes jihad extremism, says he is also suing the Southern Poverty Law Center for defaming him and his organization, the London-based Quilliam Foundation.

If there is still doubt as to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s motives, it was laid to rest in an interview with SPLC senior fellow Mark Potok, who said that his group’s “hate group” criteria “have nothing to do with criminality or violence or any kind of guess we’re making about ‘this group could be dangerous.’ It’s strictly ideological.'”

Mr. Potok is also on video stating, “Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on. I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.”

And the Southern Poverty Law Center still has a shred of credibility? Sure they do. Ask any “mainstream” journalist.

More Americans — even those on the political left — are learning the truth about the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Christian Post’s Anugrah Kumar reports the latest:

GuideStar USA, which is one of the nation’s leading sources of information about nonprofit organizations, has announced it will remove from its list of “hate groups” dozens of conservative advocacy organizations, many of which advocate for traditional marriage.

The nonprofit world is huge and growing, and to help people navigate through the labyrinth, “nonprofit tracking” companies have been created. GuideStar is one, and this is from its posted mission:

To revolutionize philanthropy by providing information that advances transparency, enables users to make better decisions, and encourages charitable giving.

That sounds great, doesn’t it?

One little problem. Here is Rachel del Guidice writing at The Daily Signal a week earlier:

The nation’s leading source of information on U.S. charities faces mounting criticism for using a controversial “hate group” designation in listings for some well-known and broadly supported conservative nonprofits.

Many readers can already figure where this story is going:

GuideStar, which calls itself a “neutral” aggregator of tax data on charities, recently incorporated “hate group” labels produced by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center.

The decision by the tracker of nonprofits prompted 41 conservative leaders to protest the move in a letter provided exclusively to The Daily Signal. The letter, dated June 21, asks the website to drop the “hate group” labels put on 46 organizations.

Among the signatories is the Illinois Family Institute’s Executive Director, David E. Smith.

The Daily Signal also reported a few details about the Leftist leadership at GuideStar. The organization cannot call itself “neutral,” if they are to use the thoroughly discredited SPLC.

The letter from the 41 conservative leaders made their case:

GuideStar’s use of the “hate group” designation for certain organizations, many of them Christian, unfairly and inaccurately adopts the “aggressive political agenda” of Southern Poverty Law Center, the leaders write.

Among the organizations represented are the Family Research Council, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the American College of Pediatricians, the National Task Force for Therapy Equality, the American Family Association, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Jewish Institute for Global Awareness.

The more you learn about the SPLC, the easier it is to call it a “hate group.” Their disdain for Christianity and other social conservative organizations is consistently hostile with the clear aim to do them harm.

The Daily Signal Post spoke with William G. “Jerry” Boykin, a retired Army general who is executive vice president of the Family Research Council: “I think that what GuideStar is doing is another attack on conservative Christian organizations and individuals.”

Why would they do so? The Daily Signal explains:

Foundations, corporations, and other institutions look at listings by such organizations as GuideStar when they determine where to make tax-exempt contributions. They are unlikely to donate money to any organization labeled as a hate group, the conservative leaders argue.

GuideStar responded to the letter by removing those 41 organizations plus 5 others from its list of “hate groups.”

With that, Leftist-run GuideStar has now provided yet another episode that does well-deserved damage to the reputation of the SPLC, while bringing more attention to their nasty agenda.

Click here to read the letter sent by the 41 conservative leaders.

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Finally, medical and mental health professionals are bringing a gun to the gunfight.

The National Task Force for Therapy Equality (NTFTE), “a coalition of psychotherapists, psychiatrists, physicians, public policy organizations, and clients who experience unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity conflicts,” has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asking the FTC “to investigate and stop the libelous, slanderous, deceptive, and misleading actions of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).

The NTFTE alleges that the aforementioned sexuality anarchists have done the following:

• “actively and knowingly engaged in deceptive and fraudulent marketing practices of the kind the FTC considers malicious….”

• “supported witnesses on the state, federal, and international level that have delivered unverifiable and fraudulent testimony in front of law-making bodies in the effort to persuade legislative action to ban psychotherapy….”

• “are actively raising large sums of money in the effort to ban psychotherapy by using deceptive and fraudulent practices….”

• “actively and knowingly distorted the research to promote efforts to ban psychotherapy for clients with sexual and gender identity conflicts….”

• “actively distorted the scientific research in promoting the “Born Gay” hoax, a notion that has been disproved and refuted by organizations such as the American Psychological Association….”

• “engaged in smear and defamatory attacks on licensed psychotherapists and faith-based ministries providing help and assistance to those who experience sexual and gender identity conflicts.”

The NTFTE is asking the FTC that the “FTC take enforcement action to end the actions of the SPLC, HRC, and NCLR, which seek to defame change therapies, change therapists, and their clients, or to render a judgment against the three organizations for their actions, which are deceptive and misleading to consumers and the general public.” In addition, the NTFTE is asking that the “FTC require these organizations to cease publishing slanderous remarks about change therapies, change therapists, and their clients, and require them to cease and desist publishing all deceptive statements including those within their public speeches, social media, online videos, and on their websites.”

It’s about time someone challenged the lying liars and reprobates at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Human Rights Campaign, and National Center for Lesbian Rights.

We urge you to pray for our state and nation, for our elected officials in Springfield and Washington D.C.  

PLEASE also consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work. We have stood firm for 25 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

­­A refreshing and much-needed take-down of the ethically impoverished Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and its avaricious founder Morris Dees inspired me to recount IFI’s true story about our interaction with the blackguards who maintain the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.

The impetus for Carl Cannon’s critique of the SPLC on Real Clear Politics was the recent assault on esteemed scholar Charles Murray at Middlebury College in Vermont, an assault that was inspired by the pernicious SPLC, the same organization that inspired the shooting at the Family Research Council’s headquarters in 2012.

In early March, 2009, about six months after I started working for IFI, we learned that IFI had been put on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) “hate” groups list.

Since IFI stands unequivocally opposed to both violence and hatred, we wondered why we were listed as an “anti-gay” hate group when other institutions like the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations that share our same views on matters related to homosexuality were not.

Why the SPLC first claimed IFI was put on its hate groups list

For clarification I called the SPLC and spoke with Heidi Beirich. Our conversation was troubling in that Ms. Beirich revealed that even a tenuous, distant connection to statements the SPLC doesn’t like will land an organization on their hate groups list.

She told me that the only reason IFI had been included on the hate groups list was that in 2005, a former IFI executive director had posted a very short article by someone not affiliated with IFI.

Although there were no defamatory comments made in this piece, Beirich claimed that in other articles that never appeared on IFI, the author had suggested that (in Beirich’s words) “Gays are sickly, and people should stay away from them.” IFI had no idea if that claim were true, but if it were, IFI would reject it, find it inconsistent with Scripture, and find it repellent. The problem was IFI had never cited or endorsed such rhetoric, and yet the SPLC had labeled IFI as an active “hate” group based on it.

Beirich also claimed that in the short article IFI had re-posted, the author had claimed that homosexual men have shortened lifespans—a claim that Beirich viewed as incorrect. I responded that I could see how a statistic could be erroneous and derived from flawed methodology, but I didn’t see erroneous statistics as defamatory or hateful.

More important, the same finding regarding reduced life expectancy for homosexual men had been reported by a world-renowned medical journal and cited as true by homosexual activists when it served their purposes.

That study, which appeared in Oxford University’s International Journal of Epidemiology, concluded that “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.”

Also, in their book Caring For Lesbian and Gay People-A Clinical Guide, authors Dr. Allan Peterkin and Dr. Cathy Risdon suggest that the life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 55 years.

What the SPLC’s Mark Potok did next

Following our exposé of the reason for the SPLC’s inclusion of IFI on their “anti-gay” hate groups list, the SPLC started receiving complaints, which evidently didn’t sit too well with them. As a result of those complaints, the editor of their ironically named “Intelligence Report,” which includes the hate groups list, Mark Potok, started leaving troubling voice messages around the country for those who called to complain.

Here’s a transcription of one of those messages:

Yes, Hi, this is a message for . . . from Mark Potok, Southern Poverty Law Center. Very briefly, I just wanna say very briefly – we do list them (Illinois Family Institute) for a reason, which we’ve stated publicly. They (IFI) have been less, in my opinion, than honest about what we really said. They publish and promote the work of a man named Paul Cameron. Paul Cameron is a guy who is infamous for over the last 20 years for producing, for publishing fake studies that allege all kinds of terrible things about homosexuals. For instance, that gay men are, something like, 20 times more likely to molest children; that gay men have an average death age of something like 43 because they’re so sickly and, ya know, sorta do such terrible things. These things are completely false and have been proven false long ago. Our view is that the Illinois Family Institute promotes these complete falsehoods. Then that is hateful activity. We never list any group on the basis of simply disagreeing morally or otherwise with homosexuality. We told the Illinois Family Institute directly that if they remove this material from their website, in fact, that we would take them off the list. Instead, what they’ve done is essentially launched an attack on us to try to get people to call us as you did. Anyway, that’s all. I just wanted to at least briefly explain that it was not quite the way it was being portrayed.

Contrary to Potok’s claim that the SPLC had publicly stated their reason for including IFI on their “anti-gay” hate groups list, to my knowledge, prior to my phone call to them, they had never publicly stated their reason. And stating their reason in a private phone conversation with me doesn’t constitute a public statement.

Was IFI dishonest?

After I heard his voice message in which Potok stated that IFI had “been less than honest,” I called and spoke to him, informing him that in my article, I was scrupulously honest about what Heidi Beirich had said to me. In fact, I even included a follow-up email in which Beirich confirmed the reason for the SPLC’s inclusion of IFI on the SPLC’s  “hate” groups list.

Was the SPLC accurate in their description of what IFI had done?

Mr. Potok stated in his voice message that we “publish and promote the work of a man named Paul Cameron.” This grossly misrepresented the nature of our involvement with Cameron’s work. It suggests that we regularly or continually published and promoted his work, when, by Potok’s and Beirich’s own admission, we published only one brief article.

More troubling yet, this one article contained no statements remotely like these that Potok claimed it did: “gay men are, something like, 20 times more likely to molest children” or that “they’re so sickly and, ya know, sorta do such terrible things.”

Potok dug himself in even deeper when he said in his voice message that it is the SPLC’s view that “the Illinois Family Institute promotes these complete falsehoods.” He was saying that IFI promotes falsehoods that the SPLC’s own evidence proves we did not promote. The SPLC’s own evidence was the one four-year-old article that did not include any references to “child molestation,” or “sickly homosexuals sorta doing terrible things.” Potok was lying.

Suspicious timing of the SPLC’s addition of IFI to their hate groups list

I asked Mr. Potok if IFI had been on the SPLC’s hate groups list since 2005 when the challenged article was posted. He replied “No.” I then asked when we were first listed, and he said 2008. So, they added us to their list in 2008 based on one brief article posted in 2005. Coincidentally, I started writing for IFI in 2008.

Exposing the SPLC’s deceit

In order to expose the deceit of the SPLC, IFI took the offending article down in 2009, and the SPLC took us off the hate groups list. Then in 2010, we were back on. What happened in 2010?

Well, in 2010, Potok and his accomplices Heidi Beirich, Evelyn Schlatter, and Robert Steinback finally got around to manufacturing criteria for determining what constitutes a “hate group.”

In 2010, the SPLC created a definition of “hatred” that is elastic enough to allow the inclusion of organizations the SPLC doesn’t like. The dubious criteria dubiously applied focus on social science research or propositions that the SPLC doesn’t like.

Schlatter explains that the “propagation” of “known falsehoods” about homosexuality will result in organizations being included on the SPLC’s “anti-gay” list and perhaps also on their hate groups list.

I’m not sure if the anti-Christian activists at the SPLC 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.

So, let’s take a closer look at just four of the ten “known falsehoods” that Schlatter and co-author Robert Steinback cite in their companion article “10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked”.

Alleged falsehood about hate crimes legislation and the repeal of  DADT

The SPLC has said 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 groups list. And any organization that argues that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military will damage the military merits inclusion on its “anti-gay” hate groups list.

How can the SPLC 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.

Alleged falsehood concerning mental illness and drug use among homosexuals

If any organization states that homosexuals experience higher rates of depression or drug use might land on the hate groups list. The SPLC engages in some tricksy rhetoric to defend this 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 than the general population.

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.”

Alleged falsehood about children raised by homosexuals

The SPLC deems hateful the claim that same-sex parents harm children. Potok and his minions don’t 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 exalt even the most poorly constructed social science research if it reinforces their presuppositions, they reject better constructed studies that undermine them. 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.

Alleged falsehood about persons who choose to leave homosexuality

If an organization claims that people can “choose to leave homosexuality,” it risks being added to the hate groups list.  But there exist people who choose to stop engaging in homoerotic activity, and choose to leave homoerotic relationships, and choose no longer to place unwanted homoerotic attraction at the center of their identity.  There are former homosexuals like Rosaria Butterfield and Michael Glatze who are now happily married to opposite-sex persons. How can making a true statement about the possibility that humans can make choices about their sexual  identity be construed as a known falsehood or hateful?

Next time a feckless school board member or politician cites the Southern Poverty Law Center to discredit the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, or the Illinois Family Institute, do your level best to confront their ignorance and bigotry with truth.

Written by Katrina Trinko

So much for taking America’s “fake news” problem seriously.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, there’s been an abundance of hand-wringing over the “fake news” that supposedly is rampant on social media.

Yet missing has been any kind of serious searching among the mainstream media about whether it could learn any lessons from this election—and whether reporters and editors are holding themselves accountable to their supposed values of objectivity and rigorous reporting.

And a new “study” presents Exhibit A as to why the mainstream media should reconsider its own practices.

The Southern Poverty Law Center—an organization that calls the Family Research Council an “extremist group” because of its socially conservative views on LGBT matters—reported Nov. 29 that “in the 10 days following the election, there were almost 900 reports of harassment and intimidation from across the nation.”

“Many harassers invoked Trump’s name during assaults,” the report continued, “making it clear that the outbreak of hate stemmed in large part from his electoral success.”

Cue the widespread coverage:

• “Nationwide, there have been more than 867 incidents of ‘hateful harassment’ in the first days following the election, the Southern Poverty Law Center says,” reported CNN.

• “In the 10 days following the November election, SPLC said it collected 867 hate-related incidents on its website and through the media from almost every state,” wrote the Associated Press.

• NBC News headlined its piece on the study “Southern Poverty Law Center Reports ‘Outbreak of Hate’ After Election.”

• The Washington Post’s headline blared, “Civil rights group documents nearly 900 hate incidents after presidential election.”

There’s just one issue: The Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t confirm these “nearly 900” incidents actually happened.

“The 867 hate incidents described here come from two sources—submissions to the #ReportHate page on the SPLC website and media accounts,” the SPLC report states. “We have excluded incidents that authorities have determined to be hoaxes; however, it was not possible to confirm the veracity of all reports.”

In other words, who has any idea if these incidents actually happened or not?

Yet, the fact that there was no verification of these incidents didn’t stop the media from covering this “study.”

And let’s not pretend there’s no to very little chance that a Trump opponent would make up a hate crime story.

Just consider this reported hate incident in November: “The men used a racial slur, made a reference to lynching, and warned him this is Donald ‘Trump country now,’ according to the report he gave police,” reported the Boston Herald.

Yet the man wasn’t telling the truth. The Herald reported that Kevin Molis, police chief of Malden, Massachusetts, said “it has been determined that the story was completely fabricated.”

“’The alleged victim admitted that he had made up the entire story,’ saying he wanted to ‘raise awareness about things that are going on around the country,’” the newspaper added, continuing to quote Molis.

So maybe 867 hate crimes happened in the first 10 days after the election. Or maybe 5,000 did. Or maybe five did.

Maybe 10,000 did—and most of them were directed at Trump supporters, not opponents. (Let’s not forget the man beaten in Chicago while someone said, “You voted Trump.”) Who knows?

The SPLC should realize that playing around with facts is no laughing matter.

In 2012, a gunman entered the headquarters of the Family Research Council “with the intent to kill as many employees as possible, he told officers after the incident,” reported Politico. The 29-year-old man, identified as Floyd Lee Corkins II, did shoot and wound a security guard. His motivation?

“Family Research Council (FRC) officials released video of federal investigators questioning convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who explained that he attacked the group’s headquarters because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified them as a ‘hate group’ due to their traditional marriage views,” the Washington Examiner reported.

Ultimately, regardless of what the Southern Poverty Law Center does, the media shouldn’t be giving a platform to faux studies like this.

But maybe it’s not surprising, given attitudes like President Barack Obama’s. In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine published Tuesday, the president griped about the reach of Fox News Channel—and then complimented Rolling Stone: “Good journalism continues to this day. There’s great work done in Rolling Stone.”

Yes, that Rolling Stone—the news outlet that published the completely discredited University of Virginia gang rape story. In early November, “jurors awarded a University of Virginia administrator $3 million … for her portrayal in a now-discredited Rolling Stone magazine article about the school’s handling of a brutal gang rape [at] a fraternity house,” the Associated Press reported.

It’s tough to hold the media accountable when even the president seems willing to brush aside true instances of fake news.

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors.

This article was originally posted at The DailySignal.com