Sunday, September 02, 2012

Attacking hate groups

Readers have asked for evidence that gays and Jews promote anti-family policies. Wash. Post columnist Dana Milbank writes:
Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights organization, posted an alert on its blog Tuesday: “Paul Ryan Speaking at Hate Group’s Annual Conference.”

The “hate group” that the Republicans’ vice presidential candidate would be addressing? The Family Research Council, a mainstream conservative think tank founded by James Dobson and run for many years by Gary Bauer.

The day after the gay rights group’s alert went out, 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins II walked into the Family Research Council’s Washington headquarters and, according to an FBI affidavit, proclaimed words to the effect of “I don’t like your politics” — and shot the security guard. Corkins, who had recently volunteered at a gay community center, was carrying a 9mm handgun, a box of ammunition and a backpack full of Chick-fil-A — the company whose president recently spoke out against gay marriage. ...

Human Rights Campaign isn’t responsible for the shooting. Neither should the organization that deemed the FRC a “hate group,” the Southern Poverty Law Center, be blamed for a madman’s act. But both are reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions, on issues from stem cells to euthanasia.

I disagree with the Family Research Council’s views on gays and lesbians. But it’s absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church. The center says the FRC “often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science.” Exhibit A in its dossier is a quote by an FRC official from 1999 (!) saying that “gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”

Offensive, certainly. But in the same category as the KKK? ...

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay marriage, is right to say that the attack “is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end.”
He is right. The FRC is not a hate group. Even if it made a mischaracterization of a movement back in 1999, so what? There are liberal groups who lie all the time.

There are feminist groups who often devalue fathers and other men. They deny the facts and promote policies harmful to children. Why aren't they hate groups?

There is currently an edit war over the Wikipedia articles on the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Family Research Council. They want to say that the SPLC has the endorsement of the FBI, that it conducts spying for the FBI, and that the FRC is a hate group.

This is crazy. The SPLC is the hate group. It is run by Jews who hate Christians and promote ethnic animosity. They are also racist and anti-American.

Steve Sailer comments on this quote:
"To be against gay marriage, at least in the views of most liberals ..., is to disqualify oneself from society as a hateful bigot."

I think that exemplifies the main driving force of modern liberalism. It's not intellectual. ...

Gay marriage, for instance, is a trivial issue in real world terms, but it has become incredibly important to liberals precisely because it brands huge numbers of their fellow citizens as Dalits for them to hate and feel morally superior to.
Dalits are low-caste Indians.

Again, gays and Jews are only about 2% each of the population, and they are not all anti-family. But most of them are liberals, and their leaders are carrying out a hate campaign against the family.

I would not care about same-sex marriage if it only involved what 2% of the population does in private. But the movement is out to destroy the idea that kids have a right to a mom and a dad, and they will conduct a hate campaign against anyone who disagrees.

An atheist site
Welcome to the sixteenth installment in my series where I ask the men who are leaders in the secular communities to speak out against the hate we have seen primarily directed at women. ... Phil speaks to us about the recent uptick in the amount and intensity of online sexism and thuggery and explains how and why each individual must fight to stop it.
Really? Atheists hate women? I doubt it.

If you chase down the complaints, you will find a little anecdote about how a nerdy atheist guy clumsily asked a nerdy atheist woman out on an elevator, and the woman did not know what to say, and later threw a feminist tantrum about it. Atheists conferences have been filled with discussions about whether someone acted with bad manners.

These stories are much too trivial to be called hate. Meanwhile, there are organized groups of feminists, leftists, lawyers, psychologists, and others who are systematically putting men in jail, taking their kids away, and destroying the family. Those are the hate groups.

If the Christian pro-family groups are hate groups, then surely the NY Times is a much bigger hate group. It recently published two anti-dad articles that misrepresented the research to draw anti-dad conclusions. I criticized one of the articles here. Here is the letter to the editor from the researcher:
The Importance of Dads
Published: August 29, 2012
To the Editor:

Two recent opinion articles cite my research to support their claims that fathers aren’t necessary for a thriving household (“In Defense of Single Motherhood,” by Katie Roiphe, Aug. 12, and “Men, Who Needs Them?,” by Greg Hampikian, Aug. 25). That does not fairly describe my work.

Income security is very important. But fathers in most cases are critical contributors to family income. And income security is only half the story.

Emotional security — which children develop from living in stable families where they can form lasting relationships with adults who stick around for the long run — is also important. Stable homes with one parent are rare. More often in single-mother households, children meet, attach and then say goodbye to men who are only temporarily connected to the family.

Two parents committed to each other and to raising a child together are more likely to provide the economic and emotional security children need. That large numbers of fathers cannot provide economic and emotional security constitutes a serious social problem.

Princeton, N.J., Aug. 28, 2012

The writer is a professor of sociology and public affairs and director of the Center for Research on Child Well-Being at Princeton University.
Of course this feminist professor ends up trashing dads in the last sentence anyway. She has spent most of her career publishing bogus attacks on dads.

Notice also how her letter is carefully worded to be acceptable to the gay lobby. She says, "Two parents committed to each other and to raising a child together". The research actually favors two parents raising their own child.

McLanahan refuses to put any of her papers on her web site, but I found one of her papers:
To summarize briefly, we find that children who grow up apart from their biological fathers do less well, on average, than children who grow up with both natural parents. They are less likely to finish high school and attend college, less likely to find and keep a steady job, and more likely to become teen mothers.
So far, so good. That is what all the studies show. Kids who are reared by single moms or step-fathers do not do as well.

The problem occurs when she injects her own feminist theorizing. Instead of simply arguing that dads should have better child custody decisions, she argued that dads should pay more money and be jailed more if they don't:
Why would this be so? Why would the loss of a biological father reduce a child's chances of success? We argue that when fathers live apart from their child, they are less likely to share their incomes with the child, and, consequently, mothers and children usually experience a substantial decline in their standard of living when the father moves out. ...

Stronger child support enforcement may also redress the other two factors that determine children's resilience in the face of family disruption: the loss of parental resources and the loss of community. Fathers who are required to pay child support are likely to demand more time with their children and a greater say in how they are raised. Such demands should lead to more social capital between the father and child. Similarly, greater father involvement is likely to lead to less residential mobility, retarding the loss of social capital in the community.
This is crazy. The whole child support enforcement scheme is designed so that the more the dads pay, the less they see their kids.

If it is really fair for the SPLC to call the FRC a hate group, then it is also fair to call the NY Times, McLanahan, and others purveyors of hate speech. They are advocating policies that put good dads in jail, to the detriment of their kids. The FRC is not advocating harm to anyone.


Ryu said...

Whoa! Is this the twilight zone?

An MRA who mentions the jews? Unthinkable.

But be careful. I've seen the trick before. Just keep asking for more and more evidence - when google is a click away. A man can make you his errand boy, running around wasting your time. I used to encounter it often.

Anonymous said...

and there are many more on that site.

Anonymous said...

He is right. The FRC is not a hate group. Even if it made a mischaracterization of a movement back in 1999, so what? There are liberal groups who lie all the time.

This is some special kind of logic, alright. So what if you mischaracterize or lie, if you suspect others have done so as well, it's ok to do it ? So what, huh ? I guess this is what you mean by, "I have some Christian values."

George said...

So a group is a hate group if it ever mischaracterizes the evidence? Then surely the NY Times, SPLC, and Princeton are hate groups.

Anonymous said...

I'm not talking about what constitutes a hate group, rahther just pointing out how someone can justify and rationalize lying and mischaracterizing.

George said...

Here is the FRC rebuttal to the SPLC. You can read it yourself, and decide who is lying.

Anonymous said...

interesting post at steve sailer's blog. The comment is especially so.

(if doesn't work scroll down to Quagmire's toolkit)

Anonymous said...

[Hi, Angry Dad. Saw this item on the net. Any reaction? Thomas]

Jewish "Codes" Behind the DC Shooting

If something is unnatural or anti-American or anti-Christian, the Southern Poverty Law Center is drawn to it like flies to something smelly. Which is why the SPLC hates the Family Research Council which is pro-traditional family, pro-America, and pro-Christ.
After the shooting at FRC headquarters, which could have been a massacre, FRC president Tony Perkins stated that the SPLC has "been reckless in labeling organizations hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy."
The SPLC calls the FRC a "hate" group because it follows Christ who said to His followers "Love your enemies" (Matt. 5:44).
By way of contrast, heavily Jewish SPLC follows the ages-old Talmud which HATES science, females, children (homosexual sex with children is okay!), all Gentiles, Jesus (who was born a "bastard" - Jewish Encyclopedia), and all Christians! For sources Google or Yahoo "The Earliest Hate Criminals," "The Talmud and double standards" (July 3, 2012), and "Talmud" (Wikipedia).
Be sure to Google "Zionist Watch" (5/26/2007) which called SPLC founder Morris Dees "a Jewish radical leftist pervert...sexual deviant...flagrant adulterer...[and] alleged child molester." Also Google "The Anti-Chick-fil-A Jihad," "Mikey Weinstein, Jesus-Basher," and "The Background Obama Can't Cover Up."
As you can tell, the SPLC (which is chummy with fellow schmucks including the ADL and ACLU) is a "love" group!
BTW, the one five-letter name starting with "J" that SPLC etc. hate (no, not James or Julia) warned in Matt. 24:9 that in the end times "ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." (I wonder how soon the SPLC will work for the banning of the Bible, the one book that America's greatest leaders highly exalted - Google "Dangerous Radicals of the Religious Right.")
While the SPLC and think-alikes are busy back-stabbing evangelicals (viewed as Israel's best friends), the same schmucks are creating a huge backlash that will bring about the predicted end-time slaughter of two-thirds of Jewry and Jerusalem's devastation (Zech. 13 & 14). By doing all they can to help fulfill the Bible's predictions, the pervs at the you-know-what are actually making the Bible even more believable!

George said...

Apparently Professor Lee Jussim does research on stereotypes, and found that most of the study show the stereotypes to be accurate. He must be doing politically incorrect work.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, maybe he's doing politically incorrect work. Maybe not. Why do you think he's charging $80.00 for his book ?

Did he research the sterotypical MRA, who says, "so what" about hate groups lying ? Why do you care about the SPLC lying and not about the FRC lying ? I don't doubt that the SPLC is lying, but to me, it does matter who's lying, and who cares about whether it matters or not. That's just me though.

George said...

I doubt that the FRC is lying. It is a political advocacy group. Such groups do sometimes overstate their case. If the FRC did that, then go ahead and correct them. Pres. Obama also overstates his case all the time.

I object to trying to marginalize pro-family groups by name-calling.

Anonymous said...

You don't think that you try to marginalize political advocacy groups and others you disagree with by name calling ? Please...

I wouldn't know where to begin in correcting the FRC's lies. The SPLC isn't any better. Research either, and you're just left with believing which mischaracterization or lie you want to believe.

Anonymous said...

"If the FRC did that, then go ahead and correct them."

"But be careful. I've seen the trick before. Just keep asking for more and more evidence - when google is a click away. A man can make you his errand boy, running around wasting your time."

George said...

I will save you some trouble. The FRC is a pro-family group, and they are hated for anti-family political reasons.

Anonymous said...

Seems like anyone you don't agree with is anti Christian, and anti family.

George said...

On this blog I complain about all of the forces that are enabling family courts to separate kids from good parents.