When Liberals Attack They Call The Victim A Hate Group
August 16, 2012 23 Comments
Yesterday a gunman attacked the headquarters of the Family Research Council (FRC) in Washington DC. The gunman shot a security guard who was able to prevent him from harming more people. FRC is a pro-life group that also opposes homosexual marriage. They believe in traditional marriage as defined since creation, that being a marriage is between one man and one woman. The gunman is a volunteer at a LGBT community center in DC. Thus this is an act of domestic terrorism. But of course don’t expect the left-wing media to call it that. There will be no somber speech from the President. This act of terrorism will be swept under the rug.
Not only will the left ignore this act of terrorism, they’ll attack the victims. Within three hours of the shooting the Huffington Post called FRC a hate group. They’re getting the marching orders from the notoriously left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center. SPLC pretty much declares that anyone they disagree with is a hate group. Some of that is fine, no one would argue with the KKK or the Neo-Nazi’s labeled as hate groups. But FRC, give me a break. FRC has an honest policy disagreement with SPLC and the left, that doesn’t warrant the designation of a hate group. Of course in the world of the SPLC, liberals and liberal groups can never be labeled with the term hate.
Of course the only reason why the Huffington Post calls FRC a hate group is to justify what a liberal did. They won’t condone it of course but they will let their readers get away with making an excuse for it. We’re to walk away from this thinking “I don’t agree with what he did but I understand why he would attack a hate group.” In the post-modern world of progressive liberalism, this sort of logic is typical. I’ll give credit to the homosexual groups who are distancing themselves from this shooting. But the fact that the liberal press feels the need to unjustly label FRC as a hate group for no other reason than a left-wing outfit called them as such does little more than make an excuse for the fat homosexual who shot a FRC security guard.
Just last year the media was quick to blame Sarah Palin and Tea Party rhetoric for the Rep. Giffords shooting. Just last month ABC was quick to blame the Tea Party for the movie theater shooting in Colorado. Conservatives and Tea Partiers had nothing to do with either of those shootings as the facts quickly showed. But that didn’t stop the speculation from the left-wing media. They have been silent about the FRC shooting. MSNBC devoted a whole 17 seconds to the shooting and claimed it wasn’t politically motivated. A LGBT volunteer shoots a security guard at a left-wing labeled “hate group” while carrying a Chick-fil-A bag. Yeah, that’s not politically motivated at all. Sure MSNBC. Chris Matthews at least had the sense to ignore the shooting rather than make such an absurd argument.
What the media will not discuss is the left’s hatred for conservatives. Yesterday’s shooting is but one example. The media would go wild if a conservative shot a guard at GLAAD. But a liberal shoots a guard at a conservative group, it’s ignored and well, the group is a “hate group” so no one cares if they get shot at. Last year the violence at the Occupy Wall Street protests was largely ignored by the media. Yet the media routinely accused the Tea Party of violence yet there was never any documented act of violence. OWS saw thousands of arrests, there hasn’t been a single arrest at any of thousands of Tea Party events over the last four years. The media ignores or makes excuses for violent liberals, they unjustly attack conservatives without a shred of evidence.
Yesterday we saw the hate of liberals in action. We saw it in the actions of a fat homosexual LGBT volunteer who shot a security guard at a conservative organization’s headquarters. We saw the hatred of the Southern Poverty Law Center which laughably calls everyone they disagree with a hate group. We saw the hatred of the media in citing SPLC, as though FRC’s designation of a hate group somehow made shooting their security guard acceptable or understandable. There is a lot of hate on the left, so much so that when liberals attack they call the victim a hate group.
About Steven
You’re right on target!
It is simply ridiculous that the FRC is classified as a hate group by anyone. This should serve as a good example of why the Southern Law Poverty Center should hold zero creditability with anyone who has any knowledge of what they do. I’m not so sure they shouldn’t be classified as a hate group themselves, given the hate they are trying to stir up.
Apparently SPLC lists the black panthers as a “right-wing” hate group. These people are nothing but marxists attacking everyone they disagree with as “hate” groups. They even claim David Barton is a hate group ring leader. It’s absolutely ridiculous that anyone gives these people any credibility.
“Apparently SPLC lists the black panthers as a “right-wing” hate group.” Cite, please.
“Advancing Faith (ed: of one sort), Family (ed: of one sort) and Freedom (ed: for some)”. Edited for correctness.
Honestly, your reply makes no sense. Please cite examples of how the FRC is guilty of what you accuse them of.
“FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society”. This mission necessarily requires that other faiths and views on what facilitates a just, free and stable society must recede. That is what I meant by qualifying “Advancing Faith” with “of one sort”.
“Properly understood, “families” are formed only by ties of blood, marriage, or adoption, and “marriage” is a union of one man and one woman.” This view necessarily holds all other definitions of “families” and “marriage” as inferior or hazardous. This is what I meant by qualifying “Family” with “of one sort”
Freedom? Well marriage is a no-brainer, right? Hetero? Sure you can get married!! Gay? Sorry, that would be detrimental to the whole of our society. Beyond that, if you read the policy positions on the frc website it tough to find any that seek to remove regulations but plenty that tell you who to marry, how you should learn about sex, how you should die (e.g. euthanasia), etc. This is what I meant by qualifying “Freedom” with “for some”.
All quotes are from FRC.org, BTW. Hope this clears up my earlier post.
Oh, and in case you missed it “Advancing Faith, Family and Freedom” is the FRC tagline on the banner of their homepage. I was playing off of that in my earlier post.
It never ceases to amaze me at how a Christian organization can be accused of all manner of evil and wrong doing, simply for standing up for what they believe in. The FRC is not harming anyone. They are not inciting violence towards anyone, or a group of people they disagree with. Just because they have these standards, and refuse to back down when someone disagrees with them, doesn’t mean they are a hate group.
Didn’t you know that anyone who disagrees with the left is a hater?
Depends entirely on how you define ‘harming’, I guess. It is one thing to have your standards and stand up for what you believe in – nobody can fault that. It is another thing entirely to systematically denigrate and demonize those with whom you disagree as a dangerous menace to society, relying on faux science and obfuscation. Gays are pedophiles. Gays are systematically diseased and predatory. That is why FRC has been labelled a hate group; cause they, you know, hate homosexuals.
You know, it would be SO refreshing if y’all would just stand up and own it. What you believe – the belief that you are standing up for – is that you know better how to live life than everybody who is not a heterosexual Judeo-Christian. Everybody else is necessarily less and in need of redemption or saving or whatever. That is just fine and you are certainly free to do so – just don’t get all in a tizzy when a group like the SPLC points it out. Be honest about your judgmentalism and condescension. Just own it.
You lefties label them a hate group because they support traditional marriage. Why don’t you guys own it, you label everyone you disagree with a hate group. The left loves to project their own hate on everyone else. Just be honest about it.
This goes back to our ‘intolerance of intolerance’ exchange – the ‘value’ you are defending and that the SPLC (and the left/progressive/etc.) is condemning is, itself, intolerance.
Note that the SPLC isn’t calling the Catholic Church or the Baptists or any other group that supports and advocates for your definition of traditional marriage a hate group – that isn’t the issue. By any reasonable measure, the FRC goes much, much further with it’s propaganda and disinformation – that is the issue. Disagree with gay marriage all you want, but tell the truth.
And who gets to determine what “disinformation” is? The self appointed experts at the SPLC?
Nope the pediatricians who consistently debunk the ‘science’ the FRC spouts.
Read this: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
Each item is nicely refuted with links to those who study these things professionally (and without a foregone conclusions about how the data must fit the bible-based conclusion that gays are icky).
I see no reason to believe any of the hate put out by SPLC.
It isn’t anything ‘put out by the SPLC’. The SPLC offers links to evidence from associations of professional psychiatrists and pediatricians and the like. Unlike the FRC, the SPLC doesn’t manufacture evidence to support a foregone ideological conclusion – instead, the SPLC exists to call out those who do.
SPLC is funded by Soros and leftists but we’re supposed to pretend they have no ideology. Look, we can play the expert game all day long with regards to FRC’s conclusions or the conclusions reached by any doctor, psychiatrist or scientist. What would be the point?
Of course they have an ideology – calling out those who lie, obfuscate and defame; tracking hate groups and supporting vulnerable populations. If that is ‘leftist’, awesome.
Ultimately your Soros bogey man doesn’t change anything about the evidence from the professional organizations whose expertise on which the the SPLC relied. The SPLC did not create the science debunking the FRC’s propaganda – they just bring it to light. I’d never argue they (or anyone or anything else) were perfect, but they have done some truly great work aiding at-risk populations.
And as for the point, it is to know what is true. I’m a scientist. I want to understand reality. Pretty modest, eh?
Science used to be about understanding the world God created. Now, at least in the sort of science that gets debated in the broader public, has become a politically charged ideology battle with the scientists leading the political war. Politics has infiltrated science to the point that truth matters not, beginning with Darwinism.
Except that SPLC is a group which lies and defames those they disagree with while supporting the perversion and immorality of the homosexual death style. There are two sides to the story.
“…while supporting the perversion and immorality of the homosexual death style”
And there it is. Thanks.