The Southern Poverty Law Center is the Most Dangerous Hate Group in America

The best thing we can do right now is expose them.

By Michael Brown Published on August 24, 2017

Which is more insidious, the enemy that you recognize or the enemy that appears to be your friend? Which is more dangerous, a rag-tag bunch of poorly-funded White Supremacists or a well-organized, massively-funded, “civil rights” organization which demonizes Christian conservatives? And which lie is more likely to spread, one that is false from beginning to end or one that mixes falsehood with truth?

Based on the obvious answers to these questions, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is the most insidious and dangerous. And the lies of the SPLC are more likely to spread. The SPLC even has blood on its hands. By its own definition, it should be listed as a hate group (more on both claims below).

Holocaust Deniers, Islamic Terrorists and … Catholic Ministries?

To give you an idea of just how dangerous the SPLC is, consider this recent headline from the San Diego Union-Tribune: “Eight hate groups are in San Diego’s backyard, civil rights organization says.”

Really? Eight hate-groups in San Diego’s backyard? How does that make you feel if you live nearby? What protective action should you take? And who, exactly, are these groups?

Some are Black Supremacist groups. One denies the Holocaust. One supports Islamic terrorism and wants to establish Sharia Law. And two are conservative Christian organizations.

That’s right, two conservative Christian organizations, including the Ruth Institute, a Catholic, pro-family organization, led by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, are listed side by side with radical Muslims, Black Supremacists, and Holocaust deniers.

This is the insidiousness of the SPLC. It exposes genuine hate groups alongside fine Christian organizations whose great sin, according to the SPLC, is being “anti-LGBT.”

 The SPLC exposes genuine hate groups alongside fine Christian organizations whose great sin is being “anti-LGBT.”

Put another way, you are “anti-LGBT” if you believe that it’s best for kids to have a mom and dad. Or that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman. Or that homosexual practice is sinful. Or that gays can change, or that Bruce Jenner is not a woman, or that a 15-year-old boy should not be able to play on the girls’ sports teams and share their locker rooms and showers.

And since you are “anti-LGBT,” according to the SPLC, you are a hater. And if your organization or ministry is known for such views, you belong on their hate list side by side with the KKK, neo-Nazis, Black Supremacists, and Islamic radicals.

As for the Ruth Institute, that organization explained that its “primary focus is family breakdown, and its impact on children: understanding it, healing it, ending it. If this makes us a ‘hate group,’ so be it.”

As for the SPLC having any constructive interaction with the Christian groups they vilify, why would they do that? As the Ruth Institute noted, “No one who creates those designations has ever contacted us, to inquire about our mission or values. We do not know how an organization becomes christened a ‘hate group’ or how an organization gets off such a list.”

When Dr. Ben Carson is an “Extremist”

In 2012, I was included on an SPLC list featuring profiling “30 Leaders of the Rising Radical Right.” I was listed alongside men like David Duke of KKK infamy and Malik Zulu Shabazz, former head of the New Black Panthers.

According to the press release:

Thirty key leaders of the radical right, both longtime agitators and newcomers, are profiled in the report. These extremists — including anti-government activists, racist neo-Nazis and propagandists who promote falsehoods about Muslims and the LGBT community — are making headway by exploiting anger over the nation’s ailing economy, non-white immigration and the shrinking white majority.

Once again, you see the insidiousness of the SPLC’s work. Christian conservatives like me (and prayer leader Lou Engle and historian David Barton) were included among leaders of the “radical right” simply because we believe what the Bible says about homosexual practice. (For my response, see here.)

Using this same logic, should the SPLC one day publish a list of “hate books,” the Bible would be on their list. (Note also that groups and individuals which expose radical Islam are also on the SPLC’s hate list.)

The SPLC subsequently removed me from their list (with no explanation and no response after I exposed their error and called for face to face interaction). But a few years back they added a new name to the list: Dr. Ben Carson!

That’s right. Famed neuro-surgeon, presidential candidate, and now Cabinet member Ben Carson was on SPLC’s “extremist” list until Bill O’Reilly exposed it. SPLC then removed his name with an apology. How in the world do they still have credibility?

Lumping Christian Legal Groups in With Neo-Nazis

Thankfully, the FBI, among other law-enforcement agencies, no longer relies on the SPLC’s data. But for years the SPLC was a major source of information for our government, reminding us once more of just how dangerous they are.

And thanks in part to CNN republishing their national hate map in the aftermath of Charlottesville, the SPLC is receiving a fresh wave of financial support. This includes a one million-dollar donation from George Clooney and, with consistency, millions of dollars from J. P. Morgan and their ilk.

And lest you think that the SPLC is hurting financially, its 2016 Annual Report shows net assets of almost $34 million and an endowment fund of just under $320 million.

Their “hate group” map breaks groups down into major categories. They include: Racist Skinhead, Neo-Nazi, White Nationalist, Black Separatist, Ku Klux Klan, General Hate, and Anti-LGBT(!). So, along with lots of accurate reporting about truly hateful, dangerous groups, they mix in some deadly poison. Specifically, their libelous misrepresentation of Christian conservatives organizations.

And just which Christian organizations are they attacking? Here’s a small sampling:

  • The Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the most respected Christian legal firms in the world. ADF has successfully argued cases before the Supreme Court and was involved in arguing the landmark Obergefell vs. Hodges.
  • The American College of Pediatricians, “a nonsectarian medical organization whose crime is that they publish scientific facts damaging to the ideology of identity politics.” (This organization consists of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and others.)
  • The America Family Association, which for several decades has stood for family values in our nation.
  • Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, which simply disseminates factual information about LGBT issues.
  • Liberty Counsel, another highly respected Christian legal firm which represents Christians in major cases across the land. (The Pacific Justice Institute, yet another fine Christian legal firm, makes it onto this same list. How dare these Christian groups defend their constitutional rights!)

This is just a sampling of some of the Christian groups listed. Once again, a fine organization like the Illinois Family Institute is put on the same list with Westboro Baptist Church of “God hates fags” infamy.

Time to Expose the Real Hate Group

Another group on the list, D. James Kennedy Ministries, has decided that it’s time to fight fire with fire. They filed a lawsuit against the SPLC (along with Amazon and Guidestar, which, they claim were influenced by the SPLC).

According to the suit:

SPLC acted knowingly, intentionally, and with actual malice in publishing the Hate Map that included the Ministry and in publishing the SPLC Transmissions to Guidestar that included the Ministry. SPLC’s conduct in making these publications was beyond the reckless disregard for the truth standard required by Alabama law for punitive damages.

In 2011, after the SPLC labelled Focus on the Family a “quintessential hate group,” I pointed out how the SPLC, based on its own criteria, was the real hate group. Their criteria included the knowing dissemination of false information and the demonizing of other people and groups. This describes the SPLC to a tee when it comes to their defamation of Christian conservatives.

They must now be exposed and called to account, since their lies have actually led to the shedding of innocent blood.

The SPCL must now be exposed and called to account, since their lies have actually led to the shedding of innocent blood.

I’m speaking, of course, of the attack on the FRC by Floyd Lee Corkins, a gay man who was hoping to carry out a massacre of Christians but was thwarted by a security guard whom he wounded. As Corkins himself stated, “Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups. I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

Corkins even found their address courtesy of the very same map just reposted by CNN. Yet the SPLC never apologized.There were never consequences to their recklessness. And millions of dollars continue to pour into their coffers.

It’s high time they are exposed for the hate group they have become, leaving them with two choices. Either they remove the fine groups and individuals whom they defame from their lists, or they become ignored and discredited.

Since they’ve shown no signs of contrition for their wrongful acts so far, the best we can do right now is expose them.

Help me do so by sharing this article if you agree. We don’t want to see any more bloodshed because of the SPLC’s irresponsible spreading of hate and fear.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Howard Rosenbaum

    Well, it seems that to be Christian & on that list is in reality a badge of honor.
    Perhaps they should include some type of a rating system w/their acclamations.
    You know, the most insidious get five unbalanced scales while those representing a somewhat lessor threat to their cause rate perhaps only one. Guess which groups or individuals will rate the five. Hint, not those w/violent theocratical shariah supporting extremist tendencies . Hey wait those guys aren’t even on the list …..!!!

    • Tim Pan

      Who would you trust to make those determinations?

  • Tim Pan

    I disagree the Democrat party is the most dangerous hate group in America.

    • samton909

      same thing

      • Thomas Sharpe

        agree,, incestuously related, same thing….

  • john appleseed

    Social media giants (Facebook, Google, YouTube) get guidance from the SPLC as they ban what they call ‘hate’ from their websites.
    This is how Christians & other conservatives are being harassed & shut down on the sites.

  • JM

    homosexuality is a sin and when I ask pro homo ”christians” (which in reality there are none and these people are just deluded to think they’re Christian) where in the Bible is homosexuality ever given a green light. I get the usual ‘well Jesus never mentioned homosexuality so that must mean that he was okay with it’ if Jesus was okay with homosexuality we would find a verse about him saying he is okay with it but there is none. why would he leave it up to us to find out whether he is okay with it or not? if he was okay with homosexuality he would have just said so and there would be no reason for him to keep quiet about it. there is much evidence to conclude that Jesus did not support homosexuality but no evidence that he was okay with it. these pro homosexual ”christians” are not pro homosexual because Jesus was pro homosexual (because Jesus was not) but because we live in a pro homosexual society and they follow the ways and beliefs of society, not the Bible.

    • Concerned Christian

      is a “pro homo christian” just a LGBTQ person that professes Christ or does it also include non-LGBTQ Christians who believe members of the LGBTQ community should have rights? Specifically the right to marry?

      • JM

        anyone who professes to be a Christian and supports homosexual ”marriage” is a christian in name only. no Christian should be supporting this. God did not call us to do this. you are keeping people in sin by doing this.

        • Concerned Christian

          would that apply to fornication as well? i.e. should Christians push for laws that make various sins against the law?

          it seems for something like fornication, Christians oppose it but allow people to commit it. Do you agree with this and if so, is there any correlation to homosexual marriage? Basically, you’re not in support of it but you don’t oppose anyone’s right to do it.

          • JM

            I also believe that fornication is wrong and that Christians should take a stand against that as well

          • Concerned Christian

            pass laws to make it illegal?

          • JM


          • JM

            No, because although fornication is a sin, it doesn’t change marriage being one man and one woman (which is what God ordained it to be)

          • Concerned Christian

            k. thanks for the responses.

  • David MacKenzie

    There is also evidence that Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, has just recently given SPLC a big donation, as well. Can Tim Gill be far behind?

    • samton909

      Tim Cook is gay. Tim Gill is gay. Tim Gill – alone – pumped 422 million into the gay marriage thing. Now you know how a country that was firmly against gay marriage had it imposed on them via a sophisticated PR scheme. Tim Gill even brags about how he was able to purchase state legislator seats for, on average, about ten thousand dollars a seat.

      Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they were disovered to have conditioned their contributions to the SPLC on Christians being denominated a hate group. What sick people these are.

  • James Pierce

    Who died and made the SPLC the authority to decide what a “hate group” is, anyway?

  • SophieA

    Yes, Dr Brown, how in the world has SPLC retained a shred of credibility? How is it that proof exists that their “map” incited actual violence against innocent people and they get a free pass and increase their coffers? Unbelievable!

  • mbabbitt

    I think it’s time to organize a massive protest against SPLC in Montgomery, Alabama, perhaps a march against their hate. Just the buildup to the march would get them exposed.

  • Paul

    Soon it will be a badge of honor to be on their list, much like saying I’m deplorable.

  • JM

    Who made the liberals in charge of everything? did God leave his throne and put them on it to take over? no one should be forced to view things the same way they do. I don’t have to agree with homosexuality if I don’t want to. it’s my view and I should not be forced to change it. they’re going around and acting as if they own the joint.

  • samton909

    George Clooney supports a hate group like the SPLC. Wow. The SPLC, according to its founder, was founded as a money making proposition. They have over 300 million in assets. They have won awards from the Direct Marketing Association. Their leaders live in luxury. It is nothing more than a scam to scare the pants off of gullible leftists who hand them money on the notion that Nazis are under every bed, and that Christians are evil. It is one of the sickest groups going today.

  • Jeremy L

    The Ruth Institute (and many other of the organizations mentioned here) ride on the same old narratives of “gays can’t be monogamous”, “they’re all pedophiles”, and the like. Expressing a view that someone’s relationship is bad for a dumb religious reason is one thing. Actively propagandizing and stigmatizing a group of people is another thing entirely. Even if Brown, Morse, and the rest really do believe what the say about LGBTs, it doesn’t mean they are justified in what they say and do. Not considering yourself hateful doesn’t mean you aren’t hateful. There is no correlation between the acceptance of gay marriage and the deterioration of heterosexual marriage. No one’s heterosexual family is being hurt. Children raised by gay couples are not being harmed. Gay people can change their behavior, but not whom they are attracted to, and are not obligated to be celibate just because seeing gay couples bothers you (and yes, they can be stable couples). Being a jerk to a trans person because they don’t fit into your neat little gender categories is not merited. And yet all the groups Brown is venerating think otherwise, effectively defying reality and human decency. They can’t just have their “I don’t like homosexuality” belief, they have to support it by pushing false narratives and non-justifications that are not true or sound even if the people pushing them think they are. The SPLC got it right, Brown.

    • Joel

      “Not considering yourself not hateful doesn’t mean you aren’t hateful” I think in this situation you are confusing hateful and hurtful. I think this discussion is made a lot in the discussion of LGBTQ issues. Just because someone says something that is seen as hurtful doesn’t mean they have the malicious intent that is an indicator of hate.

      For example, if a doctor tells you that you have cancer, the message the doctor is saying would be hurtful, but the doctor is not being hateful. The doctor is making a diagnos of the situation. When a Christian group calls homosexuality wrong or a sin, they are making a diagnosis based on their religious convictions. Now those convictions and the diagnosis may be right or wrong, but it doesn’t make it hateful. Actually, if their religion is correct, the opposite would be true in that they are actually being helpful to people, just as a doctor would be in notifying you you have cancer and could die from it.

      • Jeremy L

        I like that you say “the diagnosis may be right or wrong”. There are certainly Christians who really might think they’re helping, but I personally will always think of them as misguided. But again, “I think you’re sinning” is one thing. “You are a threat and we need laws against you” is another thing entirely. I don’t doubt that the groups on SPLC’s list have a main goal of “marriage is good!”, but that doesn’t cancel out that they are portraying gays in an unfounded negative light that encourages anti-gay stigma. “Homosexuality is a sin” is not a hateful statement per se (if SPLC thought so, most churches would be on their list). But the groups SPLC targets are not simply declaring that belief, but pushing narratives about LGBT that are demonstrably false. And it doesn’t matter if the groups sincerely think their narratives are true.

    • Aliquantillus

      Homosexual acts and “gay marriage” moral are in themselves moral evils. They are contrary to reason and the natural law. And even if you don’t believe this, there’s nothing legally wrong according to American Law to oppose and to campaign to outlaw gay marriage. Just as the campaign to change the law in favour of gay marriage was legal. so is a campaign against it equally legal. Freedom of speech entails protection of speech that you don’t like. People are not haters for having an opinion which is unfavorable to you.

      • Jeremy L

        The groups on SPLC’s list are not merely campaigning against gay marriage. They are propagating falsehoods. Even if they sincerely think their ideas about gays are accurate, they aren’t. The typical lines of “They could totally not be gay if they wanted to”, “They can’t be monogamous” and “they are all pedophiles” and everything in between are not true. But the groups have to push these narratives in order to rationalize their irrational anti-gay goals. Logically, there is no compelling reason to outlaw gay marriage or gay sex acts. “It’s against my religion” is not a valid reason to outlaw them. Their “evilness” is just an opinion and arguments from “natural law” are fallacious. In short, The Ruth Institute, FRC, ADF, AFA, and the rest manipulate stereotypes and misconceptions of gays in order to portray them as a “threat” to monogamy and “the family”. If these groups really do intend to strengthen marriage and family, then that is indeed amiable. But they are not simply doing that. “We care about family” is their cover. Driven by prejudice, they blindly insist that gays cannot participate in the institutions of marriage and family or are somehow destroying them. Their definition of “family” is sadly narrow. They don’t understand the meaning of family at all. Their insistence that a heterosexual nuclear family is the only good and effective family is demonstrably wrong. Their insistence that a gay relationship could never be good like a straight relationship is demonstrably wrong. Defamation is not the same as disagreement. Every “family” group SPLC lists is defaming gays, not merely disagreeing with ssm or gay acts. That’s what makes them hate groups.

        • Aliquantillus

          Even propagating falsehoods belongs to freedom of speech. All political parties every now and then deliberately propagate falsehoods without being criminalized. And who is to be the judge whether something is a falsehood or not in theological, philosophical and world-view matters? The inquisition of the SPLC? It’s a free country here, and everyone has the right to propagate what he views as the truth.

          • Jeremy L

            There is a fine line between free speech and hate speech. If hate speech is tolerated, the result is injustice. When you tell lies about people with the insistence and conviction that they are true, the people who you target suffer. When you say something that harms people, that’s when you need to be held accountable. “Family” groups use their false narratives to disenfranchise gays for no valid reason. The SPLC is now holding them accountable.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            please Jeremy tell me what is hate speech and who defines it ?

            The first amendment guarantees free speech for all including those we disagree with. Anything that tries to diminish this or tries to silence speech especially from groups that we disagree with or don’t like is over stepping on someone else’s freedom and dictating what they can and can’t say. Thus it is unconstitutional.

            The splc is targeting groups that it dislikes regardless of wether they are real or pose a real threat or are an actual hate group.

          • Jeremy L

            All the groups SPLC targets clearly pose a threat. What do you think would happen to mixed-race people if I started passing out flyers that said, “Mixed-race people are child molesters with a plot to destroy society” followed by some Bible verses that I think support this notion and some “statistics and facts” from lunatics outside mainstream and reputable scientific communities. I mean, it’s free speech right, right?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            1. SPLC threats are on the basis of trying to silence and shut businesses and organisations they disagree with.
            2. You could state that, what you wanted about mixed race families but what would be the basis and biblical justification for behind it and doing so ?
            And mainstream community?

          • Jeremy L

            It isn’t mere “disagreement”. The groups need to be shut down because they are defaming gays with lies that put them in danger.

            So now I need “biblical justification” to have free speech? So now “biblical justification” makes defaming and endangering people with lies okay? Are Muslims excused from terrorism because they have “Quranic justification”? It doesn’t matter if your belief system upholds your harmful speech and acts. They are still harmful!

            Mainstream scientific, sociological, and medical experts all reject the narratives “family” groups push about gays.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            1. What lies and what danger ?
            2. What ? I am talking about biblical justification on disliking mixed race families. Again what endangerment?
            Regardless of wether or not you agree to the speech stated, free speech is open to all and trying to silence or shut it down is anti first amendment. “Harmful” ? What for? Standing for a particular principle and convictions especially when considering and compared to actual hate groups that employ violence and aren’t actually getting stopped.
            What narrative?

          • Jeremy L

            “They could not be gay if they wanted to. And they should be obligated to not be gay.”
            “They’re all pedophiles out to get your children.”
            “They can’t be monogamous.”
            All of the above are lies groups on SPLC’s list purport. That’s their narrative.

            Dangers: Gay teen comes out to gay parents. Parents remember what “family” groups said about it being completely a choice. Parents throw child to streets to starve to death because he “wouldn’t unchoose his gayness”. Gay man walks into a store to buy milk. Cashier remembers “family” groups’ words about gays being pedophiles. Cashier beats gay man to death thinking he was going to molest a kid who happened to also be in the store. And if everyone believed “they can’t be monogamous,” no gay person would be judged as an individual. They could lose chances at jobs and other opportunities because someone got a presumptuous idea about gays from the “wholesome” folks at the good old FRC or wherever else. Think about police brutality against blacks. You think that comes from nowhere? There are entities that push “blacks are criminals”, “blacks are violent”, “blacks are thugs”. Some of them while claiming not to be racist! Same sort of thing here. When it comes down to it, not all hate groups have to employ violence. They just have to perpetuate it. Even if they don’t believe they are responsible, they still are.

            You said free speech should be limitless, right? So why do I need “biblical justification” to speak against mixed race families? Wouldn’t wanting to constrain speech with a religious test be anti-first amendment? What happened to “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? In the end, I shouldn’t be stopped from saying “Mixed race families are evil” because it isn’t “biblical”. I should be stopped because I’d be saying something wrong and harmful. Just because it is backed by a sacred text or perceived to be backed by a sacred text does not mean a view is good or should be protected from being challenged. Free speech never meant freedom from the consequences of your speech.

          • Jess

            Who in the hell are you quoting here? Personally, I have never heard anybody say such ridiculous things.

          • Jeremy L

            They probably don’t say those things directly or explicitly. but the groups on SPLC’s list certainly believe them in some fashion. Or have they moved on to, “They just have to be celibate”, “Many are pedophiles”, and “Gay monogamy is rare”? They may try to be careful with their language to try and sound reasonable, but it isn’t fooling anyone.

  • Joseph Byon

    We need to pray that Apple company would go out of business.
    Users who would like to donate to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that monitors extremist and hate groups, and alerts police to their activities, can now do so through Apple iTunes. When users log on to the service, they’ll now have the option of donating cash to the organization in increments of $5 to $200. Apple will donate 100% of the proceeds to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The move is a response to the recent Charlottesville violence.

  • Otho Cooley

    Someone has aptly stated, “What we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history.” Rebellious human beings continue to make the same mistakes today as we read from the past historical record. Greece, Rome, and ancient Israel all bore the consequences of their sins against God that destroyed their civilizations.

    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave
    thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
    were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

    24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their

    28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and
    depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.
    They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

    Through the grace of God, provision is made to change our hearts and lives. Today, if you hear His voice, harden not your hearts.” (Hebrews 3:15) Jesus stands at your heart’s knocking to gain entrance. As a result of opening the door of your heart, the transformation is made by grace through faith to make one a brand new person. “For whosoever will call upon the Lord shall be saved.” (Roman 10:13)


  • Only the ADL is wealthier than the SPLC, from the same funding (((people))).

  • (D)umb(N)othing(C)unts

    Not only are splc a organized criminal empire they promote hate and racial divide by profiling and false information. Basically fake news !

    • Volkhard Smith

      90% are targeted white groups only
      Look up: Jared Taylor
      He’s never promoted or acted out on racism nor has he ever said anything Anti-Semitic yet he’s targeted because he’s Pro-White

  • And the mainline media is in bed with the SPLC.

    The media is a business that like all businesses is driven by the bottom line: it must make a profit to stay in business. It’s reporters must, therefore, write articles that motivate its readers to come back for more and who will therefore become loyal customers.

    This requires sensationalism and sensationalism doesn’t lend itself to the truth. Consequently, no one should expect truth to be of paramount importance to the media, especially being the Author of truth is of little significance to the mainline media sources.

    Deuteronomy 8:3 charges us to live “by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Yahweh.” The word of everyone else should only be accepted based upon the criterion of “two or three witnesses,” per 2 Corinthians 13:1.5 Seldom is this statute observed by the media. Instead, they find their own preferred sources that contribute to their desired sensationalism (e.g., the Southern Poverty Law Center), citing them as their experts, and then broad brush everyone they’ve targeted as the same. Truthful, unbiased testimony is seldom the objective.

    Whereas the bottom line is of paramount necessity, it’s not the media’s paramount objective. The media is not impartial. It has an agenda like everyone else. To know what that agenda is, one needs to ascertain whether the media is known for being conservative or liberal? As for the mainline media, it should be self-apparent that theirs is not a conservative agenda.

    The impression of an independent press in America is part of its illusion. In 1898, at an annual dinner of the American Press Association, John Swinton, the one-time editor-in-chief of the New York Times, was called upon to toast journalism and America’s free press. He responded in a surprising way:

    “There is no such thing in America as an independent press, unless it is in the country towns. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write his honest opinions, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150.00 a week for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with—others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things—and any of you who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinions would be out on the street looking for another job. The business of the New York journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to revile, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his race and his country for his daily bread. You know this and I know it, and what folly is this to be toasting an “Independent Press.” We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” (John Swinton (1829-1901), Editor-In-Chief of the New York Times, speech at an annual dinner of the American Press Association, sponsored by the New York Press Club, quoted by Upton Sinclair, The Cry for Justice: An Anthology of the Literature of Social Protest (New York, NY: Lyle Stuart Inc., 1963) p. 482.)

    For more, see blog article “The Lying Pens of Today’s Scribes.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Blog and click on top article.

  • Boris

    The SPLC has been funneling money to off shore bank accounts. This may not be illegal but it isn’t ethical either.

    • Apu Bugolligosh

      Thought Congress passed laws against this kind of thing. Investigation should be opened.

  • Charles

    These people need put out of my misery. They are asking, to get taken down the hard way.

    • Topher Smith

      You first.

  • Anonymous age 72

    So, what is all the fuss about? All major civilizations openly accept LBQT, the last few hours before the collapse. All is normal.

    But, those who think the society which replaces this one, and one needs a good tongue in cheek to use the word society in reference to what is coming at us, will also allow open practice of homosexuality, are going to be facing a great shock.

    I am old. Old enough I can remember when homosexuality was a major felony. And, the gays kept pushing their propaganda. One of the most common was, it was no one’s business what they did in the privacy of their own bedrooms. A lot of people bought into that argument.

    It is no longer about anything private. In fact, everyone is forced to openly bow at the altar of LBTQ, which is totally different from privacy of a bedroom.

    The important thing which the libs have attempted to ignore is, what is required for sustainability of a civilization? Sustainability of a civilization has always required a monogamous patriarchy, period.

    Laugh all you want. The end is here. Everything is in place, and it won’t be long.

    Dr. Unwin in 1934 wrote a book Sex and culture, in which he says (and documents) that by examining sexual liberty of women in a society, you can tell everything about it. How inventive and prosperous it is; what sort of religion it has, and more. He says in any society in which women obtain complete sexual liberty, that generation of women will see the end of that society. Interesting book, available on-line. Last copy I saw went for around $700, now there simply aren’t any more.

    My copy cost $160, and looked like it had been abandoned on the Interstate.

    Note he does not just say these things. He refers to specific societies in history.

    In modern western society, women have had complete sexual liberty for several decades. And, part of the collapse is the terrible debt the governments have incurred, to try to appease the dearies, an impossible task.

Gotta Serve Somebody
Joe Dallas
More from The Stream
Connect with Us