Regarding the article, it was about the Values Voter Summit, the sponsoring groups and the nature of falsehoods they have disseminated about the LGBT community, and the politicians who made the decision to participate.  I stand behind the article and its content.

Do I think that groups should be labeled as hate groups simply because they have discriminatory policies? I believe a higher bar needs to be set or the term is cheapened.  Regardless of whether or not the term has legal definition I believe that the term is been deservedly applied by a private organization (SPLC) to FRC and AFA based on the toxic nature of information they disseminate and the social consequences of that behavior.

But what struck me in reading your material is that I believe it has given you away.  It is written in a very slanted fashion and I take the intent to be to discredit both an individual (Mr. Potok) as well as an organization’s work through both speculation as well as painting an entire body of work by some discrepancies.  Let me be specific.

Regarding Mr. Potok having a higher salary than Heidi Beirich who has a doctoral and a couple of Masters degrees, you issue the statement: “Well, Dr, B., it just goes to prove what they always say…It’s a man’s world”.  Many factors go into compensation and it is not uncommon for individuals with Bachelor’s degrees to be making considerably more in compensation than those with a Doctoral.  Without understanding the compensation practices at SPLC, I thought that to be a low blow.

Why the interest in Mr. Potok’s educational background and what’s the purpose of the continued digging relative to the work that the organization is pursuing?   I believe the intent here is simply one of trying to find something that would discredit the individual.  He has a long employment history – did the previous media organizations he worked for miss that as well?  The information that is presented is speculative.

Let’s consider the language used to describe Mr. Potok.  “SPLC’s $147,000-a-year public relations guru”.  That he “delivered a rather predictable, hour-long diatribe on the evilness of evil white/conservative/Christian men in America…”. (Actually what he addresses is a small segment of that population with extremist beliefs and actions, and the work involves more than just that population).   Very slanted language.

Regarding the Hate Map, your piece is entitled SPLC – The Biggest Lie Keeps Getting Bigger.  What’s said is that the numbers are being padded which is good for fundraising; also the reason SPLC doesn’t assign hate group status to Boy Scouts of America is that it would sit unfavorably with older contributors who were scouts.  What is important to me is not whether we can accurately locate all of these groups but whether or not there has been a rise in such groups in recent years.  And it is more than SPLC that has noted a rise in armed anti-government militias with extremist beliefs since the election of president Obama, same as was noted in the 1990’s.  I would think that if you have uncovered instances of discrepancies, why not pass that along to the organization to help them with their work rather than publicizing it as a lie that keeps getting bigger?  As a note, I would think that assigning an exact location to all these groups would be exceptionally difficult.  For example, a group of individuals living in rural areas who do not have a central location but meet in homes or restaurants.  I would agree with Mr. Potok that detecting activity would be easier than pinning down a location.   Will some errors exist? Sure.  Has the trend been upward for such groups? Yes.

I left my career several years ago to care for, and support, my wife who was stricken with serious illness. I decided not to go back into the corporate world again, but rather, as a bookend to my career, devote myself to making a civic contribution.  I learned of SPLC through a flier I received at my home and the message struck me.  But I didn’t jump at it right away.  I phoned several well-respected acquaintances of mine who all gave the organization a strong thumbs up.  I additionally researched Mr. Dees background and read his book.  What attracted me to the organization was its three-pronged approach to taking on hatred: tough legal work, intelligence gathering, and education.  What they do is difficult and places them at risk as well.  Regarding financial matters, they fund their own legal actions (not an inexpensive undertaking) and the settlements go to the victims.  And they are successful, for example bankrupting elements of the Klan through the legal system (the Klan has been considered by some scholars as being the first functional fascist organization of the 20th century); taking on the issue of LGBT bullying (a hate action of discrimination); taking on abusive employment practices regarding immigrants; etc.  I believe the work they have done, for example, regarding Sovereign Citizens is quite important having recently met an individual in law enforcement just recently who described just how dangerous that group is.

My personal belief is that SPLC is performing a much needed public service.  Legal definition or not, I’m glad there is an organization like SPLC that has made the public aware of the type of information being disseminated by groups like FRC and AFA.

To that end, let me just say that the very term “hate group” is generally misused by the SPLC. There is no legal definition of the term and the SPLC’s definition is intentionally broad and vague.

“All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an
entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map

The SPLC uses this deliberately vague term because it allows them to denigrate those with whom they disagree without accusing them of any actual crimes.

As I read it, the BSA’s statement that “all gay men lack the moral values to be scout leaders” meets the SPLC’s own spurious definition completely. So why do they give the BSA a free pass?

If not because of the donor connection I mentioned earlier, another logical possibility is that, unlike the gap-toothed hillbillies the SPLC traditionally targets, the BSA has access to competent lawyers and extensive cash reserves. Plus, the negative publicity would damage their credibility with their traditional donor base. Again, it all comes down to money.

Speaking of money, and your suggestion that I contact the leadership of the SPLC, it turns out that two weeks ago we had the opportunity to ask Mr. Potok a very serious question, in person, and we have his reponse on video.

The link I posted above leads to the SPLC’s primary fund-raising tool, their so-called “Hate Map,” where they purport to identify “hate groups” (by their own definition) across the country. The most recent version of the “Hate Map” claims there are now 1,002 “hate groups” in the US as of last year, but if you actually click on the state maps, you’ll find that every state has “groups” that Mr. Potok cannot affiliate with any particular town or city.

Check out your own state and the neighboring states. In some cases, the percentage of phantom “groups” runs as high as 80% to 100%.

It turns out that there are 262 of these homeless “hate groups,” or 26% of the total. When we asked Mr. Potok about this glaring discrepency, he replied that his “Hate Map” was “an imperfect process” and “a very rough estimate.” Unfortunately, that’s not how Mr. Potok portrays his numbers in the media or in SPLC fund-raising literature.

His response is here:  http://wp.me/pCLYZ-bc

Google the term “1,002 hate groups” and see how often this meaningless number is repeated around the world. This deliberately dishonest claim is the keystone of the SPLC’s continuing fear campaign that brought more than $31 million donor-dollars into their coffers last year alone.

In fact, while Mr. Potok bumped up the number of alleged “hate groups” by 70 last year, the number of homeless “hate groups” jumped by 100. Does that sound logical?

Unfortunately, we didn’t get to ask Mr. Potok about the BSA. After fumbling around for an answer to the “Hate Map” question, he wisely moved on to other folks in the audience.

The more I read about the SPLC, and 99% of what I read comes directly from the SPLC web site or media statements released by Mr. Potok, the more convinced I am that the primary mission of the SPLC is to amass as much tax-free income as possible. I’m not alone in this belief, as numerous articles in such sources as the SPLC’s hometown paper, the Montgomery Advertiser, Harper’s Magazine (hardly a bastion of Conservatism) and even the Progressive magazine have all raised this question over the past two decades.

As you might imagine, my findings are not always popular with those whose entire knowledge of the SPLC comes solely through Mr. Potok’s public relations department, so I created a blog to document my findings and I cite every source diligently. I invite anyone to examine my findings and to dispute anything they find in error. I’m only responding to the evidence I see and I’ll be the first to admit that I’m wrong and retract every claim.

Mr. Potok knows of my blog and neither he, nor any other member of the SPLC, have ever bothered to refute my claims. As the video shows, even Mr. Potok has to admit that my charges are legitimate.

Thank you again for the opportunity to have this conversation.

Richard

In 2008, the SPLC’s public relations chief, Mark Potok, recieved a Media Award from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, (GLAAD), for his reporting on LGBT issues.

In January, 2009, one of the first controversies facing President Obama was an impassioned plea by GLAAD and several other major LGBT groups that he not accecpt the honorary presidency of the BSA, as had every other US president going back to 1912, precisely because of this anti-gay discrimination.

Certainly Mr. Potok must be aware of this blatant discrimination. Why does he say nothing about it?

What exactly do you think the BSA meant when they stated that:

“The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role
model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and
that these values cannot be subject to local option choices.”

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3qs6akq (This is a rather slow link to the original document on the Internet Archive)

Is the BSA afraid that openly gay men are going to pilfer money from the Cub Scout popcorn fundraisers? That they will auction off Merit Badges on Ebay to the highest bidder?

No. The implication is that the BSA believes that gay scout leaders will molest the scouts. So how is this any different from anything that idiot Phelps preaches or statements from the FRC?

All I’m saying is if Mr. Potok is going to target anti-gay lies from one group he needs to target them from EVERY group. You can’t pick and choose just to mollify the donors.

As for the BSA taking their case to the Supreme Court, I’ll just say that Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were SCOTUS decisions too and the Court upheld the rights of neo-Nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods in Skokie… twice, but that didn’t make it any less hateful.

Frankly, I disagree with your contention that it’s okay for the BSA to discriminate against anyone, as long as they keep their lies within the context of their private organization.

Hate is hate, regardless of the uniform.

I will get to hatred in a moment, but the legal issues with BSA and homosexuality involved claims of membership discrimination.  This was eventually settled by SCOTUS in BSA v Dale where the court ruled that as a private ‘expressive association’ the BSA could set its own membership standards consistent with the Constitutional right of Freedom of Association.  Although I do not agree with all beliefs of private associations, best I know the BSA keeps these beliefs within the context of their organization and does not engage in public demonization of homosexuals.

That is a far cry from the activities of FRC and AFA that would support legal sanctions against homosexual behavior as well as legislation that would restrict civil rights to that minority group; and they take to the airwaves with their message of known falsehoods and lies about the LGBT community.

Regarding ‘conservative Christianity’, when did it become fashionable to bear false witness against thy neighbor including such known falsehoods that gays are sexual predators with children, that they are vicious individuals which is why Hitler recruited them, that these vicious individuals were responsible for the Holocaust and the killing of 6 million Jews, and that homosexuality is an illness that can be cured (both the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association take exception to the practice ‘reparative’ therapy).

When did it become fashionable in ‘conservative Christianity’ to hold up signs at anti-Gay rallies that read: “God Hates Fags”; “U R Going to Hell”; “Thank God for AIDS”; and quoting Christian scripture in support of Gay Rights being AIDS and Hell as well as “Sodomites are Vile, Unnatural, Unhealthy and Worthy of Death”.  I have devoutly Christian friends who are appalled and offended at this language, behavior and use of scripture saying that it is of no resemblance to the faith they practice.

Now, onto hatred.  Although the link you provided claims that there is no legal definition for ‘hate group’, ‘hate crime’ is legally defined not only here but internationally.  Unless one wishes to argue that there is no consequence to language, it is difficult to deny that the fear mongering and falsehoods issued by FRC and AFA do not create/reinforce/fuel social intolerance and bigotry, thus contributing to an environment conducive to the commission of hate crimes.  Homosexuals are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than any other American minority and, if I may, this includes such things as a baseball bat being shoved up a man’s rectum, a man being severely beaten and tied to a fence left to die, and young men being bullied to the extent that they commit suicide.  I listened to Mark Potok in Montgomery this past April and I agree with his statement that words do matter.  I personally take no exception to the use of the term ‘hate group’ understanding that the consequence of the language is fostering fear, hatred, intolerance, and thus an environment conducive to the commission of violent acts.

Now, regarding the politicians who attended the summit, my belief is that as lawmakers they have a greater obligation to our diverse citizenry than vying for votes.  Having been in ranking executive positions myself, I have declined invitation in the past, and my belief is that these politicians should have done the same.  Something along the lines of the following would have sufficed: “Although I personally disagree with homosexual behavior, or perhaps fail to understand it, I find that as a lawmaker I must decline participation in your summit due to the nature of the language  that has been issued by sponsors of the event that is damaging to a segment of our citizenry”.

Extremist Christian fundamentalists HATE environmentalists and science.  If mankind is able to turn the tide of damage done to Mother Earth, that diminishes the threat of using Gawd’s fire & brimstone as power to control the masses.  The nutjobs produced a video called “Resisting the Green Dragon” to make their flock of sheeple fight AGAINST cleaning up the environment. 
The nutjobs fail to mention that “Big Oil” is the name of their God.  The Religious Right and Big Oil are joined at the hip to push their agendas, or more precisely, IMPOSE their agendas upon all Americans. 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/beware-green-dragon

If you watch the video, you clearly see that it is these so-called Christians who hate and fear environmentilism because it threatens their “Christian” hocus pocus money making machinery – religion, fear, fire and brimstone!

For pete’s sake, you would think Janet Parshall was talking about Voldemort with all the fear-invoking buzz words (in bold) she used in the introduction of this video:

Janet Parshall, Author and National Radio Host
“In what has become one of the greatest deceptions of our day, radical environmentalism is striving to put America and the world under its destructive control.  This so-called ‘GreenDragon’ is seducing your children in our classrooms and popular culture.  Its lust for political power now extends to the highest global levels.  And its twisted view of the world elevates nature above the needs of people of even the poorest and most helpless.  With millions falling prey to its spiritual deception, the time is now to stand and resist.  Around the wold, environmentalism has become a radical movement, something we call the Green Dragon, and it is deadly.  Deadly to human prosperity, deadly to human life, deadly to human freedom and deadly to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Make no mistake about it, environmentalism is no longer your friend, it is your enemy.  And the battle is not primarily political or material, it is spiritual.” 

Here are a couple more incredibly ignorant remarks in the video:

Bryan Fischer, American Family Association
“As a former pastor, I’m always on the alert to threats to the Christian faith. And make no mistake about it, environmentalism is exactly that.  It is its own religion.”

Dr. Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention
“Environmentalists have a long history of believing and promoting exaggerations and myths.”

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have stated publicly for decades that “gay men lack the “moral values” required to be Scout Leaders,” and refuses to hire openly gay men as such.

That sounds like a malicious falsehood.

Despite the fact that the BSA recives public funding AND that it’s core mission is to mold the minds and shape the characters of millions of American boys, it doesn’t seem to meet the SPLC’s srupulous “anti-gay hate group” threshold. You won’t find a word about it on the SPLC web site.

In the same statement, the BSA also claims that “duty to God is not a mere ideal for those choosing to associate with the Boy Scouts of America; it is an obligation.”

So, when is a conservative Christian “hate group” NOT a conservative Christian “hate group”?

The answer is simple. Many of the SPLC’s mostly elderly donors were Scouts, or the proud parents/grandparents of Scouts, and linking the almighty donors to a “hate group” is bad for business.

Fighting “hate” is all well and good until it cuts into the bottom line.

http://wp.me/pCLYZ-8u

Some “experts”