More on the SPLC

A good article about the Southern Poverty Law Center by Austin Ruse for Mercatornet. A longer article but worth your time.

SPLC: A ‘poverty’ project whose aim is to destroy Christian pro-family groups The Granny Warriors are a dangerous hate group. Just ask the crack investigators at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

. . . SPLC likes to portray itself as a neutral referee, merely involved in calling balls and strikes when it comes to “hate.” But in a 2008 speech, Mark Potok let slip the mask when he said, “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.” The problem here is that the media gives SPLC a free ride. Whenever my group is covered in the press, or FRC, or Alliance Defending Freedom, or American Family Association, or any of the many other conservative Christian groups, the report inevitably tags us “designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.” No reporter that I know of has ever done his own research to determine if this label fits or is fair. Consider also the word “designated”, as if SPLC is a governmental entity with the authority to determine such things. . . .

Terrell Clemmons has written about SPLC in Salvo, where she describes their organization as “a self-appointed, national thought-crime hall monitor.” It’s a funny description, but their actions are anything but.

Salvo Links June 8, 2017

Sympathy for the Devil
A culture that has a command of reason and the byproducts of reason — science and technology — but lacks faith has made a Faustian bargain
by Archbishop Chaput,

‘The future does not look optimistic at all’
A look at Japanese population issues from an expert.
by Marcus Roberts, Mercatornet

Drag Queens, “Queers,” and Toddlers, Oh My!
by Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute

As Evergreen State descends into chaos, LGBTQ students find refuge in ‘Rainbow Fort’
by Toni Airaksinen, The College Fix

Enforced Gender Ideology—Bill 89


Have you heard about the proposed “Bill 89” in Canada? From

The bill adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” to what is considered “in the best interests of the child,” noted John Sikkema, a lawyer with the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada.

At the same time, it deletes the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child as a factor to be considered, and replaces that with “creed.”

Bill 89 mandates that child protection services consider the “child’s creed” — or whatever the child tells a Children’s Aid Society (CAS) worker their creed is or isn’t — not the religion in which the parents are instructing the child, according to ARPA’s analysis.
Bill expands state’s power to intervene in families

Bill 89 also gives child protection services greater power to intervene.

It retains the provision in the current law that a child who is suffering or “at risk of suffering” mental or emotional harm and whose parents do not provide “treatment or access to treatment” is need of protection under the law.

. . .

So “you can imagine a situation where, say, a child’s teacher suspects that a child is gender questioning or something and they’re not being supported in that,” said Sikkema.

In such a case, a teacher would “actually have a duty to report certain things to a Children’s Aid Society who would look into it further.”

Added Sikkema: “We may be seeing a shift towards essentially enforcing gender ideology in families.”

Here is some sane commentary on the matter from the Canadian group Parents As First Educators.

This topic has been covered in the pages of Salvo many times.

Further reading from Salvo:

Failed Operations
Medical Malpractice in an Age of Gender Denial Disorder
by Terrell Clemmons

Doctors Delusional
Transgender Disorder & Really Bad Psychiatry
by Boris Vatel

Unmaking a Difference
Is Gender Neutrality the New Stereotype?
by Robin Phillips

On the UN IPCC—Beholden to Politics

41clemmons2The summer issue of Salvo mailed out today in which you can find the latest “Surveillance” article, this time on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Some good info here to counter the recent media meltdown surrounding the United States’ withdrawal from the international climate agreement known as the Paris accord. Terrell Clemmons writes:

. . . Two things are especially important to note about the IPCC. First, its stated objective of “understanding” the scientific basis of human-induced climate change assumes that human-induced climate change is real and that there exists some scientific basis supporting it. Both are debatable, but to question either is to set oneself at odds with the IPCC’s very reason for existence.

Second, the qualifier, intergovernmental, is important. The IPCC is a panel born of, driven by, and beholden to politics, not science. The IPCC does not ask science academies to nominate experts in their fields and then fill positions from there. Nominations are sought from governments, which means that the political philosophy wielding power in participating governments influences (if not controls) IPCC personnel. Former chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri explicitly confirmed this in 2013: “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. . . . [We are] at their beck and call.”2

So what we have with the IPCC is an authority-laundering outfit, functioning under the guise of science as an objective advisor to governments when it is in fact appointed by and subject to those governments. This undermines legitimate science and, to the extent that the panel deigns to dictate from on high how the rest of the world should live, constitutes attempted tyranny. . . .

Read the rest—Climate Control Religion: The Genesis of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by Terrell Clemmons

What Science Marches Are Really About

Dr. Stephen Meyer on the recent science marches:

“They’re conflating political claims about the need to fund the EPA or to prevent the Keystone pipeline with science,” said Mr. Meyer. “They’re conflating religious and philosophical claims about materialism with science. And then they’re conflating particular theories with the practice of science itself, such that if you disagree with those theories, you’re deemed a ‘science denier.’”

“So it’s massive confusion because of the conflation at all three of those levels,” he said.

Read the rest from Discovery Institute: Science March Massively Confuses Science with Politics by David Klinghoffer