Dustin Siggins

News

SPLC urges army to declare American Family Association an ‘extremist’ group

Dustin Siggins
Image

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 16 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In response to calls by the Southern Poverty Law Center to have the army declare the American Family Association as an “extremist” group, the spokesman for the AFA has shot back, accusing the SPLC of being the true “hate” group.

“The AFA doesn’t hate anyone,” AFA Director of Issue Analaysi and Spokesman Brian Fischer told LifeSiteNews.com in an e-mail. “The real hate in all this debate is coming from the SPLC and is directed toward people of faith. The real hate group here is the SPLC.”

Last week, the SPLC urged Army Secretary John McHugh to list the American Family Association (AFA) as an extremist group. 

According to SPLC's Josh Glasstetter, McHugh should classify the AFA as an extremist group because, he claims, Director of Issue Analysis and spokersperson Bryan Fischer has said homosexuals are responsible for the Holocaust. He also says Fisher has said Muslims should be deported from America, and wants women, Muslims, and homosexuals disallowed from military service.

Earlier this year, McHugh came under fire after a presentation to soldiers identified the AFA as a hate group in the same category as the New Black Panthers and the KKK. He sent out a memo on October 18 halting the Army's inclusion of the AFA as an “extremist” group after “media reports” showed that the classification was spreading throughout the Army's educational courses. 

McHugh said the AFA does not fall under Army Regulation 600-20, which includes classification of extremist groups based upon federally protected classes of people. The AFA, which is considered an “anti-gay” group by the SPLC and others, did not qualify as an extremist group because homosexuals are not a protected group under federal law, he said. 

Glasstetter also cites Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 1325.6, which says service members may not be part of extremist organizations that attempt to deny civil rights. In e-mails to LifeSiteNews.com, Glasstetter maintained that AFA tries to deny homosexuals civil rights, women the right to serve in the military, and Muslims the right to live in America. 

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“The Defense Department regulation on extremist groups includes organizations that 'advance efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.' We believe the AFA meets this standard. In addition to its vicious anti-gay bigotry, AFA wants to remove women from the military and deport Americans who practice Islam,” said Glasstetter. “SPLC has designated AFA as a hate group because it demonizes and defames gays and lesbians. The group regularly lies about gays, portraying them as pedophiles and predators, and it openly supports discrimination – including criminalizing consensual sex between adults.” 

“This is what separates AFA from other social conservative organizations and makes it an anti-gay hate group. [While] AFA’s speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment, the military says that '[h]igher and more restrictive standards of conduct distinguish military personnel from their civilian counterparts.'” 

The SPLC considers the AFA a “hate group,” a designation also given to racist and violence-oriented organizations such as the New Black Panther Party and the KKK. This is a very different standard than the one set by the FBI when it comes to hate crimes – the FBI looks at actual crimes committed, whereas the SPLC has its own standards. The FBI has recently drawn criticism for listing the SPLC as a “resource” on its website.

Fischer told LifeSiteNews.com that the SPLC is conflating some of his personal views with those of AFA. “The AFA has taken no official position on women in combat, Muslims in the military, or the repatriation of Muslims. When I speak on my radio program, the ideas I express are my own, as our disclaimer at the end of every program makes clear. The SPLC is simply in error to think that every time I speak, I am reflecting the official position of AFA.”

Fischer also pushed back against the idea that AFA is a “hate group.” “We advocate as an organization for a robust Christian faith among the American people, the public acknowledgement of God, the abiding moral standards of the Ten Commandments, and the central importance of the family rooted in the marriage between one man and one woman. It is ludicrous in the extreme to compare an organization that defends these values with the KKK, the New Black Panther Party, or any other organization that advocates violence. We have never advocated violence. We believe political change comes through ballots, not bullets.”

While he declined to comment on AFA specifically, DoD spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen told LifeSiteNews.com reiterated Department of Defense Instruction 1325.6, which he says “strictly prohibits military personnel from advocating or participating in supremacist, extremist, or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes, including those that advance, encourage, or advocate illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin or those that advance, encourage or advocate the use of force, violence or criminal activity.”

“Commanders at all levels take this issue seriously and have the authority to employ the full range of administrative and disciplinary actions against military personnel who engage in these prohibited activities,” said Christensen. “Anything that negatively affects readiness or undermines military values must be dealt with and DoD continues to work closely with criminal investigative agencies to ensure that gang activity in the military is aggressively investigated and appropriately prosecuted.” Christensen noted that each service has its own policies and procedures regarding extremist activity. 

The SPLC has had a growing influence on public policy at the federal level. As LifeSiteNews.com reported in November, it collaborated with the Bush Administration in 2007 and in 2012 a co-founder was invited speak on diversity. The military has also utilized the SPLC for equal opportunity information and data. 

The SPLC has been directly linked to a shooting at the Family Research Council's Washington, D.C. headquarters. The shooter said he found the headquarters on the SPLC's “Hate Map,” and planned to kill people in the building. One guard was wounded in the attack.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
A photo of Kim Tucci at 25 weeks gestation Erin Elizabeth Photography
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News,

‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
Image
An ultrasound of the five different compartments, each with its own baby, inside Kim's womb.

AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life. 

“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September. 

“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote. 

Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds. 

The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again. 

After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test. 

“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.

The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five. 

“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”

“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.

Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.” 

“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”

“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.” 

“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.” 

“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born. 

The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well. 



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News

UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads. 

The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution. 

“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters. 

UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.

“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.

But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it. 

The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”

Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.

“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said. 

While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms. 

“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added. 

Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born. 

“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.

“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
JStone / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News,

Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.

"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.

There have been over 58,000,000 abortions since the 1973 court ruling legalizing abortion in all 50 states, according to National Right to Life.

That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.

“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."

Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.

All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.

Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.

On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”

Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.

At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.

But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook