Connect with us

Watch: President Tony Perkins Delivers ‘State Of The Family’ Address

Published

on

In his first annual “State of the Family” address, the night before the State of the Union address, FRC president Tony Perkins offers ugly vision for America.

In what can only be described as an embarrassing attempt at self-importance, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins delivered his first annual “State of the Family” address Monday night, just 24 hours before President Barack Obama is to deliver the State of the Union address.

The video, below, was broadcast live. It opens with a glorious stage-setting intro, complete with iconic monuments of Washington, D.C., and the Family Research Council logo interspersed. One short segment show Perkins walking up the steps to the Supreme Court, then the words “Defending Marriage” appear. Also in the opener, oddly, are scenes from NOM’s March for Marriage. The words “State of the Family” are emblazoned throughout.

At one point, viewers see this:

frc_2.jpg

And this:

frc_1.jpg

But when the video opens to Perkins, what viewers are actually getting is this:

frc_3.jpg

It’s a deceptive attempt to make FRC and Perkins to seem as if only they can “Defend Marriage,” “Protect Life,” and “Preserve Religious Liberty.”

In short, it’s an advertisement.

In the room appear to be about 40 people. Perkins, having set himself up for a fall, opens with, “Good evenings ladies and gentlemen,” but lets it slide.

It takes him a few minutes to set up his theory: “Religious freedom is essential to promote the view that all humans have dignity.”

And then, he goes in for the anti-gay attack.

“Moreover, the individual’s dignity, as both history and the social sciences reveal, is aided and promoted best by the family, in which a mother and father love and respect each other and their children.”

Note he doesn’t mention any particular study, but “the social sciences,” which actually reveal that two-parent – not necessarily a mother and father – households are often better to raise a child. 

Perkins then adds, “it is the family, and the individuals within it, that are essential to our communities, our economy and to the strengthening and flourishing of a free and open democracy. Therefore, when religious freedom is devalued, the worth of individuals, families, and ultimately our democracy are undermined. For some people today religious liberty is simply freedom of worship.”

And he insists, “religious liberty proceeds from and informs the core of the human being.”

The issue of course is Perkins’ definition of religious liberty. To him, it mean fundamentalist Christians should control how everyone in the country behaves, and what they believe.

And, like every good hysteria-promoting theocrat, Perkins goes right to Hitler.

Nazi Germany sought to replace God with the false worship of Aryan supremacy. Hitler dreamed of the removal of the Bible from every pulpit in Germany and its replacement with his manifesto Mein Kampf. He leveled a campaign against the Church, as well as Jews, believing historical Christianity a “scourge” and urged his aides to see Germany “immunized from this disease.” He believed that Christianity made men soft, unfit in his regime of eugenic purification. He despised the Gospels’ great commandments of love and their basis in the transforming claim that all persons have equal value before their Creator.

And then, of course Reagan.

Perkins goes on to attack President Obama, Obamacare, and then to hold up as heroes the Klein family, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the Oregon bakery that refuses to follow the law and bake cakes for all couples, not just the ones their interpretation of the bible allows them to.

At one point, calling it a “non-negotiable principle,” Perkins claims, “People should not be forced to pay for abortion, or other acts that violate their moral conscience.”

Which for many would mean no taxes to pay for wars, or subsidies of oil companies, and absolutely no taxes to subsidize organized religion or religious lobby groups, like the Family Research Council.

Unsurprisingly, the only major news outlet to report on Perkins’ speech was the very anti-gay Washington Times.

Perkins’ speech is long, about an hour. Watch if you like, or read the full transcript.

Video begins about 10 minutes in. Watch the intro, if nothing else.

Responses on Twitter were as expected, highly critical, and rightly so:

 

 

Images via YouTube

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation

Published

on

Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.

Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”

“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”

In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”

He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”

“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”

“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”

“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”

The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.

“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”

Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”

Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.

Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.

Continue Reading

News

Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs

Published

on

President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.

“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”

The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”

Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”

TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”

Critics blasted Trump.

“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.

One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”

Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”

The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

News

One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.

According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.

Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”

“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”

Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”

Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.

Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.

The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.

“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.

The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.

“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.