Brian Tashman's blog

BarbWire: Pro-Gay Groups Are The Real Homophobes

BarbWire’s Gina Miller thinks gay rights advocates are leading a Satanic movement from Hell that is bent on murdering Christians, but she insists that she doesn’t have a bigoted bone in her body when it comes to gay people.

In fact, Miller writes today that she can’t understand why she gets “maligned as being ‘homophobic’” for simply speaking about “the immoral, unnatural and very unhealthy reality of homosexual behavior” and warning that the “powerful, evil tyrants” of the “anti-American, anti-freedom, Godless Left” have “dumbed down” young people to embrace gay rights.

You see, according to Miller, homophobia doesn’t exist and has no meaning…but if it does, then it describes only those who choose to “step aboard the hijacked-rainbow express” and support equal rights for gays and lesbians.

“It should occur to any thinking man that those of us who speak boldly against this diabolical movement are in reality the opposite of ‘homophobic,’” Miller writes. “I can tell you that if there is anything close to ‘homophobia’ out there, it is found in people who bow in subservience to the perverse demands of the homosexual movement.”

I do not fear homosexuals, irrationally or otherwise. Anyone who speaks unequivocally of the immoral, unnatural and very unhealthy reality of homosexual behavior is invariably maligned as being “homophobic.” Superficially it doesn’t even make sense, but when you look a little deeper, it should occur to any thinking man that those of us who speak boldly against this diabolical movement are in reality the opposite of “homophobic.” If I am unafraid to call a spade a spade, then how can I be accused of being afraid of the spade? It’s nonsense, but homosexual activists don’t let sense impede their wrong-headed assertions and twisted agenda.

While I do not concede the faulty premise of the sham term “homophobia,” I can tell you that if there is anything close to “homophobia” out there, it is found in people who bow in subservience to the perverse demands of the homosexual movement. It is the people who run corporations who fear lawsuits by these activists, and who cast aside the rights and concerns of their employees to accommodate the small percentage of deviants who insist on imposing their degenerate bedroom habits on their coworkers and workplaces.

If “homophobia” were a real thing, it would describe the behavior of politicians and managers and leaders of companies, schools, churches and institutions who abandon their moral convictions and compromise their principles in obeisance to what they inherently know is wrong. Why do they do this? Their “homophobia” (which, in truth, is just cowardice) directs them, because it is out of fear of media attacks, lawsuits, loss of employment, even fear of the disapproval of others, that they step aboard the hijacked-rainbow express. But using the term “homophobia” to describe what is simply cowardice isn’t right, because the fact is that “homophobia” is a phony construct of the radical Left. It is a word weapon with a false meaning.

We have allowed the Left to abuse and distort our language for so long that we may not be able to gain control of the national dialogue. We are also at a disadvantage in that the powers of the air — the media, entertainment, Hollywood, and the rest — are controlled by leftists, so naturally they determine the “memes” and the terms. Neither does it help our cause that the younger generations are being dumbed down to the point that many of them leave school unable to write a coherent paragraph, much less have a strong grasp on the meaning of words and why it matters. But, that’s just the way the anti-American, anti-freedom, Godless Left likes it. Dumb people are as malleable as the “new” term “gender,” and they can easily be made to proudly and stupidly embrace their chains by the powerful, evil tyrants who have a very good grasp on the English language.

WND: TNT's 'Dallas' Is 'Taking Orders From Obama'

After yesterday’s earthshattering exposé on US aid to provide basic sanitation for children in Kenya, WorldNetDaily is out today with yet another report on a Watergate-level scandal, this time exposing how the TNT show “Dallas” is a tool of the Obama administration.

A WND article with a classic “just asking the question” headline, “Is ‘Dallas’ TV Show Taking Orders From Obama?,” suggests that White House officials used a scene on the TV show to promote opposition to fracking.

The Obama administration may be strategically writing its agenda into your favorite television shows.



Now there’s reason to wonder just how many of its policies the Obama administration may have been “nagging” Hollywood to promote.

That’s because the similarities between a recent television episode and one of the latest moves by the administration may be too uncanny to be mere coincidence.

The March 10 episode of TNT’s “Dallas” featured a plot in which the main character, Bobby Ewing, conspires with the Sierra Club to highlight the purported plight of the lesser prairie chicken to stop fracking on the Southfork Ranch.

Seventeen days later, the Obama administration’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it had listed the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species.

Of course, natural gas production has increased dramatically under the Obama administration, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has warned [PDF] about threats to the lesser prairie chicken’s population decline for the last 15 years.

The debate about the lesser prairie chicken’s status has been taking place forseveral years … but no, “Dallas” probably just got orders from President Obama himself to include it on the show in order to brainwash unsuspecting viewers. Or maybe not! Just asking the question!

Pat Robertson Warns Obamacare Is 'Killing People,' Gives Out Obamacare Hotline Anyway

Pat Robertson is no fan of the new health care reform law, even though he doesn’t seem to understand how it works . Naturally, when an uninsured 700 Club viewer today asked the right-wing televangelist if she should obtain a health insurance plan, Robertson warned her against buying insurance on the online health insurance marketplace because, he claimed, her personal information would then become widely available. He also warned the viewer that the reform law is “killing people.”

After issuing the stark warning, Robertson then gave out healthcare.gov’s phone number for people looking to enroll in a health insurance plan.

“The government is requiring doctors to put their various records electronically as opposed to in paper and then they will in turn probably be made available on the Internet, it’s terrible to think that they’re doing, these bureaucrats are killing people,” Robertson said. “But there are ways out, there’s a number you can call, it’s 1-800-318-2596.”

He continued: “I’m sure you can find a private insurer that isn’t associated with Obamacare. This thing is a disaster, I want to tell everybody, it is a disaster, they have disrupted the entire health care delivery system of the United States of America and they’re getting in exchange for that 2-3 million uninsured people who are signing up and there are hundreds of millions of people at risk, it’s a horrible thing.”

Anti-Immigrant Leader Brent Bozell Launches Latino Media Watchdog

Yesterday, the Media Research Center launched a new affiliate called MRC Latino with support from Rand Paul and the American Principles Project, a Religious Right group. On the day of its launch, MRC Latino came out with a report attacking Univision and Telemundo for allegedly having a liberal bias, suggesting that the networks are “being used as pawns of public relations” by the Obama administration. Politico reports:

The study is part of the launch of MRC’s new Spanish-language media watch group MRC Latino, which is officially launching on Tuesday. Oliver-Méndez and MRC President Brent Bozell said they hope the study and MRC Latino will lead to more conservative voices in Spanish-language media and that they plan to meet with executives at the two networks to discuss the study.

“It’s going to be outreach that we’re going to do to hopefully sit down with some of the major players in the Latino media, go through these findings and try to see if we can have a constructive dialogue,” Bozell said. “I don’t believe in any suggestion that liberals shouldn’t have their world view presented, but a, conservatives need to have equal footing. And b, you can’t use your network to actively promote a political agenda.”

MRC Latino will be run by Ken Oliver-Méndez, who “led the Bush administration’s domestic ethnic and religious media outreach, including management of the White House Spanish language web site and serving as Spanish-language coach to the President.”

While Bozell insists that the Spanish-language press is unfair to Republicans, the activist who once compared President Obama to “a skinny, ghetto crackhead” may want to consider if he himself is playing a role in damaging the GOP brand.

For example, Bozell “called for a clean sweep of the House Republican leadership if it moved forward on the issue” of immigration reform, and his group “blitzed the speaker’s office with thousands of phone calls to jam the lines and protest his stance on immigration.” He also defended Arizona’s draconian anti-immigrant SB 1070, a law strongly opposed by Latino voters.

Even though Bozell says he now supports greater Latino outreach and engagement, he once criticized “Big Tent conservatism” for hurting the larger movement. “We reject completely the idea of Big Tent conservatism,” he told a Citizens United event in March.

He also dismissed the Latino vote, which swung heavily towards Obama, in the run-up to the 2012 election and attacked the media for being “too busy celebrating and pandering to minority voters as the most crucial, special voters of all.”

Time's cover carried the words "Yo Decido: Why Latinos Will Pick the Next President."

This is odd, since whites are still 64 percent of the population. Time and CNN select the Latino vote as crucial because they want to make the Republicans cry uncle on amnesty. Time's Michael Scherer began his cover story by slamming Gov. Jan Brewer for "the most incendiary immigration law in the country."

But who made that law a national issue? The liberal media did. They put all the political pressure on anyone opposed to illegal immigration. It was "incendiary" despite a Rasmussen poll finding 70 percent of Arizonans supported the tougher law. The Obama-obedient media never found it "incendiary" for Obama to announce in 2011 that he was suspending most deportations in a transparently political move.

Take a look at the numbers from the Pew Hispanic Center, which estimated that 69 percent of Latinos voted for Democrats in 2006 and 67 percent for Obama in 2008. But in 2010, that percentage dropped to 60 percent, even though liberals surely tried to make Tea Party "racism" an issue to Latino voters.

Republicans shouldn't write off the Latino vote, but they can wonder how much of that 9-percent slice of Latinos would vote Republican if they Xeroxed the liberal amnesty position. CNN and Time could wonder if Obama will hurt his Latino "landslide" by canceling pipelines and signaling a hard-left position on abortion, gay marriage and religious liberty. But they're too busy celebrating and pandering to minority voters as the most crucial, special voters of all.

Scott Lively Denies Calling Obama The Antichrist, Admits He Did When Confronted With Audio Of His Comments

During Scott Lively’s interview with Michelangelo Signorile last week, the anti-gay pastor denied ever having said that President Obama is the Antichrist…until Signorile played audio captured by Right Wing Watch of Lively saying exactly that.

Last year, Lively told Rick Wiles of TruNews that the Antichrist “is heading the largest superpower of the world today,” obviously referring to Obama, who he predicted would eliminate “the debts of the world,” bring about “a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israelis” and establish “secular humanism” as a global religion.

Later in the Wiles interview, Lively said that gay rights will bring about the End Times and hailed Russia’s Vladimir Putin for “championing the traditional marriage and Christian values regarding the central moral issue of our time,” homosexuality.

But Lively told Signorile that he never referred to Obama as the Antichrist or Putin as a champion of right-wing Christianity: “No I didn’t say that. Oh boy, that’s quite the leap you’re making. No, I’ve never said either of those things. In terms of the Antichrist thing, we need to have a conversation about prophecy and those things for it to make any sense at all, but I did not say that Obama is the Antichrist.”

“Where are you getting this? What’s that from?,” he demanded.

But he eventually conceded that he did in fact call Obama the Antichrist after Signorile played his words back to him. “No, that’s Obama,” Lively said, but then tried to spin it as merely a “hypothetical” discussion of the End Times.

However, Lively was clearly referring to the current leader of the “largest superpower” (Obama) and even suggested that the cancellation of debts will take place in 2015.

Here is audio of Lively’s denial, and admission, from The Michelangelo Signorile Show via The New Civil Rights Movement:

Anti-Gay Activists: Day Of Silence Is 'Medical Malpractice,' 'Silences Conservatives'

Conservative groups including the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and Liberty Counsel are urging parents to keep their children at home on April 11, the annual anti-bullying Day of Silence, in order to avoid exposing them to protests against anti-LGBT bullying.

Mission America’s Linda Harvey and Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, an AFA affiliate, discussed the boycott plans on Harvey’s weekend radio show, where Harvey claimed that the Day of Silence actually represents “medical malpractice.”

“This is educational malpractice, it really is, and it really should be medical malpractice,” she said of gay rights advocacy, “especially when you have HIV rates and the other hazards we know that are out there for kids.”

Higgins added that public school educators “censor” anti-gay activists by citing concerns about “safety, or whatever that is,” and said that their curriculum “violates any kind of principles of sound pedagogy.”

Harvey warned that the Day of Silence helps LGBT and allied students feel “empowered in very inappropriate ways,” to intimidate others: “The Day of Silence, the real silencing going on is not the so-called LGBT students, the real silencing going on is conservative and Christian thought.”

“What’s dishonest about this movement is they don’t acknowledge that their end goal is not ending bullying, they’re using that; their end goal is to eradicate conservative moral beliefs or to make it socially, politically impossible to repeat them,” Higgins said. “This is dishonest to say this is just about bullying, this is really and truly about silencing conservatives.”

WND: Aid For Kenyan School 'A Slap In The Face' To Military Service Members

These days, it is apparently a scandal that an aid project is helping children gain access to basic sanitation, because Obama!

WorldNetDaily’s latest exposé, “Obama Gives Military Latrine Duty New Meaning,” reports the scandal that an engineering office in the Navy is soliciting contracts [PDF] “to provide for the construction of (16) female dry-pit latrines and to furnish and install a centrifugal pump to serve the potable water catchment system” at a Kenyan school.

WND writes that this contract is just “the latest slap to the face of U.S. Department of Defense personnel.”

The Obama administration lately has demanded much from American soldiers, who now face possible reductions in the number in their ranks as well as higher payments toward their health benefits. That’s in addition to duty in Afghanistan, or worse.

In the latest slap to the face of U.S. Department of Defense personnel, Obama now is asking those soldiers to oversee the digging of toilets at a girl’s school in Kenya, his “home country,” as First Lady Michelle Obama once publicly put it.

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command is tasked with coordinating the endeavor, involving the construction of a building containing 16 female “dry-pit latrines” for the Mpeketoni Secondary School, according to project Statement of Work that WND discovered during routine database research.

Caught red-handed, Obama!

WND even provides a drawing of the latrine plans as further proof of this scandal of the century.

Obviously, Obama is personally responsible for this Watergate-level disgrace, and came up with the entire idea of foreign aid.

Marco Rubio Doesn't Believe In Constitutional Separation Of Church And State

In a discussion with Eric Metaxas at last year’s Florida Family Policy Council summit, Sen. Marco Rubio said that the separation of church and state is a myth, arguing that the First Amendment only precludes an “officially sanctioned denomination.”

“This notion of separation between church and state, you won’t find those words in the Constitution,” Rubio said. “That doesn’t mean that we should have an officially sanctioned denomination.”

Rubio warned that “there is an effort to silence those or to crowd out of its rightful place the role of the faith community in our country. The government cannot tell you what faith to belong to but it cannot tell you that it cannot speak about your faith.”

Of course, the Constitution also doesn’t include words like “separation of powers” and “checks and balances,” but that doesn’t mean that those principles aren’t in the Constitution.

Rubio also seems to think that the drafters of the Constitution only meant to prevent the government from sanctioning one religious denomination over another. But the founders actually rejected language about “establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another” (same with “religious society” and “national church”) in favor of the more broad First Amendment’s prohibition of the “establishment of religion.”

Making Men Head Of Household Is True Women's Liberation Because It Makes Life Easier

If feminists truly want to liberate women, says author and WorldNetDaily columnist Patrice Lewis, then they should simply make their husbands head of the household so they can be free from making tough decisions.

Lewis writes today that giving her husband “the final say” is “freeing” because it “makes life easier for both my husband and me.”

The real oppressors, of course, are feminists: “If there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance. Oooh, sacrilege to the feminist cause. Feminists, presumably, must always have the last word, which I interpret as meaning feminists try to make their husbands submissive and subservient.”

In the wake of some feminist headlines this week (such as this and this), I am going to confess something so shocking, so appalling and so outrageously backward to the progressive cause that I’m certain feminists the world over will faint in horror.

Ready? Here it goes: My husband is the head of our household.

Yes, really. Here, some smelling salts will revive you.

In today’s world marinated with progressive morals and ideals, it’s tantamount to heresy for a woman to freely admit that her husband heads the household. But let’s face it: It makes life easier for both my husband and me.



As much as feminists want to deny reality, the fact remains that men and women are biologically different. (Scandalous, I know.) I like to think that God in His divine wisdom came up with the spiffy concept of a division of labor for the sake of efficiency. Divisions of labor are utilized the world over in the workplace to increase efficiency. Why not try it at home as well?

Feminists call this oppression. Homemakers call it freeing.

Why is it oppressive or subservient to look to one’s husband for guidance and strength, rather than to feminists? Why can’t it be a freeing thing for a woman to lean on her husband? Unless she’s unmarried, it’s comforting when a woman doesn’t have to “do it all.”



I am the Heart of this household, and as everyone knows, a body is no good without a heart, just as a body is no good without a head. We need both, and the fact that I view my husband as my Head in no way diminishes my importance as his Heart. But someone has to have the final say in a house for peace and order to prevail, and that job goes to my husband.

A wise Head takes advice and counsel from his Heart. My husband and I discuss all household decisions and mutually agree on nearly everything. But if there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance.

Oooh, sacrilege to the feminist cause. Feminists, presumably, must always have the last word, which I interpret as meaning feminists try to make their husbands submissive and subservient.

WND: Phony Internet Scandal 'May Be The Most Historic Outrage In The History of This Country, If Not The World'

The right-wing myth that the Obama administration handed oversight of the Internet to foreign powers continues to spread, even after it has been roundly debunked. As part of a sixteen year plan, the administration relinquished government oversight to a US-backed non-profit instead of a United Nations-led organization. But conservative activists have consistently claimed that President Obama actually gave control to the UN group, even though that is completely false.

Today, WorldNetDaily pundit Gina Loudon writes in reaction to the Internet decision that Americans should “seriously consider our options” to “find a way to throw these colluders with terrorists – these traitors – out of office,” deceptively claiming that “Obama is handing the global community the ability to control our speech, and our technological advances.”

“This may be the most historic outrage in the history of this country, if not the world, and it happened while they entertained us with bread and circuses,” she writes of the non-existent scandal.

A couple of questions for the stiff-lipped statists with white gloves quietly applauding this oh so global delight: Who can you really trust? And when it comes to the Internet, how do you know that when you increase the greasy fingers meddling in your online life, that more fingers don’t increase corruption and decrease efficiency?

Free markets and private ownership work, and that’s why the American founders chose them. When you make it “global,” with appointees farther removed from the people, you inevitably remove accountability and increase corruption.

The travesty is that we Americans actually did build the Internet! (No, not you, Al! You only built the fraudulent green movement hysteria.) Even Bill Clinton said giving away control of the Internet was idiotic. We have the strongest tradition of free speech in the world. You can kiss that goodbye, Internet lovers!

We can’t say we weren’t warned about all this trickery. Our first clue was when Obama instructed the director of NASA that his goal was no longer space travel, but rather the goal of NASA was to go make friends with Muslims. The former director of NASA, Michael Griffen, called this directive “deeply flawed.”



So now Obama is handing the global community the ability to control our speech, and our technological advances. The international body will have the ability to control us by controlling our speech, and we handed it to them. What are we getting in return?

This may be the most historic outrage in the history of this country, if not the world, and it happened while they entertained us with bread and circuses.

If the country doesn’t wake up and find a way to throw these colluders with terrorists – these traitors – out of office, it will be too late. It may be time for us to seriously consider our options, very seriously.

History will record the truth. The next entity to control the Internet, space and nuclear technology will not be so good as the Americans, who have controlled it since its birth. It cannot be, because no republic shares our bedrock foundations of free speech and individual liberty. America is founded on principles that are reverent, grace-filled and believe the best in people, and for people. What will the Internet look like when it is controlled by people who believe the state comes first?
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious