Brian Tashman's blog

On the latest episode of Generations Radio, Pastor Kevin Swanson recounted the Religious Right’s political drubbings last year, especially the failure to defeat President Obama. He claimed Obama’s re-election “solidified our doom” and will encourage the election of “a bunch of softy-wofty, weeny socialists for the years to come.” Swanson maintained that women put Obama over the top because they tend to have “more communist” views. Later his cohost, pastor Dave Buehner, agreed and said Obama “doesn’t have a mandate; he’s got a woman-date. The men didn’t vote for him, it was the women who voted for him.”

They further speculated that TIME had trouble deciding whether to name Obama or North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un “Man of the Year” since they are “both committed to Marx.”

Swanson: It solidified our doom, it effectively said there is no way out of this thing at least for the time being unless we get back to the foundations, reconstruct the foundations, which is something we’ve been talking about for a long time. Unless we rebuild families, fatherhood, young men, unless we bring back manhood, a biblical manhood, we are going to be a bunch of softy-wofty, weeny socialists for the years to come. That’s what’s going to happen. It’s going to be the single women that run most of the households in America voting and they almost always vote more socialist, more government, more communist, because they find their security in the state and not in the social structure of that family. Dave, we’re headed in that election. I think the 2012 election really was a turning point for America.

…

Swanson: The man has tremendous influence. He has got a mandate; he’s got a lot of support—

Buehner: He doesn’t have a mandate; he’s got a woman-date. The men didn’t vote for him, it was the women who voted for him, which is why he’s their ‘Man of the Year.’

Swanson: He’s got a woman-date, big time. You know, the North Korean president got the most votes from the audience for ‘Man of the Year,’ he was a close second. If you had a choice between Barack Obama and the North Korean president, they’re both committed to Marx. They are, think about it. If you interviewed both of them and you said: what do you think about Marx and the redistribution of wealth? Remember what he said on that radio station in Chicago, Barack Obama some ten years ago, he said they should have had redistribution of the wealth in the Constitution. He is so committed to Marxism and so is the North Korean president, but it was a tossup for TIME Magazine.

After attacking Obama’s “woman-date,” they then went on to ridicule Sandra Fluke. Buehner later falsely claimed that the health care reform law included “free access” to abortifacients, and said Fluke didn’t win TIME’s honor because “there’s some question about how ladylike she might be.” Swanson wondered if Fluke is a woman at all.

Buehner: This is the year that we learned that it is a fundamental right for women to get free access and their abortifacients provided free. Sandra Fluke was there telling us how it’s unconscionable that women would have to pay.

Swanson: Time did not make her ‘Woman of the Year’ though; I’d like to point that out. I think that’s a positive.

Buehner: Well there’s some question about how ladylike she might be.

Swanson: So they were like, ‘Man of the Year,’ ‘Woman of the Year,’ we’re not exactly sure.

Buehner: Yeah, you know.

Swanson: I understand.

The Christian Right activists later went on to mock Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was recently hospitalized for a blood clot, with Buehner joking that her recent medical problems were a “dog ate her homework” excuse and that “her tummy’s upset.” Swanson expressed shock that Egypt elected a Muslim president and said that Clinton is elated over the election of a Muslim because “it involves killing Christians.” They agreed that Clinton “might even put on a burka” to put Christian-killing Muslims in power, which makes sense because that’s what any “softy-wofty” would do.

Swanson: The Egyptians placed a Muslim into the presidency, which does not bode well for freedom in America. Dave, I wonder what the Secretary of State of the United States thinks about the election in Egypt. I mean, they were pretty excited about the revolution.

Buehner: They were, the Arab Spring. And Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State was unavailable for comment. It turns out that she slipped on something and maybe banged her head—dog ate her homework. She’s not feeling well, her tummy’s upset and she’s not going to make a comment.

Swanson: It’s a sad, sad day in Egypt.

Buehner: The Muslim Brotherhood, not just a Muslim but a Muslim Brotherhood, we’re talking about the radical jihadists.

Swanson: So Egypt, out of the frying pan and into the fire for Egypt. I’m afraid that a lot of these secularist nations are going to flip-flop from secularism into hardcore Muslimism and that’s not going to be a very nice transition because the Muslims have never really been known to be much kinder than the secularists, socialists and communists that have ruled these nations.

Buehner: No, they tend to be a little on the violent edge.

Swanson: If you were Hillary Clinton and you had a choice between a Christian president and a Muslim president, which would you go for?

Buehner: If I was Hillary? Well Hillary would choose the Muslim.

Swanson: Oh yeah, of course. It involves killing Christians, I mean yeah.

Buehner: She might even put on a burka to get that done.

Swanson: Yeah.

After unsuccessful attempts to knock President Obama off the ballot and defeat Obama after the election by throwing the Electoral College into chaos, WorldNetDaily now is petitioning Chief Justice John Roberts to refuse to administer the presidential oath of office. WND commentator Craige McMillan said that if Roberts doesn’t withhold the oath, he will face “impeachment and eternal dishonor.” He even compared the current state of the U.S. to Nazi Germany by warning that America will have its own Nuremberg Trials to prosecute those who had been “violating their own oath of office, continu[ing] the sham through a second presidential term”

Dear Mr. Roberts,

When you administered the oath of office to Barack Obama for his first term as president, you could have been excused for believing that Mr. Obama was qualified under the Constitution to hold the office of president, which he had sought and won. After all, Obama’s opponent, John McCain, never raised the issue of Mr. Obama’s qualifications.

Now that Mr. Obama has been re-elected and is preparing to serve a second term of office, there can be no doubt regarding his qualifications. This is because by Mr. Obama’s own admission, his father was of Kenyan nationality and perhaps holding British citizenship as well.

…

Your own oath of office, sworn before God and the American people, requires you to uphold the Constitution. (If not you, then who?) If you now administer the oath of office for the presidency to a man who by his own admission fails to meet the natural born citizen requirement imposed by that Constitution, you have violated your own oath of office and are rightly subject to impeachment by any House of Representatives, at any time, now or in the future.

If you choose the easy course of ignoring our Constitution, it does not change the fact that Mr. Obama is barred by that same Constitution from acting as president. I am sure that if you turn your judicial mind to the ramifications of this fraud, both foreign and domestic, you will understand that the harm you will have done insures your impeachment and eternal dishonor at some point down the road: If not this House of Representatives, then the next, or the next, or the next.

These things do not end well. One need only look to the aftermath of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials to see what awaits. Illegal wars. Illegal debts. Illegal laws. Will the rest of the Supreme Court’s justices, now knowing they are violating their own oath of office, continue the sham through a second presidential term? How, then, is the highest court of law in the nation any different than that pictorial proverb in Japan of the three monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil?

Given the gravity of this situation, we therefore urge you to take the honorable course of action and refuse to administer the oath of office to Mr. Obama. And yes, this will also require you to explain to the nation in the clearest possible terms why you have been compelled to take this most extraordinary action.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, for your consideration.

Conservative writer and frequent Fox News guest Erik Rush is so completely off the deep end that we really aren’t all that surprised by his latest column where he suggests that the Founders would have hanged President Obama and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “deserves” to be dragged behind a truck. This time, Rush is upset about the fiscal cliff negotiations and the possibility of new gun laws which he warns are both part of a global plot by Marxists, corporations and bankers to destroy America.

The pretense of the ongoing “fiscal cliff” negotiations (this term itself having been coined by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a big-government economist from academia) are one of the more poignant examples of this ruse. As the machinations of the Obama administration (punctuated by the President’s smug self-assuredness) and the impotent Republican leadership are given center stage, the hows and whys of our arrival here are not being discussed at all. Senate Majority Leader Harry “I-so-deserve-to-be-dragged-behind-a-pickup-truck” Reid likens House Speaker John Boehner to a “dictator,” and the surreal character of this utterance in the face of America’s current predicament should be what the press is covering, but they’re operating in a slightly different modality right now.

…

This week, I heard a conservative radio commentator refer to liberals with gun control sentiments that were “perhaps well-intended.” I was mortified. The stark reality is staring us in the face: We are under the yoke of evil men who intend to enslave us, and one of the few barriers left to them is the Second Amendment. There is no more room for the naïveté of the “well-intended.”

Black Americans, who should be among the most ardent supporters of gun rights, have fallen into mind-numbing lockstep with their liberal overseers. Following the school massacre in Connecticut on December 14, vapid black entertainers, career activists, and tranquilized black masses climbed aboard the Obama administration’s Gun Control Express without hesitation. Last week, the ever-odious societal parasite Rev. Al Sharpton announced his plans to protest the National Rifle Association in support of stronger gun control laws.

The elephant (or the communist, if you prefer) in the room behind all of the machinations I have described is that the federal government, already grown to Cyclopean proportions over the last hundred years by self-seeking narcissists, is under the control of abject radical Marxists and a kitchen cabinet of global socialists and crony corporate and banking interests intent upon transforming the very globe into a sterile dystopia.

For years, Americans have accepted the dictates of fiat regulatory agencies fabricated by our presidents, which have no constitutional authority to regulate anything. These have done little more than stultify the economy, attenuate our liberties, and bleed taxpayer resources under the pretext of operating for our own good. New federal regulations – recently called “illegal and unconstitutional” by veteran commentator Charles Krauthammer – are hitting the books every week; they all threaten to further cripple the economy, and indeed are calculated to do so, yet, when the axe falls, most Americans won’t even know that they were a factor. Using these regulations, an army of czars, and the instrument of the Executive Order, Barack Obama has become a veritable dictator.

This isn’t a time for discretion, subtlety, or conciliation. It is a time for calling out our government for what it is, and – as the Founders of our nation did – disengage from those who are too stupid or cowardly to resist slavery. Few in Congress, Democrat or Republican, and likely none of the current administration would escape hanging were America’s founders on the scene at present.

Leave it to Pamela Geller to warn that under President Obama, Jewish Americans will face immense persecution as it won’t be long “before we can’t walk down the street with a kippah or a Star of David.” She even suggested that the U.S. may soon ethnically cleanse Jews to create “Judenrein” areas. Perhaps Geller should ask the nearly 70 percent of Jewish Americans who backed Obama’s re-election why they voted for their own imminent demise.

What was once unthinkable is now not just thinkable, but entirely possible. When I was a child, I remember sitting in the backseat of the family car listening in on my parents’ conversation. I am not sure what led to the following exchange, but I never forgot it. My father said, “Nothing is forever.” And my mother said, “Nothing?” He repeated: “Nothing.” And my mother thought for a moment and asked, “Not even America?” He said, “Not even America.”

At that time the idea that America could fall was inconceivable to her (and to me). America – freedom – was forever.

But that is not so. And scarier still is the tenuous status of Jews in America. It’s hard not to draw parallels to persecuted Jews in once-friendly nations and their subsequent persecution, expulsion and slaughter. To think that Poland was once the Israel of Europe. Millions of Jews made Poland their home and had a long history there of over a thousand years. And in three short years … complete annihilation.

German Jews, meanwhile, were so very vested in the motherland they considered themselves Germans before Jews. They were war heroes for Germany in World War I.

How long do Jews have in Obama’s America? How long before we can’t walk down the street with a kippah or a Star of David? This is already reality for Belgium Jews, Swedish Jews and French Jews. Large portions of Norway are already Judenrein.

Proud Jews at Berkeley or the University of California Irvine can give you a glimpse of how things can turn, quickly, in America as well. Now that America itself has turned, everything is up for grabs.

Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt went back on VCY America’s Crosstalk, where he last month insisted that the health care reform law was meant to “take away your guns,” to talk to host Jim Schneider about the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Pratt agreed with a caller who said that drugs such as Prozac were leading people to kill and another caller wondered if drugs are “raising a bunch of Manchurian candidates.” A man purporting to be Lanza’s uncle had claimed that he was using an antipsychotic drug, Fanapt, but the “uncle” turned out to be an imposter.

Just as many other right-wing commentators blamed the Newtown massacre on the public school system, even though Lanza was homeschooled, Pratt suggested that corporal punishment, along with the arming of teachers, would ensure that schools aren’t “death traps for kids.”

Caller: These kids are on psychotropic drugs, mainly Prozac, which makes them homicidal or suicidal and a lot of the teachers who can’t handle these kids are recommending that they go in for psychiatric treatment and next thing you know they are on these drugs.

Pratt: The teachers aren’t allowed to spank them anymore, which didn’t have any long lasting effects other than, ‘I don’t want that to happen again so I’ll behave in the future.’ But the drugs, as you were getting to I think change their minds.

…

Caller: I also wanted to know on the coattails of the gentleman that mentioned Prozac: are we raising a bunch of Manchurian candidates?

Pratt: That’s a valid question. I guess there could be long-term damage done by these drugs that may not manifest themselves until sometime in the future because of who knows what stimulus that occurs. But it’s just a very dangerous thing to be playing with the makeup of people’s minds. It’s so avoidable, all we have do is admit that children need discipline, they respond well to it and then things are much more under control. We’ve lost control of our schools in so many places in the United States and it really could be addressed effectively and we refuse to. It’s almost equivalent to the refusal to talk about using drugs in self-defense and making it so teachers, principals and janitors could be armed at schools. ‘Everybody knows that guns and children don’t mix,’ well no, actually everybody doesn’t know that, and in fact that notion, as I have said before today, that notion is unhappily the big reason why schools are such death traps for kids.

After warning against government “confiscation” of firearms, Pratt floated debunked conspiracy theories about the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security purchasing ammunition for nefarious reasons and maintained that all policing on the federal level is unconstitutional.

Pratt: I think the more people invest in protecting themselves in this fashion, paying all this money for firearms to defend themselves, any call for confiscation such as came from the Governor of New York and I gather other politicians as well is going to be met with, shall we say, no respect.

Schneider: Perhaps on that issue there have been a number of stories that have come out recently that the US government is just buying up massive rounds of ammunition. One story indicated the Department of Homeland Security has purchased over a billion rounds of hollow point ammunition for domestic purposes, not for military purposes. Some stories have indicated that even the Social Security Administration has purchased 174,000 rounds of ammo. Is there any truth for this or is this some kind of hype that’s out of control?

Pratt: The reports continue and they are in the mainline press. When you read about the Social Security buying large quantities of ammunition, whatever for? Did somebody lose their check and they’re going to go shoot them up? What exactly is it that Social Security Administration needs a police force at all let alone buying that many rounds? Target practice I don’t think consumes that many and frankly they shouldn’t be having target practices, they shouldn’t have police forces at the federal level, those are not constitutional.

Last month, anti-gay groups in Illinois formed the Coalition to Protect Children and Marriage to oppose impending legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Coalition leader Paul Caprio of Family-PAC spoke to Sandy Rios today and warned that the gay rights bill will cause more children to go into foster care and seek state assistance. He even pointed to the city of Chicago’s murder rate as a reason to oppose marriage equality.

Listen: 

We think it’s important that we block this in the state of Illinois. We know that there have been several referendums recently in other more progressive states, frankly more liberal states, where this has passed by narrow margins, but we feel that it’s very important to stand up. You know, it’s interesting, when you stop to think about it what should the interest of the state be relative to the issue of marriage? The state, more than anyone, should be looking at marriage in terms of protection of children if for no other reason that if children are not protected, and children need foster care or they need DCF [Department for Children and Families] assistance, it costs the state so much more money. Just looking at it from the point of view from the state, not the point of view that we look at things from, including the moral perspective of this issue, but it’s really interesting when you stop to think about it. Chicago, it was announced yesterday, is murder capital of the United States: 506 murders. We have the second highest unwed—or children out of wedlock birth rate, of any major city in the United States, right behind Detroit. All of these things are for reasons and one of the major reasons is the breakdown and the lack of a stable family for children.

Not only were many conservative leaders confidently predicting a comfortable Romney victory in last month’s elections but so were many Religious Right activists who cloaked the imminent Romney win in spiritual terms. Even the “Bible Code” pointed to a Romney presidency! Of course, President Obama ended up winning re-election and these predictions were quickly forgotten by those who made them.

But Rick Joyner is still perplexed that Romney lost given that all of his fellow “prophets” thought he’d win. In his “Word of the Week” bulletin, Joyner said he was “sorry that we did not do better in understanding this election” and wonders why he knew “a lot of prophetic people who fully expected Romney to win the election.”

The only explanation Joyner thought of was that while Christians were united against Obama like never before, they were just too afraid to vote for a Mormon.

Because the 2012 elections continue to be a source of confusion to many, we will address a couple of more lessons to learn from this to finish out this year. Then we will begin the New Year with possibly unprecedented opportunities to see our nation turn to the Lord for the greatest harvest in history.

I know a lot of prophetic people who fully expected Romney to win the election. Of those I communicated with about the election, I do not know of any who gave a prophecy that Romney would win, but it was an almost universal opinion. I did not even seek a word from the Lord about it myself because I felt that I already had His opinion. That was a huge presumption.

Bob Jones had an encounter with the Lord on January 16, 2012 in which the Lord asked him what he thought about having a Mormon for President. This was long before the Republican nomination had been decided, and Bob’s response was that he did not think very much of it. Bob held to that opinion until after the nomination was won by Romney, and then he believed that he must have been wrong and that Romney must be God’s choice. After the election, he realized how he had let his own opinions cancel out what the Lord was trying to show him in the first place.

Bob is the most seasoned and wise prophetic person I know, and in great wisdom, he embraced this correction. Even the greatest prophets still see in part and prophesy in part. We have had many prophetic words come true exactly as they were given, but we misinterpreted them until they were fulfilled. I still consider interpretation one of the greatest weaknesses in the prophetic ministry, but it was also this way throughout history, including biblical history. Even so, I believe we must do better with interpreting what we are being shown prophetically.

Some would interpret the question that Bob was asked by the Lord to mean that the Lord did not want a Mormon as President, but that is not what the Lord said either. In fact, the Lord did not say anything, but just asked a question. That question may have been the ultimate question that in fact decided the election. Maybe we should have spent far more attention trying to answer that question than we did. I’m not saying that it was, but it could have been. Romney could have been God’s choice, but I know many good Christians who did not vote because they said they could not vote for a Mormon.

…

This past election was too good of an opportunity to learn to sweep it under the rug. I feel that I have learned something profound almost every day since the election. Wisdom and understanding are worth much more than gold or silver. I am sorry that we did not do better in understanding this election, but I love the correction because of what I’m learning. If we learn our lessons from this, they could save us in far more crucial times to come. I hope this is helpful, and I have a bit more to share next week.

Or, maybe Romney really did win but Obama stole the election.

The claim that progressives and radical Islamists are secretly working together would be considered laughable if it didn’t inspire violent terrorists like Norway’s Anders Breivik and emerge as a frequent talking point among right-wing activists. Christian Broadcasting Network’s sports reporter/terrorism “expert” Erick Stakelbeck hosted Jamie Glazov of the David Horowitz Freedom Center to explain the purported alliance.

According to Glazov, both liberals and Islamic extremists “share the agenda to destroy freedom, capitalism, democracy, American and Israel” in order to establish Sharia law and communism! Liberalism and Islamism, he claims, both have “a hatred for humans for who and what they are.”

“I haven’t been this scared since I was watching eleven years old watching the Exorcist,” Glazov said, “we have our first political prisoner in the United States.” He was referring to the producer of an anti-Islam film who was put back in prison for violating his probation agreement following a bank fraud conviction.

Later, Glazov explained that Islamic-aligned leftists “are in the White House” and “infiltrating the State Department” to advance their goal of “destroying this country.”

Watch:

American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios today “exposed” the left’s plan to set crucial legislative votes around the Christmas season in order to distract conservative activists who are too busy celebrating the holiday to wage political battle. Pointing to the 2009 Senate Christmas Eve vote to pass the health care reform law and the push by LGBT rights advocates in Illinois to legalize same-sex marriage in January as proof, Rios claimed that crafty liberals know that “Christian people who care about Christmas [are] the same ones who are concerned about implementing homosexual marriage” and blocking the health care law. “This is how they win their battles,” she said.

It’s interesting how the left pushes this stuff, so much of this always comes down to Christmas. Remember last year, the Obamacare bill? They kept members of Congress debating on Christmas Eve, you know they have no concern, no real concern about what this season means to people because it doesn’t mean much to them. Other than just a family holiday, I don’t think they understand; there’s no reverence for it. So they voted Christmas Eve last year for Obamacare. Now interestingly enough the same tactic is being employed in Illinois in a very different way. When we come back in January we will discuss this. Suddenly, as of last Friday, gay activists in Illinois want homosexual marriage in Illinois, they want it. So it looks like a vote will take place, are you ready? Sometime between January 2nd and 9th. So pro-family forces are trying to gear up, guess what time of year this is? Guess what weekend this is? The weekend before Christmas when churches are doing special programs, music, pastors are preparing profound sermons as an outreach to the community; this is what Christian people who care about Christmas being the same ones who are concerned about implementing homosexual marriage. This is how they win their battles.

Of course, the House Republican leadership just (unsuccessfully) pushed their Plan B legislation a mere five days before Christmas, but apparently it’s only a problem when liberals hold votes during the holiday season.

Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips has been pushing out articles from his fellow TPN activists attacking teachers over the Sandy Hook shooting and is now finally out with a post of his own blaming teachers for the massacre. He said teachers’ unions are a “focus of evil” as they have turned the school into a “target rich environments for some lunatic or terrorist,” urging the government to ban unions and “break up the public school system.”

If you want to pin blame on Sandy Hook, blame the Teachers Unions that have championed schools being gun free zones. While the left is demonizing the NRA and moronic actors like Marg Helgenberger are calling for NRA members to be shot, the Teachers Union is actually the focus of evil in the pre and post Sandy Hook world.

The American Federation of Teachers is led by a nitwit named Randi Weingarten. After Sandy Hook, this brain donor opined the way to stop future mass killings in schools was to make them a complete and absolute gun free zone.

D’oh!

Weingarten certainly proves that a high IQ is clearly an impediment to being the leader of the Teachers Union.

…

As Sandy Hook proved, our schools are target rich environments for some lunatic or terrorist.

As the Teachers Union screams about banning guns, we need to talk about banning the Teachers Union.

…

Most Americans with children have no other choice but to send their kids to public schools. Americans deserve better than a rotten education system that serves only to benefit the Teachers Union and corrupt left wing politicians.

After Sandy Hook, one of the best things we can do is break the back of the Teachers Union and break up the public school system.