Brian Tashman's blog

Religious Right Leaders Rail Against Virginia Marriage Equality Decision

A federal judge’s decision to strike down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriagehas unsurprisingly stoked the ire of conservatives.

Family Research Council head Tony Perkins offered a typical rebuke of “activist judges” and the “arrogant judiciary,” and once again warned that marriage equality will in fact lead to unprecedented inequality.

It appears that we have yet another example of an arrogant judge substituting her personal preferences for the judgment of the General Assembly and 57 percent of Virginia voters. Our nation's judicial system has been infected by activist judges, which threaten the stability of our nation and the rule of law.

This ruling comes on the heels of Attorney General Mark Herring's refusal to fulfill his constitutional duty to defend the state's marriage law. His lawlessness is an insult to the voters of Virginia who rightfully expected elected officials to uphold the laws and constitution of the state, not attack them as Herring has done.

An arrogant judiciary is only one of the major consequences of the drive to redefine marriage. Increasingly, Americans are being forced to finance and celebrate unions that not only step on free speech and religious liberty but also deny children a mom and a dad. Rather than live-and-let-live, this court by redefining marriage will create a level of inequality that has never been seen in our country as people are forced to suppress or violate the basic teachings of their faith," concluded Perkins.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and Liberty University Law School, which is based in Virginia, said the judge must not have ever read the Constitution.

“This decision is outrageous and legally flawed. Judges would be well-served to read the U.S. Constitution and not invent or rewrite it,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The Constitution cannot be changed by the stroke of a judge’s pen, nor does it bow to a judge’s personal ideology. The overwhelming majority of Virginia voters who make up ‘we the people’ voted to affirm natural marriage. Same-sex marriage, as a policy matter, sends the message that children do not need moms and dads. There is ample evidence that children fair [sic] best when raised with a mother and a father. Same-sex marriage is not the equivalent of natural marriage. Judges should be careful to render decisions grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law. Otherwise, judges and courts will render themselves impotent when the people lose confidence in the judicial system,” Staver continued.

The Family Foundation of Virginia, meanwhile, blamed Valentine’s Day for the ruling, which the group says threatens “our entire social fabric.”

“The timing of this decision certainly calls into question Judge Wright Allen’s objectivity,” a Friday morning statement from the group stated. “This rushed release just prior to Valentine’s Day reeks of political show, making her ruling less a legal argument and more a press release. It’s disappointing that a federal judge would so blatantly expose her personal political agenda at the expense of not just marriage, but our entire social fabric.”



“Regardless of one’s stance on marriage, the people of Virginia were disenfranchised by this ruling as our voice and our vote that amended our Constitution have been rendered meaningless by a single federal judge with the assistance of our own Attorney General,” the Family Foundation statement read. “Protecting a timeless institution for the well-being of children was the will of the overwhelming majority of Virginians and this ruling denies this important state interest as it places the desires of adults over the outcomes of children.”

National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown said the “terrible decision” must be reversed:

This is another example of an Obama-appointed judge twisting the constitution and the rule of law to impose her own views of marriage in defiance of the people of Virginia. There is no right to same-sex 'marriage' in the United States constitution. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that states have the preeminent duty of defining marriage. The people of Virginia did just that in voting overwhelmingly to affirm marriage as the union of one man and woman. That decision should be respected by federal judges and we hope that the U.S. Supreme Court ends up reversing this terrible decision. This case also leaves a particular stench because of the unconscionable decision of Attorney General Mark Herring to not only abandon his sworn duty to defend the laws of the state, but to actually join the case against the very people he is duty-bound to represent.

Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation blasted the “imperious federal judiciary” and the “liberal state apparatus,” warning that they are trying “to advance a social experiment that changes America from the nation that we know into something totally unrecognizable” and “will force you to support homosexual marriage.”

The case, if it can be appealed must be appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The problem is that appellate courts have to rule based on the record from the trial court. The record is the transcript of witnesses’ testimony and other evidence the trial judge heard.

With Virginia’s Attorney General refusing to defend the case, the case might not even be appealed and even if it is, the record may be very limited.

Once again, we see an imperious federal judiciary overruling the voters of a state to advance a social experiment that changes America from the nation that we know into something totally unrecognizable.

And with the striking down of this law, can the liberal state apparatus be far behind? That liberal state apparatus is the one that will force you to support homosexual marriage whether or not it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Alan Keyes Wants Michele Bachmann To Lead Campaign To Impeach Obama

Alan Keyes claims that Rep. Michele Bachmann’s plan to sue President Obama doesn’t go far enough and may actually aid Obama’s “dictatorship.”

Instead, he wants the Tea Party darling -- who last year accused Obama of “committing impeachable offenses” -- to join his Jesus Christ-endorsed campaign to get congressional candidates to pledge to support the impeachment and removal of the president.

“Bachmann and her colleagues should take the impeachment/removal pledge, and campaign as hard as they know how to get every like-minded Senator and Representative they can to do likewise,” Keyes writes. “Combined with an energetic grassroots mobilization of voters demanding that candidates for either house of Congress take the pledge, their campaign would help to make the 2014 election an effective vote of no-confidence in Obama's lawless, unconstitutional administration.”

One problem with his approach, however, is that Bachmann is not running for re-election.

Let's assume, for instance, that Bachmann and her colleagues succeed in passing the legislation they seek. (All right, it's unlikely given the fact that the Democrats presently control the U.S. Senate. But "for the sake of the argument," as they say, let's ignore that difficulty.) Let's further assume that their case gets to the Supreme Court, which issues an opinion supporting their view that the President's actions are unconstitutional.

What happens next? Perhaps Obama rolls over, bows to the Supreme Court, and retracts his executive orders. That might happen, or it might not. Let's say it doesn't happen. Instead, Obama rejects the Court's view. To support his stand, he argues that his actions are necessary in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare of the country.

Let's say he further argues that, by failing to pass laws essential for achieving those ends, Congress has endangered the nation, exacerbating a serious situation which, without his timely preventive measures, threatens to plunge the country into a dire state of national emergency. …

The problem is that the whole sequence of events would set a precedent for successful dictatorship that Obama (and the elitist faction he serves) would abuse for the remainder of his occupation of the White House. It would also directly confirm, for better or worse, the ultimate impotence of the judicial branch (especially when dealing with disputes between the other branches), which Hamilton's lucid thinking foreshadows.

Bachmann and her colleagues need to think this through. They need to ask themselves the key strategic question: If we succeed in getting a favorable opinion from the Supreme Court (which is no foregone conclusion) what do we do if Obama simply refuses, on constitutional grounds, to enforce it? … When you think it through, building these impeachment/removal majorities is the only constitutional way to "force" the executive to respect the Constitution. The Courts can't do it. And even the people can't do it, constitutionally, except at election time.

This is precisely the thinking that led me to propose the impeachment/removal strategy for the 2014 election. Instead of spinning their wheels in an ineffectual appeal to a judicial branch that is ultimately powerless to enforce its opinions, Bachmann and her colleagues should take the impeachment/removal pledge, and campaign as hard as they know how to get every like-minded Senator and Representative they can to do likewise. [emphasis his]

Combined with an energetic grassroots mobilization of voters demanding that candidates for either house of Congress take the pledge, their campaign would help to make the 2014 election an effective vote of no-confidence in Obama's lawless, unconstitutional administration. Instead of risking a precedent for ambitious, lawless dictatorship, it would set a precedent that restores government of, by, and for the people, through elected officials honestly pledged to represent them. Given the gravity of the present crisis, this would be nothing short of saving America's liberty, for us and our posterity. Will Bachmann and her colleagues rise to the occasion?

Kengor: People Aren't Mourning Shirley Temple's Death Because They're 'Too Obsessed With Miley Cyrus And Gay Marriage'

Paul Kengor is hoping to create a new faux-scandal surrounding Shirley Temple Black’s passing.

Writing in the perpetual-outrage-machine WorldNetDaily, Kengor asserts that Americans now ignore or actively dislike the child star-turned-ambassador because she didn’t “pole dance or ‘twerk,’” and now they refuse to mourn her appropriately.

“Our culture is too obsessed with Miley Cyrus and gay marriage to give proper recognition to [Temple Black],” Kengor writes, leaving us to wonder who exactly is criticizing the late actress.

I learned only yesterday that Shirley Temple, the iconic child actress, died earlier this week at age 85. Reports on her death were easy to miss. I went through my usual scan of various websites and saw nothing. I fortunately caught a buried “Shirley Temple, R.I.P.” by a writer at a political website.

I was dismayed by the sparse reaction to the loss of this woman who lived a great American life. Had Shirley Temple died 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago, the country would have stopped. People everywhere would have paused to give Temple her due. It would have been the lead in every newspaper.

But not today. Our culture is too obsessed with Miley Cyrus and gay marriage to give proper recognition to a woman who was one of the most acclaimed, respected, and even cherished Americans, a household name to children and adults alike.



In the 1934 classic, “Bright Eyes,” Shirley played a five-year-old who lost her father in an airplane crash and then lost her mother. She is comforted by loving people who would do anything for her, including her godfather, who is identified as just that. The godfather behaves like a true godfather. The movie includes constant, natural references to faith, never shying from words like God, Heaven, and even Jesus—verboten in Hollywood today.

Today’s sneering secular audiences would reflexively dismiss the film as Norman Rockwell-ish. To the contrary, the movie is hardly sugar-coated. Just when your heart is broken from the death of sweet Shirley’s dad, her mom is killed by a car while carrying a cake for Shirley on Christmas day.

That doesn’t remind me of any Norman Rockwell portrait I’ve seen.

What such cynics really mean is that the film isn’t sufficiently depraved for modern tastes. Shirley doesn’t pole dance or “twerk.” She doesn’t do a darling little strip tease for the boys while singing “Good Ship, Lollipop.” The references to God are not in vain or in the form of enlightening blasphemy. And the movie has a happy, not miserable, ending.

Come to think of it, maybe this isn’t a movie for modern audiences!

For 80 years, Shirley Temple’s bright eyes brightened the big screen. They reflected what was good and decent in this country. She embodied what made America great, and she brightened our lives in the process.

Cruz: 'Our Heart Weeps' Due To Marriage Equality Gains

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz joined Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch yesterday to discuss his proposed State Marriage Defense Act, which as we explained earlier would “make it more difficult for married same-sex couples to receive legal recognition.”

Cruz said that the Obama administration’s support for LGBT equality represents an “abuse of power and lawlessness” and chided gay rights advocates for their “litigation approach.”

“Our heart weeps for the damage to traditional marriage that has been done,” Cruz said, warning that marriage is “under attack.”

“We need to stand up and defend traditional marriage and especially do everything we can to prevent the federal government from forcing a different definition of marriage that is contrary to the views to the citizens of each state.”

The Texas senator also agreed with Perkins’ assessment that and Obama administration officials want to “move quick[ly]” on marriage equality “because there will be pushback from the country when people see the consequences of this redefinition of marriage; they are trying to lock this in quickly hoping that it cannot be reversed.”

AFA: Impeach Eric Holder Over Gay Rights Stance

The American Family Association is demanding that the House move to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder for the supposed crime of treating legally married same-sex couples ... as legally married.

United States Attorney General Eric Holder, this week, has again overstepped the boundaries of the law when he arbitrarily ordered that homosexual couples will now receive government benefits reserved only for natural marriage status. This applies even in states that have laws defining marriage as only between one man and one woman.

Taking a nod from the playbook of his boss, President Barack Obama, Holder wielded his own pen and paper, trampling on states' rights and disenfranchising voters in states defining marriage as only between one man and one woman.

It is time for Eric Holder to go!

...

It is the sworn duty of every member of Congress to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Allowing Eric Holder to remain in office unchallenged is a violation of that duty. Action must be taken to stop the abuse of power in the attorney general’s office.

Urge your representative to press for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder for high crimes and misdemeanors.

In a sample email​ for members to send their congressmen, the anti-gay AFA claims that Holder's pro-equality move violates their "rights and freedoms":

There is no room for political corruption in government and when it is discovered, it is the duty of Congress to take immediate and swift action against it.

...

The American people desperately need leaders we can trust. Our district deserves representation that will firmly stand and defend our rights as citizens. And when rights and freedoms are being threatened through poor leadership at the Department of Justice, it is your sworn obligation to take steps necessary to protect our state and its citizenry.

WND: Girl Scouts Promote Prostitution

WorldNetDaily's Jane Chastain is pleading​ with readers not to purchase Girl Scout cookies this year, part of a growing Religious Right push against the Girl Scouts.

Why?

Chastain explains that the Girl Scouts should face a boycott due to their "lesbianism" and support for the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which she falsely claims "would force nations to legalize abortion and prostitution. Guess a girl has to make a living!"

Are you man (or woman) enough to say “no” to a child?

Before you answer this question, consider this: When liberals try to justify more government spending they trot out our youth. “Do it (whatever ill-conceived big government program they are promoting) for the children, boohoo, sob, sob!”

This makes conservative legislators quake in their boots. It is only a matter of time before they cave in to this pressure. I offer our $17 trillion national debt as Exhibit A.

Now, bring it down to a personal level. It is one thing to say “no” to a little boy. It is quite another to say “no” to a precious little girl, looking up at you with those beautiful, big, expectant eyes.

That’s what you will be up against if you join – and you should – the boycott against Girl Scout cookies begun by Pro-Life Waco and now joined by countless pro-life and pro-family organizations.

...

The Girl Scouts adopted a new global agenda and began bemoaning the fact that the United States has not signed the radical U.N. feminist treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW, which would force nations to legalize abortion and prostitution. Guess a girl has to make a living!

...

The Girl Scouts adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which was as effective a the one in the military. It wasn’t long before the organization began accepting lesbian leaders and winked at lesbian activity within the ranks. In 1998, Nancy Manahan wrote the book, “On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on their Scouting Experience.” It is full of coming-of-age stories at Girl Scout Camp, and stories of lesbianism within the paid staff.

Erik Rush: Obama Is Murdering Critics

Far-right pundit Erik Rush admits that he doesn't have evidence that President Obama is murdering his critics, but he feels like it is true and that's all that matters after all. Today in WorldNetDaily​, Rush repeatedly claims that Obama is murdering his opponents as part of his plan to create a Nazi/Communist/Islamist government.

"We are in the midst of a takeover of the country and the dismantling of our constitutional republic," Rush writes. "Fellow Americans and patriots, it is time to consider all of our options, and put a stop to this, as well as the political culture that allowed us to get to this point."

In addition to the parties targeted for bureaucratic harassment, patriot groups themselves have been infiltrated and sabotaged. Individuals have had their websites hacked, been harassed by law enforcement and federal agencies, illegally searched and their property seized, had their vehicles tampered with and property destroyed. They’ve endured illegal electronic surveillance, stalking and had false criminal complaints filed against them. It has also been widely hypothesized that journalists and government officials who have died under truly bizarre and unlikely circumstances were in fact murdered.

At the same time, there have been revelations of this administration’s involvement in terrorist conspiracies and international crimes, some of which have their roots in Hitler’s Germany, wealth stolen by the Nazis during World War II and the long-held anti-Semitism of Islamists who actually worked with Hitler, as well as their protégés who are active today in international politics, government and finance.

This is all to say nothing of the numerous domestic scandals, unconstitutional actions and treason in which this president and his collaborators have been involved to date.

The tactics being used by this administration, whether directly or through ideologically aligned surrogates, are intended to disrupt the communication and activities of their enemies – in this case, law-abiding American citizens.

These are, however, not new tactics. Prior to and during World War II, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party employed the same sorts of tactics – although the technology was different – to silence the opposition. It is a matter of historical fact that disinformation, intimidation, sabotage and even murder have been widely employed by ascendant modern socialist and communist regimes.

We are in the midst of a takeover of the country and the dismantling of our constitutional republic. Why many prominent conservatives shy away from articulating this, I am not certain, but every one of Obama’s policies, actions and, lately, edicts have negatively impacted the United States of America in precisely the way communists have stated for the last hundred years that they would bring about an oligarchical collectivist state in America.

Those who are reporting the facts (not “conspiracy theories,” but facts) of these matters have been dubbed paranoid fringe elements by the left – so why are these precisely the people who are being so vigorously – and might I add, illegally – targeted by the current administration and its minions?

I’ll tell you why – because they are dead-on correct. Citizen journalists, retired military officers and patriotic intelligence community assets have the facts, know full well what this administration is up to and that left unchecked, it will not end well. The plans of this regime are so malevolent that most Americans in their comfort and distraction cannot even conceptualize what lies ahead.

But we do. And we are not going to be silenced. Fellow Americans and patriots, it is time to consider all of our options, and put a stop to this, as well as the political culture that allowed us to get to this point. You may already be aware of the organization of patriots and patriot groups that is currently under way, and that many disparate patriotic forces are joining to work together. This is a good thing.

Like all communist, Nazi, or fascist thugs, the people we’re up against are punks; mediocre, spoiled, arrogant little punks who crave power. They have little to contribute to society, but they want to run the show anyway – so they con the masses. That’s how it has always worked with their ilk – but enough is enough. The harder this regime pushes, the harder we must push back. The Founding Fathers may have been a minority, but we are not.

Coulter: Treat DREAMers Like Suicide Bombers

Ann Coulter, who recently lamented the end of the racist immigration quota system​, writes today that America soon "won't exist anymore" due to "the current rate of immigration."

According to Coulter, immigration is destroying the GOP and thus America itself, because apparently only "real Americans" vote Republican. She's particularly offended that immigration means she has to "hear about soccer all the time."

"We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving!," she writes.

Coulter also lashes out at proponents of the DREAM Act, claiming that their arguments would also protect rapists, murderers and suicide bombers.

If we have to excuse lawbreaking so as not to “punish the children,” there’s no end to the crimes that have to be forgiven – insider trading, theft, rape, murder and so on.

How do you think kids feel when their father has to “live in the shadows” because he committed a rape? The kids did nothing wrong, but they have to go to bed every night wondering: Is tomorrow the day Dad is going to be caught?

...

With illegal aliens, the parents are more like gypsies teaching their kids to beg and pick pockets. The parents forced the kids into being lawbreakers.

Similarly, Palestinians use their children to commit acts of terrorism against Israel, so that when Israel responds, the parents can wail, “They’re bombing children!”

(I thought only liberals couldn’t do analogies.)

Americans are under no moral obligation to admit huge numbers of people who have no particular right to be here just because the Democrats need 30 million new voters.

Why shouldn’t Republicans oppose mass immigration on the grounds that immigrants will vote Democratic? The only reason the Democrats want mass immigration is because they know immigrants will vote Democratic. (Also for the cheap nannies and gardeners.)

Immigration is the “single issue” that decides every other issue. If this country were the same demographically today as it was in 1980, Romney would have won a bigger victory in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter. And we wouldn’t have to hear about soccer all the time.

We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving! Had I wanted to live in Japan, I could have moved there. Had I had wanted to live in Mexico, Pakistan or Chechnya – I could have moved to those places, too.

(Although maybe not. They all have stricter immigration policies than we do.)

I’m sure they’re lovely, but I wanted to live in America. Now I can’t. At the current rate of immigration, it won’t exist anymore. The Democrats couldn’t win elections there, so they changed it.

FRC Preposterously Blames 'Left-Wing Extremists' For Most 'Incidents Of Domestic Terrorism In This Country'

Tony Perkins and Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council are attacking the Obama administration over a Ohio National Guard training drill last month that simulated a threat from “two school employees who are disgruntled over the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.”

News of the drill started circulating in conservative media this week, feeding anti-Obama paranoia (even though last year’s drill simulated a threat from a radical environmentalists).

On yesterday’s edition of Washington Watch, Blackwell and Perkins said that the drill must have been the idea of the federal government, and argued that there is no reason at all to fear any danger from right-wing extremists. “When you look back at incidents of domestic terrorism in this country, it’s not done by right-wing, conservative people or organizations, it’s done by left-wing extremists,” Perkins said. Blackwell concurred: “Absolutely, that’s been the factual history of domestic terrorist attacks and efforts.”

That is completely false, of course.

The nonpartisan New America Foundation found that the pool of “‘non-jihadist’ terrorists” is “overwhelmingly made up of right-wing extremists.” The Director of Terrorism Studies at the West Point-based Combatting Terrorism Center found attacks by right-wing extremists up “more than 400%” since 2000.

John Tirman of the MIT Center for International Studies notes that in “the START database on terrorism in America,” from “1990 to 2009, START identified 275 ‘homicide events’ that killed 520 people and were committed by right-wing ideologues. There were many more incidents of destruction of property, nonfatal attacks, and other acts of thuggery by white supremacists, private militias, and the like.”

“Fifty-six percent of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in the U.S. since 1995 have been perpetrated by right-wing extremists, as compared to 30 percent by ecoterrorists and 12 percent by Islamic extremists,” writes Ken Sofer. “Right-wing extremism has been responsible for the greatest number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. in 13 of the 17 years since the Oklahoma City bombing.”

Since Perkins and Blackwell were already just making things up, why not one more? The two FRC leaders proceeded to accuse the Southern Poverty Law Center of being listed on “the domestic terrorism list. ”

“It’s not conservatives,” Perkins said. “If it were conservatives who were doing that kind of stuff we would never hear the end of it.”

Perkins: Same-Sex Marriage 'Will Create A Level Of Inequality That Has Never Been Seen In Our Country'

The anti-gay Family Research Council is unsurprisingly dismayed by a federal court ruling that will require Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where such unions are legal.

FRC president Tony Perkins said in a press release today the decision represents a “deep betrayal of the judicial system infected with activist judges who are legislating from the bench” and threatens the freedom of speech.

Perkins even said that marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples “will create a level of inequality that has never been seen in our country as people are forced to suppress or violate the basic teachings of their faith.”

That’s right, Perkins seems to think that legalizing same-sex marriage will produce more “inequality” than slavery, Jim Crow, the subjugation of women and any other injustice in American history.

This ruling is another example of the deep betrayal of a judicial system infected with activist judges who are legislating from the bench. If these judges want to change duly enacted laws passed by the people and their representatives, they should resign their life-time appointments to the bench and run for the state legislature or Congress. Judge Heyburn is elevating his own ideology over that of three-quarters of Kentucky voters who voted to preserve marriage in their constitution as it has always been defined.

This ruling comes at a time when the consequences of marriage redefinition are mounting. Increasingly, Americans are being forced to finance and celebrate unions that not only step on free speech and religious liberty but also deny children a mom and a dad. Rather than live-and-let-live, this court by redefining marriage will create a level of inequality that has never been seen in our country as people are forced to suppress or violate the basic teachings of their faith.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious