Brian Tashman's blog

James Robison Prays For 'Miracle' Uniting Tea Party And Religious Right Activists

Televangelist James Robison told listeners on last week’s Tea Party Unity conference call that the country is about to witness a merger of the Religious Right and the Tea Party that will bring God’s blessing back to America.

Robison said that the Tea Party doesn’t have “the numerical support” to win elections without the social conservatives, and “God is going to do something very great” to build a new “communications stream” that will unite the conservative movement and attract a bigger audience than the Drudge Report.

After praising his fellow speaker Rafael Cruz and Tea Party Unity — which was created by right-wing pastor Rick Scarborough for the very reason of bringing Tea Party and Religious Right activists together — as “answers to prayer,” Robison said he will be working to “get the message and the truth that flows from the heart and mind of God and the wisdom of God” to activists, while making sure that it won’t be “filtered down, misrepresented and ignored by a very biased, upside-down-worldview prevailing media.”

“We are creating a communications stream, a faith and freedom communications stream that the enemy will not be able to hinder,” Robison said. “Freedom is in the process of perishing, so this communication stream will bring together the leaders of the free market and the faith community and we will create a stream hopefully that will get more traffic than Drudge does.”

Robison later revealed that he’s working to “influence the influencers” by meeting with religious figures and “free market leaders like Foster Friess and many others of that caliber,” referring to the GOP mega-donor.

“They cannot win – the whole Tea Party has got to understand this – they cannot win, they cannot change legislation, they cannot correct our nation’s perilous course without the numerical support of the faith community,” he said.

He then warned that America is currently experiencing God’s judgment: “If you go to Joel 2 you’ll find the key for today. In the first part of that chapter you see the locusts coming in as a representative of all the forces of judgment for a nation that has gone away from the wisdom and counsel of God. And those locusts don’t break step, they don’t get out of line, all of these strange bedfellows come together and they move in total unison to consume the prosperity and the productivity of the land because people have left God out.”

“I believe we’re going to see the miracle,” he said,” and I have seen enough in the leadership areas in both the faith community and the free market community to believe we can witness this miracle.”

Rafael Cruz Falsely Claims San Antonio Banned Pastors From Preaching From The Bible

Speaking on a Tea Party Unity conference call last week, Rafael Cruz said that pastors in San Antonio can be fined for preaching from the Bible, a patently false claim but part of a larger Religious Right smear campaign against the city’s non-discrimination ordinance [PDF].

The ordinance added sexual orientation and gender identity to an existing city policy prohibiting discrimination, a move opposed by many Republicans, including Rafael Cruz’s son, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. The debate over the recently passed ordinance featured several over-the-top reactions, including a rant from a city councilwoman who called homosexuality “disgusting.”

While speaking on the call with extremist pastor and TPU founder Rick Scarborough, who introduced Ted Cruz at the 2012 Values Voter Summit, the elder Cruz claimed that pastors who preach Romans 1 — which some pastors interpret as a condemnation of homosexuality — can be fined $500 a day, a claim with no basis in reality.

“All we have to do is turn on the news and every day we see more and more encroachment upon pastors from this administration,” Cruz said. “All they have to do is be aware of what’s happening around us and to be aware, for example, that in the city of San Antonio, if a pastor speaks on Romans 1, he could be even fined $500 a day until he retracts what he said.”

Scarborough went on to warn that the “lesbian mayor of Houston” will impose a similar “sanctions [on pastors] if they preach the Bible.”

Cruz also suggested in the conference call that “wicked” people are currently in charge of the government: “We’ve stayed at home and we allowed the wicked to elect wicked politicians to rule us. We get what we deserve, Rick. We need to get up the charge that God is giving us and move to the forefront and call this nation to repentance and call this nation to righteousness.”

Cruz has previously alleged that Satan controls the US government.

Religious Right Activists Can't Stop Lying About Hate Crimes Laws

WorldNetDaily today repeated long-debunked myths about the 2009 Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Law to stoke fears about a new Hate Crimes Reporting Act introduced in the wake of the mass shooting at two Jewish centers outside of Kansas City.

Barack Obama, when he was new in the Oval Office, signed a “hate crimes” law that created a two-tier system of punishment, increasing the punishment for a Christian pastor who attacked a homosexual but not for a homosexual who attacked a Christian pastor.

The reasoning was simple. The homosexual is in a protected class of U.S. citizens, but the Christian pastor is not.

Of course, that is not true, as the 2009 explicitly covers crimes “committed because of the actual or perceived religion.

The dishonesty continues:

American Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned the new law “creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in nonnormative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American.”

He pointed out that the legislation also creates possible situations in which pastors could be arrested if their sermons on sexuality can be linked in even the remotest way to acts of violence. For example, if someone hears the biblical description of homosexuality as a sin and uses that message as a reason for acting.

The Alliance Defending Freedom also blasted the “hate-crimes” bill, calling it “another nail in the coffin of the First Amendment.”

The Shepard-Byrd Act was signed into law in 2009, and yet there still hasn’t been a single case of anyone — pastor, politician or activist — prosecuted for speaking out against homosexuality.

As we have noted, the act “strengthens law enforcement's ability to fight violent crime - not vigorous debate, not sermons against homosexuality, not hateful speech, not the infamous ‘God hates fags’ protesters, not the spreading of misinformation that thrives on constitutionally protected right-wing television, radio, and blogosphere,” and the law clearly states that “nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller also entered the fray, warning that the new bill — which calls for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to update and existing report on “telecommunications influence on hate crimes” — will be used to silence opponents of Islam and enforce Sharia law.

The first amendment protects all speech, not just speech that we like. Or else who would decide what’s good and what’s forbidden? Hakeem? When I was a young girl, the Nazis were given permission to march in a predominately Jewish neighborhood. In those days, Nazi mean something. Morality was still very much in the American DNA. Good and evil was understood — unlike today, where the left has banished such terms. Despite the horror of a Nazi march, they were given permission, and those of us who were repelled by such a monstrous action understood why permission was granted because of the underlying premise — free speech. I didn’t worry that their Nazi ideas would take hold, as long as I could speak and others could speak in the free exchange of ideas. I knew I would win because my ideas were better. Individual rights was the greatest achievement of the enlightened.

Now we are here. Our free speech is threatened by islamic [sic] supremacists and their Democrat [sic] lapdogs under the guise of “hate speech.” The old “hate speech” canard. They will package this revolution against freedom in a pretty package — and will use the Max Blumenthal-inspired racist murderer, Glenn Miller. But do not be fooled.

It’s bad enough they have all but blacklisted the voices of freedom from media, political and national discourse. Shouting into the wilderness is not freedom of speech.

What next? Burning books? Perhaps just as long as it’s not the quran. And yet there is more hate speech in the quran than in Mein Kampf.

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) is sharia.

Ergun Caner Loses 'Fair Use' Lawsuit In Failed Attempt To Silence Critics

Ergun Caner has lost his lawsuit against a blogger who criticized the Religious Right figure as a fraud, with a federal judge ruling last week that Caner’s case had no merit.

After the September 11 attacks, Caner built a career around his purported conversion from Islamic extremism to Christianity, but his testimony was later exposed as fictitious. Not only did he completely fabricate details about his background — including facts about his birthplace, upbringing, and his family — but he also spoke gibberish during his speeches, which he claimed was Arabic.

Caner led Liberty University’s theological seminary at the time but the university cut ties with him following the revelations and he now heads Brewton-Parker College, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

A federal judge dismissed Caner’s lawsuit, a thinly veiled attempt to shut down criticism, against blogger Jason Smathers, as the Associated Baptist Press reports today:

Ergun Caner, president of Brewton-Parker College in Mount Vernon, Ga., filed a lawsuit last summer claiming ownership of two videos that Smathers posted of Caner speaking as an expert on Islamic culture in training for U.S. Marines preparing to deploy in 2005.

U.S. District Judge Terry Means, however, said Caner failed to make a case and that Smathers used the material fairly, as copyright law permits, for “purposes such as criticism, comment, [or] news reporting.”

“His sole purpose was to expose the inconsistencies in Dr. Caner’s biography and criticize a public figure,” the judge determined. If the unauthorized reproduction of his lectures caused Caner any financial loss, he continued, it was the result of “legitimate criticism” of his words.

The misuse of video “takedown notices” — the same method employed by another Religious Right activist who tried to shut down Right Wing Watch’s YouTube page — was one of the focuses of the trial. As the judge notes in his ruling [PDF], the blogger’s actions are protected as fair use.

In 2013, Dr. Caner filed a “takedown notice” with Viddler.com, claiming that the videos were posted without authorization and in violation of his copyright. Smathers challenged the removal of the videos, which ultimately resulted in the present lawsuit by Dr. Caner, alleging copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106,506.



Smathers claims that he posted he videos featuring Dr. Caner as a religiously based criticism of a public figure and, thus, his posting constituted fair use.

The Court notes that Dr. Caner has apparently conceded this issue since he has offered no argument in his response with respect to Smathers’s assertion of fair use.



Dr. Caner’s concession notwithstanding, the facts of this case support the application of fair use.

The affirmative defense of fair use is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107 and provides that “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies . . . , for purposes such as criticism, comment, [or] news reporting . . . , is not an infringement of copyright.”



All of Dr. Caner’s claims of copyright infringement against Smathers are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Concerned Women For America Opposes National Women's History Museum, Angry Website Doesn't Mention CWA Founder

Mystified by growing support in Congress for the National Women’s History Museum project, Concerned Women for America is now warning that the proposed museum will “indoctrinate those who visit the museum” into “leftist ideology.”

The group is especially peeved that the project’s website doesn’t include mentions of CWA founder Beverly LaHaye or Religious Right activists like Alveda King and Star Parker.

While the idea of celebrating women is admirable, the content of such a museum would create a shrine to the leftist ideology and would not provide an accurate portrayal of American women. It is for this reason we object to the National Women’s History Museum as currently structured.



• In 2010, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) opposed the building of the NWHM on the National Mall and successfully requested Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) to place a hold on this bill.

• During the 112th Congress, CWALAC worked with Republican House leadership to ensure this bill did not come to the House floor for a vote.



• The NWHM does not accurately portray women’s history and for this reason we oppose the NWHM. The museum’s online exhibits tout the “progressive era” and feminism but do not acknowledge their ramifications, the destruction of marriage and the family. The online exhibits highlight the feminists’ view of “free love” (like Victoria Woodhull) but do not acknowledge their pro-life ones.

• The NWHM will indoctrinate those who visit the museum to a jaundiced view of women’s history. The NWHM website attached to this proposed museum references Margaret Sanger nine times and Victoria Woodhull over 20, while referencing Phyllis Schlafly once and not mentioning Beverly LaHaye at all. It also highlights Sandra Fluke, while ignoring Kay Coles James, Alveda King, and Star Parker.

MRC Attacks The Media For Covering Sports, Non-Christian Faiths

Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center thinks media outlets are covertly attacking Christianity by reporting on sports and non-Christian faiths. Speaking Friday with Religious Right talk show host Janet Mefferd, Gainor complained that newspapers have “an entire section devoted to sports” but are devoid of mentions of religion.

When newspapers do cover religion, Gainor adds, the stories are “filled with lefty propaganda about faith that attacks Christianity.”

“That’s the lefty view of faith, we gotta show Hindu this, we gotta show Buddhism, we gotta talk about Scientology, we gotta talk about Wiccans.” he said. “No, why not try to be at least representative? If there’s 80-85 percent Christians [in the US population], it’s going to be 80-85 percent Christian, and then we will occasionally dabble in these other faiths, we’ll certainly include Judaism,” he said.

WorldNetDaily Now Hopes Edward Snowden Will Vindicate The Birther Movement

WorldNetDaily reporter Jerome Corsi, a leader of the birther movement, is enthralled by Michael Shrimpton, a British “self-proclaimed intelligence expert” who claims that Edward Snowden possesses evidence proving that Stanley Ann Dunham is not President Obama’s real mother and that Obama was actually born in Kenya.

In his article, “Obama’s Origins Resurface At Intel Expert’s Trial,” Corsi claims that Shrimpton has the latest birther bombshell: “Edward Snowden, as part of his negotiations to leave Hong Kong, agreed to deliver to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow the classified U.S. military intelligence file on Obama’s DNA,” revealing that Obama was “born in Mombasa, Kenya, in about 1960” and “establishing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama’s biological mother.”

In a nearly empty courtroom at the Southwerk Crown Court by the historic London Bridge, a hearing took place in a criminal case that not only has national security implications for the United Kingdom, but, curiously, is woven into the increasingly bizarre fabric of the controversy over Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility.

When it came his time to speak, defendant Michael Shrimpton, a middle-aged London barrister by profession and self-proclaimed intelligence expert, politely issued to the judge a series of interrogatories that made clear he plans to launch a vigorous defense, representing himself before the court.

The criminal charges brought by the British government against Shrimpton under Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 accuse him of falsely notifying the British government to prepare for a terrorist nuclear attack on the 2012 Olympics in London that the British government claims had no basis in reality.

It’s the same Michael Shrimpton who appears in a 2008 video that began re-circulating earlier this year on the Internet in which he claims to have been privy to shocking intelligence information on Obama’s origins. Shrimpton contends to this day that the CIA collected DNA from then-Sen. Obama and a grandparent, establishing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama’s biological mother.



Shrimpton says he was informed that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, in about 1960, which means, he said, the information sits in British intelligence files, because that territory was under the British Empire at the time.



Shrimpton said it was his understanding that the DNA samples were collected at a fundraising dinner from water glasses that were bagged after the dinner.



In conversations with WND, nevertheless, Shrimpton doubled down on the claims he made in 2008 by asserting that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, as part of his negotiations to leave Hong Kong, agreed to deliver to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow the classified U.S. military intelligence file on Obama’s DNA.

Shrimpton made clear he intends to subpoena from the CIA and from British intelligence any records either agency may have on Obama’s DNA.

“I intend to stand by my allegations regarding the Obama birth certificate, knowing that U.S. intelligence agencies will prefer to characterize me as crazy and delusional rather than admit the CIA has the files I believe they have on Obama DNA,” Shrimpton insisted.

Louie Gohmert Warns Gay Marriage Will Put America In 'The Dustbin Of History'

After suggesting that the House move to arrest Eric Holder, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told Washington Watch host Tony Perkins last week that the push for marriage equality undermines biology and will inevitably lead the “country down the road to the dustbin of history.”

Unsurprisingly, this isn’t the first time Gohmert has made such a claim.

We see marriage that’s been defined for the history of man, whether you believe in nature or as we do nature’s God, it’s designed that it’s just biologically for a man and a woman to procreate and to create a family and that’s not our ruling and yet we’re going to throw that aside and say we are so much smarter than the entire history of mankind when actually we’re not smarter, we’re just falling into the same rut that Solomon talked about: ‘There’s nothing new under the sun.’ This is what you’re going to do to lead your country down the road to the dustbin of history and we don’t have to go there.

Louie Gohmert Wants Congress To Arrest Eric Holder

In an interview Friday on the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch, Rep. Louie Gohmert said that Congress should considering passing a resolution directing the sergeant at arms to arrest Attorney General Eric Holder.

FRC president Tony Perkins repeated his suggestion from earlier this month that the House sergeant at arms should have “slapped the cuffs on” Holder and “stuffed him down there in the cell in the Capitol” during the State of the Union Address in response to the House GOP’s 2012 vote to hold Holder in contempt of Congress.

In response, Gohmert suggested Republicans consider passing “a resolution directing the Sergeant at Arms to detain anyone who is in contempt of Congress.”

“There is a cell there on Capitol Hill,” he added.

Gohmert: When you have someone like an attorney general who is in contempt of Congress, what can we do? Someone in contempt of Congress comes waltzing into the House chamber and he’s in contempt of Congress as found by the Congress, what can be done? I was told that actually you can pass a resolution directing the sergeant at arms to detain anyone who is in contempt of Congress until such time as they comply with the requirement that put him in contempt. In this case, they didn’t provide information from the Justice Department, they had it, they refused to provide it, we found him in contempt.

Perkins: It’s interesting you bring that up because as you recall I was sitting next to your guest at the State of the Union address, Sean Hannity and I were sitting up in the balcony and that was the thought that crossed my mind when I saw the attorney general, Eric Holder, walk into the chamber along with the president’s cabinet. I said, here’s a guy—this guy’s got a lot of nerve, he’s in contempt of Congress, and this didn’t just happen, this has been going on now for over a year or longer, almost two years or three I guess since ‘Fast & Furious’ and he’s refused to provide this documentation to Congress, he’s in contempt of Congress, and he just strolls right in and sits on the front row there. I’m thinking, my goodness, why doesn’t Congress do something about that?

Gohmert: My thought was the only thing that we can probably do is defund any area of the Justice Department that is in contempt, that won’t produce the documents that were demanded. But apparently another option would be to direct a sergeant at arms, somebody comes into our jurisdiction at Capitol Hill, you restrain them until such time, and there is a cell there on Capitol Hill.

Ben Sasse Says The Government Must Ban Same-Sex Marriage Because 'Marriage Is Defined By God'

Ben Sasse, the GOP US Senate candidate from Nebraska who has garnered endorsements from Tea Party-aligned groups including the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and the Senate Conservatives Fund, appeared on Friday’s edition of The Janet Mefferd Show to reiterate his commitment to the social conservatives cause.

When asked his opinion on legalizing same-sex marriage, Sasse said he agree with the GOP’s opposition to marriage equality, adding, “Government doesn’t define marriage, marriage is defined by God and we receive it via nature and it predates government. And when the family is under assault as it is today, when the family is in decline, nothing else is going to work.”

“We need to stand for the idea that the Founders got with the Bill of Rights, which is that nature and our rights come to us not from government but they come to us from God and government is our shared project to secure our natural and inalienable rights,” Sasse continued. “The reason we want a government is to protect us from certain kinds of evils and uncertainties so we can live life in the central institutions like family.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious