Brian Tashman's blog

Erickson: Journalists Want To Sleep With Obama

Fox News contributor and RedState editor Erick Erickson had a sexist and homophobic meltdown today, lashing out at journalists for getting “erections for everything Barack Obama does.”

“[Y]ou’d rather have cocktails (pun absolutely intended for a good portion of you ‘journalists’) with the President, jealously size up the competition in the First Lady, and wish you too could be a mistress when you see France’s President and whoever the gal of the week is for him,” Erickson writes in RedState, chiding the “shameless whores” in the media who just want to “have [Obama’s] baby.”

You guys in the press who are reading this right now can be such shameless whores. I generally try to hold to the standard these days that if I wouldn’t be outraged by George Chimpy McBushitler Halliburton and Darth Cheney doing something, I shouldn’t be outraged by President Obama. And if I’d be outraged by Bush, I should be outraged by Obama.

But you journalists have such erections for everything Barack Obama does, you can’t even summon outrage to report fairly on the latest b.s. from the administration over Obamacare. Is it any wonder so many people have stopped trusting you?



But now, you’d rather have cocktails (pun absolutely intended for a good portion of you “journalists”) with the President, jealously size up the competition in the First Lady, and wish you too could be a mistress when you see France’s President and whoever the gal of the week is for him.

If this was George Bush telling businesses they cannot take advantage of an arguable unconstitutional restricting of law done without Congress’s consent unless the businesses swore oaths that they’d lie if they need to downsize due to Obamacare costs, the media would start talking about impeaching the President in non-ironic ways.

But with President Obama, half of MSNBC still wants to have his baby and the women over there just want to be his mistress. Hell, France’s President has one.

No, we don’t need to impeach the President, but God help me I’d at least think the media might want to pretend to hold him accountable. It really is disgraceful.

WND: Common Core Turning US Into Nazi Germany

WorldNetDaily commentator Patrice Lewis is fearful that Common Core, with its “brainwashing” and “indoctrination techniques,” is bringing Nazism to America.

According to Lewis, a biology teacher she heard about from a friend is telling her students to “sing a song praising Common Core,” which makes the teacher just like Hitler.

Lewis adds that a public school is like a totalitarian “jail” that turns students into “zombies.”

Some friends came to us this week, troubled, to ask our advice. It seems their youngest son came home from school on Monday and asked – begged – to be homeschooled.

His request has been a recurrent theme during the past few months, but it took on a particular urgency on Monday when his biology teacher required all the students to sing a song praising Common Core.

I should add that this boy isn’t 6 years old. He’s 16. He and his classmates are long past the age of being amused by peppy propaganda songs. And our friend’s son, thanks to the vigilance of his parents, knew that what he was experiencing was nothing short of brainwashing. So his request to homeschool took on a much more serious tone. His parents came over to discuss the subject.

While the federalizing of public schools has been going on for decades, the rapid push to capture our children has taken on a sense of urgency in the last few years. The government doesn’t just want our children’s bodies; it particularly wants their minds. If Nazi German taught us nothing else, it taught us this: Children are the currency of tyrants.

It’s worth remembering that when people objected to joining the Nazi Party, Hitler gave a verbal shrug and assured them that their membership wasn’t necessary since he already had their children. “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future,” he famously said.

And let’s not forget that eerie sentiment from “Mein Kampf”: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

No one can dispute the effectiveness of these youthful indoctrination techniques. Forget trying to change the mind of older people – they’re too set in their ways. But the children – aah, they’re the hope of the future. It is critical that the minds of children be captured.



Remember, follow the money. If schools are government-funded, then logically only government-approved attitudes and behaviors will be permitted. Students (and by extension, their families) must be tracked to make sure everyone falls within acceptable boundaries of thought and behavior. Dissenting opinions will be made known to officials, and corrective measures can be taken. I’m beginning to think the Planet Camazotz (with the megalomaniac “IT”) from “A Wrinkle in Time” was astoundingly prescient.

Are you freaked out yet? I know our friends are. That’s why they will soon be homeschooling their youngest son.

I can’t emphasize strongly enough the need to reject government education, if at all possible. It is your duty as a parent to raise children, not zombies. You’re raising the hope of the future, not its doom. It’s time to look outside the jail cell and see what educational alternatives you can find for your kids. Almost anything is better than putting them in prison for eight hours a day.

Don’t forget: Children are the currency of tyrants. You can see the evidence right in front of you. The government already takes too much of your income. Tell it to get its hands off your legacy.

Liberty Counsel: Impeach Obama For Turning America 'Into A Godless, Socialist Nation'

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver has unveiled a new campaign calling on the House of Representatives to initiate the impeachment process against President Obama.

The Religious Right group, which is the legal and advocacy arm of Liberty University, claims that Obama is more tyrannical and oppressive than King George III and must be stopped.

We, the People of the United States of America, demand that the United States House of Representatives draft Articles of Impeachment against President Barack H. Obama for failure to adhere to the authority and rule of law, and for open oppression of our liberties, as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America and its Bill of Rights.



In my nearly three decades of work in the legal field specializing in constitutional law, I have NEVER witnessed a more blatant and consistent disregard for the Constitution as we have seen from this President and his administration!

As I have often said, today’s patriotic Americans are facing more oppression from civil government than did the colonial generation!



Together, we can stop this tyranny before President Obama and his “progressive” supporters succeed in remaking the United States of America into a godless, socialist nation!

The impeachment petition lists the health care reform law and the Benghazi attack as among Obama’s “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Staver has repeatedly called for a revolution against Obama over gay rights, warning that his administration supports the supposed Antichrist mission to usher in “forced homosexuality” and “LGBT affirmative action.”

Anti-Gay Backlash To Michael Sam Begins With Fears Of 'Raging Hormones,' End Of The 'Bromance'

The backlash to the announcement by University of Missouri defensive end and likely NFL draft pick Michael Sam that he is gay is troubling the usual suspects. Anti-gay author Michael Brown is out with a column criticizing Sam’s “selfish act” and suggesting that he should’ve stayed in the closet.

According to Brown, Sam’s “hormones might be raging for men the way the other players’ hormones rage for women,” which will make “the ‘bromance’ type of close relationships that many players enjoy” impossible since they won’t be “as physical and free with a homosexual teammate.”

But once they have made their announcement, how can everyone be expected to feel completely comfortable? And with the “bromance” type of close relationships that many players enjoy, would they be as physical and free with a homosexual teammate?

And since NFL players are hardly known for their sexual purity—with many notable exceptions—is it homophobic to think that Sam’s hormones might be raging for men the way the other players’ hormones rage for women?



Looked at from another angle, it was more of a selfish act, and not only in the sense that Sam is suddenly a national celebrity. (As of Feb. 10, a Google search for his name yielded more than 3 million hits. Just one week ago, his numbers would have been a fraction of this.) What I mean is that professional football is all about the team, and the focus must be on making a joint sacrifice in order to win rather than drawing attention to oneself.



Why can’t he just play the game, keep his private life private (as many public figures do), and when his career is over, if he wants to tell the whole world he’s gay, he can do so then?

Right on cue, Rush Limbaugh declared that Sam’s announcement is proof that heterosexuals are “under assault,” a claim he made during a rant against the gay “political agenda” that couples as a great example of heterosexual privilege.

The Media Research Center is upset that major broadcast networks “celebrated the announcement” and chided sports commentators for their alleged mistreatment of Tim Tebow in an article that seems to imply that Tebow is the first and only evangelical Christian ever to play for the NFL.

ESPN on Monday was a long parade of congratulatory guests, like columnist Kay Fagan, who used words like “authenticity” and “inclusion.” Fagan ended a rapturous column by saying of Sam, “His truth is now.” (Does homosexuality come with a separate truth? Or do you pay extra, like undercarriage coating?)

Ok, lets simmer down and wait for the backlash. It’ll come. It has to when personal life and philosophy and social issues intersect with the NFL. Here it comes … Er, no? But when Tim Tebow entered the draft he encountered a rain of hate from people worried for the sport, people who resented having to hear about the personal beliefs of “Saint Timmy,” as CBS’s Pete Prisco called him in April, 2010.

Pastor Ron Cantor took to Charisma to warn that Sam’s presence in the locker room “is going to make for an uncomfortable situation.”

Cantor asserts that the truly courageous people are those who are worried about having a gay teammate: “How ironic—in the past it was the homosexual who was afraid to come out. Now it’ll be the guy who doesn’t want to take a shower next to the homosexual who will be shunned and shamed—and he will be told to keep his mouth shut.”

Let me just be honest. If I had a job whereby I had to undress and shower several times a week with a roomful of very fit, attractive females—well, let’s just say I would struggle. And that clearly is the concern of heterosexual football players. It is a legitimate issue. I am not an expert, but if someone says to me that they are attracted to men and then are going to see them undressed on an almost daily basis, it is going to make for an uncomfortable situation. Right?

But don’t say it out loud—not unless you are willing to be skewered by the media elites. Oh, wait, too late. Jonathan Vilma of the New Orleans Saints already stated the obvious.

“I think that he would not be accepted as much as we think he would be accepted," Vilma said. "I don’t want people to just naturally assume, like, ‘Oh, we’re all homophobic.’ That’s really not the case. Imagine if he’s the guy next to me and, you know, I get dressed, [bare], taking a shower, the whole nine, and it just so happens he looks at me. How am I supposed to respond?”

Vilma made those completely honest and valid comments a few days ago—before Sam came out. For sure, he will be vilified and called immature. But come on, let’s be honest: No one expects adult men and women to take mass showers together on the job—for the obvious reasons. But Vilma is juvenile and uneducated for not wanting to shower next to an openly gay man?

I wonder if more NFL players will have the courage to speak up. How ironic—in the past it was the homosexual who was afraid to come out. Now it’ll be the guy who doesn’t want to take a shower next to the homosexual who will be shunned and shamed—and he will be told to keep his mouth shut.

Virginia Congressional Candidate Bob Marshall's 5 Craziest Moments

Virginia Republican state delegate Bob Marshall is preparing a bid for the House seat currently held by retiring Rep. Frank Wolf, according to a Virginia-based conservative blog. This would set up a challenge to fellow right-wing state delegate and former Clinton-hunter Barbara Comstock.

Just in case you aren’t familiar with Marshall, here is a quick refresher on some of his most extreme positions:

1. Disabled Children Are God’s Punishment For Abortion

At a 2010 press conference attacking Planned Parenthood, Marshall said that “the number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically” because “when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.” He called disabled children a “special punishment” from God on women who have had abortions.

It is no wonder that Marshall sponsored a personhood bill that would ban abortion in call cases along with some forms of birth control, one of several bills he proposed that would curtail abortion rights and contraception coverage.

2. Ban Gay Service Members From The National Guard

Marshall reacted to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by proposing legislation to prohibit “active homosexuals” from serving in the Virginia National Guard, warning that the end of the anti-gay ban would “jeopardize our alliances,” ruin the military and possibly lead to a military draft. Marshall said that if he were in the military he wouldn’t trust gay service members because they might give him a sexually transmitted infection or harass him: “It’s a distraction when I’m on the battlefield and I have to concentrate on the guy 600 yards away, am I worrying about this guy whose got eyes on me?”

3. Anti-Gay Crusade

Marshall has staunchly defended of Virginia’s unconstitutional sodomy law, successfully pushed to block the appointment of an openly gay judge and attempted to stop the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank from flying a rainbow flag, warning that LGBT equality “undermines the American economy.”

He also complained that anti-gay activists are being treated in the same way as Dred Scott.

4. Health Care Reform Is Like Rape

In an attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, Marshall demanded that Virginia exempt itself from the individual health insurance mandate, warning that health care reform represented “criminal activity” akin to the work of “mobsters.”

“This is a fight over whether you are a citizen or you are a serf,” he said. “It’s not your wallet that they want, it’s your soul, it’s your family.” But Marshall didn’t stop there: “Indeed, the individual mandate is not voluntary commercial intercourse; it is forcible economic rape.”

Marshall has also said that health care reform would “euthanize seniors” and “kill capitalism.”

5. Creating A New Currency

Marshall, fearing an economic collapse, called on Virginia to consider creating its own currency due to the likelihood of “a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System. He said that economic doom may be one result of the 2009 stimulus package, which he said is “as much a chain as ankle bracelets were as to African-Americans in the 1860s in this state...it is a chain of death that we’re not going to escape.”

Rep. Southerland 'Shocked' And 'Insulted' By Obama Speech Supporting Religious Freedom

President Obama can do nothing right in the eyes of the GOP, it seems: Even the president’s National Prayer Breakfast speech defending religious freedom has stoked the ire of one Republican congressman.

Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL) told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch last week that he was “stunned” and “shocked” by the president’s speech and was angry that Obama would “insult those who really believe” in the freedom of religion — like him.

Southerland argued that Obama is trying to “trivialize our deeply held beliefs by making statements that are so contrary to his actions and those of his administration.” “It’s the ultimate disrespect,” he said.

Perkins: Gay Marriage Turns Kids Gay, Hurts US In Global Economic Competition

On Friday’s edition of Washington Watch, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins got into a debate with a caller over marriage equality, during which Perkins said that gay marriage will turn children into gay, super-sexualized beings who won’t be able to compete in the global economy. Instead of offering credible answers to the caller’s questions, Perkins brushed them aside and repeatedly moved on to his next dubious argument against same-sex marriage.

The debate started when the caller contested Perkins’ use of the term “natural marriage,” since the definition of marriage has changed throughout history and has included relationships such as polygamy.

Perkins responded that it doesn’t matter that polygamy has been considered “natural” throughout different cultures and history “because same-sex marriage has never existed for the last ten years at best,” and then switched gears to claim that same-sex marriage will jeopardize the country’s prospects “on giving birth to the next generation.”

When the caller replied that people don’t choose to be gay and therefore marriage equality won’t impact America’s fertility rate, Perkins argued that the debate isn’t really about marriage but rather public school classes that teach “kids how to engage in homosexual behavior”…which he said will turn kids gay and harm America’s economic competitiveness with other nations.

Perkins’ jarring arguments aren’t anything new. He has claimed that same-sex relationships are part of a government “population control” plot, and leads an organization that wants to “export” gay people from the US “because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.”

Perkins: There’s actually more of a historical basis for polygamy than there’s ever been for same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage has never existed for the last ten years at best.

Caller: Well it is a new thing I’ll grant you that, I understand that the phrasing ‘natural marriage’ is great, it fits really great on a bumper sticker, but I just don’t think it means anything and I’m trying to understand what that’s supposed to mean.

Perkins: How do you plan on giving birth to the next generation?

Caller: That’s the thing, how many same-sex marriages are there out there? What is it, 2 percent, 3 percent of the total number of marriages? I don’t think that we’re going to have to worry about the next generation.

Perkins: But if it’s normative and it’s normal then we would say we would want more of it if it’s beneficial.

Caller: Well no, I don’t think that’s it at all. People don’t suddenly one day decide to become gay, you’re either gay or you’re not. I’ve never met anyone who just scratched their head and went, ‘you know what I think I’m into guys now’ or ‘I think I’m into girls now,’ it just doesn’t happen.

Perkins: …Okay. What does that have to do with marriage? What does that have to do with redefining marriage, redefining the curriculum in our schools?

Caller: Well you’re saying that we have to worry about the next generation, I’m saying that there is a very small portion of the population, probably less than 10 percent, that are gay. I think that the next generation is going to come along whether we want it to or not, it’s not about—

Perkins: No, because what happens when you change and you say heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage, then you change the curriculum in your schools and you have kids, as a natural part of growing up and developing, they’re curious and they don’t know, and we’re exposing them to even more sexuality and overt sexual messages and we’re telling them, ‘hey experiment.’ And that is what leads, in many cases, to children going down a particular path, is early childhood sexual exposure, sometimes it’s traumatic. And by normalizing that and mainstreaming that, what you will do is you will have more children going down that path and that’s why they want to get this message into our schools.

Caller: I understand your argument but is there any data to support that?

Perkins: What do you mean any data to support it?

Caller: You are saying if you expose children to homosexuality you will have more homosexuals.

Perkins: Well if you sexualize a culture — I can tell you the data is very clear on what’s happened in the last 30 to 40 years where we have inundated young people, children, with sexual messages and they become sexually active. So when you take and mix into that homosexuality and other forms of sexuality into that, yes they are going to move down that path, they are going to engage in what you tell them about. That is why it’s problematic, that is why parents are upset about what is happening in Hawaii and other states that are teaching their kids how to engage in homosexual behavior, or heterosexual for that matter. I don’t want my kids that are 11, 12 and 13 years-old taught how to put on a condom or taught about how to engage in sexual behavior with someone who has HIV in a safe fashion. That is not what the schools should be about. They should be about teaching our kids to read, to write, to engage in science. How do we ever expect to compete globally when we’re fixated on teaching our kids about sex?

Another Benghazi Conspiracy Theory Collapses: The David Petraeus Hero Narrative

When CIA director David Petraeus stepped down from his post after an extramarital affair went public, former general and right-wing activist Jerry Boykin confidently claimed that Petraeus resigned in order to expose an Obama administration scandal surrounding the Benghazi attack.

Boykin, now vice president of the Family Research Council, suggested in 2012 that Petraeus was “held hostage” by administration officials and resigned because “he reached a point where he was unwilling to continue spouting the party line [on Benghazi] to the American public and continuing to breach his own integrity.”

Glenn Beck, who regularly hosts Boykin on the Blaze network, suggested that Petraeus stepped down from the CIA in order to reveal information about the Benghazi attack that could bring down the Obama administration.

But, stunningly, nothing Boykin or Beck said about Petraeus came true. In fact, Petraeus recently cited former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “extraordinarily resolute, determined and controlled” handling of the incident as a reason she would “make a tremendous president.”

“She’d make a tremendous president,” Petraeus says in the new book “HRC” by Jonathan Allen and Aimee Parnes.

And for Petraeus, Exhibit A in why she would be a tremendous president is the very thing for which Republicans most aggressively attack Clinton: her performance as Secretary of State when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked.

“Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times,” Petraeus tells Allen and Parnes. “In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, she was extraordinarily resolute, determined, and controlled.”

Petraeus was director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time of the attacks, which killed four Americans, including two who worked for the CIA and the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

As Kyle pointed out, the GOP-led House Armed Services Committee released a report today that thoroughly debunks the conservative conspiracy theories surrounding the Benghazi faux-scandal.

This is more bad news for Boykin, who predicted that the House would uncover a massive scandal and pressed Speaker Boehner into launching additional investigations. With his conspiracy theory unraveling, Boykin is even implicating Boehner in the Benghazi “cover-up” since the House investigations have failed to discover the “scandal” he is trying to find.

But don’t expect conservative pundits like Beck and Boykin to reconsider or retract any of their outrageous and delusional Benghazi claims that don’t hold any merit outside of the right-wing echo chamber.

Roy Moore: Under Marriage Equality, US Will 'No Longer Have A Constitution'

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who last week announced his support for a convention of states to amend the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, has launched a new campaign to promote the anti-gay amendment, called “I Stand With Judge Moore.”

Moore, who believes that marriage equality is a Satanic influence that will lead to “oppressive” government and divine punishment, told WorldNetDaily yesterday that the legalization of same-sex marriage threatens the Constitution:

“It’s a travesty,” Judge Roy Moore told WND on Monday about the move toward judiciary-imposed same-sex “marriages.” “The courts are exercising wrongful authority over this country.”

He said it was no less than the U.S. Supreme Court itself which, in an earlier ruling, said, “We come nearest to illegitimacy when we deal with judge-made constitutional law with no cognizable roots in the design of the Constitution.”



“If marriage falls,” he said, “the institution of family upon which it is based falls.”

Then, he said, “We no longer have a Constitution. We have a government of individual men who have the power to decide what the Constitution means … .”

The Religious Right group Moore founded, the Foundation for Moral Law, has posted the letter and resolution, “The Marriage Preservation Amendment to the United States Constitution,” [PDF] that Moore sent to the nation’s governors pleading with them to initiate a convention of states.

In addition, Moore dedicated a speech to the Alabama Cattleman’s Association last week to denouncing same-sex marriage:

AFA Affiliate: US Should Adopt Russian 'Gay Propaganda' Law To Curtail GLSEN

Laurie Higgins of the American Family Association-affiliated Illinois Family Institute is a big fan of Russia’s “gay propaganda” law, and she writes today that the United States should impose a similar law here in order to restrict the work of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

She claims that GLSEN is behind the “censorship” of anti-gay views, because apparently bigotry is needed in schools for the sake of balance, and urges the US to adopt a Russia-style propaganda law in order to curb GLSEN’s “totalitarian” grip over schools.

Google’s recent “doodle” announces to the world that Google is gaga over homosexuality-affirming propaganda for minors. Google’s doodle pokes a virtual rainbow-colored flag in the eye of Russian president Vladimir Putin for signing into law a bill that protects minors from homosexuality-affirming propaganda. A financial blockbuster of a company with roots in the country founded to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” pro-actively endorses the propagandizing of children while a corrupt totalitarian cockalorum opposes it. Curiouser and curiouser.

The fanciful notion that having “two mommies” is ontologically and morally indistinguishable from having a mother and a father is not a fact. Presenting that non-fact to, for example, five-year-olds in government schools is propaganda. And presenting this non-fact to children is not a loving act even if it “feels” good to “educators” who don’t think about or discuss the issue deeply.



Exposing minors to homosexuality-affirming propaganda is nowhere more troubling than in our public schools where neither children nor teachers are encouraged to study in depth all sides of issues related to homosexuality. Quite the contrary. Curricula and supplementary resources and activities are controlled by “progressive” dogma, the kind of dogma promulgated by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (Privately, “progressive” teachers actually scoff at the suggestion that there are sides other than theirs worthy of study.)



Ask any conservative public school teachers if their colleagues or administrators ever present resources that challenge “progressive” ideas about homosexuality in professional development meetings. And ask them if they feel as free to express their moral and political beliefs in faculty meetings (or in the classroom) as their “progressive” colleagues do.

“Agents of change,” secure in their tenured positions in public schools, share a certain esprit de corps with totalitarian regimes. They all hatch plans sub rosa to control the beliefs of others. Unfortunately, those victims—I mean, students—happen to be other people’s minor children.

Until our publicly subsidized educators relinquish their white-knuckled grip on curricula with their de facto enforcement of censorship, perhaps we need an anti-propagandizing-to-minors law.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious