Brian Tashman's blog

Religious Right Conspiracy Theory on Military Blocking Baptist Website Completely False

The Religious Right went into a frenzy this week over charges that the military was deliberately blocking access to SBC.net, the official website of the Southern Baptist Convention’s, as part of an anti-Christian ploy.

“What we are seeing here, I want to be very clear here, we are seeing under the Obama administration a Christian cleansing underway in the United States military,” Fox News' Starnes maintained.

David Limbaugh accused the military of acting like a “thought police” who “selectively suppress[es] First Amendment freedoms” that “our armed forces are charged to protect,” and the SBC’s top ethicist Richard Land said it was an “outrageous” move and the person who blocked the website “needs to be fired.”

The American Family Association called the incident an example of the military’s “hostility towards faith and religious freedom” and its spokesman Bryan Fischer claimed it was part of an Islamist-secularist conspiracy to classify the entire denomination as a “hate group that spews nothing but ‘hostile content.’”

SBC.net was in fact blocked, but not as a result of anti-Christian bias, but because of malware on the SBC’s website.

Don’t just take our word for it, the Baptist Press, the news arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, reported that “the military's software filters detected malware at SBC.net and blocked the website.” Due to malware, not the content of the website, SBC.net was considered “hostile content.”

But don’t hold your breath for Land or Fischer to retract their inflammatory claims.

A military official says malware was to blame for the Southern Baptist Convention's website being blocked on some military bases.

Lt. Col. Damien Pickart, a Defense Department spokesman, said the military's software filters detected malware at SBC.net and blocked the website. The malware since has been removed off the website, and the denomination's website unblocked, he said.

"The Department of Defense is not intentionally blocking access to this site," Pickart told The Tennessean in an email. "The Department of Defense strongly supports the religious rights of service members, to include their ability to access religious websites like that of the SBC."



Chris Chapman, the SBC Executive Committee's director of information systems, said SBC.net -- like the websites of many other organizations -- is a target for hackers. He also said the military's filters are at an "optimum level" in blocking content, not simply "recognizing invading viruses" but also blocking anything that possibly could be harmful.



"The recent situation impeding access to our website for some was aggravated by a misunderstanding of a term familiar to those in the information technology field. That term is 'hostile content.' To technical administrators, it simply means some sort of vulnerability or virus. It might not even be an actively harmful element, but simply an exploitable or potentially exploitable condition. We now live in an age where defending against or removing 'hostile content' is a daily undertaking, especially for any organization that maintains multiple Internet servers.

LaBarbera Warns of Plan to 'Homosexualize the Scouts' Through 'Boy-On-Boy-Homosexual Promotion'

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is outraged by a proposal that would end the Boy Scouts of America's ban on gay members under the age of 18, warning in an interview on VCY America’s Crosstalk that such a “treacherous” compromise will inevitably “homosexualize the scouts.”

He warned that “boy-on-boy homosexual promotion” is “dangerous” and that no parent would want their son to have friends who talk about their “openly gay lifestyle” since “the sorts of things that are espoused in homosexuality are not morally straight.”

The Boy Scouts have really made a treacherous move and I think some pro-family leaders, some conservatives and some Christians have said ‘okay I’m already done with the Scouts.’ They are so appalled that the Scouts would move in this direction after they had already won, remember the Boy Scouts won in the Supreme Court, they won their constitutional right to live by their own standard, it was upheld by the Supreme Court. This would just lead to another court challenge that would make the scouts totally pro-homosexual because once you make the compromise and say that you can have scout kids of course the homosexual lawyers will challenge the adults, it will completely homosexualize the scouts, it will lead to more gay activism and I think it will destroy the scouts and their numbers will begin to plummet.



We have to remember that boy-on-boy homosexual promotion is also dangerous. I don’t think any parent wants a boy coming in talking about his openly gay lifestyle. We know from homosexual activism — I’ve been witnessing it for over twenty years — the sorts of things that are espoused in homosexuality are not morally straight. A lot of times you are seeing young people mimicking the sort of immoral things they see in the adult homosexual world. We simply don’t want homosexuality in the scouts in any way.

Later in the program, LaBarbera agreed with a caller who maintained that homosexuality leads to the collapse of society and feared that the Republican Party may soon “sell out God” and support gay rights, adding that such a position will lead to the establishment of a “wholesome” third party.

Caller: We were just recently at “Weekend to Remember” and that statement was made there by a man that had access to a lot of historical data, he searched back through the history of the world and there’s never been a government that has lasted more than three generations from the point of which they advocated and okayed homosexuality.

LaBarbera: We’ve seen this from historians, including secular historian Will Durant who said that America was already in decline and he cited homosexuality and its embrace, and that was way back in the 80s or maybe the 70s. So your caller is absolutely right and it is very sad to see Christian citizens now, including the Republican Party, being forced to choose between their faith and this political correctness. And if the Republican Party thinks the way to get ahead and to get more votes is to sell out God, they are deeply mistaken and I think it will lead to the formation of a more wholesome, pro-family party.

Accuracy In Media Blames Marijuana for Boston Attack

Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid is citing reports that the two Boston marathon bombers may have been drug dealers and that “the younger brother was a pothead” to argue “that dope’s effect on the brain is what may have led him into his brother’s terror activities.”

“He was probably so wasted mentally on drugs that he became easily manipulated by his brother and cannon fodder for the Islamist revolution on American soil,” Kincaid writes, “Marijuana is not the harmless drug the media frequently claim it to be. It is a mind-altering substance that can play a role in creating communist or Islamic terrorists.”

The older brother was a marijuana smuggler, but the younger brother was a pothead and a dealer. The Boston Globe says three people admitted buying drugs from the 19-year-old. “Several fellow students reported he earned at least some cash selling marijuana—at least the portion he didn’t smoke himself,” the paper reported. “There was a permanent stench of marijuana in his room,” said one person.

The dope aspect of the plot helps explain why they seemed to have no getaway plan, although we now learn they wanted to get to New York City to kill more people. Perhaps their minds were too scrambled to get to New York City. On the other hand, despite the reassuring claims from the media that authorities have found no evidence of foreign help, it is apparent that they did somehow master the art of making somewhat sophisticated bombs requiring timing devices. Perhaps other accomplices remain on the loose. We have no way to tell for sure, since the Obama Administration has read the captured brother his rights, making it less likely he will spill all the beans.



On one level, the case seems bizarre. A USA Today story says, “Friends and classmates of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev can’t grasp how the pot-smoking party boy they knew is the same young man now accused of carrying out a terrorist attack.” Left unsaid is the fact that dope’s effect on the brain is what may have led him into his brother’s terror activities. He was probably so wasted mentally on drugs that he became easily manipulated by his brother and cannon fodder for the Islamist revolution on American soil.

What happened in Boston is starting to look like what Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn tried to accomplish with the 1960s generation. Disillusioned young people, brainwashed with illegal mind-altering drugs and armed with weapons, were being taught to hate the American government and the police. Remember that communist terrorist Dohrn had said, “We fight in many ways. Dope is one of our weapons. The laws against marijuana mean that millions of us are outlaws long before we actually split. Guns and grass are united in the youth underground.”

Perhaps if the drug laws were being vigorously enforced in liberal Massachusetts, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could have been picked up by the authorities before joining his brother in the Boston bombing. Perhaps his arrest could have led to his supplier, his own brother. But it looks like drugs were common on campus, and among students, and so everyone just looked the other way. The terrible triple murder case involving marijuana sprinkled on the victims apparently wasn’t very high on the priority list, either.

Now, however, as CNN reports, the killings are being reviewed by a “wider group of eyes,” with an eye on the older brother.

Let us hope the media open their eyes as well, not only to the terrorist threat, but to how dangerous drugs can play a role in violence, murder, and mayhem. Marijuana is not the harmless drug the media frequently claim it to be. It is a mind-altering substance that can play a role in creating communist or Islamic terrorists.

Pamela Geller's Grand Boston Conspiracy Falls Apart

Pamela Geller embraced Glenn Beck’s crumbling conspiracy theory that the government is trying to cover up the alleged role of a Saudi national in the Boston marathon bombing in an interview with Janet Mefferd yesterday.

Mefferd: [Janet Napolitano] says this Saudi national was on a watch list but only while he was being questioned and then he was immediately taken off; does this sound strange to you?

Geller: If we can speak with any accuracy, she’s lying. She’s been lying and changing her story. First she said he wasn’t on the list, then she said it was a different Saudi; then she said he was pinged, while she said he was pinged when he left, she then said his name was spelled wrong and that’s why they didn’t know when he came back to the country. What is really disturbing about all this is that this is our national security, these are our babies and our families that are being put in harm’s way and they’re lying to us, they’re lying to us and they are covering for jihadists. This is what is happening. What is the motive for this? There can be no good motive.



Geller: How many jihadists in waiting are there in this country? That Saudi national that not only Michelle Obama visited, the first person of interest that was detained, who is now being deported in a rush deportation because he has ‘national security violations’ had visited the White House many times.

First, it seems that Geller confused the Saudi national, who is considered a victim and not a suspect, with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the deceased Boston bomber.

Geller also said that the Saudi national is about to be deported, even though The Hill already reported that the rumor is false and based on “another student from Saudi Arabia who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for violating his visa” and “is not believed to have any connection with the bombing.”

After arguing that the Saudi man in the hospital almost certainly had a role in the attack, she said that Michelle Obama visited him in the hospital where he is recovering…because of course the government would let the First Lady visit dangerous terrorists!

The Christian Science Monitor adds that the Saudi national was temporarily put on a watch list it was only so he couldn’t leave the hospital while he was being questioned. His name was then removed from the list after he was cleared by authorities, and he is not subject to deportation.

First off, [Bret] Baier said the wording of the paper was indeed somewhat dire.



But officials told him it was simply an automatic piece of customs paperwork triggered when police went to question the Saudi in the hours after the bombing.

To make sure he did not somehow get on an airplane before they could talk to him, they put him on a no-fly list. That automatically meant he was subject to visa revocation. The other language, including the reference to an “event,” followed from that.

“Also keep in mind, it’s just … a customs and border control document…. It’s not indicative of any investigative information,” said Baier.

After the FBI determined the man had no connection to the Boston crime, it took several days for the bureaucracy to scrub him out of its system. That is why the document existed for a short period of time, and why it shows evidence of officials trying to change it. But anyone searching the system for his name on the Sunday prior to the bombing would have found nothing, reported Baier, because no US government agency was looking for him.



The Homeland Security Secretary replied that the Saudi in question had not been on a watch list prior to the bombings and was never really a person of interest in the case.

“Because he was being interviewed, he was at that point put on a watch list,” Napolitano added. “And then when it was quickly determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watch listing status was removed.”

As if all this weren’t complicated enough, a number of news outlets have reported that there is a second Saudi man in Boston, unrelated to the student, who was taken into custody when he showed up at a port to retrieve a package, and a routine check showed he had overstayed his visa.

That’s the Saudi who is subject to deportation. The student who was caught in the bomb blast is not.

Shirley Dobson Angry Obama Won't Attend Her Anti-Obama Prayer Event

A week after President Obama won re-election, James Dobson on Family Talk said that his wife Shirley and her colleague John Bornschein used the National Day of Prayer Task Force to actively pray for Obama’s defeat.

The National Day of Prayer Task Force never did a good job pretending to be nonpartisan, but Dobson’s admission made its far-right bias all too clear.

Of course, with the ‘National Day of Prayer’ scheduled for May 2, we now get to hear Shirley Dobson, who leads the task force, complain during an interview with Janet Parshall yesterday that Obama is not attending.

That’s right, she is angry that Obama isn’t attending a function that her own husband said prayed against his re-election.

She also told Parshall that the Obama administration is leading an “attack” on religious freedom and does not give Christians a seat at the table in the White House.

You know Janet our religious liberties have been under such attack that I think Christians have — I don’t want to use the term ‘have had it’ — but I think their eyes are being opened and they realize that we have to come against this and we have to come out in corporate prayer and different prayer meetings. More than ever I think they want to assemble this year just to make a stand that our country was based on religious freedom and we are not going to give it up easily.



We do have different congressmen, Congressman [Randy] Forbes has been a great ally and Congressman [Robert] Aderholt, they participate themselves and we never have a problem at that observance. This year our honorary chairperson is going to be Greg Laurie and he’s going to be giving the main message, Chaplain Barry Black who is the chaplain of the Senate is going to be participating and Chaplain Wannick from the Pentagon is coming over to participate and of course congressman [Frank] Wolf will stand in for the legislature.

We have somebody for every branch but Janet unfortunately we’ve never had anybody come over from the executive branch. Every year we call the White House, we ask how the President wants to celebrate the National Day of Prayer and we appreciate that he does give a proclamation every year and they’ve been good with proclamations proclaiming a day of prayer in our nation, but the answer comes back ‘well the President has decided to pray silently or pray alone’ or there’s always some excuse. So we’ll say, ‘can somebody from his Cabinet come over and represent the executive branch so we can pray for them and pray for the President,’ and they’ve never sent anybody from the executive branch. We pray for them; we have somebody there that stands in the gab. But it really is so sad that they have all these other special interest groups in the White House but the Christians are not represented.

Keyes: US May Be 'Preparing our Military Forces to do Violence against Christian Denominations' That Oppose Gay Rights

Alan Keyes is out with a new column today arguing that Christians should not shy away from violence in the face of the “gruesome violence [that] is being done to Christians.” He also argues that the U.S. government may soon join in on the anti-Christian “genocidal threats," perhaps as a result of the gay rights movement.

“[I]t's not at all unreasonable to see, in certain recurring reports, signs that the U.S. government is preparing our military forces to do violence against Christian denominations that refuse to abandon God's Word on matters like homosexuality,” Keyes writes, urging Christians to “be prepared to execute God's law” and “release the power of God's Word against the perpetrator of evil.”

Ironically, in these offensively evil times, self-professed Christians who feel outrage at the thought of associating Christ with violence may be playing into the hands of Christ's adversary. After all, incomprehensibly massive, government- perpetrated slaughters occurred with striking regularity during the twentieth century. Today, in various parts of the world, gruesome violence is being done to Christians with frequency. Events in Africa and the Middle East have Christians and Jews being systematically targeted for violence by groups that have seized control of governments, or are poised to do so.

Moreover, it's not at all unreasonable to see, in certain recurring reports, signs that the U.S. government is preparing our military forces to do violence against Christian denominations that refuse to abandon God's Word on matters like homosexuality. Just the other day, I read that "soldiers in the U.S. military have been told in a training briefing that evangelical Christians are the No. 1 extremist threat to America....Catholicism and ultra-orthodox Judaism are also on the list of religious extremist organizations."

Given these signs of the times, the notion that "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" is the only accurate, Gospel-authorized example for Christians may ironically lead them to strike a pose of defenseless piety in the face of these genocidal threats. Since the prospect of an easy kill emboldens cowardly bullies, this defenseless pose increases their temptation to do evil. Are Christians required to become a near occasion of sin for those inclined to prey upon the defenseless? Are we required by Christ's example to make ourselves fodder for evil?



Righteous action thus requires, in the first instance, people who are willing, as Christ was, to give their lives in order to release the power of God's Word against the perpetrator of evil. But people of goodwill who witness it are authorized to take action against the perpetrator, on account of their respect for God. But in order to do, in this respect, what the Word of God authorizes them to do, they must be equipped for action, in spiritual and material terms. They must be prepared to execute God's law.

Swanson: Homosexuality 'Destroys Civilizations' and Must Be Punished

Pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner have long warned that homosexuality is responsible for natural disasters and that the US government should follow Uganda and “remove the abomination from the land” before it destroys people and society itself.

So we were not surprised when they kicked off Generations Radio this week by condemning pastor Rob Bell and the government of New Zealand for endorsing marriage equality. In fact, Swanson said that people should scratch New Zealand off their lists of places to turn to in case America falls apart since by legalizing same-sex marriage they will now face divine wrath.

As it turns out what works for Rob Bell is also what destroys civilizations and brings God’s judgment down upon civilizations. I know it’s really hard for some people to understand but if he did it in the Old Testament he is going to do it in the New Testament as well friends because God is the same God of judgment, the same God that holds nations to accountability and of course calls them to repentance as well and he holds them to tighter accounts on that repentance, according to the Apostle Paul on Mars Hill. By the way, New Zealand also has just legalized same-sex marriage so this thing is spreading all around the world today. There will be some nations better than others and New Zealand will not be one of them, friends. I’ve heard people talk about how wonderful New Zealand is and maybe we should all move to New Zealand, I’m sorry, New Zealand has also legalized same-sex marriage and has gone the way of America effectively.

The pair agreed that homosexuality at the very least should be criminalized and maybe even made into a capital crime since the Old Testament “says that homosexuals should be put to death.”

Buehner criticized Bell along with Tim Keller, who said that while he opposes gay marriage he does not consider it a sin to support its legalization, telling them that “not only is homosexuality a sin but it’s a crime” and Christians cannot “in any way cooperate with the committing of a crime against the law of God.”

Swanson: I would say the general equity of a law in the Old Testament that says that homosexuals should be put to death would be to frown on homosexuality.

Buehner: To frown?

Swanson: At least, at least to frown.

Buehner: Before you throw the stone?

Swanson: At the very, very, very least you would hope that somebody would get some kind of a moral directory, a trajectory towards a negative approach to handling homosexuality on the part of the civil magistrate. I hope that somebody would get that out of some of these Old Testament laws.

Buehner: So to Mr. Keller and to Mr. Bell and to many others who are saying these sorts of things, I would say not only is homosexuality a sin but it’s a crime. The general equity requires that it still be a crime; the moral law requires that it still be listed as a crime ergo Christians should in no way give any kind of endorsement, support candidates who give endorsement or in any way cooperate with the committing of a crime against the law of God. God’s law is law, God has the authority, he gives his authority to civil magistrates to execute his law; this is outside, against and opposed to God’s law.

Swanson: If there will be Christianity extant in the year 2060 friends somebody is going to have to be rooted and grounded to the rock solid foundations of God’s laws, otherwise they’re going to be blown about with every political position that comes around that is out to destroy our civilizations as we know it.

Robertson: Planned Parenthood Inspired Adolf Hitler, Behind 'Genocide' of Black Community

Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson said that Margaret Sanger “was the one who set the stage for Adolf Hitler, she didn’t copy him, he copied her.” After running a story about how President Obama postponed his speech at Planned Parenthood in order to attend a memorial service in Texas for victims of the fertilizer plant explosion, Roberston said that the group founded by Sanger is “evil” and targets black people.

“What they said was, they said ‘what we’ve got to do in order to get the black people in America to have abortions, we have to have some noted black leader who will come out for Planned Parenthood and we’ll give him the Margaret Sanger award and therefore he will be our poster boy showing the black people they should have abortions,” Robertson maintained, “it was strictly genocide.”

Watch:

While Sanger was tied to the eugenics movement, the claim that she intended to exterminate black people and use black leaders to hide such a plan is based on a quote taken badly out of context.

As PolitiFact reports, the eugenics movement was widely popular at the time of Sanger’s work, but there is “no evidence that Sanger advocated - privately or publicly - for anything even resembling the ‘genocide’ of blacks, or that she thought blacks are genetically inferior”:

"I have never run into any serious academic reference of Sanger or others wanting to ‘kill black babies,’" Indiana University professor Ruth Engs, a eugenics movement expert, told PolitiFact Georgia in an e-mail.

The Washington Post also “found nothing to confirm these allegations” that Sanger targeted the black community for genocide and noted that even Martin Luther King, Jr. had praised her work.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org debunked the claim when Herman Cain made the same argument as Robertson:

Cain isn’t the first to believe that birth control advocate Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) wanted to stop the birth of black babies. Just do an Internet search and see what happens. Sanger made more than her share of controversial comments. But the quote many point to as evidence that Sanger favored something akin to “genocide” of African Americans has been turned on its head.

Sanger, who was arrested several times in her efforts to bring birth control to women in the United States, set up her first clinic in Brooklyn in 1916. In the late 1930s, she sought to bring clinics to black women in the South, in an effort that was called the “Negro Project.” Sanger wrote in 1939 letters to colleague Clarence James Gamble that she believed the project needed a black physician and black minister to gain the trust of the community:

Sanger, 1939: The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Sanger says that a minister could debunk the notion, if it arose, that the clinics aimed to “exterminate the Negro population.” She didn’t say that she wanted to “exterminate” the black population. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University says that this quote has “gone viral on the Internet,” normally out of context, and it “doesn’t reflect the fact that Sanger recognized elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow south, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim.”

It goes on to characterize beliefs such as Cain’s as “extremist.” The project says: “No serious scholar and none of the dozens of black leaders who supported Sanger’s work have ever suggested that she tried to reduce the black population or set up black abortion mills, the implication in much of the extremist anti-choice material.”

Erik Rush: 'We Have Far More Human Garbage in This Country Than We Ever Ought to Have Tolerated'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush, who has called for the mass incarceration of liberals and the murder of all Muslims, writes today that, thanks to liberals, “émigrés from Third World toilets” have come to America and now “we have far more human garbage in this country than we ever ought to have tolerated.” According to Rush, the left has planned “to destabilize America” by promoting “radical Marxism” and “radical Islam” until we are all pushed “into dhimmitude.”

If it hasn’t become evident by now: This race and religion-baiting is a pretext, a component of the left’s design to destabilize America. Americans are being – and in many instances have been – conditioned either to ignore radical Islam, or to sympathize with Islamists. The result can be observed (as I indicated last week in this space) in several European nations, where the citizenry, beleaguered by hordes of radical, disruptive and economically parasitic Muslims, nevertheless vociferously defend them. The unwitting natives remain unaware that it has always been the Islamists’ goal to displace them into dhimmitude.

A person cannot know that President Obama is thick as thieves with radical Islamist factions such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist-affiliated Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and claim surprise that we are now beginning to live out the European nightmare vis-à-vis Islam. Young American fools who rush to the defense of Muslim radicals and their silent “peaceful” brethren obviously don’t recall the innumerable news reports of café bombings that came out of European nations during the 1970s, and the radical Muslim groups that claimed responsibility for each and every one.

The fact is that we have far more human garbage in this country than we ever ought to have tolerated, and this has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion; it has to do with what is in people’s hearts and minds. What we haven’t imported, the left has created. Liberals and radical Marxism in particular have inculcated a sense that we somehow deserve the antipathy of those around the world (and by extension, émigrés from Third World toilets) and so should endure it. The ongoing complaint of Muslims (radical and otherwise) is very much in this vein.

It is proper that Americans scrutinize the ethics of our leaders’ foreign policy; it is part of our civic duty. Would that we had done so more scrupulously in past years, or we might have more readily recognized the scope of our government’s corruption. This boilerplate Vietnam-era Marxist-inspired cynicism, however, has taken us from “my country, right or wrong” to “my country, always wrong,” which is just as immoral a stance as the former.

The enormity of the crimes being perpetrated by our government relative to this subject and countless others is of dizzying proportion, and the degree of brazen deception on the part of the Obama administrations is positively surreal. Thus, the magnitude of the lies that liberal and insufficiently engaged Americans are buying into is greater than any ever foisted upon a nation. That the government and the press are succeeding at this in an age of such ready information is as impressive as it is horrifying.

Right Wing Round-Up - 4/24/13

  • Warren Throckmorton: Based on Biased Reading of New Mortality Study, Paul Cameron Gives Sen. Portman Parenting Advice.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious