Brian Tashman's blog

Geller Out, But Anti-Muslim Voices Remain at CPAC

Pamela Geller will not be welcomed back to CPAC this year, representing yet another development in annual conservative gathering’s frequent clashes over Islamophobia. Anti-Muslim activists like Geller, David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney and Robert Spencer claim that the Muslim Brotherhood and its cohorts, namely Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, are trying to infiltrate the conservative movement.

During her panel last year, James Lafferty of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force bragged that he was “proud” that many of the attacks on mosques in the U.S. have occured in the South.

But while Geller might be absent this year, CPAC still is hosting a number of anti-Muslim speakers:

1. Allen West.

Former congressman Allen West became a hero of the Radical Right through his inflammatory remarks about Islam, including his claim that the “enemy represents something called Islam and Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology, it is not a religion,” and that the Quran commands people to become terrorists. West has worked with Geller before (even writing a column for her blog) and told one of her conferences that “the nation goes to war against an ideology and we’ve been talking about the fact that we are against something that is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology and it is called Islam.” He also said that “satellite organizations that come from the Muslim Brotherhood” are growing throughout the US.

2. Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch head Tom Fitton has been on a mission to “expose” how the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department are all working together with radical Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood. In a recent interview with End Times radio host Rick Wiles, he argued that the State Department is recruiting people directly from “the jihadist movement here in the United States” and “terrorist front organizations,” adding that the majority of Muslim-American groups are “all fronts for these terrorist front groups.”

Fitton also told Wiles that he agreed with Rep. Michele Bachmann’s anti-Muslim government witch hunt as “perfectly legitimate” and said that Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin may be connected to people who are security threats.

3. Newt Gingrich.

Former Speaker Gingrich praised the anti-Muslim witch hunt spearheaded by Bachmann and four of her fellow Republican colleagues, calling the group of congressmen the “National Security Five.” He consistently attacked the Muslim community during his presidential campaign and claimed that Muslims in the US are trying to impose Sharia law. He even argued that the US should respond to Saudi Arabia’s ban on churches by banning the Park 51 Islamic Community Center in New York, and said that the government should treat Muslims like Nazis. Gingrich has also warned that America’s “elite favors radical Islam” and that the media is covering up stories about “Obama’s Muslim friends.”

4. Rick Santorum.

While running for president, former U.S. Senator Santorum claimed that equality is incompatible with the Islamic faith and that Muslims should face profiling by law enforcement. He also raised doubts about Obama’s Christian faith and a top aide accused the President of supporting “radical Islamic policies.” Following the campaign, he became a columnist for the anti-Muslim conspiracy website WorldNetDaily. Before running for president, Santorum told a conference hosted by Islamophobic activist David Horowtiz that America is engaged in a “long war” with “Islamo-fascism” and that it must be “eradicated.”

5. Ted Cruz.

Sen. Cruz has claimed that “Sharia law is an enormous problem” in the U.S. and attacked President Obama for allegedly being “utterly unable to utter the words radical Islamic terrorist.” Cruz especially stoked anti-Muslim attitudes during the confirmation hearing of defense secretary Chuck Hagel, maintaining that the former Republican senator may be a pawn of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Robertson Lashes Out at 'Doctrinaire' Environmentalist 'Fanatics'

Televangelist Pat Robertson is joining other conservatives in attacking Gina McCarthy, President Obama’s pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. After criticizing climate change scientists as “nutty” and “true believer” ideologues last month, Robertson once again engaged in projection today on the 700 Club as he warned that environmentalist “crazies” are “unreasonable” religious “fanatics” who are too “doctrinaire.”

Watch:

Kincaid: Soros, Obama Allies Trying to Pick Next Pope

Accuracy In Media director Cliff Kincaid yesterday warned that allies of George Soros and President Obama are attempting to pick the next pope. Kincaid warns that a “group of radicals” in the “left-wing lobby in the U.S.” are trying to engineer the selection of Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Turkson as Pope.

Kincaid’s argument boils down to the fact that Turkson introduced a document on global financial policy which was endorsed by Stephen Schneck of Catholic University (along with Pope Benedict XVI) and attended one of Schneck’s conferences in 2011.

Since Schneck supported Obama’s reelection and is tied to the group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, naturally Kincaid has arrived at the conclusion that Soros is plotting to pick the next pope in order to “use the Vatican in a global campaign against capitalism.”

In fact, the article is fittingly titled: “Black Socialist Pope to Follow Black Socialist President?

With African Catholic Cardinal Peter Turkson in the running as the next pope, the media have noted that he carries the fancy title of the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, an arm of the Vatican. But they have failed to note the existence of a left-wing lobby in the U.S. working feverishly on his behalf. It is the same group of radicals, with connections to billionaire hedge-fund operator George Soros, who backed Obama for president by claiming he shared their Catholic values.



When Turkson’s Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace issued a controversial 2011 document, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Political Authority,” [Stephen] Schneck called it “breathtaking” and a “Catholic way forward” from the present crisis.

A “global political authority” was endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI’s “Charity in Truth” encyclical in 2009.



Turkson, who is from Ghana, has taken “social justice” to the global level, arguing for a “global financial authority” to solve the world’s economic problems.

For this reason, left-wing “progressives” backing Obama hope Turkson will be the next pope and use the Vatican in a global campaign against capitalism.

Vatican Radio said the Turkson document, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Political Authority,” had “proposed the creation of a global political authority to manage the economy and a new world economic order” with the United Nations “as a point of reference.”

Crisis Magazine, a conservative Catholic publication, said it contained “some downright frightening prescriptions for reshaping the worldwide economy” and could be seen as “a blueprint for a George Soros agenda.”

Turkson spoke at the May 2, 2011, conference organized by Schneck at CUA on the subject of Rerum Novarum. He appeared with Bishop Stephen E. Blaire, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Alexia K. Kelley, deputy director of the Obama White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Farah: Evolution and Environmentalism to blame for Increase in Suicide Rate

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah cites a new study which found that “suicide has overtaken traffic accidents as the leading cause of injury deaths in the U.S.” and blames it on the fact that public schools teach evolution, environmental science and comprehensive sex-education.

He argued that the suicide rate has increased as a result of schools teaching children “promiscuous sex,” “that human beings are merely the result of billions of years of evolution” and that the earth “would be better off without us.”

Farah also seems to imply that it is no coincidence that the rise in the suicide rate occurred in Obama’s first year in office. However, the study noted that “the suicide rate rose 15 percent over the past decade,” well before Obama took office.

Guns don’t kill people. People kill themselves.

That’s the story from the American Journal of Public Health, which reports that since Barack Obama was sworn in as president in 2009, the leading cause of death in America has been suicide.



I believe the trend reflects a deep and growing spiritual emptiness in a culture that is more depraved and sinful than at any time in its history.

Too many people just don’t find any meaning in life.

Think about it.

We are told from the youngest age in state-run schools that human beings are merely the result of billions of years of evolution from lower life forms and random mutations. There is no Creator God who loves us and to whom we are accountable. There are no laws higher than those government imposes on us – no sin, no ultimate, objective moral code. In fact, human beings are a blight on the planet. It would be better off without us – or at least with a lot fewer of us polluting the air with carbon dioxide and overheating the Earth.

Do I have that about right?

Furthermore, in those same government schools, prayer and Bible reading are prohibited, but explicit instructions on how to have promiscuous sex without consequences is mandated.

Abortion is subsidized, while adoption is prohibitively expensive – in the unlikely event you can find a child to adopt.

Increasingly, the state is sticking its nose into what we eat, what we say, how we raise our children – even our thoughts.

Government is fine with pornography. But purity and abstinence are discouraged.

In other words, right is wrong, up is down, black is white and left is right.

And we sit here and wonder why people are killing themselves.

Klayman: 'Obama and His White Slaves' Are Inciting Race War

Larry Klayman is out with another column calling President Obama an anti-Semitic Muslim dictator, this time warning that President Obama is deliberately inciting a race war. He argues that Obama sees tax increases on top earners as an effort to “make whitey pay his fair share of ‘reparations’ to blacks” as “Obama's constant derogatory references to the "rich" are mostly just a "politically correct" euphemism for ‘whitey.’”

Klayman claims “Obama and his ‘white slaves’ in The White House, like his embarrassing boy press secretary Jay Carney” have pushed “attacks on whites” and “provoked this burgeoning race war.”

“Put Obama's Muslim identification, his anti-Semitism and his pounding of rich whites together and you have a certified, and highly dangerous Black Muslim in The White House – ala (pun intended) Malcolm X, Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan,” he said.

In earlier columns, the Judicial Watch founder maintained that Obama wants to make conservatives “become the ‘new niggers’” and promoted armed resistance.

But Obama's scorn goes far wider than just the religion and ethnicity of Jews and Christians. Particularly apparent since his last fraudulent election to the Office of the President in 2012, it has also become crystal clear that he simply hates people of the white race, even though he is one half white himself.

During the campaign he constantly berated Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as the nominee of the rich, vowing to make the rich pay their fair share in taxes and other socio-economic forms of "reparations" during his second term. And, in just the last few months since his reelection, Obama and his Democrat enablers and lackeys in Congress have moved arrogantly and aggressively to make good on his promise – and he has done so with a vengeance. Obama's constant derogatory references to the "rich" are mostly just a "politically correct" euphemism for "whitey," just as attacks by anti-Semites, of which Obama is also one, frequently are leveled against Israel, in order to mask their hatred of the true target, Jews themselves. In short, making "whitey" pay his "fair share" has become a constant drum beat of Obama and his "white slaves" in The White House, like his embarrassing boy press secretary Jay Carney.

Put Obama's Muslim identification, his anti-Semitism and his pounding of rich whites together and you have a certified, and highly dangerous Black Muslim in The White House – ala (pun intended) Malcolm X, Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan.

That whites have come to believe that Obama truly hates them is becoming apparent even in the mainstream media. During a recent broadcast of Fox News' "The Five," former President George W. Bush's press secretary Dana Perino, a Washington establishment figure if their ever was one (she was appointed to the Board of Directors of government owned Voice of America), stated clearly that she believes that Obama does not like people like her. Bill O'Reilly has expressed similar sentiments of late, referring to Obama's dislike of "traditional Americans." While O'Reilly's comment was also racist and offensive (since what qualifies as a "traditional American" other than a white person?), it underscores how Obama is increasing stoking and provoking anger among whites with his attacks on them, economically and socially. But this media backlash against Obama's attacks on whites has not stopped with political commentators on Fox News, but has now extended to even the likes of the well respected liberal investigative journalist Bob Woodward.



This explains why Woodward has been among the first of liberal journalists to call it like it is and "out" Obama and his White House for threatening him over his reporting of the on-going "sequester" crisis – which Woodward revealed was the brainchild of the president. Other white journalists on the left then followed suit and revealed that they too had been threatened over even their infrequent criticism of Obama. While one can argue that this backlash against Obama was "on the merits" of the looming sequester disaster, the very fact that the left is now coming forward to challenge Obama, shows that much more in play here. Like Dana Perino, I believe that even these liberal reporters have come to see that Obama does not like them and fear his latent racism toward whites, which they likely have come to deeply resent. As has been Obama's mantra, the sequester debate has been couched by the president and his minions as an economic disaster that would hurt his lower and middle income persons many of whom are black or of mixed race, at the expense of the rich. This is why Obama now wants to use his presidential leverage to negotiate a deal with Republicans to again raise taxes on the rich – in effect to again make whitey pay his fair share of "reparations" to blacks.

It is very sad and frightening that Obama has provoked this burgeoning race war. The nation, divided unlike any time since the Civil War, is about to explode in anger – primarily pitting black against white and vice versa.

Tim Tebow Scheduled to Address another Anti-Gay Venue: Liberty University

Recently, New York Jets backup quarterback Tim Tebow pulled out of a scheduled appearance at Robert Jeffress’ megachurch “due to new information” he received regarding Jeffress' view. While he never specified what the “new information” was, Tebow was almost certainly referring to Jeffress’ virulent attacks on gays and lesbians, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam and President Obama.

Yet just weeks after withdrawing from speaking at Jeffress's church, Tebow is now set to address Liberty University later this month at a conference geared towards men’s issues in a speech that is closed to the public.

The school was founded by the late televangelist Jerry Falwell — it is now run by his son — who has blamed gays and liberals for the September 11 attacks, supported racist laws in the U.S. and abroad and attacked the Teletubbies for “modeling the gay life style.”

Liberty University bans gay students and shut down its College Democrats chapter over the party’s views on gay rights. The university has hosted multiple anti-gay conferences and their law school is being sued over its alleged role in helping Lisa Miller disobey a court order and kidnap her daughter to Central America in order to avoid transferring custody to the girl's other mother, her former partner.

Liberty University’s Vice President and law school dean Mathew Staver has defended the criminalization of homosexuality in Malawi, promoted the dangerous ex-gay therapy and warned that President Obama supports “forced homosexuality.” Furthermore, Staver has claimed that gay rights laws are part of an Antichrist spirit that lead to crime, child molestation and death, along with the destruction of America.

Staver’s fellow Liberty University dean Matt Barber has defended a Nigerian law outlawing homosexual relationships, described the gay rights movement as “Satanic,” claimed that gay youth who committed suicide took their own lives because they “know what they are doing is unnatural,” accused gay rights advocates of supporting pedophilia (along with fascism and Communism) and defined homosexuality as “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’” He has also maintained that liberals are like Baal worshippers who hate God and are working with Islamists to destroy Christianity and that Obama should be impeached for backing same-sex domestic partner benefits.

Another professor, Rena Lindevaldsen, has claimed that Satan makes people gay and is behind the LGBT rights movement .

If Jeffress’ anti-gay remarks were too extreme for Tebow, they pale in comparison to the things regularly said by representatives of Liberty University.

Perhaps it is time for Tebow to take another look at some of this “new information” about Liberty.

Harry Jackson: 'Absurd' to Think 'Homosexuals Are Being Denied Equal Protection'

Harry Jackson is out with a column today accusing gay rights supporters of seeking “to hijack not only the moral authority of the Civil Rights Movement, but also the legal arguments which liberated minorities from centuries of legalized oppression and discrimination.” He specifically takes issue with the fact that marriage equality supporters cite the Fourteenth Amendment and Loving v. Virginia, which found anti-miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional.

Jackson explains that same-sex couples don’t have a right to marry because “‘marriage’ means what it has always meant in America: the union of one man and one woman,” and cites a Nevada ruling which argued that marriage laws aren’t discriminatory because a gay person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Ironically, those two arguments were exactly those used by supporters of laws banning interracial marriage.

Peggy Pascoe in “What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America” writes that up until the 1960s white society and the white-dominated legal system “believe[d] that the interracial marriage was unnatural” and “assumed that the marriage of one White man to one White woman was the only kind of marriage worthy of the name.”

Not only did they not consider interracial marriage to be a “marriage,” but they also argued that anti-miscegenation laws were not discriminatory because they applied to people of every race and did not target one race in particular.

Despite this history about marriage laws, Jackson concludes his column by insisting that “the notion that homosexuals are being denied equal protection under the law becomes absurd.”

From the very beginning, homosexual “marriage” activists have sought to hijack not only the moral authority of the Civil Rights Movement, but also the legal arguments which liberated minorities from centuries of legalized oppression and discrimination.

After decades of aggressive activism, the common sense understanding of marriage has become almost hopelessly mired in incomprehensible legal terminology. It becomes difficult for everyday observers to navigate the convoluted logic homosexual activists employ as they attempt to remake one of civilization’s oldest institutions. The argument that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is only “fair” rests on a specious interpretation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause reads as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As most of us know, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted just before the end of the Civil War in response to the Black Codes of the South. The Black Codes were various state laws which, among other things, prevented blacks from owning property and imposed harsher penalties for crimes on blacks than on whites. The Fourteenth Amendment clarified that these laws were unconstitutional, and that the government was obligated to protect the rights of all citizens equally.

So what about the “right” to marry? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) activists argue that the state is abridging their privileges, often citing Chief Justice Earl Warren’s words in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision that overturned state bans on interracial marriage: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

I agree with Justice Warren that marriage is a central ingredient in the pursuit of happiness. I disagree with LGBT activists about what “marriage” is. And it is very hard to have a reasonable or productive discussion when the two sides cannot agree on the definition of a central term. You and I may agree that it should be legal to walk a dog in a particular public park. But you may think that the term “dog” includes only domesticated members of the Canis lupus familiaris species, and I may think that the term “dog” can include large gray wolves. You may argue that “dog” should be defined by the laws and traditions that have governed dog ownership for generations, and I may feel that such an approach in unfair to people who want to walk wolves in the park. The point is that we cannot get anywhere until we agree on what a “dog” is.

Homosexuals are not being denied “marriage” rights any more than wolf enthusiasts are being denied dog-ownership rights. Last November, a federal appeals court in Nevada pointed out homosexuals are not, in fact, being denied the right to marry, as the term “marriage” has been long understood. A lesbian couple had sued the state, seeking to overturn Nevada’s ban on gay marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wrote Judge Robert Jones:

Like heterosexual persons, they [homosexuals] may not marry members of the same sex. A homosexual man may marry anyone a heterosexual man may marry, and a homosexual woman may marry anyone a heterosexual woman may marry.

Judge Jones went on to point out that homosexuals have little cause to identify with historically oppressed minorities in the United States, observing that, “Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property.” Judge Jones starts with the assumption, as we all should, that “marriage” means what it has always meant in America: the union of one man and one woman. If we begin with that reality, the notion that homosexuals are being denied equal protection under the law becomes absurd.

Perkins: LGBT-Inclusive Schools Will Have 'Teenage Boys Invading Girls' Locker Rooms'

Conservative activists are in an uproar over a new transgender-inclusive policy in Massachusetts [PDF] designed to prevent gender identity-discrimination in schools. Today, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council added his voice, arguing that Massachusetts schools will soon see “teenage boys invading girls’ locker rooms.” He blamed the new policy on the 2004 legalization of same-sex marriage in the state, which he said led to “the fundamental altering of society,” and called on parents “to protect your kids from a fate like Massachusetts’s” by opposing marriage equality.

If there's one subject giving Massachusetts schools trouble, it's anatomy! Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. In kindergarten classes, learning about genders won't be the problem--but ignoring them might be! Under a new statewide directive, Massachusetts officials are rolling out the welcome mat to cross-dressing students by banning everything from gender-based sports teams to sex-specific bathrooms. And anyone who doesn't like it had better keep quiet--or else. If a student so much as refers to a peer by their biological sex, it's "grounds for discipline." And people wonder why families are pulling their children out of public school! Maybe, you've fallen for the lie that same-sex marriage won't affect you. Well, it may take teenage boys invading girls' locker rooms to prove it. Redefining marriage is about a lot more than two people who love each other. This is about the fundamental altering of society. If you want to protect your kids from a fate like Massachusetts's, it starts by defending marriage now.

Eagle Forum Pushes Blatantly False Attack on Obamacare

Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum on Friday warned that the Obama administration has estimated that the average family will pay a minimum of $20,000 for health insurance once the health care reform law goes fully into effect.

The only problem with Schlafly’s claim is that the government never issued such an estimate.

The IRS simply used the $20,000 figure as an example for calculating the “shared responsibility payment,” or penalty, for a nonexempt family that does not acquire health insurance.

As the Annenberg Center’s FactCheck.org notes:

The IRS used $20,000 in a hypothetical example to illustrate how it will calculate the tax penalty for a family that fails to obtain health coverage as required by law. Treasury says the figure “is not an estimate of premiums.”



[T]he regulations weren’t a “cost analysis” at all. A spokesperson for the Treasury Department confirmed to FactCheck.org in an email that the IRS wasn’t making any declarations or projections about what prices will be.

“[Twenty thousand dollars] is a round number used by IRS for a hypothetical example,” the official wrote. “It is not an estimate of premiums for a bronze plan for a family of five in 2016.”

Schlafly wasn’t the only conservative leader to fall for the false story, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel also wrote an article arguing that a government “cost analysis based on ObamaCare regulations show[s] that the cheapest healthcare plan in 2016 will cost average American families of four or five members $20,000 per year for the so-called ‘bronze plan.’”

The Obama Administration is now estimating that by 2016 the minimum annual cost of health insurance for an average American family under ObamaCare will be $20,000. And there is no guarantee that the health insurance will actually cover all the medical treatments that the family wants and needs. $20,000 is merely the minimum annual cost; many families could face even higher premiums. Millions of Americans will be faced with the choice of buying this expensive health insurance, or paying hefty penalties to the IRS. Those who choose not to buy health insurance will be slapped by the IRS with thousands of dollars in additional taxes. Is this what Americans really want? Certainly not. $20,000 is many times more expensive than what most Americans pay for health insurance today.

It's not only families who will be hit by these enormous price increases under ObamaCare. One study predicts that a 27-year-old non-smoking male in Texas will go from paying $54 a month in health insurance premiums to a whopping $153 per month as soon as ObamaCare goes into full effect. That will be on top of the massive student debt that so many young people are already struggling to pay off. The real result may be that many Americans will choose to drop their health insurance simply because they cannot afford it. But that is the opposite of what ObamaCare was supposed to achieve.

None of this is a surprise to those who have criticized ObamaCare for years. Not a single Republican voted for this costly injection of federal bureaucracy into the American health care system, which has been the finest the world has ever known. Many businesses are decreasing the number of hours that their employees can work in order to fall below the threshold requiring employers to buy this costly insurance for their employees.

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/1/13

 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious