Brian Tashman's blog

Linda Harvey Horrified That Soldiers And Scouts Marched In LGBT Pride Parades

On her radio show today, Mission America head Linda Harvey lamented the presence of military service members and Boy Scouts in LGBT pride parades.

The anti-LGBT activist called openly gay service members and scouts an “insult” to their peers, bad role models and most likely child predators.

Is anyone who insists on open homosexual behavior in our military the kind of soldier we need? I don’t think so. And here’s the basic issue: no one needs to be doing this behavior in the first place. It’s an insult to fellow soldiers, and in a Boy Scout situation, it’s an insult to the boys. And yes, open that door and there will be a flood of those interested in having sexual contact with young males. It’s the reality that has existed since the beginning of human history, some people insist on this sin and they insist on it with children. It’s the really selfish adults or clueless ones who would expose kids to danger like this. Friends, if you have a son or daughter in the Scouts, remove them as soon as possible. They’re already hearing about this and learning misinformation. This lifestyle is not how anyone is born and it is certainly not gay.

Anti-Gay Archbishop Under Investigation For Sexual Misconduct

John Nienstedt, the Catholic archbishop who championed the failed effort to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota, is facing a church investigation over allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with other men, including priests and seminary students.

“I believe that the investigators have received about ten sworn statements alleging sexual impropriety on the part of the archbishop dating from his time as a priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit, as Bishop of New Ulm, and while coadjutor and archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis,” church whistleblower Jennifer Haselberger told the magazine Commonweal, adding that Nienstedt “also stands accused of retaliating against those who refused his advances or otherwise questioned his conduct.”

Haselberger previously revealed that Neinstedt was failing to properly investigate instances of alleged sexual abuse by priests, including one priest who may have had an “unprofessional relationship” with Neinstedt.

Nienstedt vigorously denied the allegations, and stressed in his statements that none of the claims of sexual misconduct “involve minors.” Last year, he was investigated by local law enforcement for allegedly touching a boy’s buttocks during a confirmation ceremony, but was not charged.

Under Neinstedt, the archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul joined with fellow Minnesota dioceses to deliver hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-gay groups, together becoming the largest donor to the unsuccessful campaign pushing a state marriage amendment.

Neinstedt warned Catholics that “there ought not be open dissension” on the issue of marriage equality and urged them to pray against gay rights. According to the Minnesota LGBT site The Column, the archdiocese also “sent out more than 400,000 DVDs that urged voters to vote for candidates that supported putting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot in 2012.”

During the campaign to ban marriage equality, Neinstedt said Satan is behind gay rights and called homosexuality a “grave evil.”

He has criticized the film Brokeback Mountain as an attack on Jesus Christ that would bring down society and described homosexuality as the “result of psychological trauma” that “must be understood in the context of other human disorders: envy, malice, greed, etc.”

Dinesh D'Souza Wonders Why More Immigrants Aren't Just Like Dinesh D'Souza

Dinesh D’Souza told the far-right Western Center for Journalism yesterday that immigrants should be more like, well, Dinesh D’Souza. “I chose America,” D’Souza said, apparently unlike other immigrants. “I love America.”

The right-wing activist, who is just out with a new anti-Obama movie, was referring to the increase in unaccompanied minors crossing the border as a result of a refugee crisis in Central America.

But President Obama, D’Souza complains, does not want to bring in more immigrants like him, and is instead employing an “Alinskyite strategy” to make Americans feel ashamed of their country.

Other conservatives claim Obama is actually using immigration as part of his “Cloward-Piven” strategy to bring down America.

A bestselling author and driving force behind the groundbreaking films 2016: Obama’s America and America: Imagine the World without Her, D’Souza is a prime example of the opportunities that await foreign-born individuals who choose to legally become Americans. He explained that he made a decision to leave his homeland behind when he came to the U.S. as a teenager more than three decades ago.

“As an immigrant, I chose America,” he said. “I love America. I can see ways in which America is very unique in the world.”

After completing high school and college in the U.S., D’Souza went on to become a prominent writer and speaker, known around the world for his defense of concepts such as American exceptionalism. Instead of courting immigrants like him, however, the Obama administration chooses to extend even more leniency to those who enter the nation illegally.

“It’s quite appalling to see the Obama administration use the border as a kind of shaming device,” D’Souza said, calling the existing policy an “Alinskyite strategy.” In the mold of ‘Rules for Radicals’ author and community organizer Saul Alinsky, he said the federal government is playing on the sensibilities of good-natured Americans in subverting the nation’s laws.

He said the embrace of de facto amnesty is a way to “exploit the goodness … of ordinary Americans” who are genuinely concerned for the foreigners who show up at our border.

One of Alinsky’s methods of reshaping a person’s opinion, D’Souza explained, is to “constantly shame him and make him do what you want.”

Obama, he continued, is quite adept at employing that technique.

“Obama is encouraging people to show up at the border with arms outstretched,” he concluded. “This is then used as a pretext for violating our immigration laws.”

Kevin Swanson Attacks 'Satanic,' 'Antichrist' Presbyterians For Approving Marriage Equality

“Generations Radio” host Kevin Swanson lambasted the Presbyterian Church (USA) last week for voting to allow same-sex marriages to take place in their churches, which Swanson said means the denomination has teamed up with the Antichrist.

“The Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, a purported Christian church, a church that had something of a Christian heritage, but of course now rotten to the very core, has adopted the Neronic agenda and effectively joined the ranks of the Antichrist,” he said, referring to the Roman emperor Nero.

Swanson went on to accuse the church of “marrying dogs” and deciding to become the “Nero Association of America.”

He also worried that the Presbyterian Church in America, a more conservative denomination, may be next in line to adopt the Satanic attack of marriage equality: “I think it’s time to stop watching the PCUSA, I think it is time to start watching the PCA and the Southern Baptists because they’re next, so to speak, that’s where the battleground is moving. If you were Satan you’d go, ‘PCUSA is in the bag, now let’s go pay attention to the PCA and see if we can gain a little ground down here.’”

Lamenting that the United States is becoming an “apostate” nation, Swanson hailed Uganda’s extreme anti-gay laws.

“Praise be to God. He’s got something happening and if he’s going to abandon the West to their homosexuality, their imploding birth rates and their drying up and dying, then that’s the way it goes,” he said. “In Uganda, these guys are standing strong.”

GOP Faith Outreach Director Offended By Christians Who Vote Democratic

The Republican National Committee recently launched a new outreach arm called GOP Faith to build “an army of activists to encourage pro-faith Americans to vote their values” and named South Carolina GOP chairman Chad Connelly as the party’s Director of Faith Engagement.

Connelly seems to be a good fit, as he peddles messages that are red meat for the Religious Right: Christian Nationalism and fears of a Communist takeover. In his book “Freedom Tide,” Connelly even reprinted the hoax document “Communist Rules for Revolution.”

In an appearance yesterday on Sandy Rios’ American Family Radio show, Connelly said he couldn’t understand how a person of faith could back Democratic candidates. “How does a believer vote that way?” he said, speaking of the Democratic party.

After encouraging more pastors like Jim Garlow to preach politics at the pulpit or run for office themselves, he waxed nostalgic about the days when simply being a Christian was all you needed to be a good candidate for office: “It used to be exalted, if you were a person of integrity, if you were a Christian, people said, ‘Hey I can count on them.’ And now we scratch our heads and wonder why we can’t count on more of these people.”

He also urged pastors to teach members of their congregations how to “vote their values.”

Connelly also told Rios that he was frustrated that in 2012, 22 percent of evangelical Christians “voted completely opposite to what they say they believe” — that is, for President Obama.

WorldNetDaily Columnist Read Somewhere That Hate Crimes Laws Protect Incest

WorldNetDaily pundits seem to have a habit of substantiating many of their more inflammatory claims by simply saying they “read it somewhere,” and today’s column by Les Kinsolving is no different.

Kinsolving writes that he’s “seen reports that 30 alternative sexual orientations,” such as “coprophilia, incest, urophilia, exhibitionism and klismaphilia,” are now “federally protected by the so-called Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”

Wasn’t the existence of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association – and the invitation for these child molesters to march with their small-boy comrades in homosexual parades in both Boston and San Francisco – a justification for tolerance?

Well, if that is really tolerance – rather than carnal barbarism. What about a parade allowance for marching self-advertising necrophiliacs (those who prefer fornicating with corpses) and practitioners of bestiality (with either non-reluctant or reluctant beasts)?

I’ve seen reports that 30 alternative sexual orientations are federally protected by the so-called Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, S. 909, and the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1913.

This would include coprophilia, incest, urophilia, exhibitionism and klismaphilia.

While we don’t doubt that Kinsolving read that somewhere, that doesn’t mean what he read was at all accurate. The phrase “sexual orientation” in the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act is explicitly defined as “consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality.”

But Kinsolving read something different somewhere, so it must be true!

Matt Barber Says Gay Rights Advocates Act 'Like A Horde Of Locusts'

Matt Barber warned Saturday that gay people have “swarm[ed] in like a horde of locusts” and “homosexualized the Boy Scouts.”

Barber was speaking with Mission America’s Linda Harvey, who told him that she had been outraged at the sight of Boy Scouts at the Columbus, Ohio, LGBT pride parade. Barber replied that he wasn’t surprised, since “the homosexual activist agenda” is “at the forefront of child corruption, that is a major part of their agenda.”

“It is absolutely reprehensible that they are exposing these children to this perversion, to this highly sexually charged, open acts of public displays of nudity, it is just absolutely appalling,” Barber said.

“It is simply disgusting to watch, it’s appalling to watch. They take every institution, they take things that are noble and good and they swarm in like a horde of locusts and they don’t care what damage is done because it helps further their agenda, then they fly away and what’s left is a husk of what was there to begin with.”

The Time A Corporation Cited Religious Freedom As A Way To Avoid Desegregation

In her dissent in the Hobby Lobby case today, Justice Ginsburg mentioned a 1968 precedent in which the owner of a chain of barbecue restaurants in South Carolina “refused to serve black patrons based on his religious beliefs opposing racial integration.”

Sandy Rios Cites Fake Obama Quote To Prove He Is A Marxist-Muslim

On her Friday radio show, Sandy Rios of the American Family Association chatted with a caller about whether Islam is the “whore of Babylon” mentioned in Revelation, which naturally gave her the opportunity to rant against President Obama.

“The President is a Marxist” whose “sympathies are most definitely with Islam,” Rios said, before telling listeners that they should be “prepared to die for their faith” in the face of supposed anti-Christian persecution.

“There’s no question about that, in his own book he said whenever there is a dispute about where I’m going to come down, I’m always going to come down on the side of Islam,” Rios said. “And he’s done that, he’s said that our space program was to help in the education of Muslims.”

Actually, Obama did not say that in his book. A bogus chain email claims Obama wrote in Dreams From My Father that “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” The real quote doesn’t even mention Islam:

Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

Rios’ claim about NASA similarly has its origins in baseless right-wing paranoia

Hobby Lobby: Religious Rights For Secular For-Profit Corporations … Just This One Time

Writing for the majority in the Hobby Lobby case, Justice Alito emphasized [PDF] that the ruling, which partly overturned the Obama administration’s rules on birth control coverage, does not apply to other cases involving religious objections to government regulations:

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man-dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.



In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious disease) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

Apparently, the Supreme Court has determined that contraception, unlike immunizations, just doesn’t cut it in terms of public health.

In a footnote, Alito cites findings of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to back up claims that the government should be allowed to require immunizations over the religious objections of people who oppose vaccinations.

Of course, the contraception rule, the New York Times points out, “relied on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, an independent group of doctors and researchers that concluded that birth control is not just a convenience but is medically necessary ‘to ensure women’s health and well-being.’”

It is undeniable that the advent of contraception, used by around 99 percent of sexually active women, and family planning has had an extraordinary impact on public health on a level similar to the creation of new vaccines. Unless, of course, your worldview leads you to believe that such pills are simply used by women as tools to have an abortion.

Justice Ginsburg points out in her dissent that the Supreme Court has rejected past religious objections to generally applicable rules from non-persons, including church-operated schools:

And where is the stopping point to the “let the government pay” alternative? Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, see Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work, see Dole v. Shenandoah Baptist Church? Does it rank as a less restrictive alternative to require the government to provide the money or benefit to which the employer has a religion-based objection?

Indeed, the high court previously rebuffed religious-based challenges to laws regarding the minimum wage, equal pay and regulation of illicit drugs.

Religious groups that believe in the subservience of women, reject vaccines and blood transfusions or seek to use controlled substances as part of religious rituals, according to the majority opinion, don’t have as much “religious liberty” than a secular for-profit corporation such as Hobby Lobby.

Ginsburg adds:

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga surely do not stand alone as commercial enterprises seeking exemptions from generally applicable laws on the basis of their religious beliefs. See, e.g. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc (owner of restaurant chain refused to serve black patrons based on his religious beliefs opposing racial integration)…

[H]ow does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation, and which are not? Isn’t the Court disarmed from making such a judgment given its recognition that “courts must not presume to determine…the plausibility of a religious claim?”

Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?

[A]pproving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Claus was designed to preclude.”

While Alito stresses that only closely-held corporations are involved in this case, what about a company board dominated by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, or evangelicals like David Barton who believe “that the Bible opposes the minimum wage, unions and collective bargaining, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and progressive taxation in general”?

With Congress currently debating the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, what if Hobby Lobby’s owners cited their religion as a reason to discriminate against LGBT employees? Or refuse to cover HIV/AIDS treatments?

With this ruling, it seems that the court wants to decide for itself what counts as a necessary government strategy to protect public health, and what doesn’t.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious