Brian Tashman's blog

Tony Perkins, Who Called Gays Pawns of the Devil, Says He Is Against 'Demonizing' Gays

On yesterday’s edition of Washington Watch, Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council hosted an entire program about a pamphlet from an association of LGBT Department of Justice employees, which the two dishonestly represented as an official government memorandum.

Unbelievably, Perkins wondered if he can come out “and declare that I’m straight and the fact that I’m proud that God made me this way,” and Sprigg said no “because that would be considered hostile.”

Later in the program while speaking to a caller, Perkins said that while GLAAD named him “the most dangerous man in America” he only “speaks from love” about gay people and that he “completely denounce[s] hateful rhetoric, calling people names and demonizing them.”

Of course, GLAAD has never named Perkins “the most dangerous man in America,” and Perkins has quite a record of “demonizing” gays …like the time he called them literal pawns of the Devil.

American Family Association Makes Another Anti-Gay Movie

The American Family Association’s monthly magazine, AFA Journal, has a story this month about a movie written by the group’s research director Ed Vitagliano called “Accidental Activist”:

Ted and Lynn Murphy lead a simple life. They have three wonderful children, their own small business, and a good relationship with friends and neighbors.

But that life is turned upside down when Ted signs a petition advocating traditional marriage. It is a small act of civic duty in his mind, but in the minds of others in the community it is viewed as an act of heartless bigotry.

Ted and his wife become the focus of a local protest that threatens not only to destroy their business but suffocate their religious freedom as well.

AFA Journal interviewed Vitagliano about his “friendships with people who are homosexual or have been, and have left that lifestyle when they became Christians.”

Vitagliano laments that a gay person, even the “the ordinary homosexual non-activist,” for some reason may not want to maintain a friendship with someone who opposes his or her right to marry: “I don’t know how many homosexuals would want to be friends with a Christian who signs what we would call a pro-marriage petition.” He says he wants gay people to “see that in the culture war, Christians are victims as much as they see themselves as victims.”

What happens when an ordinary Christian family is “accidentally” thrown into the fires of a heated culture war battle?

American Family Association’s new movie, Accidental Activist, follows the trials of Ted Murphy and his family as their reputations, friendships and even livelihood are threatened after he signs a petition supporting traditional marriage.

The story is propelled by the friendship of Ted who, along with his wife, runs a custom T-shirt business, and Ron who owns a nearby popular coffee shop. Ron is a homosexual.



Ed Vitagliano: I tried to portray Ted as an ordinary Christian who reacts in a very human way to his trials. Ted wants to know where God is in the midst of his troubles. Earlier in my Christian walk I sometimes felt like that. I wasn’t yet at a place to understand that stressful circumstances are often used to glorify His name. As I grew older and more experienced with my walk with the Lord, I realized that God doesn’t have to explain to me what He’s doing in my life. Ted faces the same dilemma.

Over the years, I've had friendships with people who are homosexual or have been, and have left that lifestyle when they became Christians. Some still struggle with it. For me, those relationships humanize the struggles of gay men and women. Admittedly, I’ve had limited experience; however, I realize they are human beings made in God’s image.

I wanted to make sure that Ron represented what I think is the ordinary homosexual non-activist who is just trying to live his life and find happiness. I wanted him to be seen as someone with whom a Christian could have a friendship. At the same time, I wanted to make it clear that there was an important disagreement between Ted and Ron.

AFAJ: Do you think such a friendship is possible?

EV: I think Christians would want to maintain friendships with people who have beliefs that are outside Christian belief – atheists, for example.

On the other hand, I don’t know how many homosexuals would want to be friends with a Christian who signs what we would call a pro-marriage petition. But if there are homosexuals who watch the movie, I hope they might give Christians a chance.



On the other side, I’d like for those in the homosexual rights movement to see that just because we Christians see marriage in a way that excludes homosexuals, that doesn’t mean we are motivated by hate. I want them to see that in the culture war, Christians are victims as much as they see themselves as victims.

E.W. Jackson: Obama Condones Anti-Semitism and Terrorist Attacks Against Israel

Virginia Republican Lt. Governor nominee E.W. Jackson has consistently implied that President Obama is a secret Muslim, and in a 2010 American Thinker column went even further by arguing that President Obama condones anti-Semitism and terrorist attacks against Israel by Hamas.

After accusing Obama of remaining “silent” over Hamas rocket attacks against Israel in addition to Helen Thomas’ statement that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine,” Jackson writes that “given his close association with Islam and with one of Louis Farrakhan's best friends, his silence must be interpreted as consent.”

When people say "I hate to say I told you so," they rarely mean it. What they really mean is, "I was right, and I am glad to tell you so." A year ago, I wrote,

Obama apparently sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. Those who think clearly about these issues must conclude that President Obama is influenced by a quiet strain of anti-Semitism picked up from elements of the black community, leftist colleagues, Muslim associations and Jeremiah Wright. For the first time in her history, Israel may find the President of the United States openly siding with her enemies. Those who believe that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight.

I really do hate to say "I told you so." I did not vote for Barack Obama, but I hoped he would surprise me and not be the kind of president that his background portended. Most Americans, even those who didn't vote for him, wanted to believe that he would transcend the negative forces which might have influenced his thinking. Perhaps the anti-Semitism to which he had been exposed had not gotten into his intellectual DNA. He attempted to reassure us.



In his much-hyped speech in Cairo, reaching out to the "Muslim World," Obama drew a moral equivalence between the "suffering" of the Palestinians and the Holocaust against the Jewish people. He said, "Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust." But he went on to say, "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that Palestinians ... have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

To equate these two vastly different historical realities borders on the delusional. There is no equivalence between a systematic effort to annihilate the entire Jewish people and the problem of "dislocation" -- as Obama refers to it -- of the Palestinians. If there is any similarity at all, it is that many Palestinians, like the Nazis, want to kill all Jews.



Helen Thomas, an Obama devotee, recently said the Jews need to "get the hell out of Palestine." Obama is silent. For years, Jews in Israel could hardly sleep for fear that Hamas rockets would land in their homes. Yet when Israel takes reasonable action to search ships to prevent weapons from entering Gaza, she is condemned. Obama is silent. Reuters doctored the pictures of the recent blockade confrontation -- editing out weapons in the hands of the ship's crew -- so as to perpetuate the narrative of Israeli aggression. Obama is silent. Perhaps if he had not spent twenty years in the church of a rabid anti-Semite, President Obama's muteness would not speak so loudly. However, given his close association with Islam and with one of Louis Farrakhan's best friends, his silence must be interpreted as consent. I wish I were wrong about this president, but facts are stubborn things.

Coulter: America Has Too Many Latinos

In her latest column, Ann Coulter laments the 1965 immigration bill that ended a racist quota system which favored immigrants from northern and western Europe. She said that “Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was designed to boost the number of immigrants from the Third World,” and now “we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel by holding ourselves out as the welfare ward of the world.”

Just in case it wasn’t clear already, Coulter is talking about Latino immigrants, warning that the “Gang of 8” immigration reform bill will “turn the country into Mexico” and expand the welfare state.

“Was there a vote when the country decided to turn itself into Mexico?” Coulter asked, arguing that if “Rubio’s amnesty goes through, the Republican Party is finished.”

Meanwhile, Sens. Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and John McCain are working feverishly to turn the country into Mexico.

So now I think all the scandals are intended to distract from Rubio’s amnesty bill.

For decades, Mexicans have been about 30 percent of all legal immigrants to the United States, while only a smidgen more than 1 percent come from Great Britain. Is that fair? Granted, their food is better, but why is it the norm is to have nearly 30 times as many Mexican as British immigrants?

We have been taking in more immigrants from Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Colombia, individually, than from England, our mother country. There are nearly twice as many immigrants from El Salvador as from Canada, and 10 times as many as from Australia.

Why can’t the country be more or less the ethnic composition it always was? The 50-1 Latin American-to-European ratio isn’t a natural phenomenon that might result from, say, Europeans losing interest in coming here and poor Latin Americans providing some unique skill desperately needed in our modern, technology-based economy.

To the contrary, it’s result of an insane government policy. Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was designed to artificially inflate the number of immigrants from the Third World, while making it virtually impossible for anyone from the nations that historically provided our immigrants to come here.

Pre-1965 immigrants were what made this country what it was for a reason: They were the pre-welfare state immigrants. From around 1630 to 1966, immigrants sank or swam. About a third of them couldn’t make it in America and went home – and those are the ones who weren’t rejected right off the boat for being sick, crippled or idiots.

That’s why corny stories of someone’s ancestors coming here a half-century ago are completely irrelevant. If their ancestors hadn’t succeeded, their great-grandchildren wouldn’t be here to tell the story because no one was given food stamps, free medical care and housing to stay (and vote Democrat).

Now we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel by holding ourselves out as the welfare ward of the world and specifically rejecting skilled immigrants.

As Milton Friedman said, you cannot have open borders and a welfare state. The reason a country’s average immigrant matters is that the losers never go home – they go on welfare. (Maybe if they had to work, immigrants wouldn’t have as much time to build bombs.) Airy statements about wanting to end welfare aren’t going to change that implacable fact.

It should not come as a surprise that a majority of recent immigrants are following a path that’s the exact opposite of earlier immigrants. The immigrant story of lore is that the first generation is poor but works hard, then the second, third and fourth generations soar up the socioeconomic ladder.

But innumerable studies have shown that Mexican first-generation immigrants work like maniacs – and then the second, third and fourth generations plunge headlong into the underclass.

By now, Mexicans are the largest immigrant group in America, with about 50 million Hispanics living here legally.

Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill will soon make it 80 million. First, there are at least 11 million illegal immigrants, a majority from Mexico, who will be instantly legalized. Then we’ll get their entire extended families under our chain migration system.

I wouldn’t want that many Japanese! I wouldn’t want that many Dutch (not that there are that many Dutch)! Why do we have to become a different country? Was there a vote when the country decided to turn itself into Mexico? No other country has ever just decided to turn itself into another country like this.

The nation’s plutocrats are lined up with the Democratic Party in a short-term bid to get themselves cheap labor (subsidized by the rest of us), which will give the Democratic Party a permanent majority. If Rubio’s amnesty goes through, the Republican Party is finished. It will be the “Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party” versus the “Chuck Schumer Republican Party.”

Huelskamp Reveals Ignorance on Benghazi, Immigration Reform

During an interview with conservative talk show host Steve Deace last night, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) once again showed us the art of eschewing well-established facts in favor of right-wing talking points. First, Huelskamp talked to Deace about Benghazi, where he demanded answers to questions that have already been answered, and then claimed that the lack of answers to those questions prove there is a cover-up.

“Who made the decision that someone should die, who refused to send support to protect our ambassador, the information officer and two ex-SEALS, somebody made that decision and they’ve covered it up for eight months,” Huelskamp asked, warning of a “cover-up that probably extends to the highest levels of the administration.” He also admitted that the House Republican leadership “said there is no more to Benghazi…we’ve found out everything we can find out.”

Maybe if Huelskamp listened to the hearings he would’ve learned that the call not to send special forces to Benghazi during the attack came from Special Operations Command Africa and not Obama administration officials. Furthermore, the team was told to stand down because they would not have arrived in time to prevent the deaths in the compound and their mission shifted to securing the airport.

Even a senior Republican aide mocked the “crazy stuff” coming from GOP members regarding Benghazi: “Four more M-4s [rifles] inside the annex doesn’t change that outcome. In fact, they might have just created more casualties.”

Later, Huelskamp and Deace discussed the Senate immigration reform bill where he said if a reform bill fails due to Republican resistance to creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants it would be Obama’s fault because Republicans don’t want to give him “a voting bloc of 11 million new voters to the Democratic Party.”

He then decried the bipartisan Gang of 8 for voting together on amendments, which he said proves that they want to create. “a voting bloc that is going to have an unlimited take on the Treasury and then they’re going to buy their votes for a whole generation or two or three.”

The congressman bases his concerns on the Heritage Foundation study, authored by a racist researcher, that uses such faulty data analysis that even Republicans have denounced it.

I just had a private meeting with some constituents in very difficult situations, they came here—one of them illegally and a few others in different situations—and the question I had for them was, ‘Do you think that you deserve citizenship? Well, absolutely. I said but how about if I told you that a bill wouldn’t pass unless you were just given legal status, would you pick no bill?’ The reason I asked them this is, think about that, I don’t think the President wants any immigration issue to pass unless it gives a voting bloc of 11 million new voters to the Democratic Party. I think that’s what it comes down and frankly people are going to get hurt.



When you have a welfare state, an insecure border and you’re talking about giving amnesty, that’s three strikes. Tie on top of that the tremendous Heritage study that shows this massive drain on the economy, $6.2 trillion cost of this, this is staggering, this would probably the worst decision since ’86 if we’re going to head down this path. When you see those amendments I mean that calls out that the real purpose here is a voting bloc that is going to have an unlimited take on the Treasury and then they’re going to buy their votes for a whole generation or two or three.

E.W. Jackson: Obama 'Sets Himself Up as Some Sort of King or Dictator'

E.W. Jackson argued at a Tea Party rally last year that President Obama is trying to become a “dictator” and intent on leading “the most lawless administration that this nation has ever seen.” The Republican nominee for Lt. Governor of Virginia, who has suggested that Obama is an atheist Muslim Communist, told the Tea Party audience that unlike the founding fathers Obama “doesn’t believe” in the Constitution, freedom or America, maintaining that “for the first time” in US history a president “sets himself up as some sort of king or dictator.”

Watch:

E.W. Jackson Warns Same-Sex Marriage Leads to Bestiality: 'Adam and Steve' Becomes 'Adam and a Bull'

During a sermon last October, Virginia GOP Lt. Governor nominee E.W. Jackson added to his long list of virulently anti-gay remarks by warning that marriage equality for gays and lesbians will result in the legalization of man-animal unions. Jackson warned the crowd that if they don’t stop “Adam and Steve” it is going to “soon be Adam and a bull,” arguing that their family, school and community may be “overwhelmed by the torrent of wickedness” if they don’t stop same-sex marriage.

Watch:

E. W. Jackson: No Federal Role In Disaster Relief Because That Turns Government Into God

E. W. Jackson, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia, said he opposes emergency federal aid in the case of natural disasters during his unsuccessful bid for U.S. Senate last year.

In response to a question regarding the role of government “in helping folks following predictable natural disasters,” Jackson replied: “I don’t think that the federal government has much of a role at all constitutionally, at all.”

“I think as a constitutional matter the federal government doesn’t have a whole lot to do with that,” he continued, lamenting that “we’ve turned the federal government into a kind of God and you turn to the federal government for everything.”

“We don’t need the heavy hand of federal government stepping in every time something goes wrong,” Jackson said. “I don’t think there is any constitutional authority to do it.”

Watch:

Boykin Ties Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to Rise in Sexual Assaults in the Military

Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin yesterday chatted with Frank Gaffney for an entire program about the forthcoming “Islamic Republic of America” where Boykin’s granddaughters are forced to wear burkas. After his usual anti-Muslim ramblings, Boykin explained that the Islamic conquest of America can only take place once people lose “traditional American values.” He argued that the Obama administration is trying to get rid of such values by repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the ban on women in combat, which he linked to an increase in reported sexual assaults.

It’s important to understand that this administration in particular has sexualized the army, I mean there’s been so much of this social engineering that all revolves around gender and sexual behavior. What we’re doing though is we are setting ourselves up for absolute failure. Yes, sexual assault is at an all-time, unprecedented high. But then when you look at the fact that we have repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell so that we’ve mixed people of the same sex with same-sex attraction at a time when our military is under great stress, that’s a problem; now we’re trying to put women into ground combat roles where you cannot violate the laws of nature, plain and simple, and we’re going to put women into units where there is absolutely no privacy, where you are inviting exactly what is occurring already, and that is sexual assault, sexual attraction and all of these things.

What is this all about? Why are we doing this? Well the answer is the people that are making these decisions do not care one thing about military readiness; in fact I would say most of them don’t even understand military readiness. They have an agenda and they are fulfilling that agenda by going after the military, which at the end of the day still maintains very traditional American values. While we’ve got people in the military that do some bad things from time to time, at the end of the day we still have the uniform code of military justice and it still finds, for example, adultery to punishable under the uniform code of military justice; at one time sodomy was punishable under the uniform code of military justice. It has maintained very traditional American values and what this is is an assault on the last bastion of traditional values in America because you can’t change this society until you change the military.

Barber: Satan Behind Obama Administration's Gay Rights Efforts, Bringing America Back to Days of Noah

Yesterday, Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber appeared on VCY America’s Crosstalk with Vic Eliason to continue to push his claim that the gay rights movement is Satanic and meant to destroy society just like in the days before Noah’s flood.

He told Eliason that “this celebration of aberrant and deviant sexual behavior, homosexuality and cross-dressing particularly” goes back “before even Sodom and Gomorrah to the days of Noah,” lamenting that “America has finally flipped.” Later, he continued his diatribe and alleged that Satan is behind the Obama administration's support for LGBT rights in order to spread “deception.”

Eliason: I cannot believe Matt, I’ve lived a long time, I’m seventy-seven, and I cannot believe that I’m living in a country where this stuff is going on, it’s nauseating.

Barber: It’s pretty scriptural though, isn’t it? Scripture says woe to those who call evil good and good evil. Scripture also says there is nothing new under the sun. This celebration of aberrant and deviant sexual behavior, homosexuality and cross-dressing particularly, it goes back before even Sodom and Gomorrah to the days of Noah. So there’s nothing new under the sun but now America has finally flipped.



Barber: This is spiritual warfare, it is that simple, it is that black and white, it is good versus evil. Scripture says that the Prince of the World is the enemy and the Prince of the World is very shrewd and he operates on deception, he needs deception to get by. Well that’s the whole progressive movement, they operate on deception. That’s why we see so much deception coming out of this Obama administration with a progressive, complicit media that are pushing political correctness, changing the story, will not report the facts, will not report truth and so that’s what it boils down to, it is absolutely spiritual warfare.

After arguing that President Obama is “pushing the hyper-sexualization of children in public schools by obsessing about aberrant sexual behaviors and teaching children that they’re normal and good and proper,” Barber said that gay couples are merely “two people who want to play house” and are in “rebellion against God.”

This president is the most radical secularist president in American history, without even a close second. He is a progressive radical, a secular humanist, secular socialist and he is pushing this moral relativist worldview that is central to the progressive agenda and pushing the hyper-sexualization of children in public schools by obsessing about aberrant sexual behaviors and teaching children that they’re normal and good and proper. More importantly here, by redefining words or words that don’t fit within their agenda, words that identify the reality that you have a mother or a father. Every single human being who is born on this planet has a mother and a father. It takes two, a male and a female, in order to have a child. Just because two people want to play house and pretend that they’re a married couple, a man and a man or a woman and a woman, guess what, they still have to bring in a third party, whether it’s two lesbians with artificial insemination or two homosexual males through having to adopt from somebody who naturally had children. It’s an assault on truth, it’s an attack on truth and it’s rebellion against God.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious