Brian Tashman's blog

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel spoke to Sandy Rios earlier today and warned that the Supreme Court “will become an illegitimate arbitrator of the rule of law” if “the court goes the wrong way” on the marriage equality cases.

After complaining that the Bush administration sabotaged efforts to pass a federal marriage amendment, Staver insisted that gay rights advocates seek to “tear down the family and put the homosexual agenda, particularly led by same-sex marriage, on a collision course with the free exercise of religion.”

Staver concluded that “the church and people of faith and values need to rise up” if the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage as “we just simply cannot allow this to become the law of the land.”

Staver: When it came into 2005 his mandate was marriage and he didn’t do anything about it, that’s when we had the momentum to go forward with a national constitutional marriage amendment and both he and Karl Rove throttled back and went down a different path. But now we’re today and it’s the big day for Proposition 8 and DOMA and these are not conservative arguments that Ted Olson is going to make, these are judicial activism arguments, these are deconstructive arguments, these are arguments that will actually tear down the family and put the homosexual agenda, particularly led by same-sex marriage, on a collision course with the free exercise of religion.

…

Staver: This is a monumental point in American history. God forbid if the court goes the wrong way. If it does, the court will become an illegitimate arbitrator of the rule of law and become simply a political institution and it will ultimately hurt the value and the respect of the United States Supreme Court.

Rios: Well I totally agree with you, I think we really are on the precipice and it’s pretty scary. I’m seeing all kinds of prognostications of what’s going to happen and I think back to the hearing on Obamacare where almost everyone thought we knew which way the court was going to go and then we were shocked by Justice Roberts’ decision and we might be in for the same thing on this.

Staver: I pray that we are not. If we are, if worst case scenario the last week of June we come down with a bad decision, the church and people of faith and values need to rise up. We just simply cannot allow this to become the law of the land, it will fundamentally change who we are, it will fundamentally weaken the family and religious freedom will be in the crosshairs.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday where he joined other anti-gay activists in warning that a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality could lead to a “revolution.”

Perkins, who in November feared that the Supreme Court may spark a “revolution” and “break this nation apart” by striking down anti-gay laws, told Mefferd that the Supreme Court “could literally split this nation in two and create such political and cultural turmoil that I’m not sure we could recover from” if it strikes down Proposition 8 and DOMA.

“If you get government out of whack with where the people are and it goes too far, you create revolution,” Perkins said. “I think you could see a social and cultural revolution if the court goes too far on this.”

Perkins: I think the court is very much aware with the backdrop of the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade just two months ago that interjecting itself in this, especially when you have thirty states that have taken the steps that they have, could literally split this nation in two and create such political and cultural turmoil that I’m not sure we could recover from it.

Mefferd: I have had the same thoughts. It’s interesting; the National Organization for Marriage has been billing this as ‘1973 for Marriage.’ We’ve been telling people here about the March for Marriage taking place tomorrow and you guys are going to be involved in it as well, I know you’re cosponsoring it, but why do you think it is so important for Americans to come out and publicly stand for marriage like we’ve seen in France for example?

Perkins: That’s a good example. I’m just finishing my daily update that I’m going to be sending out and I made reference to France, you know support for natural marriage is coming from the most unlikely places, hundreds of thousands of people now have turned out multiple times in France to support natural marriage, young and old alike. It’s very important. We’ve been saying this all along that Americans need to speak out because the court likes to hold itself as being above public opinion, that they live in this ivory tower and don’t pay any attention to what’s going on; they do. I believe the court will push as far as they think they can without creating a social upheaval or a political upheaval in this country. They’re smart people, I think, they understand how organizations and how societies work and if you get your substructure out of kilter with the superstructure, if you get government out of whack with where the people are and it goes too far, you create revolution. I think you could see a social and cultural revolution if the court goes too far on this.

Concerned Women for America’s Chelsen Vicari in a blog post yesterday attacked Starbucks for supporting marriage equality, which she argues will open the door to anti-straight discrimination. Vicari called Starbucks CEO and gay rights supporter Howard Schultz “prejudicial and bigoted” for telling Thomas Strobhar of the Corporate Morality Action Center that he should sell his shares in the company if he is so distraught over Starbucks’ endorsement of same-sex marriage legislation in Washington state.

Vicari claimed that Starbucks “refuses pro-marriage supporters service” and “is only tolerant of approximately 2 percent of America’s 300 million citizens who live homosexual lifestyles.”

She even said that the coffee company might as well have “two separate drinking fountains for liberals and conservatives or ‘now hiring’ signs reading, “Heterosexuals Need Not Apply.’”

Goodbye pumpkin spice latte. Forever.

Last year during this exact week, I wrote a blog titled, “Starbucks Disrespects Values Voters,” calling out Starbucks’ CEO, Howard Schultz, for supporting a liberal political agenda that totally disregards the traditional values of many customers and staff members.

Another year gone by and Schultz has become even more extreme and intolerant. At Starbucks’ annual shareholders meeting, Schultz sent a clear message that he does not want the business of anyone who believes that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, pointedly telling one such shareholder, “You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.” This outburst reportedly came right after Schultz stated he wanted to “embrace diversity of all kinds.”

He doesn’t want our business. Schultz statement isn’t tolerant. It is prejudicial and bigoted. So where are the newspaper headlines reading, “Starbucks CEO Refuses Pro-Marriage Supporters Service,” which is exactly the message his statement conveys?

What’s next, Starbucks? Two separate drinking fountains for liberals and conservatives or “now hiring” signs reading, “Heterosexuals Need Not Apply”?

Considering that there are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals, Schultz should have heeded my warning a year ago. In fact, during this year’s meeting, conservative shareholder Tom Strobhar admitted that after the company voiced its support for same-sex “marriage” in Washington state, the company saw a drop in profits.

So in the end, Schultz is only tolerant of approximately 2 percent of America’s 300 million citizens who live homosexual lifestyles. I do not hold an MBA, but I do remember that 4th grade arithmetic teaches us that the profits made from 2 percent are less than the profits from 98 percent.

I’ve already dumped Starbucks. I prefer Dunkin’ Donuts, anyway.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) appeared Saturday on Eagle Forum Live with Phyllis Schlafly and criticized the Republican National Committee’s endorsement of comprehensive immigration reform. King said that the GOP instead should focus on pushing for a contiguous border fence along the US-Mexico border, saying that “our public policy people” have no excuse since the Chinese built the Great Wall of China.

Later, while speaking to a caller named Meryl who complained that undocumented immigrants have trespassed on her property in Missouri, King said that if the US gives up on the rule of law in favor of “open borders” then we will become like “Third World countries” where the rich will construct fences and walls around their houses and install panic rooms.

Of course I supported the fence and we heard the arguments against the fence, people said, ‘well you can’t build a 2,000 mile long fence,’ as if somehow that would be too much of an engineering marvel. Well we can do the Panama Canal 100 years-plus ago and I’ve been over there to take a look at the Great Wall of China that was built more than 2,000 years ago, and that’s 5,500 miles long and you can march armies down the top of it, the Japanese did that. So building a fence is not that hard; I’ll just show you how to do it if it’s too complicated for our public policy people to get their mind around.

…

What occurs to me is that you say you need a fence around your own property, if you go to Third World countries and look around you see that is what they do. If they don’t have the rule of law, if they don’t have law and order, if lawlessness prevails then the more wealthy build a better, more effective barrier around their own compounds. In Mexico, there are plenty of fences that go around people’s homes to protect them from lawlessness, but if we’d line them up around the border we could easily build the border fence that we need. I’m thinking in places in the Caribbean or in Africa where there’s no law or very little law, they build a fence, sometimes a fence and a wall, and the wall will often have broken glass in the border on top and they’ll have an alarm system and inside that they’ll even have a safe room that they can go into to wait for people to rob them so maybe they don’t get killed. That’s what happens if you give up the rule of law and we have the rule of law still in this country but in these areas, in your neighborhood Meryl, that gives us a precursor, a look into what’s to come if we have a nation with open borders.

Far-right activists continue to warn that President Obama is stealthily preparing to create a dictatorship, attack white Christian civilians and incite a civil war, and a new story from WorldNetDaily finally gives us absolutely definitive proof that Obama is plotting exactly that.

According to WND’s favorite forensic profiler Andrew Hodges, a joke that President Obama made about sequestration negotiations with congressional Republicans was really a ploy to begin imposing martial law, just as Saul Alinsky wanted:

In his newest analysis, he looks further into Obama’s statements in his press conference about the sequester issue in which he berated Republicans for not doing what he wants.

Hodges said “another spontaneous image” appeared from Obama’s “super intelligence.”

“Asked whether he couldn’t have pushed negotiations until a deal was reached, Obama replied, ‘I can’t have Secret Service block the doorway,’” Hodges explained

“He suggests the secret wish to block the Republicans from the door to the government. Failing to negotiate, he has made every effort to demonize/crush Republicans to gain total control of the government after the 2014 election. His ‘have Secret Service’ image further suggests a desire to totally control major government law enforcement agencies– to block any opposition,” Hodges said.

“The frightening image ‘of blocking the doorway’ to those who oppose him suggests progressively ideas of imprisonment/forced containment, and a picture of martial law. Extreme? Likely so for now but equally a potential major warning of his true intent – if everything fell into place,” he said.

…

“What exactly was he thinking and why? Undeniably this was extreme: a civilian force just as well funded and strong as our military – implying majorly armed. The question is what exactly was Obama secretly confessing about his future plans? His unconscious super intelligence suggests a warning from a very dangerous Obama,” Hodges contends.

…

“The background of murderous drone attacks he personally took delight in supervising – a suggestion of just how furious he is,” he wrote, noting Obama’s “pattern” of weakening the U.S. militarily and citizens individually by cutting budgets and restricting gun rights.

“Throw into the mix the seemingly extreme idea of using drones on the American people but still a possibility and we have yet another issue of war against the citizens,” Hodges said.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., staged a nearly 13-hour filibuster because the administration refused to confirm for him that Americans on U.S. soil would not be killed by Obama-ordered drone strikes.

“Remember, too, Obama was an Alinsky trainer. And Alinsky’s motto was “trick” – deception

…

“When he wonders (regarding Republicans) if he could do something else ‘to make these guys not paint horns on my head’ we indeed should be frightened beyond belief. He suggests America is in for a devil of a time to put it mildly – that deep down he harbors evil intentions,” Hodges said.

Hodges previously claimed that he found “proof” Obama stole the 2012 election because he joked about his refusal to have a second family dog during his victory speech:

“On election night after initial voting reports declared him the winner, Obama once more unconsciously pointed to a confession. Before his anxious and relieved supporters, Obama spoke of his pride in his daughters but commented, ‘But I will say this for now, one dog’s probably enough’ – on the surface referring back to promising his daughters a puppy after his 2008 victory,” Hodges said.

“But stay with his spontaneous right-brain image. Understand he could have chosen any matter on which to comment and any description but his brilliant unconscious mind which always speaks in a symbolic right-brain language – and carefully chooses its images – selected ‘one dog is enough.’

“Read his confession that America has just elected a dog of a president – and once was enough,” Hodges said.

“He suggests that he’s dogging it as president, faking it as an illegal president in a second way now with a stolen election. That he’s a real ‘dog’ for such deception. The image of a dog further suggests: a pet favored by the media and blind supporters who would not dare to explore his illegality by birth or unfair election; that he will dog or haunt America for another four years because a dog also bites especially a wounded one. (And Obama is deeply wounded beyond belief.) Once again Obama unconsciously points to his deceptive anger and indeed he has bitten/assaulted America in multiple ways, both covert and overt, and plans on more of the same.”

Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families appeared on The Mike Huckabee Show today to discuss the upcoming marriage cases at the Supreme Court, where he reiterated his argument that the GOP would be winning more elections if focused more on opposing gay equality and reproductive rights.

Like other conservative activists who have floated the creation of an anti-gay third party, Bauer told Huckabee that “the Republican Party would literally destroy itself if it switches on those issues” as “we are facing the possibility of a possible fissure here which would hurt Republicans and probably hurt us all.”

Bauer: I actually think of people who may disagree with us on marriage and life see the Republican Party changing that instead of making the party more attractive they’ll look at that and say, ‘My goodness, if the party was willing to change their mind on something so fundamental I can’t really trust them on anything that they say they believe in.’ I really believe this with all my heart that the Republican Party would literally destroy itself if it switches on those issues and I actually think if it doesn’t start spending more political capital making the case for thsoe issues that may be what really ends up killing the party in the future. I want lower taxes, I want smaller government and I’m glad when Republicans spend time on that, but when they act embarrassed or ashamed to make the case for life or for normal marriage or that children need mothers and fathers, I’m not sure there’s much patience left among their voters for that lack of fight they we so often see among Republican elites.

Huckabee: Republicans historically have not been able to win elections without the evangelicals and devout Catholics. If they go soft on this issue, if they turn and say, ‘it doesn’t really matter,’ do you see evangelicals and a lot of devout Catholics walking away?

Bauer: For the first time in my life — I’ve always recommended not walking away — but I’m not getting a large volume of emails and faxes and so forth, letters from people saying, ‘Gary I’m not going to continue playing this game, I’ve done what I was supposed to do, I voted for all these candidates who said they were on my side, but I never hear anybody make the case for my values once they get into high office.’ This is a huge problem for the party and I think for the first time in my adult life I think we are facing the possibility of a possible fissure here which would hurt Republicans and probably hurt us all. You’ve got to see some progress and I don’t think our people are seeing it right now.

Huckabee: Yeah, I don’t either.

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association on Friday said that she isn’t surprised that a large majority of young people support marriage equality because “our children, for the most part, have heard nothing but positive things about homosexuality and its effects.” She blamed TV shows like TLC’s “Say Yes to the Dress” for making homosexuality seem “kind of fun,” saying they’ve “only painted [it] with a positive brush.”

However, Rios claimed that “those of us that have been involved in issues related to this know that there’s a very dark side” to the gay community and understand that homosexuality is a “destructive force.”

She maintained that gay rights advocates are “forcing little children to be educated, they call it educated, I’d say sexually abused by information their little ears are not ready to hear,” and once again warned that “homosexual advocacy” brings about “the raping of the innocence of our children.”

We hear so much first of all about young people being in favor of gay marriage and I believe that’s true, I believe those stats are probably for the most part true and I believe it makes sense because our children, for the most part, have heard nothing but positive things about homosexuality and its effects; it’s kind of fun. We see “Say Yes to the Dress,” which by the way I love, and we see the gay characters on that and the one in Atlanta and the one in New York and those guys are really, I really, it has nothing to do with ‘like,’ but it is the face of the homosexual community that is only pained with a positive brush when those of us that have been involved in issues related to this know that there’s a very dark side, that this is not a good thing for people ultimately in their lives and it is a destructive force. It’s a destructive force especially — my concern, more than that for the gay community which I am very concerned about — is for the raping of the innocence of our children, forcing it in public schools, forcing little children to be educated, they call it educated, I’d say sexually abused by information their little ears are not ready to hear. In states where homosexual advocacy is strong this is exactly what’s happening, it’s happening to some degree all over the country in all school rooms, but it’s worse in states like Massachusetts.

Later, she mocked media coverage of her latest statements where she speculated about Hillary Clinton’s sexual orientation by facetiously asking why people were offended by her remarks since schools now teach that homosexuality is “wonderful.”

Rios even said that we are telling children to “engage in experimental sex with their friends, you know encouraged to act out sexually with their girlfriends if they are girls and their boyfriends if they are boys,” and that Bill Clinton “loves all things sexual in general I think, homosexual or heterosexual.”

She must be bi, she’s got a child, if she is a lesbian she would have to be bi so what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that okay? Isn’t that wonderful, in fact? Aren’t we telling our children in public schools, aren’t we giving them books about it, aren’t we reading stories about it, aren’t we seeing this on television all the time and movie themes, isn’t this cool? Aren’t we having our kids sort of engage in experimental sex with their friends, you know encouraged to act out sexually with their girlfriends if they are girls and their boyfriends if they are boys? Doesn’t Bravo feature things like this all the time? I just watched one this week when I was working out in the gym. What’s the problem?

…

I mean her husband is supporting gay marriage, he loves all things sexual in general I think, homosexual or heterosexual, it could be argued. I’m not talking about his behavior, I’m talking about just that he seems to embrace all kinds of sex, doesn’t seem to mind it, and certainly he is denigrating the Defense of Marriage Act, which he signed in 1996. I really honestly don’t see what the big deal is on this.

Washington Times contributor Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union warns in a column today that “the left’s drive for ‘gay rights’ poses the greatest domestic threat to the freedoms of religion, speech and assembly.” He asserts that legalizing same-sex marriage “will lead to less freedom and more government” as “civil rights enforcement becomes a gun aimed at the head of citizens, forcing them to choose between God and Caesar.”

“Tyranny is masquerading as enlightenment,” Knight writes, arguing that the effort to overturn statutes banning same-sex marriage is really a drive to “repeal reality.”

Recently, Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican, announced support for homosexual “marriage” because his son is homosexual.

It’s one thing to have unconditional love and compassion toward a friend or loved one, and another thing to redefine marriage for the whole nation. Public policy is the force of law. Civil libertarians who are jumping aboard the homosexual “marriage” bandwagon might want to stop and consider why this will lead to less freedom and more government.

Sundered by no-fault divorce and cohabitation, marriage as a “genderless” institution will lose even more legitimacy and contribute less to stability, prosperity and self-sufficiency. As nuclear families fail, government grows to pick up the pieces — and to enforce the new reality.

This brings us to the bigger picture. The left’s drive for “gay rights” poses the greatest domestic threat to the freedoms of religion, speech and assembly. When traditional morality is equated with racist bigotry, civil rights enforcement becomes a gun aimed at the head of citizens, forcing them to choose between God and Caesar. That should never happen in America, where our Founders said rights come from our Creator, not capricious man, who can mistake fashion for morality.

In Massachusetts, which legalized homosexual “marriage” in 2004, public schools openly entice children to try homosexual behavior despite well-documented health risks. Penalties are enforced against dissenters. People are losing jobs. Catholic Charities, the largest Massachusetts provider of foster homes for orphans, closed its doors rather than give up placing children only in married, mother-father homes. Tyranny is masquerading as enlightenment.

…

In New Jersey, the Southern Poverty Law Center is suing Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH) under consumer fraud law. They contend that no one can overcome this particular temptation, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

In California, legislators passed a law making it criminal for parents to take their children to counselors for help in overcoming unwanted same-sex desires — even children who have been molested. A court has enjoined the law for now, but is this still America, land of the free and home of the brave?

Yet, conservatives, the GOP and even the Tea Parties are told they must bow before this increasingly intolerant movement. President Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Lady Gaga and the Democratic Party embrace homosexual “marriage,” so it must advance conservative principles, right?

Laurie Higgins, a perceptive writer for the Illinois Family Institute, asks this question: “What if Portman’s son had announced he was bisexual or polyamorous? Would Portman then seek to have the government recognize plural unions as marriages? Imagine if everyone decided that the ‘Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion’ and the ‘belief that we’re all children of God’ compel us to affirm all the feelings, beliefs and life choices of our loved ones. The truth is, it is entirely possible to deeply love people while finding their feelings, beliefs and life choices disordered or false. In this wildly diverse world, most of us do it all the time.”

Instead, we’re being asked to repeal reality, which is an unreasonable and dangerous request.

On her radio bulletin today, Linda Harvey of Mission America once again argued that gay people don’t exist but are simply living a “sad delusion” and their “life could be very different if they embraced reality.” She laments that “homosexuality has become a gateway issue” for young people who “erroneously” consider gay rights “to be a civil rights issue.”

“Homosexuals are confronted every day with the plain truth of God’s design of their bodies,” Harvey said. “It’s not marriage, it’s not a positive lesson for kids and it’s not a civil right.”

Many people are now stating publicly what some have privately believed for years that, especially for our youth, homosexuality has become a gateway issue, erroneously said to be a civil rights issue, and so Republicans are being pressured to embrace the LGBT agenda. But the truth is still true. If our youth heard a clear exposition about this issue, which the major media in our country seldom allow, many would embrace the conservative and even Christian view. It’s not hateful to oppose homosexuality since no one is born this way. Even if a person swears that they’ve always been this way and could never change, that does not mean it’s true. Human history is replete with examples of folks who spent years believing something or other was their destiny and it turns out to have been a sad delusion and life could be very different if they embraced reality. Homosexuals are confronted every day with the plain truth of God’s design of their bodies. It’s not marriage, it’s not a positive lesson for kids and it’s not a civil right.

Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman is angry about President Obama’s trip to Israel, and somehow managed to use a column about the visit to attack Hillary Clinton for endorsing marriage equality and speculate about her sexual orientation. After arguing that Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “engaged in political sex” instead of working to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, Klayman reported that “two of Bill Clinton's extra-marital lovers” said that she “is, at a minimum, bi-sexual,” and “that the reason for his cheating was Hillary's gayness.”

Klayman, who has a tendency to claim that his political opponents are gay, even claimed to know “the names of several of Hillary's female lovers,” but that he won’t expose them “for a variety of reasons.”

While he refuses to name her supposed “lovers,” he said Clinton is a hypocrite and committing “fraud on the American people” because she “has not come out of the closet.”

This week was a "potpourri" of hypocrisy and fraud, not that this is anything unusual these days.

First, there was the dog and pony show put on by both President Barack Hussein Obama and the President and Prime Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres and Benjamin Natanyahu [sic] – a shameless display that sought to effectively defraud the Israeli people, and Jews and Christians in the United States and throughout the world.

…

Netanyahu, who, with his conservative Likud Party, recently took a hit during the recent elections last January, and now has a very weak hold on his prime ministership, then proceeded to roll over and himself heap praise on Obama as Israel's greatest friend – having been politically outflanked by his American and Israeli rivals. As a result, both the Israeli public and Jewry worldwide were treated to an attempted fraud – as both Obama and high Israeli officials backed away from committing to take any immediate forceful action to stop Iran's nuclear program and instead engaged in political sex. In short, all parties, Obama, Peres and Netanyahu disgraced and disserved their own people by attempting to lull them to sleep on the immediate threat of an Iranian nuclear Holocaust.

The second greatest hypocrisy and fraud committed this week was by none other than Hillary Clinton, who finally followed her "heart and sexual preference" and endorsed same sex marriage. Timing her announcement at a time that it would be less widely reported – as she and her hubby Bill had previously opposed it during their administration – Hillary positioned herself nevertheless for her near certain presidential candidacy in 2016 by going with the flow – where politicians of all stripes have thrown in the towel to this moral issue.

Before now, Hillary had steadfastly wanted to stay away from "gay marriage" as it is widely known that she is, at a minimum, bi-sexual. During my tenure at Judicial Watch I was told by Gennifer Flowers and Dolly Kyle Browning, two of Bill Clinton's extra-marital lovers, that the president had told them that the reason for his cheating was Hillary's gayness. During the course of Judicial Watch's many cases and investigations, I indeed learned the names of several of Hillary's female lovers, but we never exploited this for a variety of reasons. And, then to cap it all off the famous left wing investigative writer Seymour Hirsch once told me that it is widely known that Hillary likes women.

That Hillary has not come out of the closet, while now endorsing same sex marriage, is the height of hypocrisy and another continuing fraud on the American people, and her own gay and lesbian constituency.