John Fleming

John Fleming: Obama Dividing Americans By Race 'Just To Have Political Power'

Rep. John Fleming appeared on Friday’s edition of “The Janet Mefferd Show,” where he warned that immigrants are refusing to integrate into American culture and becoming “dependents on our entitlement system.”

The Louisiana Republican spoke with guest host Randy Thomasson, the head of Save California, echoed recent remarks by his Republican colleague Mo Brooks about how Obama and Democrats are fomenting racial animosity: “Our president promised that there wouldn’t be such things as black Americans and white Americans, just Americans, but his policies have actually divided us and multi-divided us in so many ways just to have political power.”

Rep. John Fleming Warns Marijuana Use Will Lead To 'Death And Destruction' Among Veterans

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives voted down an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have allowed physicians working for the Department of Veterans Affairs to discuss medical marijuana options with patients in states where it is legal.

Rep. John Fleming took to conservative talk radio to voice opposition to the move, appearing on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” yesterday to warn that marijuana will lead to “death and destruction” among military veterans. “We’re creating a vicious cycle that could lead to more suicides, worse depression,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“Why in the world would we want to go out and damage and injure and even create death and destruction to our beloved veterans who have put their lives on the line by giving them marijuana?”

In an interview the same day, Fleming told Ernest Istook, the former GOP congressman and host of “Istook Live,” that “there is not a stitch of evidence to support” claims about the benefits of medical marijuana.

“It’s like adding gasoline to a fire. You would never order for a veteran that they begin drinking alcohol in response to PTSD, you would never tell a veteran they should use heroin as a solution to their depression problems, well that’s what you’re doing by suggesting the use of marijuana,” he said.

Fleming also dismissed concerns about the incarceration rate of people convicted of crimes surrounding marijuana use, alleging that the push to liberalize drug laws drives from financial interests.

“There’s a lot of money to be made,” he said. “Look at the downstream cost to society when you have, as in the case of the VA, all of these veterans who are going to have lung cancer, emphysema, brain damage, heart disease as a result of that so what we’re doing really is putting money in the pockets of some very greedy people out there who are taking advantage of this.”

Right Wing Round-Up - 10/17/13

  • Peter Montgomery @ Huffington Post: Explaining the Tea Party.
  • TFN Insider: Important News: Publishers Are Resisting Pressure to Dumb Down Their Biology Textbooks for Texas.
  • Towleroad: South Carolina Mayor Doesn't Want 'Queer' Marriages 'Rammed Down Her Throat.'
  • Zack Ford @ Think Progress: Anti-LGBT Group Admits It Invented Story About Transgender Student Harassing Classmates.
  • Noah Rothman @ Mediaite: Fox & Friends Hosts Ask If Ranting House Stenographer Targeted Because of Her Religious Beliefs.
  • Tom Kludt @ TPM: GOP Rep Looks To Next Showdown: 'We’re Going To Start This All Over Again.'

Barton: Atheism Is A Religion And Violation of Separation Of Church And State

Rep. John Fleming was the guest on "WallBuilders Live" today, discussing his effort to prevent the military from creating positions for atheist chaplains. After Fleming alleged that the proposal itself was nothing more than an effort to drive religion out of the military, David Barton blamed the entire thing on the Supreme Court, delivering a convoluted argument alleging that atheism is itself a religion and therefore should be banned from public school in the name of separation of church and state:

The Supreme Court opened the door to all of this. Back in decisions like U.S. vs Seeger and others, the court, in their dislike for traditional religion, they defined religion as whatever someone believes so sincerely and so strongly that it affects the way they act.

Now, if that's the case, by the court's definition, atheism and humanism would be religious because they affect the way people act.  But if that's the case, then why don't we have the separation of church and state with them, if they're a religion?

Darwinism and evolution is a religion. Why don't we say 'hey, we can't teach Darwinism in school. That affects the way people behave.  I demand separation of church and state. Get Darwinism out of the classroom.'

Or why don't we say 'hey, I don't see any prayers going at graduation; that's atheism!  I demand separation of church and state. Atheism has chaplains, they're a religion. Get atheism out of the schools.'

Hmmm, so not having prayer in school is now a violation of the separation of church and state? So what is the solution?  To require prayer?  Because that's somehow not a violation? 

Rep. John Fleming: Obama Administration and Gay Rights Advocates Pushing Atheism, Socialism

Louisiana Republican congressman John Fleming is upset that “those who want to promote homosexuality as a mainstream lifestyle” are trying to change Americans’ “whole way of thinking to that secular humanist, atheist viewpoint” and allow “just about any kind of lifestyle you can think of.” Fleming made the remarks in an interview yesterday with conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd, criticizing Obama administration officials for working “to rid government of any last vestiges of religion, especially Christianity.”

I do believe that those who want to promote homosexuality as a mainstream lifestyle and to change the whole nature of the marriage relationship that has been for centuries one man and one woman, they view that as inconsistent with religious beliefs, so what they want to do from the administration is to change our whole way of thinking to that secular humanist, atheist viewpoint, which means it opens it up to just about any kind of lifestyle you can think of. So I really think that this is a push from the administration and throughout the administration, other people, to rid government of any last vestiges of religion, especially Christianity.

He said that the supposed push for atheism is part of an alleged plan, including Obamacare and government-dictated school lunches, to “push socialism on the American people.”

I would say that the global issue in this whole thing is to push religion completely out of government at any level at all to make this a socialist secular humanist society because as you know, Janet, socialism is incompatible with religious beliefs. So if you’re going to be promoting Obamacare, which is the cornerstone of socialism; if you’re going to have a government that manages its people on a microscopic level; if you’re going to have a growing government, a top-down, directing you as to what your children can eat in the lunchroom and all of these things; that is inconsistent with religion, especially Christianity. So I see this as just another front to push socialism on the American people.

Rep. John Fleming: Overturning DOMA Would Lead to Sham Marriages

On the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch last night, Rep. John Fleming (R.-LA) weighed in on the pending Supreme Court decisions on marriage equality. Fleming likened gay marriage to marriage between a U.S. citizen and a foreigner, claiming that federal recognition of gay marriage would cause straight people to enter into same-sex marriages for practical benefits. Same-sex marriages would then have to be questioned to determine if they were “done for convenience” or as the result of a bribe. Host Tony Perkins added that gay marriage would never be legitimate, because there is no way to “verify” the validity of the couple.

Fleming: But you know, it’s interesting. Humans can be very innovative sometimes and I can actually see where two people of the same sex, even who are not themselves homosexual in any way, could find a way to get married just for the purpose of sharing those benefits and only for practical reasons. So you can see the ramifications if the Supreme Court comes out and allows that.

Perkins: No question about it. And there’s no way to necessarily verify that. What you can then set up is a case where you discriminate against couples who are in some jurisdictions, because if they move their marriage is not recognized. And they could then be treated in a way that’s different than heterosexual couples that are cohabitating. It’s a mess once you go down this path.

Fleming: It is. It would be similar to marrying someone from a foreign country. Is it done for convenience? Did someone pay somebody to be married? I mean you can see how the whole institution of marriage could be demeaned. It could certainly be reduced in its importance and taken off the lofty place that we now hold marriage.

Fleming also said that fathers are being “marginalized” as a result of the decline of the traditional family. He stated that “fathers have a less and less important role in procreation now,” although the biology behind that last point was a little unclear.

Perkins: There’s really an alarming rate of fatherlessness in America. And we’re beginning to see the consequences of that as we’ve moved away from that normative definition of what marriage and family has been and should be.

Fleming: No question, Tony. The long term trend over the last three decades is to marginalize fathers. Fathers have a less and less important role in procreation now, in rearing children, in providing for families. Even in many cases, even when they’re actually in the marriage and they exist as a father, oftentimes being marginalized in their importance there. So it’s an alarming cultural direction.

Right Wing Round-Up - 5/21/13

Radical End Times Radio Host Rick Wiles Interviews Rep. John Fleming (R-LA)

On Friday's radio broadcast, End Times radio host Rick Wiles interviewed Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) to discuss Fleming's letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel raising concerns about reports that Pentagon officials had met with Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

It was more than a little ironic to listen to Wiles and Fleming voice their collective disbelief that anyone from the government would dare to meet with someone who had said derogatory things about those with whom they disagree:

Wiles: Congressman Fleming is on the telephone. Congressman, glad to have you on the program.

Fleming: Hey Rick, great to talk with you again.

Wiles: I appreciate you being in the forefront of questioning Defense Chief Hagel on his Mikey Weinstein matter.  Has Secretary Hagel responded to your letter yet?

Fleming: We have no heard back from Secretary Hagel and I think that's most unfortunate again because Mikey Weinstein is somebody whose organization name, religious freedom, is an oxymoron for what it really is, which is religious non-freedom.  And so it's very disconcerting to know that a guy with this kind of past, someone who openly hate Christians, who calls Christians the Taliban and al Qaeda and talks about Christians committing spiritual rape and many other derogatory things; it's very problematic for someone to get high-level meetings with the Adjutant General of the Air Force and other high-level officers.

...

Wiles: You know, Congressman, I'm a pastor and I would never use that kind of language in referring to people who have other religious beliefs serving in the military, I just think that kind of language is over the top so I can't understand why the Pentagon would be meeting with somebody talking like this.

Fleming: That is a very, very important question because that really smacks of bigotry.

Allow us to point out that Wiles, who says he would never use over the top language, has asserted that President Obama is "evil," demon-possessed" and a "devil from Hell" while warning that President Obama's policies will lead to genocide against Christians and declaring that "Barack Obama has spiritually sodomized the nation."

So just let it sink in that Rep. Fleming spent twenty minutes talking to Wiles about how outrageous it is that high-level government officials would ever talk with someone who has said "derogatory things."

Rep. Fleming: UN Treaties May Repeal Second Amendment, Ban Spanking

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins yesterday hosted Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) who immediately started spreading conspiracy theories about the United Nations.

Fleming insisted that the recently approved global UN Arms Trade Treaty, which will restrict the sale of arms to countries and groups that commit war crimes and other atrocities and has been the subject of several discredited right-wing attacks, is an attempt by the left to weaken and ultimately “repeal” the Second Amendment.

The Republican congressman concluded by speculating that the UN may make it illegal for parents to spank their children.

Fleming: In the case of the UN small arms treaty what that means is that if we enter into a treaty with one or more nations that in some way controls firearms, protective arms, handguns, something like that, if it’s ratified by the Senate then that has the same effect as an amendment to the Constitution. So that would be a way that liberals could literally change the Second Amendment. I think as you well know, although it’s not going to have a full effect as part of the ‘votorama’ the other day the Senate had in their vote for their budget, a vote on an up-or-down on the acceptance of, or voting against in effect in their opinion, at least a resolution if you will, on the the acceptance of such a treaty, and Sen. Mary Landrieu from Louisiana actually voted that we should move forward on such a small arms treaty. This is a dangerous thing when it comes to the Second Amendment. People need to understand that there is an end-run around the Second Amendment that is available to the Senate and I do think President Obama and others do support this.



Perkins: We’re talking here for just a moment about the UN’s Small Arms Treaty and as he pointed out, an end-run around Congress on the Second Amendment through the Congress. This is a very real possibility in my opinion congressman because it looks like the efforts to get legislation through Congress, especially through the House, that would severely restrict gun ownership and attack the Second Amendment is unlikely to happen, so what’s the next best thing for the Obama administration? Pursuing a treaty like this.

Fleming: Well if for instance through the UN and with an agreement with other countries, we all come together and we say, you know what we as a group of countries, both inside and outside of our borders, are going to control the handling the use and access to handguns, for instance, then if we sign onto that treaty and it’s ratified by the Senate—the House doesn’t even have to vote on it—it’s ratified by the Senate and signed onto by the President, it is firm law. A simple passage of a law or a repeal of law by Congress itself can’t undo that is my understanding. So we wouldn’t have to have a repeal of the Second Amendment, we could just simply alter it or put into effect what is essentially a repeal of it. That is not the only thing. There’s another issue just to show you how broad scope this is on how we deal with our children and what control we have of our children as parents and how we may define child abuse and the responsibility of the state. That could potentially be up for a ratification of a treaty with other nations. So that if you for instance spanked your child, you could be in violation of a UN treaty and a law created as such.

Rep. John Fleming Suggests Soldier's Same-Sex Commitment Ceremony Undermined National Security

Last week, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer urged the government to stop the use of military facilities for same-sex commitment and marriage ceremonies after a military chaplain at Fort Polk, a training base in Louisiana, performed a commitment ceremony at a chapel between a female service member and her civilian partner. Following Fischer’s tirade, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) appeared on the AFA radio show Today’s Issues with AFA president Tim Wildmon and Family Research Council head Tony Perkins to denounce the ceremony. In a statement, the congressman decried the ceremony as part of a “liberal social experiment” and urged Congress to approve “legislation that prevents military facilities from being used for same-sex marriages or marriage-like ceremonies.”

Fleming told Wildmon and Perkins that the commitment ceremony and the ensuing attention it received, which was primarily coming from conservative detractors, was a distraction that undermined the “oath to protect our nation.” He said that the chaplain and the couple acted in a “rogue state” and tried to “push their own personal agenda using U.S. military facilities.” Later, Fleming said that the occasion was part of a larger attempt to “create a normative acceptance of something that really is not part of our customs or culture”:

Instead of training our young men and women to be ready for battle, they’re having to deal with this stuff, and I think that that is first and foremost the wrong venue to have any type of protest or mock ceremonies. I don’t think that—you know, my responsibility as a member of Congress is first speak to it that we protect our nation with a common defense, that’s a Constitutional requirement for me, and certainly those members who’ve sworn an oath to protect our nation and put their lives on the line. And yet we have this couple and this chaplain who went off on their own, in kind of a rogue state to do something, to push their own personal agenda using U.S. military facilities, so that is my first objection to this.



You know the second part of this is, this is really propagating an agenda, is to try to normalize or create a normative acceptance of something that really is not part of our customs or culture, for the most part certainly, if you understand that most states do have some sort of ban on same-sex marriage, very few actually accept it, again this is using military facilities to create a normative behavior.

Congressman who cited 'The Onion' to Attack Planned Parenthood promoted another Deceptive Planned Parenthood Smear

Following in the footsteps of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Congressman John Fleming (R-LA) used bogus information to attack Planned Parenthood. On his Facebook page, the congressman cited an article from the satirical newspaper The Onion, ‘Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex,’ to criticize the women’s health group.

While the congressman has since scrubbed the post from his Facebook page, he still is promoting an article from the conspiratorial far-right site WorldNetDaily to claim that Planned Parenthood has abortion quotas. In the story, WND cited Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood staffer turned anti-choice activist who has made similar charges before that Planned Parenthood is trying to “coerce” and “encourage” women to have abortions. However, Johnson isn’t exactly a trustworthy source, as her stated story on why she left Planned Parenthood completely lacks credibility:

Johnson’s departure from Planned Parenthood turned out to be a more complex story than it first appeared. At a court hearing for an injunction sought by Planned Parenthood to prevent Johnson from divulging confidential information to her new allies, two of Johnson’s former co-workers testified that she told them in the days before she resigned that she was afraid she was about to be fired. At one time, Johnson, who was named the regional Planned Parenthood affiliate’s employee of the year in 2008, seemed to have a promising future with the organization. By mid-2009, however, her relationship with her employer had begun to deteriorate. Salon reported that on October 2, Johnson was summoned to Houston to meet with her supervisors to discuss problems with her job performance. She was placed on what Planned Parenthood calls a “performance improvement plan.” It was just three days later, on Monday, that Johnson made her tearful appearance at the Coalition for Life. The following day she faxed Planned Parenthood a resignation letter, which mentioned nothing about a crisis of conscience.

...

Other questions about Johnson’s credibility arose during our interview. She told me, for example, that there had never been any threats of violence against the Bryan clinic; however, Johnson herself received a series of threatening letters in 2007. “God will punish you for killing the innocent or we will,” read one. “You are not taking us seriously. You were at the clinic alone. Not very smart,” read another. In fact, the threats were taken so seriously that security cameras were installed at Johnson’s house, as she later acknowledged. Johnson also claimed that while most services at Planned Parenthood were provided by a nonprofit corporation, abortions were done by a for-profit corporation. Both she and Carney seemed to sincerely believe this was true, though all services at Planned Parenthood are, in fact, provided by a pair of separate nonprofit corporations.

As confounding as these inconsistencies are, there may be a much larger problem with Johnson’s story. Johnson has told the story of her journey from pro-choice activist to pro-life celebrity many times in many venues, and the crux of the tale is always the same: her moving description of what she saw on the ultrasound that September day in the Bryan clinic’s operating room ... Johnson’s account is so plausible and rich in detail that even Planned Parenthood seems not to have investigated whether this event ever took place. At my request, the staff at the Bryan clinic examined patient records from September 26, the day Johnson claims to have had her conversion experience, and spoke with the physician who performed abortions on that date. According to Planned Parenthood, there is no record of an ultrasound-guided abortion performed on September 26. The physician on duty told the organization that he did not use an ultrasound that day, nor did Johnson assist on any abortion procedure. “Planned Parenthood can assure you that no abortion patients underwent an ultrasound-guided abortion on September 26,” said a spokesperson. It’s difficult to imagine that Johnson simply got the date wrong; September 12 was the only other day that month that the clinic performed surgical abortions.

Could clinic staff and the physician be mistaken? The Texas Department of State Health Services requires abortion providers to fill out a form documenting basic information about each procedure performed at a clinic. This document is known as the Induced Abortion Report Form. The Bryan clinic reported performing fifteen surgical abortions on September 26. Johnson has consistently said that the patient in question was thirteen weeks pregnant, which is plausible, since thirteen weeks is right at the cusp of when physicians will consider using an ultrasound to assist with the procedure. Yet none of the patients listed on the report for that day were thirteen weeks pregnant; in fact, none were beyond ten weeks.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious