Brian Tashman's blog

Scott Lively Denies Calling Obama The Antichrist, Admits He Did When Confronted With Audio Of His Comments

During Scott Lively’s interview with Michelangelo Signorile last week, the anti-gay pastor denied ever having said that President Obama is the Antichrist…until Signorile played audio captured by Right Wing Watch of Lively saying exactly that.

Last year, Lively told Rick Wiles of TruNews that the Antichrist “is heading the largest superpower of the world today,” obviously referring to Obama, who he predicted would eliminate “the debts of the world,” bring about “a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israelis” and establish “secular humanism” as a global religion.

Later in the Wiles interview, Lively said that gay rights will bring about the End Times and hailed Russia’s Vladimir Putin for “championing the traditional marriage and Christian values regarding the central moral issue of our time,” homosexuality.

But Lively told Signorile that he never referred to Obama as the Antichrist or Putin as a champion of right-wing Christianity: “No I didn’t say that. Oh boy, that’s quite the leap you’re making. No, I’ve never said either of those things. In terms of the Antichrist thing, we need to have a conversation about prophecy and those things for it to make any sense at all, but I did not say that Obama is the Antichrist.”

“Where are you getting this? What’s that from?,” he demanded.

But he eventually conceded that he did in fact call Obama the Antichrist after Signorile played his words back to him. “No, that’s Obama,” Lively said, but then tried to spin it as merely a “hypothetical” discussion of the End Times.

However, Lively was clearly referring to the current leader of the “largest superpower” (Obama) and even suggested that the cancellation of debts will take place in 2015.

Here is audio of Lively’s denial, and admission, from The Michelangelo Signorile Show via The New Civil Rights Movement:

Anti-Gay Activists: Day Of Silence Is 'Medical Malpractice,' 'Silences Conservatives'

Conservative groups including the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and Liberty Counsel are urging parents to keep their children at home on April 11, the annual anti-bullying Day of Silence, in order to avoid exposing them to protests against anti-LGBT bullying.

Mission America’s Linda Harvey and Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, an AFA affiliate, discussed the boycott plans on Harvey’s weekend radio show, where Harvey claimed that the Day of Silence actually represents “medical malpractice.”

“This is educational malpractice, it really is, and it really should be medical malpractice,” she said of gay rights advocacy, “especially when you have HIV rates and the other hazards we know that are out there for kids.”

Higgins added that public school educators “censor” anti-gay activists by citing concerns about “safety, or whatever that is,” and said that their curriculum “violates any kind of principles of sound pedagogy.”

Harvey warned that the Day of Silence helps LGBT and allied students feel “empowered in very inappropriate ways,” to intimidate others: “The Day of Silence, the real silencing going on is not the so-called LGBT students, the real silencing going on is conservative and Christian thought.”

“What’s dishonest about this movement is they don’t acknowledge that their end goal is not ending bullying, they’re using that; their end goal is to eradicate conservative moral beliefs or to make it socially, politically impossible to repeat them,” Higgins said. “This is dishonest to say this is just about bullying, this is really and truly about silencing conservatives.”

WND: Aid For Kenyan School 'A Slap In The Face' To Military Service Members

These days, it is apparently a scandal that an aid project is helping children gain access to basic sanitation, because Obama!

WorldNetDaily’s latest exposé, “Obama Gives Military Latrine Duty New Meaning,” reports the scandal that an engineering office in the Navy is soliciting contracts [PDF] “to provide for the construction of (16) female dry-pit latrines and to furnish and install a centrifugal pump to serve the potable water catchment system” at a Kenyan school.

WND writes that this contract is just “the latest slap to the face of U.S. Department of Defense personnel.”

The Obama administration lately has demanded much from American soldiers, who now face possible reductions in the number in their ranks as well as higher payments toward their health benefits. That’s in addition to duty in Afghanistan, or worse.

In the latest slap to the face of U.S. Department of Defense personnel, Obama now is asking those soldiers to oversee the digging of toilets at a girl’s school in Kenya, his “home country,” as First Lady Michelle Obama once publicly put it.

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command is tasked with coordinating the endeavor, involving the construction of a building containing 16 female “dry-pit latrines” for the Mpeketoni Secondary School, according to project Statement of Work that WND discovered during routine database research.

Caught red-handed, Obama!

WND even provides a drawing of the latrine plans as further proof of this scandal of the century.

Obviously, Obama is personally responsible for this Watergate-level disgrace, and came up with the entire idea of foreign aid.

Marco Rubio Doesn't Believe In Constitutional Separation Of Church And State

In a discussion with Eric Metaxas at last year’s Florida Family Policy Council summit, Sen. Marco Rubio said that the separation of church and state is a myth, arguing that the First Amendment only precludes an “officially sanctioned denomination.”

“This notion of separation between church and state, you won’t find those words in the Constitution,” Rubio said. “That doesn’t mean that we should have an officially sanctioned denomination.”

Rubio warned that “there is an effort to silence those or to crowd out of its rightful place the role of the faith community in our country. The government cannot tell you what faith to belong to but it cannot tell you that it cannot speak about your faith.”

Of course, the Constitution also doesn’t include words like “separation of powers” and “checks and balances,” but that doesn’t mean that those principles aren’t in the Constitution.

Rubio also seems to think that the drafters of the Constitution only meant to prevent the government from sanctioning one religious denomination over another. But the founders actually rejected language about “establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another” (same with “religious society” and “national church”) in favor of the more broad First Amendment’s prohibition of the “establishment of religion.”

Making Men Head Of Household Is True Women's Liberation Because It Makes Life Easier

If feminists truly want to liberate women, says author and WorldNetDaily columnist Patrice Lewis, then they should simply make their husbands head of the household so they can be free from making tough decisions.

Lewis writes today that giving her husband “the final say” is “freeing” because it “makes life easier for both my husband and me.”

The real oppressors, of course, are feminists: “If there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance. Oooh, sacrilege to the feminist cause. Feminists, presumably, must always have the last word, which I interpret as meaning feminists try to make their husbands submissive and subservient.”

In the wake of some feminist headlines this week (such as this and this), I am going to confess something so shocking, so appalling and so outrageously backward to the progressive cause that I’m certain feminists the world over will faint in horror.

Ready? Here it goes: My husband is the head of our household.

Yes, really. Here, some smelling salts will revive you.

In today’s world marinated with progressive morals and ideals, it’s tantamount to heresy for a woman to freely admit that her husband heads the household. But let’s face it: It makes life easier for both my husband and me.



As much as feminists want to deny reality, the fact remains that men and women are biologically different. (Scandalous, I know.) I like to think that God in His divine wisdom came up with the spiffy concept of a division of labor for the sake of efficiency. Divisions of labor are utilized the world over in the workplace to increase efficiency. Why not try it at home as well?

Feminists call this oppression. Homemakers call it freeing.

Why is it oppressive or subservient to look to one’s husband for guidance and strength, rather than to feminists? Why can’t it be a freeing thing for a woman to lean on her husband? Unless she’s unmarried, it’s comforting when a woman doesn’t have to “do it all.”



I am the Heart of this household, and as everyone knows, a body is no good without a heart, just as a body is no good without a head. We need both, and the fact that I view my husband as my Head in no way diminishes my importance as his Heart. But someone has to have the final say in a house for peace and order to prevail, and that job goes to my husband.

A wise Head takes advice and counsel from his Heart. My husband and I discuss all household decisions and mutually agree on nearly everything. But if there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance.

Oooh, sacrilege to the feminist cause. Feminists, presumably, must always have the last word, which I interpret as meaning feminists try to make their husbands submissive and subservient.

WND: Phony Internet Scandal 'May Be The Most Historic Outrage In The History of This Country, If Not The World'

The right-wing myth that the Obama administration handed oversight of the Internet to foreign powers continues to spread, even after it has been roundly debunked. As part of a sixteen year plan, the administration relinquished government oversight to a US-backed non-profit instead of a United Nations-led organization. But conservative activists have consistently claimed that President Obama actually gave control to the UN group, even though that is completely false.

Today, WorldNetDaily pundit Gina Loudon writes in reaction to the Internet decision that Americans should “seriously consider our options” to “find a way to throw these colluders with terrorists – these traitors – out of office,” deceptively claiming that “Obama is handing the global community the ability to control our speech, and our technological advances.”

“This may be the most historic outrage in the history of this country, if not the world, and it happened while they entertained us with bread and circuses,” she writes of the non-existent scandal.

A couple of questions for the stiff-lipped statists with white gloves quietly applauding this oh so global delight: Who can you really trust? And when it comes to the Internet, how do you know that when you increase the greasy fingers meddling in your online life, that more fingers don’t increase corruption and decrease efficiency?

Free markets and private ownership work, and that’s why the American founders chose them. When you make it “global,” with appointees farther removed from the people, you inevitably remove accountability and increase corruption.

The travesty is that we Americans actually did build the Internet! (No, not you, Al! You only built the fraudulent green movement hysteria.) Even Bill Clinton said giving away control of the Internet was idiotic. We have the strongest tradition of free speech in the world. You can kiss that goodbye, Internet lovers!

We can’t say we weren’t warned about all this trickery. Our first clue was when Obama instructed the director of NASA that his goal was no longer space travel, but rather the goal of NASA was to go make friends with Muslims. The former director of NASA, Michael Griffen, called this directive “deeply flawed.”



So now Obama is handing the global community the ability to control our speech, and our technological advances. The international body will have the ability to control us by controlling our speech, and we handed it to them. What are we getting in return?

This may be the most historic outrage in the history of this country, if not the world, and it happened while they entertained us with bread and circuses.

If the country doesn’t wake up and find a way to throw these colluders with terrorists – these traitors – out of office, it will be too late. It may be time for us to seriously consider our options, very seriously.

History will record the truth. The next entity to control the Internet, space and nuclear technology will not be so good as the Americans, who have controlled it since its birth. It cannot be, because no republic shares our bedrock foundations of free speech and individual liberty. America is founded on principles that are reverent, grace-filled and believe the best in people, and for people. What will the Internet look like when it is controlled by people who believe the state comes first?

Pat Robertson Says Jews Are Too Busy Polishing Diamonds To Fix Their Cars

Conservative activist Daniel Lapin, the Religious Right’s favorite rabbi who was also tied to the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal, appeared today on the 700 Club to tell host Pat Robertson about his new book on the “ancient Jewish wisdom” of “making money.”

Robertson introduced Lapin by asking: “What is it about Jewish people that make them prosper financially? You almost never find Jews tinkering with their cars on the weekends or mowing their lawns. That’s what Daniel Lapin says and there’s a very good reason for that, and it lies within the business secrets of the Bible.”

Later in the interview, Robertson said that Jews are “polishing diamonds, not fixing cars.”

“When you correctly said in Jewish neighborhoods you do not find Jews lying under their cars on Sunday afternoons, no, I pay one of the best mechanics around to take care of my BMW, I’d be crazy to take my time doing it myself,” Lapin said. “Or for me to mow my lawn, I’m the worse lawnmower in the world, but the young man who lives down the street from me, he’s one of the best and he’s happy to do it and I’m happy.”

He added that paying for such services is all about “taking care of God’s other children.”

Lapin also repeated his claim that God doesn’t want people to retire, and commended Robertson for still hosting the 700 Club.

“There’s no Hebrew word for retirement; the general rule is when there’s no Hebrew word for something, it’s a bad idea. For instance, there’s no Hebrew word for adolescent, because when you think about it an adolescent is just somebody who wants all the privileges of adulthood with none of the responsibilities,” Lapin told Robertson. “No word for adolescent, no word for retire and I’m very happy that you’ve taken that lesson to heart.”

Robertson agreed that retirement is a violation of God’s law. Lapin added that there is also no Hebrew word for “fair.”

At the end of the interview, Lapin said that the United States has embraced a Marxist government that “turns people into slaves.”

Gordon Klingenschmitt Poised To Clinch GOP Nomination In Colorado Race

Last year, extremist pastor Gordon “Dr. Chaps” Klingenschmitt announced that he was running for a seat in the Colorado state legislature and his campaign took a step forward last weekend when he dominated a Colorado GOP caucus, where he received over seventy percent of the vote. Unfortunately for Chaps, he doesn't have the GOP nomination sewn up quite yet, as he still may face a primary opponent:

Gordon Klingenschmitt won the favor of the delegates with 71 percent of the vote, preventing two other candidates nominated from hitting the 30 percent threshold. But unlike county-wide races, it only takes 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

Candidate Dave Williams however, turned down his nomination saying he already has 1,000 signatures and will petition onto the ballot. A primary appears likely in that race.

The district is heavily Republican and currently represented by the GOP House Leader.

As ColoradoPols.com reports, Williams also has a long history of making extremist statements and promoting discrimination.

Klingenschmitt has made anti-LGBT activism the cornerstone of his political life. Here are just a few of his shocking statements:

Klingenschmitt: Gays 'Have Something Unhuman Inside Of Them'

Gay Soldiers Undermine The Military Because They Have To Take Breaks In The Middle Of Combat To Change Their Diapers

Klingenschmitt: Photo Of Gay Couple With A Baby 'Looks To Me A Little Bit Like Lust'

Klingenschmitt: If You Are Gay, 'Then You Should Be Discriminated Against'

Klingenschmitt: 'The Demonic Spirits Inside The Homosexual Agenda' Are Trying To Recruit Your Kids

Klingenschmitt: Gay Activists Are Trying To Force Christians To 'Participate In Their Sodomy'

Mike Huckabee's Hypocritical 'Hobby Lobby Day'

On Saturday, Mike Huckabee led a Hobby Lobby ‘buycott’ modeled on his campaign to support Chick-fil-A. Huckabee worked with the Family Research Council to promote the event, which coincided with Supreme Court arguments in Hobby Lobby’s suit to avoid the contraception coverage mandate, a case that Huckabee declared last week will determine “whether religious liberty still exists in America.”

“If religious liberty and freedom of conscience doesn’t exist for Hobby Lobby, how long will it be before it’s taken from you?” Huckabee asked on his Fox News program. “Enough of government thinking its God and trying to act like it.”

In that case, Huckabee must think that he himself is God: When he was governor of Arkansas, he signed an even broader contraception coverage mandate into law.

Bill Scher reports that “in 2005, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee signed a law mandating Arkansas insurance plans provide contraception coverage, including church-affiliated organizations such as hospitals and universities.”

Corporations like Hobby Lobby and other secular for-profits were not exempt under the Huckabee-approved law [PDF], which only exempted entities “organized and operated for religious purposes 16 and has received a § 501(c)(3) designation from the Internal Revenue Service.”

As Laura Bassett of the Huffington Post notes, the Affordable Care Act actually goes farther in “carv[ing] out an exemption for religious schools, hospitals and nonprofits in addition to churches.”

Huckabee also falsely claimed that the federal mandate compels “business owners to pay for employees’ abortions”; the forms birth control covered by the mandate are neither abortions or abortifacients.

None of this, of course, is surprising coming from the politician who suggested that birth control is for women who “can’t control their libido.”

Eagle Forum: Marriage Equality Cases Put America 'In The Danger Zone'

Eagle Forum’s Virginia Armstrong, who leads the group’s Court Watch Project, writes in a “Court Watch briefing” today that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 have displaced the “Judeo-Christian/Constitutionalist worldview” in favor of “Humanism/Reconstructionism,” which she warns “wreaks havoc with the concepts of absolute truth and inherent logic of the Law.”

Armstrong writes that the gay rights cases have pushed America to the “breaking point” and into the “danger zone” that will undermine the rule of law.

Has America has bent over backwards too far in its spiritual, moral, and constitutional life so that we are in danger of “breaking”? This question is central to our current series of Court Watch Briefings. The question has been precipitated by America’s Culture War and echoes the anguished cry of the Father in the famous musical production, “Fiddler on the Roof,” who felt that revolutionary changes in his world were pushing him to the “breaking point.”

We are proving that America is indeed in the “danger zone” and is in dire need of a massive “straightening up process.” Nothing more clearly demonstrates this fact than the recent same-sex marriage decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court — Perry v. Hollingsworth and Windsor v. U.S.



The Humanist/Reconstructionist position on epistemology is fatally flawed at every turn, as revealed in the pro-homosexual court decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. U.S. We must remember that Perry/Windsor reflect far more than the specific issues and positions of the immediate parties to the cases. Rather, they afford us a panoramic view of the entire homosexual rights battle and should be viewed in that light.



The real conflict in Perry/Windsor and similar cases is that of the whole Culture War conflict — the War of Worldviews between Humanism/Reconstructionism and the Judeo-Christian/Constitutionalist worldview. What is at stake, as Harold Berman demonstrates in his analysis (to which we have been referring), is the “very collapse of our entire Western legal tradition.” The Perry/Windsor epistemology wreaks havoc with the concepts of absolute truth and inherent logic of the Law — key components of the Western legal tradition outlined by Professor Berman. And as Nancy Pearcey of Houston Baptist University’s Schaeffer Center so cogently states, “The clash between these two understandings of morality [the Judeo-Christian v. the Humanistic] will determine whether liberty is gained or lost in the 21st century. It is imperative to reassert the transcendent moral truths that undergird freedom in every society.”
Syndicate content