Brian Tashman's blog

Ben Carson: Michael Brown Died Because He Lacked A Father Figure, Political Correctness

Ben Carson seems to be convinced that “political correctness” is to blame for Michael Brown’s death, and made the case yesterday on Washington Times Radio that Brown died due to the “hypersensitive” climate of American politics.

He told host Andy Parks that political correctness is distracting people from addressing “real problems” like teen pregnancy and “all of those kids who are born into poverty and will live in poverty and in many cases will end up without a father figure in their life and don’t know how to respond to authority and end up being killed like Michael Brown.”

Carson, who has built a political career by regularly arguing that he is losing his right to free speech because people criticize his political views and that he is facing Nazi-style persecution, said “hypersensitive” people who manufacture claims about how their rights are under attack are ruining America.

Carson later said the “agitators” and “criminals” in Ferguson need to be punished and the real lesson is that people should “teach your children to respect authority.”

Ironically, a few months ago Carson praised the “outstanding people” who flocked to the Bundy ranch in Nevada to assist in the lawless standoff with law enforcement, saying that it is high time for Americans to “stand up against the government” and stave off looming martial law.

Ted Nugent: Liberals To Blame For Michael Brown's Death

In his column for WorldNetDaily this week, Ted Nugent writes liberals should be held responsible for the death of Michael Brown because of their support for reforms to reduce gun violence.

Nugent alleged that Obama is “fanning the embers of racism” and trying “to beat the race drum” over the situation in Ferguson, Missouri, hoping to stoke racial hostility in order to make sure African Americans support Democrats come November.

“The ugly truth is that liberals are complicit in Michael Brown’s death and the deaths of thousands of other young black guys who have been encouraged to become thugs,” Nugent writes.

The president knows all too well that losing a portion of the black vote would spell disaster for the Democrats in upcoming elections. Like his race-baiting buddy Al-Not-So-Sharpton, Mr. Obama believes fanning the embers of racism will keep black Americans squarely in the corner of their big daddy Democratic Party. That’s good for liberal politics and bad for racial harmony and America.



President Obama continues to beat the race drum in a feeble attempt to reduce the nonstop gangland gangbanger warfare in Chi-raq and other urban warzones in Baltimore, Oakland, New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, etc., repeating the nonsense that more “reasonable” gun control laws will stop street savages from getting their hands on guns and killing each other.



What President Obama proposes is spending another trillion on poverty-related programs for the next 10 years, thereby ensuring that the nightly bloody slaughters in our urban warzones will continue.

You don’t need to be a social psychologist, anthropologist, criminologist or even a greasy Motown guitar player to understand why America has urban warzones. It is the result of liberals who believe every problem can be solved by massive government spending and a bumbling, lethargic, counter-productive bureaucracy, instead of demanding accountability.

The ugly truth is that liberals are complicit in Michael Brown’s death and the deaths of thousands of other young black guys who have been encouraged to become thugs.

The pesky fact is that America has a discipline-less related violence problem.

That apparently is quite OK with liberals so long as they can continue to try and con the American people, especially black Americans, into believing that access to guns and racism are the problem.

Renew America: God Will Bless America For Impeaching Obama

Yet another conservative commentator is citing divine intervention while making the case to impeach President Obama.

This time, Stephen Stone writes in BarbWire that God will bless America if Congress impeaches and removes the president. Stone, the president of the Alan Keyes-founded group Renew America, writes in a post for BarbWire today that impeachment is a “spiritual” undertaking. He predicts that the public will rally around impeachment once proceedings begin and expose Obama’s criminal “Marxist-Islamic remaking of America.” 

Only by removing Obama and throwing his closest allies such as Vice President Joe Biden in jail, Stone writes, can Americans show God that we are repenting for having elected Obama in an effort to prove that we are "worthy of His grace, Providence, and miraculous intervention.”

Once impeachment begins and the investigation succeeds in exposing Obama and his accomplices, despite their attempts to hide from public scrutiny, we will witness a sea change in people’s attitudes toward the usurper in the White House — a sweeping tsunami of public outrage that could well put such pressure on the Senate that removing Obama becomes the only “politically expedient” thing to do.



The likelihood that impeachment will decisively expose Obama’s treason, treachery, fraud, lies, deceit, and destructive actions to millions of undecided Americans for the first time — through the investigation power the Constitution gives Congress in cases of impeachment — will all but ensure that undecideds quickly become believers, pitchforks in hand, in huge numbers.



It’s fair to say most Democrats didn’t sign on to Obama’s fraudulent promises for the purpose of destroying America. Most may be liberal, but they are not blatantly un-American, and will not tolerate the kind of Marxist-Islamic remaking of America that Obama has pushed since Day One — once they learn how deliberate and treasonable Obama’s lies and deceptions have actually been.



Only by impeachment — with its considerable power of investigation — can we fully come to know the truth previously obscured by the media about the man who presumes to be our dictator. That alone is worth every effort to get that far.

After Obama is exposed, we can expect his tenure to end at the hands of incensed, deceived former supporters — not to mention those sworn to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”



Dozens of Nixon’s associates went to prison over Watergate, and many more than that are likely to do so among Obama’s inner circle (including Vice President Biden). We can anticipate that one of these subordinates with extensive knowledge, and culpability, will step forth and negotiate a deal of immunity in exchange for blowing the top off of Obama’s obstructions and lawlessness.



If we really want to see impeachment result in Obama’s removal, and thus see America have a real chance of surviving the destructive designs of the man in the White House, we need to go back to our biblical heritage, seek God’s face, and submit to His will for us individually and as a people. (See 2 Chronicles 7:14.)

Preserving our nation is as much a spiritual as a political undertaking, just as it was at the time of our founding. Like our forbears [sic], we need to humble ourselves before God, repent of our personal and collective sins, and be worthy of His grace, Providence, and miraculous intervention.

That — and do everything in our power, under our system of government, to apply the constitutional remedy of impeachment and removal to the dire situation urgently facing our republic.

Allen West: 'The Democrat Party Is An Anti-Semitic Party' That's 'Aligning Itself With Islamists'

Allen West appeared on “Trunews” yesterday to once again make his case that President Obama is an “Islamist” who is helping ISIS even as he is launching airstrikes against the extremist group.

The former congressman said it’s not just Obama but the whole “Democrat [sic] Party” that is helping radical Islamists: “The Democrat Party is an anti-Semitic party, that’s why you see they’re not standing up for Israel against Hamas. The Democrat Party is aligning itself with Islamists.”

He went on to allege that Democrats are also pushing “open borders” in hopes of “tipping the balance demographically and expanding the welfare nanny state,” before lamenting that Republicans are too scared to criticized them.

Pat Robertson Calls For Revolution Against Obama After Bad Visit To The Doctor's Office

“The 700 Club” aired a report today on how the push for electronic medical records is harming small medical practices, which reminded host Pat Robertson about a trip to the doctor’s office that took too long because the nurse kept asking him questions about his medical history and what drugs he takes.

Of course, this angered Robertson mightily and led him to call for a revolution against President Obama.

“Ladies and gentlemen, we need a revolution to stop these so-called progressives from destroying this country anymore, but they are getting pretty close to the tipping point, it is not a pleasant scenario,” he said. “I didn’t vote for him, maybe you didn’t vote for him, but the American people voted him into office twice and this is the result, we reap what we sow.”

Robert Stacy McCain: Conservatives Must Focus On Fighting Lesbians

American Spectator blogger Robert Stacy McCain argues today that conservatives must begin to focus on what is really ailing the country: lesbians.

McCain writes about the movie “Lyle,” which is based on “Rosemary’s Baby,” this time with a lesbian woman suspecting that a demonic cult kidnapped her baby.

While he admits that he hasn’t seen “Lyle,” McCain claims that the movie is proof that lesbians are the greatest threat to American culture:

Working on “Sex Trouble,” my continuing series about radical feminism, I routinely search Twitter for relevant news and commentary. Searching for “lesbian feminist,” this headline popped up:

Lyle Director Stewart Thorndike on Making the Lesbian Version of Rosemary’s Baby and the Need for Feminist Horror

We will proceed to criticism of Ms. Thorndike’s film Lyle, but first this thought: Does anyone else notice how “lesbian” and “feminist” go together so naturally that the writer who did this interview, Kelcie Mattson, sort of took it for granted?

...

For more than four decades, so-called “mainstream” feminism has attempted to marginalize (or at least to conceal from widespread public scrutiny) the outspoken advocates of this radical ideology, despite the fact that lesbian feminism is the logical conclusion of the basic feminist theory, which views men and women as collective groups that have inherently hostile interests. However, in the Women’s Studies programs that have proliferated on American university campuses, enrolling more than 90,000 female students annually, the curriculum invariably features lesbian feminist treatises, and the professors who teach these courses are often themselves proudly “out” lesbians. Graduates of Women’s Studies programs are employed in key roles at “mainstream” feminist organizations, so that the radical agenda and the mainstream agenda have steadily merged over the years.

All of this was sort of “inside baseball” within the feminist movement until the past decade. The 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision and the 2013 Windsor v. United States decision, however, have legitimized homosexual equality, meaning that gay adulthood is now a socially acceptable and legally protected condition. From this “emerging awareness” (to quote Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision in Lawrence) it is logical to assume that one purpose of education now is to prepare young people for their lives as gay adults. Post-Windsor, you will be condemned as a homophobic hater if you disapprove of gay advocacy in public schools, and all opposition to such advocacy must be swept away in the name of “social justice.”

The general trend is unmistakable, if you pay close attention, and the teleological meaning of “equality” becomes apparent, the conclusion of the radical syllogism being implicit in its premises.

While much conservative criticism of the gay-rights movement has focused on male homosexuals, however, few conservatives noticed that lesbians actually bring greater ideological resources to the battlefields of the Culture War. They are both gay and women and, in terms of the Competitive Victimhood Derby that is modern progressivism, this places lesbians in a position to claim that they are suffering from double discrimination. Because feminism has always been a movement of the political Left, and because the Left is fanatically committed to gay rights, no woman who considers herself a feminist would dare disparage the militant lesbians who increasingly dominate the official institutions of feminism. Heterosexual women concerned about workplace harassment or abortion rights might not publicly lock arms in solidarity with lesbian radicals. The “mainstream” feminist may quietly ignore the angry dykes ranting about the heteronormative patriarchy. Yet no woman could hope to maintain her status as a feminist if she were to publicly denounce the academic radicals who relentlessly strive to teach girls that lesbianism is the feminist ideal. (emphasis added)

Anti-Gay Columnist Fears Future Where 'Heterosexuality Is Outlawed'

We have gotten used to anti-gay political commentators taking the satirical 1987 essay “Gay Revolutionary” as a serious manifesto and the policy platform of the sinister gay agenda.

Apparently, satire just isn’t their thing.

In a guest column for BarbWire today, Mark Judge offers a similar take on Charles Beaumont’s 1955 short story “The Crooked Man,” in which heterosexuals are closeted and opposite-sex couples have to hide in secret out of fear of harassment and stigmatization.

Of course, the BarbWire contributor completely misses the point of the story about societal mistreatment of gays and lesbians…and instead claims that the story is really about looming “gay fascism” and the totalitarian goals of the gay rights movement.

Judge’s column is frighteningly titled “When Heterosexuality Is Outlawed.”

There’s a short story that has been published about gay fascism. It depicts a dystopian world where heterosexuality has been outlawed, and those found to be straight are operated on, brainwashed, and reeducated to be gay. The story has deep implications about gay marriage, the abuse of language, and totalitarianism.



“The Crooked Man” was first rejected by Esquire magazine, which found it too controversial, and then published by Hugh Hefner, a young man from Chicago who had recently launched a magazine called Playboy. Hefner would receive a pile of angry mail for publishing Beaumont’s story.



Sixty years later, it’s not hard to imagine that some elements of “The Crooked Man” have come true, if not its entire dystopian world. There is a dose of fascism in the gay and trans rights movement, but for argument’s sake it’s important to elucidate exactly what those elements are. Two homosexuals wanting to spend their lives together and share expenses and taxes and visitation rights is not a threat to the republic. What is a threat is the manipulation of language, and a conscience-eradicating resentment that calls for large-scale coercion.



So are we headed for a “Crooked Man” future? Yes and no. It’s doubtful that the rationalization of the sexual revolution will ever get so extreme that heterosexuals will be arrested and operated on against their will.

Still, there is a movement to convince the public that “there’s no such thing as straight or gay.” According to this theory, everyone is bisexual and it’s just a matter of where you fall on the scale of attraction to male or female. If this scenario is allowed to take hold, we could in fact come to a day when it is decided that something has to be done about girl-chasing Johnny, who’s just too far on the hetero end of the Kinsey scale.

How ironic that sexual libertine Hugh Hefner will be recalled as the first one to publicly note the coming of this sexual devolution.

Wayne Allyn Root: Obama Using Ferguson To Start A Race War, Declare Martial Law

Conservative pundit Wayne Allyn Root writes in a WorldNetDaily column today that President Obama waited to speak out out on the crisis in Ferguson, Missouri, because he is trying to start a race war and distract voters from issues like Obamacare and immigration.

Root — who probably would have attacked Obama for fostering racial hostility had he weighed in on the situation in Ferguson earlier — writes that Obama “could have put this smoldering fire out days ago” by appearing in Ferguson since he “isn’t just any president; he’s the first black president.”

After arguing that Obama hasn’t spoken about race-related issues enough, he goes on to accuse Obama of “stirring the pot” on race because he “desperately needs to distract the people to carry out his plan to destroy this country.”

“Obama needs ‘division.’ Race warfare. Class warfare. Anger. Resentment. Civil war.”

“Here is the perfect opportunity to divide the nation, to incite unrest and violence across America,” he writes. “If the American people are fighting each other, they won’t see what is really happening to the country. And think of the bonuses here. Obama could use spreading unrest to declare martial law.”

This situation could have been defused 10 days ago with an appearance by the president. Barack Obama isn’t just any president; he’s the first black president. The young man killed by police was a black male. The smoldering town is predominantly black. The angry crowds are black Americans. A few words from Obama while standing on the ground in Ferguson could have put this smoldering fire out days ago.

Obama could have stopped this fire from getting out of control at any time of his choosing. So where was Obama? Why doesn’t he want to put the fire out?

My new book, “The Murder of the Middle Class,” is all about the accelerating decline and destruction of America under Barack Obama. Nothing Obama does is by mistake. Everything has a purpose. Everything fits an agenda to “fundamentally change America.” Obama never lets a crisis go to waste. He uses every crisis to distract the people. Don’t look now, but Ferguson is the perfect crisis, at the perfect time. This one came on a silver platter!

What is Obama distracting us from? Pick a story, any story. America is crumbling on all fronts. Jobs. The economy. Immigration. Obamacare. Israel. Putin. ISIS. It’s all going bad. Fast.



So how do you hide and distract the masses from this unfolding multi-pronged disaster? How do you try to change landslide losses in the upcoming midterm elections? You change the game. You create strife and division. Racial division. It’s the perfect cover.

Watch tonight’s news. Count the minutes on all these stories versus Ferguson. It’s Obama’s dream come true! The perfect distraction. Heck, not only is Ferguson eating up all the air in the room, but Brian Williams and the NBC national news was coming from Ferguson last night. Can you imagine if unrest, rioting and looting spreads to cities across America? It will dominate the news for weeks, pushing all Obama’s disasters off the air.

Obama has stirred the pot for six years now. Black against white. Rich against poor. Men against women. Republicans against Democrats. Private sector against public servants. Taxpayers against the tax takers. Obama needs “division.” Race warfare. Class warfare. Anger. Resentment. Civil war. America is bursting at the seams. It’s all part of the agenda. It’s all part of the Cloward-Piven plan we learned as classmates at Columbia University, Class of ’83. Obama desperately needs to distract the people to carry out his plan to destroy this country. He is following the plan to a T.



Ferguson just happened to come along at the perfect time. It’s exactly what Obama needed. Ferguson is the perfect match to light the fire. Here is the perfect opportunity to divide the nation, to incite unrest and violence across America.

If the American people are fighting each other, they won’t see what is really happening to the country. And think of the bonuses here. Obama could use spreading unrest to declare martial law. This crisis could accelerate Obama’s plans times a thousand. Cloward and Piven are smiling. Saul Alinsky is nodding. Karl Marx is applauding.

Ferguson is just the start. Obama has lit the match. America is on fire.

Tea Party Of Louisiana Falls For Hoax Article: 'Common Core Turns Students Gay'

The Tea Party of Louisiana has declared Sen. David Vitter a “turncoat of liberty” because of his support for Common Core, warning yesterday that the education standards will turn kids gay. Vitter came out in favor of Common Core while Gov. Bobby Jindal, who once supported Common Core, is now trying — so far unsuccessfully— to repeal the standards. Angry with Vitter’s remarks, the Tea Party group responed by linking to an article titled “Common Core Turns First Wave Of Students Gay,” apparently unaware that it was from the parody website Broken World News.

The Times-Picayune notes that Broken World News lists on its About page: “If you believe any of the shit you read here you are a freaking moron.”

“Initial estimates suggest that as many as 60% of students who participated in Common Core have gone gay, many overnight. But experts fear that some are just transitioning a little slower,” the Broken World News article reads. “[T]he difficulty of the Common Core tests is the primary culprit in promoting the gay agenda, calling it ‘common knowledge that the smartest kids in school are usually the gay kids.’”

Of course, the next item listed by the Tea Party group should also be taken as a joke, as it comes from consistently discredited pseudo-historian David Barton.

David Vitter Calls For Government 'Crack Down' On Remittances

David Vitter appears to have embraced Michele Bachmann’s plan to prevent immigrants from sending money to their home countries, telling Sandy Rios in an interview yesterday that the U.S. government needs to “crack down” on remittances.

When Rios asked the Louisiana senator about remittances, which she feared could be going to “terrorists,” Vitter said he has “a proposal to put an end to that, to either end or put a heavy, heavy fine on those sorts of transfers and dedicate that money, use that money specifically for border or workplace enforcement.”

Vitter told Rios that “if we can effectively crack down on that, that would be very helpful in terms of enforcement.”

Indeed, Vitter has introduced the WIRE Act, which “requires a fee on remittances for customers who wire money to another country but cannot prove that they are in the United States legally. The fee would be used to enhance border security.”

Syndicate content