Yet again, Liberty Counsel dedicated its "Faith and Freedom" radio program today to warning about the dire consequences that would result if the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of marriage equality, with Mat Staver proclaiming that not only would it undermine religious freedom, but "a major disruption to our society [and] the beginning of the end of America":
On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Matt Barber and Mat Staver once again made their case against marriage equality, with Barber declaring that tolerance "of all forms of sexual deviant behavior" is "a cancer that brings down societies" and linking it to the strange theory that gay marriage was the catalyst for Noah's flood.
That prompted Staver to chime in and remind everyone about Sodom and Gomorrah, which God had to destroy because it "had gotten to the place where men were raping men for their own self-gratification" ... with Barber adding that "it was homosexuality and cross-dressing that were central to that":
Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver yesterday spoke to Vic Eliason of Voice of Christian Youth America on Crosstalk, where the two agreed that legalizing same-sex marriage nationally “would be the same as pronouncing the death sentence on America.”
Staver, who is also the dean of the Liberty University School of Law, even went so far as to say that marriage equality would “obliterate” morality, marriage and “the idea that there even is a God,” along with harming children, parents and society at large.
Eliason: You know as we see the comments, one website indicated that if the court strikes down marriage as we know it that it would be the same as pronouncing the death sentence on America that many of us know and love, recount the days of Sodom and Gomorrah as returning to our culture. Your thoughts?
Staver: Well I think so. Same-sex marriage is ultimately the abolition of gender; it’s ultimately the abolition of any moral behavior with regards to human sexuality. This whole assault on marriage is really an attempt to obliterate not only morality but Judeo-Christian morality, to obliterate marriage and to even obliterate the idea that there even is a God.
Staver: You’re going to have people lose their professions, you’re going to have parents lose their rights, you’re going to have churches and other avenues of religious free exercise ultimately throttled and marriage and morality are going to crumble. Children are ultimately going to pay the price and society will suffer.
He later cited California’s law barring the use of ex-gay therapy on minors as an example of how gay rights represent “a direct assault on the very core of our liberties and morality, marriage and even God.”
Staver described Rob Portman, Karl Rove and Reince Priebus as “cockroaches” which “start running” once “you flip on the lights” over their comments on gay marriage, and Eliason said of the Log Cabin Republicans: “Is there nobody to clean the cockroaches out?”
After discussing George W. Bush’s failure to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, Staver joined other Religious Right leaders like Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer in warning about the emergence of a “third party” and a “mass exodus” from the GOP “if the Republican Party were to adopt same-sex marriage.”
Staver: You know it’s like going into a building at night and you flip on the lights and all of the sudden the cockroaches start running, and I think this same-sex marriage issue has shown the cockroaches within the Republican Party, the RINOs: Republican In Name Only. That’s why we lost the 2008 election, that’s why we lost the 2012 election, because they put forth their party person who is not really a conservative and doesn’t resonate with the American people and couldn’t carry a conservative message and articulate it if it was handed to them.
Go back to George W. Bush, George W. Bush surrounded himself by a number of people that were not conservative and in fact though he was elected in 2004 on a marriage mandate, that was what ultimately pushed him across the line; remember that was the time when thirteen states passed constitutional amendments, eleven of them actually on the day he was elected, and Ohio was a key state and Ohio had marriage on the ballot and that pushed him over the top. He had a marriage mandate and coming into 2005 we asked him to push forward with a Federal Marriage Amendment; instead, he and Karl Rove backed away. They tried to reform Social Security, which was not a mandate of his, and he failed and we lost that opportunity.
So now you have Karl Rove and you have [Reince] Priebus and some others, [Rob] Portman, they’re going down a way that ultimately will split the Republican Party. I can tell you what, if the Republican Party were to adopt same-sex marriage, if they were to do that, evangelicals will leave en masse and that will create a third party. No one wants to create a third party, they want to work within the system, they want to make sure that it advances freedom and liberty and the sanctity of life and marriage, but if the Republican Party goes down that road you can bet that there will be a mass exodus from that party and it will not win elections again for many, many years in the future.
Eliason: You know Mat, as we look back to a term that isn’t new but they call them Log Cabin Republicans and that of course was the group that favored homosexual involvement and moral decadence, as I define it, but this was the liberal element. When I saw that happen years ago down in my heart I thought: Is there nobody to clean the cockroaches out? Why do you coexist with that?
On yesterday's "Faith and Freedom" radio broadcast, Matt Staver and Matt Barber were discussing the "unprecedented" attacks on religious liberty under the Obama administration, which Staver attributed to the fact that President Obama hates America.
"We had President Carter, we had President Clinton," Staver said, "they were liberal and leftist in their policies; I think they were wrong but at their heart and at their core, I think they still loved America. They had different ideas of how America should work. But I think at his core, we have, for the very first time in history, a president who does not love America, who wants to completely remake it because he does not like America or the values and the founding principles upon which is was established":
On the latest "Faith and Freedom" radio broadcast, Matt Barber and Mat Staver weighed in on the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act cases that are currently before the Supreme Court, during which Staver declared that if the Court does not rule as he thinks it should, the Supreme Court "will have lost its legitimacy in its entirety."
Barber agreed and took it a step further, stating that if the Court rules in favor of marriage equality, it "will be the nail in the coffin of the credibility" of the entire judicial system because it is "just absurd" to think that something that the Founding Fathers believed to be a "crime against nature" would now be ruled constitutional.
"If they go over the edge here," Barber warned, "we are no long in decline, we are in a free fall":
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.
Recently, New York Jets backup quarterback Tim Tebow pulled out of a scheduled appearance at Robert Jeffress’ megachurch “due to new information” he received regarding Jeffress' view. While he never specified what the “new information” was, Tebow was almost certainly referring to Jeffress’ virulent attacks on gays and lesbians, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam and President Obama.
Yet just weeks after withdrawing from speaking at Jeffress's church, Tebow is now set to address Liberty University later this month at a conference geared towards men’s issues in a speech that is closed to the public.
The school was founded by the late televangelist Jerry Falwell — it is now run by his son — who has blamed gays and liberals for the September 11 attacks, supported racist laws in the U.S. and abroad and attacked the Teletubbies for “modeling the gay life style.”
Liberty University bans gay students and shut down its College Democrats chapter over the party’s views on gay rights. The university has hosted multiple anti-gay conferences and their law school is being sued over its alleged role in helping Lisa Miller disobey a court order and kidnap her daughter to Central America in order to avoid transferring custody to the girl's other mother, her former partner.
Liberty University’s Vice President and law school dean Mathew Staver has defended the criminalization of homosexuality in Malawi, promoted the dangerous ex-gay therapy and warned that President Obama supports “forced homosexuality.” Furthermore, Staver has claimed that gay rights laws are part of an Antichrist spirit that lead to crime, child molestation and death, along with the destruction of America.
Staver’s fellow Liberty University dean Matt Barber has defended a Nigerian law outlawing homosexual relationships, described the gay rights movement as “Satanic,” claimed that gay youth who committed suicide took their own lives because they “know what they are doing is unnatural,” accused gay rights advocates of supporting pedophilia (along with fascism and Communism) and defined homosexuality as “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’” He has also maintained that liberals are like Baal worshippers who hate God and are working with Islamists to destroy Christianity and that Obama should be impeached for backing same-sex domestic partner benefits.
If Jeffress’ anti-gay remarks were too extreme for Tebow, they pale in comparison to the things regularly said by representatives of Liberty University.
Perhaps it is time for Tebow to take another look at some of this “new information” about Liberty.
Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum on Friday warned that the Obama administration has estimated that the average family will pay a minimum of $20,000 for health insurance once the health care reform law goes fully into effect.
The only problem with Schlafly’s claim is that the government never issued such an estimate.
The IRS simply used the $20,000 figure as an example for calculating the “shared responsibility payment,” or penalty, for a nonexempt family that does not acquire health insurance.
As the Annenberg Center’s FactCheck.org notes:
The IRS used $20,000 in a hypothetical example to illustrate how it will calculate the tax penalty for a family that fails to obtain health coverage as required by law. Treasury says the figure “is not an estimate of premiums.”
[T]he regulations weren’t a “cost analysis” at all. A spokesperson for the Treasury Department confirmed to FactCheck.org in an email that the IRS wasn’t making any declarations or projections about what prices will be.
“[Twenty thousand dollars] is a round number used by IRS for a hypothetical example,” the official wrote. “It is not an estimate of premiums for a bronze plan for a family of five in 2016.”
Schlafly wasn’t the only conservative leader to fall for the false story, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel also wrote an article arguing that a government “cost analysis based on ObamaCare regulations show[s] that the cheapest healthcare plan in 2016 will cost average American families of four or five members $20,000 per year for the so-called ‘bronze plan.’”
The Obama Administration is now estimating that by 2016 the minimum annual cost of health insurance for an average American family under ObamaCare will be $20,000. And there is no guarantee that the health insurance will actually cover all the medical treatments that the family wants and needs. $20,000 is merely the minimum annual cost; many families could face even higher premiums. Millions of Americans will be faced with the choice of buying this expensive health insurance, or paying hefty penalties to the IRS. Those who choose not to buy health insurance will be slapped by the IRS with thousands of dollars in additional taxes. Is this what Americans really want? Certainly not. $20,000 is many times more expensive than what most Americans pay for health insurance today.
It's not only families who will be hit by these enormous price increases under ObamaCare. One study predicts that a 27-year-old non-smoking male in Texas will go from paying $54 a month in health insurance premiums to a whopping $153 per month as soon as ObamaCare goes into full effect. That will be on top of the massive student debt that so many young people are already struggling to pay off. The real result may be that many Americans will choose to drop their health insurance simply because they cannot afford it. But that is the opposite of what ObamaCare was supposed to achieve.
None of this is a surprise to those who have criticized ObamaCare for years. Not a single Republican voted for this costly injection of federal bureaucracy into the American health care system, which has been the finest the world has ever known. Many businesses are decreasing the number of hours that their employees can work in order to fall below the threshold requiring employers to buy this costly insurance for their employees.
Earlier this month, the Obama administration issued updated guidelines for the health care reform legislation's contraception mandate, expanding the guidelines under which religious-based non-profit organizations could qualify for an exemption.
But it was all for naught, as the Religious Right unanimously rejected this new compromise out of hand as a continued funding of abortion. As Mat Staver declared on "Faith and Freedom" radio, the entire concept of requiring contraception coverage just demonstrates "a radical commitment to death" on the part of the Obama administration.
In fact, Staver asserted that "it's no different" than what Floyd Corkins, the man who attacked the Family Research Council headquarters, wanted to do, saying "this administration is rubbing the aborted babies in the face of every single American," which prompted Barber to agree that this "is sickening and it's evil":
On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Mat Staver and Matt Barber discussed the decisions by the Boy Scouts to delay the vote on lifting the ban on gay scouts and scout leaders as they wondered what the organization could even be thinking by contemplating such a change, saying there is no way that boy scouts can remain "morally straight" if "you have adults modeling for children what every major world religion and thousands of years of history have held to be immoral behavior."
As Staver said, "it makes no sense to have a Jerry Sandusky as your scout master and essentially that's what this policy would open up the doors to" while Barber asserted that gay activists are demanding access to your children, so "what father in his right mind" would let his son join the scouts if he knew that a gay man was serving as scout leader, especially since all gay men define themselves by the fact that they "sexually crave sex with other males" because they are "hyper-sexual":
Mat Staver and Matt Barber were discussing the two amicus briefs that Liberty Counsel has filed with the Supreme Court for the hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8, claiming that it is "absurd" to think that the Constitution guarantees any right to same-sex marriage because at the time the Constitution was written, homosexuality was widely considered to be a "crime against nature."
As Barber explained, "the aberrant sexual behavior, the twisting of normal human sexuality that would be involved in order to consummate a so-called same-sex marriage" carried a punishment of death at the time the Constitution was written, so "there is now way that they would have ever intended that they would twist and deconstruct the fundamental cornerstone institution of marriage in order to put the government's official stamp of approval on a crime against nature":
Back in 2010, when a federal district court in California heard the first legal challenge to the anti-gay Proposition 8, the judge asked the attorney defending Prop 8 how marriage equality would hurt the ability of straight couples to bear and raise children. The attorney sputtered and answered, “I don’t know.” A key witness for Prop 8’s supporters had the same answer, and later changed his mind to support marriage equality.
Four years later, the case is coming before the Supreme Court, and marriage equality opponents are still struggling to answer that question. In an amicus brief [pdf] filed with the court last week, the anti-gay Liberty Counsel took a shot at it. If marriage equality is achieved, Liberty Counsel argues, “Many boys will grow up without any positive male influence in their lives to show them what it means to be a man, and many girls will grow up without any female influence to show them what it means to be a lady.”
Not only does Proposition 8 further the state’s interest in steering childrearing into the husband-wife marriage model, but it furthers the important interest in providing male and female role models in the family. Male gender identity and female gender identity are each uniquely important to a child’s development. As a result, one very significant justification for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is because children need a mother and a father. We live in a world demarcated by two genders, male and female. There is no third or intermediate category. Sex is binary. By striking down Proposition 8, this Court will be making a powerful statement: our government no longer believes children deserve mothers and fathers. In effect, it would be saying: “Two fathers or two mothers are not only just as good as a mother and a father, they are just the same.”
The government promotion of this idea will likely have some effect even on people who are currently married, who have been raised in a particular culture of marriage. But this new idea of marriage, sanctioned by law and government, will certainly have a dramatic effect as the next generation’s attitudes toward marriage, childbearing, and the importance of mothers and fathers are formed. By destroying the traditional definition of marriage, the family structure will be dramatically transformed. Many boys will grow up without any positive male influence in their lives to show them what it means to be a man, and many girls will grow up without any female influence to show them what it means to be a lady.
The repercussions of this are incalculable and will reshape the culture in which we live. Many children learn appropriate gender roles by having interaction with both their mother and their father and by seeing their mother and their father interact together with one another. By redefining marriage to state that this is not a family structure that the state wants to foster and encourage, this Court will be overturning centuries of historical understandings of family and the home.
To give you an idea of the kind of parenting that Liberty Counsel supports, its lawyers Mat Staver and Rena Lindevaldsen, who are named on its brief, are also representing a woman accused of kidnapping her daughter rather than let her have contact with her other mother (the woman’s former same-sex partner).
Conservative leaders are continuing to rally opposition to a proposed plan to end the national ban on gay members in the Boy Scouts of America with warnings about pedophilia and “indoctrination.”
Family Research Council vice president Rob Schwarzwalder told Janet Mefferd yesterday that fathers cannot trust their sons to be around gay people.
Mefferd called gay rights advocates “totalitarian” for opposing the ban and lamented that the “violins are playing full blast” in the media when they cover stories about gay youths kicked out of the Boy Scouts.
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said in a statement that “people like Jerry Sandusky” would be “permitted to be Scoutmasters” if the policy changes, adding, “To allow homosexual Scoutmasters or homosexual Scouts will put young boys at risk.”
Concerned Women for America started a letter-writing campaign against the move before gays attempt “to infiltrate the next generation.” The group even claimed that if gays are allowed to join the Boy Scouts, it would mean that “our religious liberties are being taken away”…somehow.
The Texas Pastors Council called on parents to “defend our children” and not “allow our boys to be targeted by those who believe there is no moral code and no definition of gender” and stop those who are bent on “forcing their immorality on society.”
Pastors, if the scouts fall, the church is next in the sights of the activists committed to forcing their immorality on society – WILL YOU COME?
Fathers, if we allow our boys to be targeted by those who believe there is no moral code and no definition of gender – WHO WILL DEFEND OUR CHILDREN?
Mothers, your voice of courage and protection of the virtue of our children is desperately needed – WILL YOU STAND ALSO?
Florida Family Policy Council president John Stemberger went on another anti-gay rant, alleging that the BSA will “open a can of worms that would cause a mass exodus” and “devastate the Boy Scouts permanently.”
If the BSA departs from its policies on allowing openly homosexual scoutmasters and boys in the program it could destroy the legitimacy and the security of this iconic institution.
As an Eagle Scout, former Scoutmaster and a Vigil Honor Member of the Order of the Arrow, I have a deep personal interest in passing on the rich experience of Scouting to my two sons and I pray that the BSA does not open a can of worms that would cause a mass exodus from a program that America needs now more than ever to train boys to become responsible men. A change of this policy could transform and devastate the Boy Scouts permanently. Additionally, the vast majority of Americans do not support changing the policy to allow openly homosexual scout leaders, so this proposed change makes no sense on many levels.
2000 presidential candidate Alan Keyes in WorldNetDaily warned of “homosexual indoctrination” and “idolatry” in the Boy Scouts if they change the policy:
The simple words of the Scout Oath were meant to encourage boys in the habit of walking this straight path; hence the endeavor to be “morally straight.” But the oath first of all made it clear that the Scout looked first of all to God as the standard of moral rectitude. Try as they might, the present-day trustees of the Scouting movement will never fit the square peg of God’s standard into the round hole of homosexual sin. Moreover, though they begin by admitting practicing homosexuals into the ranks, they must end in acknowledging homosexual activity as morally correct, else they will involve the whole movement in the perjurious administration of an oath openly violated in practice. For in that moral sense, it is not possible to be gay and morally straight at the same time. Thus what the present trustees of the BSA reportedly may do involves rejecting God’s standard for male sexual behavior. And it involves doing so in a way that willfully abandons the straight path blazed by the footsteps of Christ.
By accepting a humanly fabricated redefinition of the moral standard, the BSA will fall prey to the inevitable logic of such idolatry. “Their idols are … the work of human hands … those who make them become like unto them; so do all who trust in them.” (Psalm 115:8) It will speedily become evident that what masquerades as tolerance is actually indoctrination, seeking to mold boys according to the standard the BSA trustees will have raised above God’s standard. For if homosexual activity is morally acceptable as an expression of love and good fellowship, then those who express their love accordingly do what is right.
But the aim of Scouting is to encourage young men to do what is right in various ways. Therefore, once the moral prejudice against homosexuality is regarded as a violation of right, doing things that habitually assault and break down this prejudice becomes part of “moral training.” Just as, on many campuses now, refusal to experiment with homosexuality is frowned upon as a sign of bigotry, so henceforth in Scouting braking down this prejudice would be recognized as a meritorious activity. Though camouflaged in different words there will be a merit badge for this experimentation as part of the regime of homosexual indoctrination. God knows what that will lead to; and given now widely publicized possibilities, so should the BSA Inc.
As Brian noted last week, anti-Islam activists are gearing up to oppose John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, for supposedly being too sympathetic to Islam. Not only is Brennan's ability to speak Arabic of concern to them, but so are comments he made stating that his travels in Islamic countries have taught him about "the goodness and beauty of Islam" and "helped to shape my own world view."
And that sort of attitude is unacceptable to people like Mat Staver who suggests that Brennan's experience with Islam will make him unwilling to go after terrorists, warning that "if our CIA Director has had his worldview shaped by this kind of radical ideology, that should be concerning to every American":
Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver appeared yesterday on Crosstalk where he excoriated President Obama for speaking out in favor of gay equality during his inauguration, and went on to predict that House Republicans will call for his impeachment.
After host Jim Schneider of VCY America recounted pastor Louie Giglio’s decision to withdraw from the inauguration proceedings over an anti-gay sermon, Staver criticized Obama and Episcopal priest Luis Leon for their “unbelievable” and “unprecedented” advocacy of gay rights during the inauguration.
“To swear on Abraham Lincoln’s Bible during the inaugural address is just really blasphemy to do that,” Staver said, “Lincoln stood for principles completely different than this President stood for.”
Staver continued his anti-gay rant by maintaining that Obama is “the most immoral president that we’ve ever had in history” who is “pushing an immorality that is stunning.” He called Obama a “dictatorial president” who “does not like America” or the Constitution and blamed his “[putting] in-your face amoral, immoral and anti-American rhetoric and policies” for a spike in gun sales.
Staver: The next four years are going to be worse than the last four years and today’s inaugural address really sets the tone.
Schneider: And also Mat in the parade that’s going on right now we have the participation of the Gay & Lesbian Band Association in this parade and then Rolling Stone came out reporting a source told them that Lady Gaga is going to be one of the artists performing at a ball for the White House staffers tonight.
Staver: What we have is the President who is not the President of the United States, he is president of the divided states and he relishes in dividing the states among each other. He has this famous speech that he gave during a Democratic convention several years ago when he was a state senator and he talks about ‘there’s not red states and blue states but the United States of America,’ that’s not this President. This President runs to divide people, to divide and conquer and ultimately dismantle and deconstruct. He’s doing that with morality, he’s doing it with marriage, he’s trying to divide and conquer. Really, he is the most immoral president that we’ve ever had in history, pushing an immorality that is stunning.
Schneider: Mat, there is another aspect to this too and it is the Messiah-like image. Have you seen the Newsweek magazine yet? This is a side profile photo of the President with the headline, The Second Coming, it’s a biblical reference to the return of Christ. Keep in mind a couple of years ago they had ‘Obama God of All Things’ on the cover and then there’s another poster that’s being sold by street vendors today which Fox News reports doesn’t have the official endorsement of the White House but features the image of the president in prayer with the headline, ‘Prophecy Fulfilled.’ And of course Mat we won’t forget Jamie Foxx called Obama ‘our Lord and Savior’ recently at some music awards as well.
Staver: You know this kind of Messianic complex that people were putting on him and Obama doesn’t do anything to stop it. They may say that this is not what President Obama endorsed but the President can come out and hit that head on and stop that kind of Messianic complex. We saw it during the first inauguration and the first run for president, now we see it again in the second one. He is not the Messiah.
He is someone who does not like America; he is someone who does not like the fundamental values on which America is based; he doesn’t adhere to the Constitution; he is a dictatorial president that thinks the Constitution is an inconvenience put in his path. He as a President doesn’t work across the aisle, in fact he doesn’t even work with his own party, he doesn’t even invite his own party leaders to Camp David, he is not somebody who wants to get involved and actually solve the problems of the country, he wants to dictate how these things that are very important to all Americans ought to work.
Thus as a result you’re seeing gun sales go up all across America. Why is that? These are law-abiding citizens that are concerned that basic fundamental rights are being taken away from them so the lines are long, they’re just enormous in terms of the crowds that are taking place around the country and it’s because he is agitating the people. He is constantly agitating, constantly putting in-your face amoral, immoral and anti-American rhetoric and policies.
Later, Staver dismissed Obama’s re-election a mere two months ago and said that House Republicans should immediately consider impeaching Obama in order to push back against his policy agenda.
Caller: The founders gave us in the Constitution a means of dealing with people like Barack Obama, it is called impeachment. Staver: Yeah. Caller: We need to get onto our legislators and tell them in no uncertain terms if they want to go back to Washington they better get busy and get rid of this man. He has been incalculated [sic] with hate America from that day he was born.
Schnedier: Appreciate that, let’s quickly talk about impeachment. Mat, the House has to develop the articles; some congressmen have said that if the President does such and so we will initiate that.
Staver: Yeah I would not be surprised if shortly after this second term comes that you will have some impeachment proceedings in the House. He’s just going to push, push, push, push and he’s going to push people over the edge. I think the House will respond and if not we need to make sure that they do respond. That’s what the previous caller was getting at, when they initiated these impeachment proceedings during the Clinton administration and stopped him from doing a lot of the things he otherwise wanted to do in his term of office.
Obama is different from Clinton in many respects because he is more ideologically driven than Clinton, he is more radical than Clinton, it’s amazing when you almost think it would be nice to have Clinton back because he’s radical but he’s not as radical. Obama is the most radical ideologically driven president in history. He will do anything to reach his ideological agenda. He is not a politician and he doesn’t want to compromise, he doesn’t want to reach out to push his agenda. I think we’re going to have to have some very strong push back and impeachment I think is one of those areas.