Steve Deace

Barber: If DOMA Is Struck Down, 'it Will Be the Criminalization of Christianity'

Last week, Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber appeared on Steave Deace's radio program last week to discuss the Supreme Court hearings on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act where he made the dire prediction that if DOMA is struck down, it will lead to wholesale persecution of Christians.

Citing the case of Bob Jones University v. United States in which the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS could revoke the school's tax-exempt status because of its racist policies, Barber predicated that if DOMA is struck down, "we automatically become the modern day racists" and that the nation would see "the criminalization of Christianity":

As soon as DOMA is overturned, the floodgates open. All of those [state] constitutional amendments are wiped out and schools like Liberty University, for instance, and private organizations with Christian ownership, we know the homosexual activists already have their gay married people planning to come and apply to Christian universities so that they will have a court challenge.  The persecution is going to run rampant if gay marriage becomes the law of the land; there is just no questioning and that is a big part of the motive behind it.

If the federal government puts its official stamp of approval on homosexual behavior and says that it's equal to, in every way, natural heterosexual behavior up to and including marriage, then that officially pits the federal government against those who hold a Judeo-Christian worldview relative to sexual morality. We automatically become the modern day racists.

It's like the Bob Jones decision that said - which was a ultimately good decision  - that said Bob Jones University could not have a ban on interracial dating.  Well, they are going to apply that same type of logic to this.  Basically, all bets are off; it will be the criminalization of Christianity.

It's the government against Christians if gay marriage becomes the law of the land and that's not hyperbole.

Rep. Mark Meadows: SCOTUS Ruling for Marriage Equality Will Undermine Democracy and Spark 'Constitutional Crisis'

During an appearance on The Steve Deace Show, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) maintained that “our democracy and our representative form of government” will be “in dire straits” if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage. He told Deace that he is not “aware of any” precedent of the court making such a sweeping decision that would represent “a huge invasion into states’ rights.”

Deace: We’re talking about a supermajority of US states have already, all of them within the last ten to fifteen years, have defined what marriage is within their borders and now we have the US Supreme Court determining whether it has the jurisdiction to override a supermajority of US state laws. Mark, do you know of any precedent for that ever in American history? I can’t come up with one, ever.

Meadows: No, I’m not aware of any and obviously if it gets down to nine people deciding the will of the people our democracy and our representative form of government is in dire straits. The people here in North Carolina overwhelmingly came out and voted really en masse and with such energy that I’ve not experienced in over twenty-eight years of following politics here in North Carolina have not seen that kind of energy, and here we got the Supreme Court looking to overturn a California law that really where the voters voted there as well and you know it was obviously overturned in the Ninth Circuit and now we’ve got the Supreme Court saying that they’re going to weigh in on this particular issue. It’s a huge invasion into states’ rights and the state definition of marriage, whether you call it traditional or natural marriage, I call it marriage, you know it’s between one man and one woman, period.

Later, the freshman congressman charged that any such ruling would lead to “a constitutional crisis,” although he didn’t answer Deace’s question about how Congress would respond to the court’s decision.

Deace: What happens, I mean you’re a congressman, if the court does that, you are in a state that has already asserted its will on this issue but you’re in the body that our founders constitutionally gave oversight of the judicial branch, so you’re right in the thick of this debate. What happens if the court decides that they are their own constitutional convention without any recourse at all, what happens?

Meadows: Well I mean obviously we start to have a constitutional crisis. We’ve already seen some of that with the executive branch saying that they’re not going to enforce certain laws. I think it was Justice Scalia that brought this out in the last couple of days is when you get an executive branch that starts to decide what’s constitutional and what’s not and what they’re going to enforce and what they’re not, they’re usurping the authority of Congress and that’s the representative form of government and we can’t stand for that, as a people we can’t stand for that so we need to stand up and make sure that our voice is heard.

NOM's Brown Invokes Lincoln on Federal Marriage Amendment: 'We Cannot Be…Half Slave, Half Free'

National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown joined Steve Deace on Friday to discuss the marriage equality cases being argued this week at the Supreme Court. If the Court rules broadly in favor of equality, Brown said, NOM would turn its focus toward advocating for a Federal Marriage Amendment banning marriage equality throughout the country. Responding to conservatives who are concerned about the Federal Marriage Amendment’s infringement on states’ rights, Brown invoked Abraham Lincoln: “We need a solution in this country, we cannot be, as Lincoln said, half slave, half free. We can’t have a country on key moral questions where we’re just, where we don’t have a solution.”

I think we’re going to win these cases. But say the worst happens and we lose in a broad way – that means that the Court somehow does a Roe, a Roe v. Wade, on marriage and says that all these state constitutional amendments are overturned, gay marriage is now a constitutional right – well, we’re going to press forward on a Federal Marriage Amendment. We’ve always supported a Federal Marriage Amendment, and there’s a lot of misconceptions about it. Some people try and argue, ‘Well, this is against federalism.’ No, our founders gave us a system where we can amend the Constitution. We shouldn’t have to do this, we shouldn’t have to worry about activist judges, you know, making up out of thin air a constitutional right that obviously none of our founders found there and no one found there until quite recently. But if we do, for us, the Federal Marriage Amendment is a way that people can stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough.’ We need a solution in this country, we cannot be, as Lincoln said, half slave, half free. We can’t have a country on key moral questions where we’re just, where we don’t have a solution. And if the Court forces a solution, the way we’ll amend that is through  the Federal Marriage Amendment.

How The Union's Victory in the Civil War Led to Gay Marriage

Steve Deace once again hosted far-right activist Michael Peroutka on his radio show to discuss the talk show host’s latest column on same-sex marriage and why we should not “validate relationships western civilization, heavily influenced by Biblical moral teaching, has up until now said for over a thousand years were immoral, destructive, and counter-procreative.” Peroutka explained that “the state has perverted” what “God called marriage,” and if we followed God’s laws then there would be “no way we are ever going to validate homo or sodomite-unmarriage.”

This can’t last, we are killing our own children, we are burying our own country; at some point reality has to set in. I like to use the term ‘reality,’ another term you use in your article you talk about if we can ‘wave a magic wand’ and that’s interesting because that’s an allusion to illusion. But what we really need is a dose of reality, what we need to do is wave reality over this situation and go back to what God called marriage, not what the state has perverted the definition to be but what God called marriage. That’s what we need to return to. There is no way we are ever going to validate homo or sodomite-unmarriage because God defined marriage as between a man and a woman once and forever.

Apparently the reason we aren’t following God’s moral code on the issue of marriage or other social issues, according to Peroutka, is because of the Union's victory in the Civil War, or as he called it: “The War Between the States.”

He argued that the South’s defeat opened the door to a “huge black hole of centralized power,” which means that people began looking to the government, rather than God, as the source of their rights.

Peroutka said that “the real effect of the War and the Reconstruction after the war was to take the very foundation of our understanding of our rights away from us, that is to say that they come from God, and put them in the hands of men,” who can then change the meaning of concepts like marriage.

Somehow we don’t think that this neo-Confederate logic is going to do a lot to help marriage equality opponents rescue their plummeting poll numbers.

Deace: What we’re coming down to here is: What is the law? Who determines it? How do we know that’s the right determination? Who gets to essentially apply and impose their interpretation of where the law comes from and what the law is? And we’re seeing that played out and frankly divisively with the marriage issue.

Peroutka: That’s right. When you ask me a question about this issue or other social issues, I always go back to these two standards: What does God say and what does the Constitution say? I don’t go to what many people, political talking heads, go to: What is politically effective? What does conservatism say? What does the Republican Party say? I go where our founders would’ve gone and where they did in fact go to declare their independence from Great Britain, they said: What does God say about this? And then in this case, what does the constitution say? So those are the standards I’m always going to use, it’s a new issue but it’s the same standard.

Deace: It’s the standard that founded this country, all the way from the Puritans to the people that ratified the Constitution.

Peroutka: And ever since, well there have been a number of watershed events in American history that have taken us away from this view that I’m describing, this American view. One of them was ‘The War Between the States.’ Ever since then there’s been this huge black hole of centralized power that’s formed in Washington D.C. People sometimes talk about ‘The War Between the States’ as being about the issue of slavery, I believe that history is written by the winners, it wasn’t about that at all. What it was about was consolidating power into the hands of a few people.

One of the best ways I’ve ever heard this explained to me was I was at a formal dinner party one time and a number of us at the table, a couple of gentlemen were talking about this issue and one lady piped up and she said, “Now don’t you start talking about that my great-great-granddaddy fought for the state of Illinois.” A gentleman at the table looked at her and said, “Mam, your great-great-granddaddy didn’t fight for Illinois, he fought for Washington D.C., maybe New York City, the banking interests, and by so doing he conquered Illinois, along with South Carolina and Tennessee and Alabama.” It was one of the best ways I think I’ve ever heard it explained because the real effect of the War and the Reconstruction after the war was to take the very foundation of our understanding of our rights away from us, that is to say that they come from God, and put them in the hands of men and say that they come from the Supreme Court or they come from the legislature or they come from the executive.

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/5/13

  • Apparently feeling that CPAC wasn't already a complete joke, organizers have once again invited Donald Trump to speak.
  • It is nice to see that the AFA continues to promote insane conspiracy theories.
  • Right-wing radio host Steve Deace tells Bryan Fischer that he may run for Iowa's open Senate seat if Rep. Steve King declines because only he can unify the party.
  • A Virginia pastor convicted of helping Lisa Miller kidnap her daughter and flee the country has been sentenced to more than two years in prison.
  • Finally, an effort is again underway to get a "personhood" amendment on the ballot in Mississippi and this time it is being headed by the wife of the producer of Bryan Fischer's radio show.

Anti-Choice Activist Wants State to Prosecute Women Who Have Abortions

Steve Deace yesterday invited Michael Peroutka, the right-wing activist and 2004 third party candidate for president, onto his radio show for a weekly special with him about the Constitution. Marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Peroutka said that the anti-choice movement should begin to use different and more extreme tactics.

After arguing that Roe doesn’t have any impact on the law because it violates the Bible and merely affected “Jane Roe” alone, he said that local officials should begin prosecuting women for murder if they have an abortion.

For forty years now we’ve been wrapped around the axil spinning our wheels and good people, I mean them no disrespect, trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, trying to get a court or get other justices appointed or blah blah blah, that’s not the answer to Roe v. Wade. The answer to Roe v. Wade is for us as a culture and all the state prosecutors and all the local district and state attorneys to recognize that that’s murder and it was not changed in its category from murder by what the Supreme Court said in Roe v. Wade in January 22, 1973, it wasn’t changed a bit. It was murder then, it was murder before then, it is murder now, it always will be murder and it should be prosecuted.

That’s what people like Cal Zastrow and his family, my friend Cal Zatrow, my friend Les Riley and their families in Mississippi are working right now to try to close the last abortion clinic in Mississippi. That’s the approach that I think needs to be taken but in order for that to be taken we as Americans have to know what law is and what law isn’t.

Cal Zastrow is the co-founder of Personhood USA, which seeks to pass blanket bans on abortion and certain forms of birth control in state constitutions, and Les Riley is the head of Personhood Mississippi and the state’s Constitution party. Like Peroutka, Riley has ties to white supremacist and separatist groups. In 2011, Mississippi voters handily defeated the proposed personhood amendment but now the government is trying to close the state’s sole abortion clinic through regulations.

Thanks to RWW reader Matt for the tip.

Rand Paul Says Obama's Inaugural Address Alluded to Hugo Chavez

While speaking to Iowa-based conservative radio host Steve Deace, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that President Obama’s inauguration speech reminded him of Hugo Chavez. The potential presidential candidate claimed that unlike Obama, he would have included “reverence for the Constitution [and] reverence for our Creator” in his inaugural address, noting that while Obama “didn’t actually literally refer to Chavez” he “referred to a lot of liberal policies.”

Deace: If that was you up on that podium taking the oath of office, what would your inaugural address sound like and how would it contrast or differ from what the President had to say yesterday?

Paul: Well instead of Hugo Chavez you might hear references to Madison and Jefferson. I know he didn’t actually literally refer to Chavez but he referred to a lot of liberal policies. If it were me on that stage what you would hear is reference and reverence for the Constitution, reverence for our Creator and that all of our liberty comes and is endowed by our Creator and reverence for the rule of law. I think what you’d find is that I would talk about how this country can grow again and how we can prosper if we get back to and believe in the fundamentals upon which our country was founded.

Maybe Paul missed Obama’s speech or is simply dishonest, as the very beginning of Obama’s speech includes references to the Constitution, the Creator and the rule of law:

Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

Steve Deace Ties Connecticut Shooting to Public Schools' 'Culture of Death'

Right-wing talk show host Steve Deace writes on his Facebook page that the public school system is partly to blame for the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, because public schools, he claims, promote a “culture of death.”

 

Republicans Continue to Spin Election Results to Claim Obama Lacks Mandate

While Obama had a larger popular vote and Electoral College margin than George W. Bush, who claimed to have a mandate after he won re-election in 2004, now Republicans keep insisting that Obama doesn’t have a mandate because his election victory was too thin a margin. For example, while Dick Morris predicted that Mitt Romney would win a 325 electoral vote “landslide,” he then said Obama’s 332 electoral vote victory was merely a “squeaker.”

J.T. Young in the Washington Times today makes the case that Obama’s win wasn’t all that great because if you play around with the numbers and reduce the turnout numbers from Democratic-leaning groups like women then Romney would’ve won! Plus, the conservative share of the electorate was up in 2012 and Ronald Reagan posted huge margins when he ran for president so Americans must still be looking for Republican leadership, or something. 

Multiplying exit-polling participation percentage by preference percentage gives a good approximation of what the Kerry or Gore electoral impact would be on these groups so crucial to Mr. Obama’s victory. The average drop in support for Mr. Obama in 2012 from the higher of either Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore among the five groups is 2.4 percent. Delete women from the calculation, and the average decline is 2.8 percent — almost enough to have allowed Mr. Romney to win by Mr. Obama’s 2012 popular vote margin.

Even the decline in votes for Mr. Obama by 18- to 29-year-olds compared to Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore — 2.2 percent — is still more than enough to flip the popular vote to Mr. Romney. The declines in other demographics — blacks (2.4 percent), Hispanics, (2.8 percent) and liberals (3.7 percent) — are far greater.

Furthermore, vote totals for both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore came against George W. Bush, who hardly racked up Reagan-sized Republican margins.



Republicans also retain a real ideological advantage. Exit polling showed conservatives made up 35 percent of voters in 2012 and went 82 percent for Mr. Romney — hardly a conservative favorite. Liberals made up 25 percent of 2012 voters — their highest level among the past four elections and 3 percent more than in 2008 — going 86 percent for Mr. Obama. That means Republicans need only a little more than one-third of the remaining Independents to win, while Democrats need a bit less than two-thirds.

The American Family Association’s Buster Wilson even had a post-election rant arguing that even though Obama won the election 51-47 percent, Romney tied him in geography and therefore Democrats don’t have a mandate. “There’s an awful lot of red there,” Wilson claimed. He even wondered if Harry Reid is mentally unbalanced because he said that Democrats had a mandate to raise tax on top-earners.

Of course, since Democrats typically lose the rural vote, if we were simply to judge election mandates according to the colors on maps then Democrats will almost never have a mandate.

Steve Deace on his radio show yesterday was flummoxed that Obama won re-election while capturing just 22 percent of counties. Ignoring the fact that county size has little to do with population rates, he maintained that because Romney carried far more counties than Obama, America still has a conservative majority but freedom-hating liberal elites have “infiltrated the population centers” and ruined everything.

“If we fought this like the Revolutionary War was fought at times where the Red Coats stood on a line and the Colonials stood on a line and they just fired at each other, we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers,” Deace gloated, “we would steamroll them.”

What has happened here is we’ve been outflanked. Enemies of freedom and liberty, what they have done is infiltrated the population centers so that they run the editorial boards of almost every major newspaper in your city, they ran the government school board in almost every major city in America, they run even things to the point like the art center, who is on the board of your city’s art center? The statists are, the secularists are, the progressives are. They are running—they have outflanked us. If we fought this like the Revolutionary War was fought at times where the Red Coats stood on a line and the Colonials stood on a line and they just fired at each other, we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers. First of all, most of them don’t believe in guns, that’s one advantage. The other thing is we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers, we would steamroll them, I mean they could not defeat our sheer numbers. But what has happened is the enemies of freedom and liberty have outflanked us, they have been strategic in their thinking and that’s where they have concentrated their resources. So we are a mile wide but an inch deep, they are the exact opposite, they are about a foot wide and a mile deep.

Basically, Obama can only claim to have a popular mandate if he wins the least populated areas of America.

How Unhinged Rhetoric Sank a Disabilities Rights Treaty in the Senate

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities failed to capture the 2/3 vote needed for ratification in the U.S. Senate today due to fierce Republican opposition. Many Republicans and their allies in the conservative movement claimed that the treaty codifies abortion into law, even though that preposterous claim was rejected by the National Right to Life Committee and Sen. John McCain. Along with the false charges about abortion, opponents of the treaty claimed it will undermine U.S. sovereignty and harm children. Critics like Rick Santorum warned that the treaty may kill his disabled daughter; Glenn Beck said it could create a “fascistic” government and Sen. Jim Inhofe alleged the treaty would help groups with “anti-American biases.”

One of the lesser-known but extremely active opponents of the bill was homeschooling activist Michael Farris.

During an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he claimed that the treaty will prompt the United Nations to ‘get control’ of children with glasses or ADHD and remove them from their families.

Farris: They’re called living documents, just like the disgraced living Constitution theory, which means the treaty doesn’t mean today what it’s going to mean tomorrow what it’s going to mean ten years from now. So you never know what you’re signing up for, that by itself is a good enough reason to leave it alone and to never enter into one of these things. But in particular, you hit the nail on the head Tony, the definition of disability is not defined in the treaty. My kid wears glasses, now they’re disabled, now the UN gets control over them; my child’s got a mild case of ADHD, now you’re under control of the UN treaty. There’s no definitional standard, it can change over time, and the UN, not American policymakers, are the ones who get it decided.

While speaking with the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, the two warned that the treaty could lead to the deaths of disabled children, all the while admitting they have no evidence it would do such beyond their pure speculation.

Fischer: Disabled newborn babies in the UK are being put, oftentimes overriding the wishes of parents, on this death pathway where no matter what the parents want the doctors say this kid cannot live, severely disabled, too many congenital deformities, we think the best thing for this kid is just to be starved and dehydrated to death. It seems to me that although that’s not specifically contemplated in this treaty that could be an outcome.

Farris: Whether they thought about it or not, that’s exactly what Rick Santorum said in our press conference. He was holding his daughter Bella and she’s of the category of child that in Britain they would take that position because her official diagnosis is ‘incompatible with life.’ So when the doctor gets to decide, the doctor empowered by the government—these doctors aren’t doing it on their own, they are doing it because the government says they have the power to do it—the doctor/government deciding what they think is best for the child. It goes to the point of deciding whether the child lives or dies, it is that crazy. If we want to live in a Brave New World like that where the bureaucrats and the government and the UN all tell us what to do, fine, but this is the beginning of the end of American self-government if we go here, it’s just crazy, we cannot let this happen.

After warning that the treaty will kill children, Farris told conservative talk show host Steve Deace that the treaty will create a “cradle-to-grave care for the disabled” and said if the U.S. ratifies it “signing up to be an official socialist nation.” Farris claimed that the treaty will treat the parents of disabled children like child abusers in order to grow government power and implement “coercive socialism.”

“Everybody in America will be living under is socialism as an international entitlement” if the treaty passes, Farris maintained, “it’s a way to make the socialist, liberal, amoral element a permanent feature of our law.” Deace agreed and said the treaty will “due in freedom and liberty.”

Farris: Every parent with a disabled child is going to be in the same legal position as if they’d been convicted of child abuse. We are taking away parental decision-making power in that area. The other thing that everybody in America will be living under is socialism as an international entitlement. The United States resisted all the UN treaties of a certain category that began being proliferated in the 1960s; the first was the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights. Our country said no that is coercive socialism, we’re not going to do that. So we rejected all those treaties ever since 1966. Yet we’re signing up now for our first economic, social and cultural treaty which means as a matter of international binding law that goes to the supremacy clause level in our Constitution, we’re signing up to be an official socialist nation, cradle-to-grave care for the disabled. Maybe Americans want to do that, but I think we’d want to do it as a matter of domestic law, not as a matter of international law. I personally don’t think that’s any business of Congress to do that sort of thing but I certainly don’t want to be doing it when the United Nations tells us to do it. So those are two big ways it will affect every American and there are more.

Deace: Michael Farris is here with us from Patrick Henry College, also from the Home School Legal Defense Association, talking about another attempt to usurp American sovereignty, to essentially do an end-run around the Constitution and then of course due in freedom and liberty through an effort through the United Nations.



Farris: If they can get this one through, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CEDAW, which is the women’s treaty with all kinds of junk in that one, and then a whole host of other UN treaties that the Obama administration wants to send our way, it’s a way to make the socialist, liberal, amoral element a permanent feature of our law through the use of treaties and they are going to do a full-force attack. We’ve got to stop them now. It’s not like just the camel nose in the tent, it is that too, but we don’t want a camel’s nose in our constitutional system, that’s what we don’t want.

Fischer: The Way to Win Over Independents is for the GOP to Become More Conservative

Yesterday, Bryan Fischer was a guest on Steve Deace's radio program where the two commiserated over the state of the Republican Party and discussed just what options social conservatives will have if the GOP attempts to jettison their culture war issues in an effort to win over moderate and independent voters. 

In Fischer's assessment, such a move would be tantamount to political suicide for the GOP because, contrary to popular opinion, those who classify themselves as "independents" are not moderates, but rather hard-line conservatives who refuse to consider themselves Republicans because the party is not conservative enough ... and so the only way to win over "independents," especially white voters who are "naturally" a part of the Republican base, is for the GOP to become more conservative on all the issues: 

Fischer: There are a lot of people in America who are independents because the Republican Party as it currently exists is not conservative enough for them, it doesn't represent their values. So they're to the right, actually, of where the Republican Party is; they're independents. So if the Republican Party thinks they've got to move toward the center, well they're moving further and further away from these conservatives that are looking for a conservative voice; they're actually hurting themselves moving away from their base.

Deace: You know, you think if the GOP is so much more business-smart, Bryan, well, the first rule of business is the customer is always right, isn't he? I mean, wouldn't you actually cater to the customers you have rather than trying to make them into something their not?

Fischer: Well, and you look at the turnout this year, Steve, where President Obama's vote totals dropped by X number of million votes, I don't know exactly what the final total was  - I think it's between six and seven million fewer votes Obama received this year than 2008. So here's a guy that's ripe for being picked off, but Romney barely matched the vote totals of John McCain in 2008 and we know from some of the other exit polling that probably six to seven million white voters stayed home: they naturally would be a part of Romney's base. So he just wasn't sending any message to them that was convincing them, as part of the Republican base, that it was worth even showing up to vote.

Deace: 'Collapse of the Family Unit' led to a 'Huge Surge in Homosexual Behavior'

Last time talk show host Steve Deace talked to an ex-gay activist, he brought Greg Quinlan of PFOX onto his show to warn that gays and lesbians engage in “sexual cannibalism” and are “recruiting” kids “to behave as homosexuals.” Yesterday, he interviewed Debora Barr, the author of All Things New: A Former Lesbian’s Lifelong Search for Love, who writes that after joining a church her “same-sex attraction diminished.” Deace told Barr that he believes the “huge surge in homosexual behavior” in society is a result of the “collapse of the family unit,” while Barr claimed that gays and lesbians are really seeking to repair broken relationships with their parents. “The problem with that is two hurting women can never get what they need from each other, the same as two hurting men can never get what they need from each other;” Barr said, “it’s just a distortion of love.”

Deace: It’s no coincidence we have seen a huge surge in homosexual behavior at the same time we’ve seen a collapse of the family unit. Because without those traditional roles of a mom and a dad represented in a home and that healthy balance that produces a healthy sexual identity in children, which is collapsing in our culture in the last thirty, forty years, that balance if that’s not modeled and witnessed, it’s going to create confusion in young people, particularly if you throw in anything like a betrayal or an abuse. Really, the surge in this lifestyle is not just about propaganda from popular culture but it really is about people that are literally trying to find meaning and purpose in their life when they come from an environment growing up that didn’t offer them that.

Barr: That is so, so true. I believe that a child’s upbringing is so important and when they don’t get they need—for me, my relationship with my mother got broken at a critical stage in my development, I needed that mother figure in my life and all of the sudden that relationship was broken. So what I was trying to get from other women was that thing that I needed, that piece of female—I don’t even know how to describe it. But it seemed when I was in relationships with women, I was in three serious long-term relationships of five or six years, one of them was seven years, these women were all older than me, and it wasn’t until I got out of this life and could look back over my life and see these patterns that I realized that what I was seeking was that mother figure in my life. The problem with that is two hurting women can never get what they need from each other, the same as two hurting men can never get what they need from each other; it’s just a distortion of love.

'From Gingrich to Santorum to Perry to Bachmann, I Think Any of Them Could Have Won'

Former Council for National Policy executive director Steve Baldwin spoke to his fellow Romney critic Steve Deace this week, where they complained that conservative leaders didn’t heed their warnings about nominating Romney, and are now mourning that “America’s culture, America’s economy [and] America’s Christian history” were dealt a potentially fatal blow after Obama’s re-election.

Deace: Some of us spent the better part of our lives in the last year and a half telling everybody who mattered in this movement that we know, that this is what was going to happen if we nominate this guy. We risked friendships, relationships, radio affiliates, business relationships, trying to avoid the conversation you and I are having right now, and yet unfortunately most of these people for reasons—I don’t really care what they are anymore—they just didn’t want to listen, they just didn’t want to list to it. That’s what’s frustrating.

Baldwin: I’ve been warning people for ten years about this man and the more I warned the more people thought I was crazy. Now here we are, the worst loss I’ve seen in terms of impact on America’s culture, America’s economy, America’s Christian history. This loss is going to do so much damage to us, this was one of those campaigns that we have to get right and we didn’t get it right.

Baldwin later claimed that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann all “could have won” in November. He also described a conference call he participated in with other conservatives about how leaders of the Religious Right, Tea Party and Ron Paul supporters need to unite for the 2016 election so the GOP doesn’t nominate a candidate like Romney.

Baldwin: With $1 billion, with maybe twice as much money as John McCain had, he got 2.5 million votes less, it would be difficult to perform worse than Romney, you would have to really try hard to do as bad as Romney did.

Deace: Do you think that any of the Republicans, any of the other alternatives to Romney in this primary, do you believe that any of them would have won this election, and if so—whom and why?

Baldwin: Oh yeah, I actually think every major candidate, from Gingrich to Santorum to Perry to Bachmann, I think any of them could have won. All they had to was tell the truth about Obama’s economy, his foreign policy, his attack on our culture, just tell the truth. Romney never told anyone anything about this guy.



Baldwin: I had a long discussion with a number of conservative leaders on a conference call today and there was some agreement here that there needs to be some high level discussions that go on between the three major conservative branches of the Republican party, and they may not even like that term ‘Republican party.’ I’m talking about the Christian Right—the social conservatives—, the Tea Party conservatives, and of course there’s overlap here, and the Ron Paul conservatives, and all three groups have overlaps. But there are people respected as leaders within all three of those entities that I feel need to get together and have some discussion about how we can sing the same song sheet in the future and try to unite because there was a problem here, we conservatives were split up so many ways that Romney took advantage of that and strode right on in and clinched the primary, we can’t do that anymore.

Gingrich: Obama Wants to Put 'the Government Which is Currently Failing in Hurricane Sandy' in Charge of Your Health Care

Newt Gingrich appeared on Steve Deace's radio program last evening to explain why Mitt Romney is going to win the election, which makes sense given Gingrich's steller record of making accurate election predictions.

During the discussion, Gingrich said that another Obama administration would be a "nightmare" because an "arrogant" and "divisive" Obama wants to make sure that "the government which is currently failing in Hurricane Sandy" will be delivering your healthcare:

I think that this is the most important election of our lifetime. Period. I think that four more years of Obama will be a nightmare. I don't expect him to change very much, I think that he'll feel vindicated if he's won. I mean, he's already so arrogant that he talks about using votes as a form of revenge. He's running a deliberately divisive campaign and I think that there's no evidence that he's learned anything.

...

The Left is opposed to teaching American history, is deeply offended by the idea of American exceptionalism, believes in dependency and food stamps, wants to centralize power in Washington. I remind people who are watching the mess in New York, and Staten Island, and New Jersey: the government which is currently failing in Hurricane Sandy is the government that Obama wants to deliver your healthcare. So I just think there are fundamentally antithetical views of reality.

Horowitz: Obama 'Would Never Be President if He Weren't Black'

Far-right activist David Horowitz has been out promoting his new book, Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion, and told conservative talk show host Steve Deace yesterday that President Obama, much like professor Cornel West, is taken seriously simply because he is black. During an incoherent rant, Horowitz asserted that Obama “would never be president if he weren’t black” as no one with the same “curious background and radicalism would ever have been nominated, let alone elected president if he weren’t black.” “Part of the racism of our society is if you’re black you can get away with murder,” Horowitz concludes.

Cornel West is just symbolic of the corruption of our culture and not unlike Obama who would never be president if he weren’t black, no white person with his resume and his thoughts and curious background and radicalism would ever have been nominated, let alone elected president if he weren’t black. So Cornel West is an empty suit who has twenty honorary degrees and he’s taught at all these prestigious universities but is basically an airhead, most people who’ve seen him on TV they’ve noticed. Part of the racism of our society is if you’re black you can get away with murder.

Later, Horowitz repeated his smear of Huma Abedin and said that she is a “Muslim Brotherhood operative” and the “chief adviser to the American government right now on Muslim affairs.” Not only is patently it absurd to claim that Abedin is a secret agent for the Brotherhood but she is also not a policymaker.

After attacking Obama as someone who “sympathizes with our enemy” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, Horowitz said that conservatives are much nicer and more open minded than liberals. But he couldn’t even make that audacious claim without attacking Obama: “we don’t set out to destroy the character of people. Obama is a Communist.” Not only is Obama a Communist, Horowitz explained, but so are his advisers David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, whom he says all serve this “evil cause” with religious zeal.

Obama basically sympathizes with our enemy and Hillary Clinton’s chief adviser, the chief adviser to the American government right now on Muslim affairs is Huma Abedin, who is a Muslim Brotherhood operative. The Muslim Brotherhood, for people who don’t know, that’s the organization that created Osama bin Laden, it’s the parent organization of Hamas, and it’s agenda — well they’re already doing it in Egypt — is to turn it into an Islamic, fascist state, meaning that everybody is under Islamic laws, this seventh century law.



People have to stop thinking of them as liberals. Conservatives are liberal people, we believe in two sides to a question, we don’t shut people up, when we have channels on television there is more than one viewpoint, we don’t set out to destroy the character of people. Obama is a Communist. Stanley Kurtz has written a really good book called “Radical-in-Chief” and his entire life has been spent in the same left that I came out of, which is the radical, Marxist left. Only it’s even worse. [David] Axelrod, his family is all—they’re communists. Valerie Jarrett, I mean literally members of the Communist Party. And I know as somebody who came out of the left, you know if you’re involved with an evil cause and you leave it, you denounce it, you tell people, particularly if you’re a political person, you warn people. These people are really dangerous but they haven’t done that, they are still committed to this cause. I think that’s the main thing, people have to suddenly awaken and realize, and that’s one reason I wrote this book “Radicals” because it’s a portrait of this mentality, it’s a very religious mentality.

E.W. Jackson Says Democrats are like 'Slave Masters' who have Black Conservatives 'Punished'

After badly losing his race for U.S. Senate in Virginia with just 5 percent of the vote in the Republican primary, Bishop E.W. Jackson is once again railing against the Democratic Party and told conservative radio host Steve Deace on Friday that Democrats are like slave masters. “I liken them to slave masters who brag about how good their slaves are and how well-behaved they are but let them try to be free,” Jackson maintained, “let them try to escape and then you find out that they don’t really think very much of them.” Jackson said if African Americans don’t “kowtow” to the Democrats and their supposed “hatred of Christians” then, just like slaves, they “will be punished.”

Listen

Jackson: They’re not just operating in disagreement with us, they’re operating in hostility. They are engendering a type of hatred of Christians, ‘Christians are bigots, Christians are narrow-minded, Christians are hateful people’ because we won’t endorse their ideas. I think that that atmosphere is part of what created the attack on the Family Research Council this week. We ought to understand, these folks aren’t just saying ‘well we just don’t agree with you’ they’re saying ‘we’re going to stop you, we’re hostile to you, we’re going to put you down.’ With regards to Joe Biden, look this is an indication again of the kind of paternalistic, condescending, supercilious attitude that these folks have toward black people and other minorities. They don’t love us. I liken them to slave masters who brag about how good their slaves are and how well-behaved they are but let them try to be free, let them try to escape and then you find out that they don’t really think very much of them. Well let somebody try to escape, let somebody try to say ‘you know what I don’t agree with the Democrat Party or with liberalism’ they treat you like a slave who would dare bite the hand that feeds you because they act like they are responsible for whatever progress black people have made in America and so therefore you owe them and you better kowtow to whatever they say or you will be punished.

Virgil Goode Hopes to Use Romney's Flip-Flops Against Him in Third Party Presidential Bid

Former congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA), best known for his malicious attacks on Muslims and immigrants, is running as the Constitution Party’s candidate for president. While as a third party candidate he likely to get little support, Public Policy Polling in a recent survey of Virginia voters found that “Goode is pulling 9% of the vote, bringing Romney down seven points to 35% and hardly moving Obama to 49%.” Goode yesterday in an interview with Steve Deace, a conservative talk show host and Romney critic, said that he seeks to exploit Romney’s flip-flops on issues like abortion rights, gay rights and gun control to win voters who want to support a candidate who “hasn’t wavered on pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, Second Amendment and those things.”

“Do you trust someone that’s been in many different positions on those three key areas or do you trust someone that has a solid record,” Goode told Deace, “and I’d submit that my record in terms of consistency is much more consistent than Governor Romney’s.”

Listen:

People will wake up and see there’s not much difference between Romney and Obama. You’ve got a choice for a true conservative, one that will stand up, that hasn’t wavered on pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, Second Amendment and those things. If they wake up and see the differences and want somebody that’s not going to be just a weak, soft difference between Obama and Romney, somebody that’s got a solid record, they’ll vote for me and we could carry Virginia and we could carry some other states too.



On your social issues, it’s a question of how much do you trust Romney. If you believe that he’s made a complete conversion on right to life and on gay marriage, then he is better than Obama. But I would wonder if Romney got in office if he would do like he did as governor of Massachusetts, you know he ordered the issuance of the first gay marriage certificates in Massachusetts as governor, I would hope that he wouldn’t revert to that but I don’t know if you could trust him. I mean, I have a solid record of opposing gay marriage and I have a solid pro-life voting record and I don’t think you’d have to worry about me with the Second Amendment either because I know Romney at one time was opposed to so-called assault weapons and then he said some negatives about the NRA but now he says he is pro-NRA. Do you trust someone that’s been in many different positions on those three key areas or do you trust someone that has a solid record, and I’d submit that my record in terms of consistency is much more consistent than Governor Romney’s.

Gun Owners of America Director Suggests Armed Citizens Could Have Stopped Holocaust, Warns of Post-Colorado Shooting Gun Control

Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt, who earlier this week floated the theory that the Colorado theater shooting was an inside job aimed at promoting gun control, was back on the press circuit today. In an interview with Iowa radio host Steve Deace, Pratt urged listeners to compare the dozen deaths in the Aurora movie theater with the millions of deaths in Nazi concentration camps – deaths which he claims occurred because the Nazi government had taken away the guns of the German populace, preventing them from “shooting back”:

Well, we tragically lost 12 people. How many people a day were lost in concentration camps that were populated by...well, two things had happened: ‘Jews are bad, Jews are bad, Jews are bad, Jews are bad, all the evil in the world is Jews, Jews, Jews,’ and disarmament of the German population. They started coming for the Jews, and they came for other people as well. Nobody shoots back!

When they started to, when George III thought he could muscle us around with his Redcoat troops, we taught him a thing or two that actually, Mr. George, you need to learn a lesson yourself and that is you violated all of the charters that protect the rights of Englishmen.

Pratt drew not-so-subtle parallels between King George and President Obama, warning that the president, if reelected, will act immediately to close down gun shops. “The guy is clearly the imperial president,” Pratt said:

Here’s what I think might happen after the election. If the president, God forbid, is reelected, I can see him telling gun stores through the Justice Department, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, you’re no longer gonna be able to sell caliber handguns above 380, and if you do we’ll pull your license and you’ll be out of business that day. And you’ll no longer be able to sell semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that are capable of firing more than a fixed magazine load of three to five rounds, in other words one that can accept a large magazine. You just won’t be able to be in business if you want to sell those kinds of firearms. That I can see the president doing. Unconstutional, illegal. But then his position on forcing churches to dispense abortifacants, his position on undoing the amnesty laws, his positions on so many things. A court order telling him to allow drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, ‘No way, Jose,’ was basically his response, although I don’t think he speaks that much Spanish.

So the guy is clearly the imperial president. He thinks he, ‘Well, I was elected, I won the election,’ he told the Republicans once in a rare meeting with Republicans. He doesn’t accept criticism kindly, he gets angry quite quickly, he’s very thin-skinned.

Bradlee Dean: 1.7% of Americans 'Are Responsible for All the Bad Things Going On in This Country'

Fresh after losing his lawsuit against Rachel Maddow and facing an order to pay her legal fees, rocker and right-wing activist Bradlee Dean spoke to talk show host Steve Deace this week, where Dean alleged that God is judging America for the crimes of an immoral minority and that “less than 1.7 percent of the people are the ones that are responsible for all the bad things going on in this country.” Dean did not say who constitutes the 1.7 percent, but he may be referring to a survey finding that 1.7 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.

Dean: If God will establish this country through 56 signers that laid down their all for me and you, read the end of the Declaration of Independence, and less than 3% of this country to establish against the mightiest power in the world, at that time the British Empire, he can do it for us too. But what we see today is that less than 3 percent of America is being used to judge 300 million people, less than 1.7 percent of the people are the ones that are responsible for all the bad things going on in this country.

Dean and Deace also agreed that the Democratic Party, in Deace’s words, “now exists only for child-killers and those that are pedaling moral depravity” as “the entire leftist apparatus in this country have been taken over by the pro-sodomy groups and the abortion groups.” Dean went on to claim that during his performances at schools, which are supposed to send messages against drug abuse, he talks to students about why they should oppose homosexuality and abortion:

Deace: The non-negotiables for these people that they always want to talk about, and they always say we’re the ones with social issues; all these people want to talk about is child killing and sodomy, that’s all they ever want to talk about. I’ve watched the Daily Kos and their polling firm, the Public Policy Polling firm, I’ve dubbed them Polling People’s Privates because all they do every day throughout the country is poll people on sodomy, ‘please tell me you love sodomy.’ It’s like the entire leftist apparatus in this country have been taken over by the pro-sodomy groups and the abortion groups. They don’t care about blacks and minorities and the union guys that they used to talk about, they’ll shutdown Keystone Pipeline and not provide any of the union jobs they would’ve bent over backwards to provide 20 or 30 years ago, it’s like the entire Democratic Party now exists only for child-killers and those that are pedaling moral depravity, they are obsessed with it, it is the entirety of their worldview.

Dean: Amen, what do I say to that? You’re exactly right. I mean, when we go into the high school settings the kids are not for homosexuality, number one, and number two when you talk about the issue of infanticide once you show them a picture of what they do, the kids don’t even realize what it is and when they see it often times you turn and look at these little girls and these little boys, and I’m talking about high schools not colleges, that have tears in their eyes. They say, ‘what’s that,’ and once you explain it to them, all of the sudden they get a conversion in their heart and say, ‘oh I’m not for that.’ But yet you have the teacher over in the corner that’s agitated or totally offended by the fact that you just showed the kids what they advocate, what a bunch of hypocrisy, and you see this over and over throughout the country.

Moore: 'False Religions' in America are Persecuting Christians; Undocumented Immigrants Have More Rights than Citizens

Alabama’s Roy Moore, the Republican Party’s nominee for Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court who in 2003 was removed from the same post after he refused to move a Ten Commandments monument he installed in the courthouse rotunda, spoke to Steve Deace last week to register his disapproval with the Supreme Court’s rulings on Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB 1070 and the health care reform law.

He maintained that the Court, by striking down parts of SB 1070 while upholding the Affordable Care Act, have given undocumented immigrants more rights than citizens. “I’m curious what would happen if an Arizona policeman arrests an illegal alien going to a health care facility without a green card and find out that they haven’t paid the individual mandate, are they to be detained or released or what?” Moore asked, even though undocumented immigrants are not covered in the law. “Steve, do we have less rights than people that have no right to be here?” he continued.

Later, he warned that “false religions” are taking hold in America and as a result “Christians are being persecuted while people of a religion foreign to our country are doing what they want.” Moore, who earlier warned that secular government leads to Sharia law, appeared to twist Thomas Jefferson’s Bill for Religious Freedom, where Jefferson said that governments throughout history have established and imposed religions forcibly on their people, to attack non-Christian minorities:

Moore: Thomas Jefferson in his Bill for Religious Freedom said that would happen, when men presume to restrict your freedom then they will allow false religions to come into your country and it all began when he said ‘well aware that the opinions and beliefs of man depend not upon their own will but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds that almighty God hath created the mind free.’ You see he recognized that God gives him that freedom of conscience and when men come in and try to restrict it what happens is false religions come in and that’s what’s happening in our country today. Christians are being persecuted while people of a religion foreign to our country are doing what they want.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious