Anti-Gay

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.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council once again warned that incidents of child abuse will rise if the Boy Scouts end their national prohibition on gay members. Yesterday on his radio show, Perkins said that people are gay as “the result of abuse” and “trauma” in their life. “With an open door policy,” Perkins said, child abuse “can only get worse. So that could lead to these experiences and trauma for young boys that could lead them into that lifestyle.”

Listen:

Perkins: I don’t think the vast majority of those who are involved in homosexuality choose that lifestyle. You say what do you mean by that? I mean that oftentimes it is the result of abuse, trauma, something that happened in their lives that led them down this path and that’s one of the reasons we’re very concerned about the Boy Scouts. They’ve already had—last Fall by court order these files, what they call the ‘perversion files’ with the Boy Scouts, detailed hundreds, hundreds of cases that had happened between the 1960s and the mid-1980s and that’s with the policy in place. With an open door policy it can only get worse. So that could lead to these experiences and trauma for young boys that could lead them into that lifestyle. So that’s one reason I think parents are concerned and rightfully so.

For decades, the Right has attempted to discredit Hillary Clinton with attacks ranging from the disturbing (killing people) to the bizarre (killing cats). But after serving four years as Secretary of State, Clinton is leaving office with sky-high approval ratings. Before she steps down on Friday, we decided to look back on some of the most extreme and befuddling accusations she has faced from the far-right during her term as the nation’s top diplomat.

1. Clinton Engineered Benghazi Cover-Up

While the official report on the U.S. mission in Benghazi found multiple security and management breakdowns that Clinton had already taken responsibility for, many on the right claimed that she actually was behind a massive cover-up. Several Republican politicians and conservative commentators said that the Obama administration withheld military assistance while watching a live feed of the attack. The State Department’s Accountability Review Board report debunked the right-wing conspiracy theories, but that didn’t stop Fox News and conservative talk show hosts from reporting them as fact and arguing that the administration used the attack in Benghazi to pass blasphemy laws protecting Islam.

As the Right’s claims about Benghazi continued to unravel, they shifted to baselessly asserting that the administration manufactured the Petraeus affair in order to preserve the alleged cover-up and that Clinton faked a concussion and blood clot to get out of testifying about the incident. When she did testify, she faced redundant and ill-informed questions from Republicans like Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson, who skipped a classified briefing on the incident, and Kentucky senator Rand Paul, who admitted he had no proof to back up his claim that the Benghazi mission was used to send arms to Syrian rebels.

2. Clinton Supports the Muslim Brotherhood

Latching onto rumors that emerged on the far-right fringe, Rep. Michele Bachmann sought to spark a McCarthyite investigation that accused Clinton’s deputy chief of staff of acting as a Muslim Brotherhood spy. Bachmann insisted that “there has been deep penetration in the halls of our United States government by the Muslim Brotherhood,” and along with a handful of Republican colleagues, made allegations that Clinton aide Huma Abedin was working on behalf of the group.

Of course, Bachmann couldn’t substantiate her claims and literally ran away from a reporter when asked about them. Even Republican leaders criticized Bachmann for starting the witch hunt. But her unfounded claims took off in the conservative media, which was more than happy to paint Clinton and Obama as secret Islamist sympathizers, and eventually caused trouble overseas .

3. Clinton Loves Sharia

Anti-Clinton conspiracy theorists claim that her supposed Muslim Brotherhood sympathies have turned her into a covert advocate of Sharia law. Bachmann said that Clinton was working “to take away the free speech rights of the American people” and “our right of free speech and expression, religious practice, freedom of assembly, freedom of the printing press” in order to “empower the Islamists.”

Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy claimed that Clinton had accepted “submission to the stealthy Islamist effort to enforce in this country the supremacist doctrine known as shariah” and the Family Research Council’s Jerry Boykin said the administration had shown “support for the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our government.” Rick Joyner, the televangelist who has worked closely with Gaffney and Boykin, was left wondering why Clinton was “advocating” Sharia:

4. LGBT Rights Advocacy Will Destroy America

While the Right’s Benghazi, Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law claims didn’t hold water, they at least got one thing right: Clinton acted as a champion for LGBT equality while leading the State Department. The Religious Right fumed at her work on behalf of gay rights and exploded in anger following a speech in Geneva in which she defended the rights of LGBT people and called for the decriminalization of LGBT status.

Liberty University’s Mat Staver warned that Clinton was backing a “radical sexual anarchist agenda” while Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention said that Clinton’s support of “sexual paganization” would bring about God’s judgment on America. Pat Robertson reacted to Clinton’s speech by warning that God may destroy the U.S.

5. Clinton Opposes Religious Freedom

All of the conspiracy theories and accusations seem to come together in an attempt to smear Clinton as an enemy of religious freedom. Conservatives argued that she was using both gay rights and Sharia law to undercut Christianity and religious freedoms. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins maintained that Clinton was trying to subvert the freedom of religion by using the term “freedom of worship,” even though the Obama administration frequently uses the phrase “freedom of religion” and President Bush talked about the “freedom of worship” without receiving a similar outcry from social conservatives.

At the Values Voters Summit, phony “ex-terrorist” Kamal Saleem even warned that Clinton was planning to “shut down” churches and synagogues this month. Since Clinton serves just one more day at the job, she better speed up with her diabolical plans!

Focus on the Family president Jim Daly is upset that the Boy Scouts of America may ditch its nationwide ban on gay membership and he is using Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and author, to make his case. Daly cites Wiesel in a blog post which claims that allowing “openly practicing homosexuals” in the Boy Scouts will undermine “the character and safety of the boys.”

To the shock and disappointment of many of us, the Boy Scouts of America released a statement yesterday indicating the possibility of changing its policy that prevents the participation of openly practicing homosexuals.

…

Neutrality is often an attractive option, especially when the goal is to not offend. But in this case, I'm reminded of what the great humanitarian and political activist Elie Wiesel once wrote about trying to remain neutral when it comes to moral affairs:

We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.

At stake in this debate is not just the golden brand of the Boy Scouts but most importantly the character and safety of the boys involved.

That’s right: Daly is using a Wiesel quote to compare the Boy Scouts becoming neutral on gay members to countries that were neutral during the Holocaust.

American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios today warned listeners that gay rights advocates are promoting a form of “fascism” and that gay equality will result in a “lack of freedom.” 

Rios: We all watched the inauguration recently of the President and we saw on the platform where things lie. We know that if you think that homosexuality is a problem you will not be allowed into public service hardly in any way. If you think that homosexual couples should not be able to adopt, if you have a problem with that, then you are out of the adoption business. I think it is fascism personally; I would go to that extreme and say that, it’s a lack of freedom.

Her guest Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union also criticized gay rights supporters and argued that any shift in the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay membership “would destroy the Boy Scouts,” and later called for a “new board of directors” who would not “entertain such bizarre notions as opening up the ranks to homosexuals.”

Knight: What they are saying is they are going to leave it up to parents and local councils and Scout troops on whether to allow homosexual leaders and members in. This would destroy the Boy Scouts, let’s cut to the chase, what parent would put their young boy under the authority of men who are attracted to males and take them camping and swimming, etcetera. It’s not designed to make the scouts fairer it’s designed to destroy the Boy Scouts as we know them.

…

Rios: There’s really no pressure in the courts and the financial pressures they were facing earlier had subsided so this is like a new assault on them, isn’t it? Now they are coming out because of the corporate angle.

Knight: Yeah and I think what people have to do is say the Boy Scouts need a new board of directors if they are going to entertain such bizarre notions as opening up the ranks to homosexuals. This is about getting corporate money so they can keep their fat headquarters in Texas. Think about it, Scout troops raise money locally they can survive just fine without corporate donations, but not the people at the top, they are the ones who ought to be replaced.

The Religious Right continues to push back against the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to reconsider their sweeping ban on gay members, many resorting to unfounded claims that homosexuality is tied to child abuse.

Talk show host Janet Mefferd pointed to a major sex scandal and cover-up in the BSA as a reason to maintain the prohibition on gay membership, and then agreed with a caller who compared letting gays serve as troop leaders to “letting the fox watch the hen house.” 

Later, Mefferd attacked LGBT rights advocates for “trying to silence and trying to shame” supporters of the anti-gay policy and said that any shift in position will “decimate the Boy Scouts.”

WorldNetDaily’s David Kupelian wrote that “a little bit of America will die” if the Boy Scouts rescind their sweeping ban on gay members, and warned that the Scouts will lose the trust of the public and God. He also pointed to the Catholic Church as an example of how open homosexuality leads to sexual abuse, which is an odd choice seeing that the church, like the BSA, already has a prohibition gays in positions of authority.

Now the big question in all this, of course, is the following: With these sex-abuse cases within the Boy Scouting organization, just as those within the Catholic Church, are we dealing with actual “pedophiles” or with predatory homosexuals?

…

America is in a time of great crisis on many fronts, and much that is good we are in danger of permanently losing. The Boy Scouts of America is one of the most important and loved and truly valuable organizations in American history. It is literally a sacred trust between one generation and the next. The Supreme Court is on their side. Public opinion is on their side. God is on their side.

Why on earth would they trade all this away by giving in to pressure from people who detest them and everything they stand for?

A little bit of America will die if the Boy Scouts organization gives in to the pressure and makes this decision. You might want to let them know how you feel. You can reach the Boy Scouts of America at 972-580-2000. Tell them how much you appreciate them – and tell them to stand strong.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality accused the Boy Scouts of “capitulating to immorality” and promoting “deviant sexuality among the boys.”

"If you take all that and you still come out strong, that's a victory," he says. "But if you allow all of that pressure to then change your values -- which is what they're doing here -- to accommodate homosexuality, then you've given in. You've let the bad buys win."

"It's very sad to see the Scouts cave on this," he continues. "If you capitulate to the homosexual lobby, you're capitulating to immorality; and you're not being morally straight as the Boy Scout creed says."

According to LaBarbera, parents do not want homosexual Scoutmasters going with their boys on campouts. "And you don't want homosexual Boy Scouts either because you don't want to have one homosexual Scout going around telling everybody about his homosexuality and how he's out and proud and everything. You don't want that influence of deviant sexuality among the boys itself."

"... Parents need to contact the Scouts and say Stick to the original policy ... Keep the Scouts morally straight."

Southern Baptist Convention vice president Sing Oldham claimed that the Boy Scouts are “spelling their own death knell.” SBC president Fred Luter warned that churches may withdraw their sponsorships of BSA troops:

"If that is what the leadership is doing, then I think it will be a sad day in the life of the Boy Scouts of America," Luter told Baptist Press. "This is a tradition that so many of us across the country grew up in. We were in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts in elementary school, and this organization has always stood for biblical principles -- all the things that grounded our lives as a young kid growing up. To now see this organization that I thought stood on biblical principles about to give in to the politically correct thing is very disappointing."

Luter also said he believes the Boy Scouts will "lose a whole lot of our support," with Southern Baptist churches choosing instead not to sponsor a unit.

"A lot of them will just pull out," Luter said. "This is just something we don't believe in. It's unfortunate the Boy Scouts are making this decision."

Oldham even said that the SBC is ready with a replacement for the Boy Scouts, called the Royal Ambassadors:

"Churches of all faiths and denominations, including Southern Baptist churches, will be forced to reevaluate whether they can, in good conscience, continue to host Scout troops given that the Scouts appear poised to turn their backs on this clear biblical and moral issue," Oldham said. "If the Scouts adopt these changes, I anticipate the SBC Executive Committee will issue a statement at its February board meeting expressing its deep dismay at this decision of the Scouts. This move may result in a boost for the convention's Royal Ambassador program as churches scramble for an alternative boys organization that remains grounded in a consistent, biblical worldview."

The American Family Association in an action alert for members asserted that any policy change “will destroy the legitimacy and the security of this iconic institution.”

Next week, the Boy Scouts of America will decide on whether it will keep a long standing policy of not allowing homosexuals to serve as volunteer leaders, or to change that policy and allow open homosexuals to participate in the scouting program. See our story at OneNewsNow.

If the BSA departs from its policies on allowing homosexual scoutmasters and boys in the program, it will destroy the legitimacy and the security of this iconic institution.

While news articles conclude the latter as a forgone conclusion, the final decision has not been made.

After news reports came out today that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) may drop its national policy banning openly gay members in favor of “passing any decisions on gay membership to the local level,” outrage among Religious Right activists has just begun.

For example, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer suggested the move would allow Jerry Sandusky-like pedophiles to become troop leaders:

Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd followed suit.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which launched a boycott of UPS after the company stopped donating to the BSA for failing to meet its non-discrimination guidelines, said that the inclusion of openly gay members undermines “the well-being of the boys under their care”:

"The Boy Scouts of America board would be making a serious mistake to bow to the strong-arm tactics of LGBT activists and open the organization to homosexuality. What has changed in terms of the Boy Scouts' concern for the well-being of the boys under their care? Or is this not about the well-being of the Scouts, but the funding for the organization?

"The Boy Scouts has for decades been a force for moral integrity and leadership in the United States. Sadly, their principled stances have marked them as a target for harassment by homosexual activists and corporations such as UPS which are working to pressure the Boy Scouts into abandoning their historic values.

"The mission of the Boy Scouts is 'to instill values in young people' and 'prepare them to make ethical choices,' and the Scout's oath includes a pledge 'to do my duty to God' and keep himself 'morally straight.' It is entirely reasonable and not at all unusual for those passages to be interpreted as requiring abstinence from homosexual conduct.

"If the board capitulates to the bullying of homosexual activists, the Boy Scouts' legacy of producing great leaders will become yet another casualty of moral compromise. The Boy Scouts should stand firm in their timeless values and respect the right of parents to discuss these sexual topics with their children," concluded Perkins.

In an email to members, Perkins claimed that any policy change would have “devastating” consequences:

A departure from their long-held policies would be devastating to an organization that has prided itself on the development of character in boys. In fact, according to a recent Gallup survey, only 42 percent of Americans support changing the policy to allow homosexual scout leaders.

As the BSA board meets next week, it is crucial that they hear from those who stand with them and their current policy regarding homosexuality. Please call the Boy Scouts of America at 972-580-2000 and tell them that you want to see the organization stand firm in its moral values and respect the right of parents to discuss these sexual topics with their children.

The Christian Post, whose editor Richard Land leads the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, interviewed a top Southern Baptist who said the potential shift in policy “boggles the mind.”

A source who has knowledge of the situation told The Christian Post last week that the BSA's top executives had met with top leaders at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention, among others, over the last few weeks to inform them of the possibility of this policy shift.

…

"It boggles my mind to think the BSA would make such a move," said an executive in the Southern Baptist Convention who asked not to be identified. "If they have counted the cost of this decision in terms of relationships and numbers, then I believe they have miscalculated that cost."

Religious Right activist and gay exorcist Gordon Klingenschmitt emailed members of his Pray In Jesus Name Project this week criticizing Presidnet Obama for endorsing gay rights during his inaugural address. Klingenschmitt, who believes Obama is ruled by approximately fifty demons, said that Obama’s support for gay equality is “an open invitation to the devil” and “demonic rule.” According to Klingenschmitt, Obama is “making Satan equal to God” as “he declares the demonic to be godly.”

Every kid deserves a mom and dad. We must defend traditional marriage.

Sadly, Obama equates sin with holiness, confusing lust with love, thereby confusing the demonic with the Holy Spirit, when Satan can never be equal with God. There is one reason homosexual sodomy will never be "equal" to traditional marriage: Satan will never be equal to God.

To discern selfish lust from selfless love, and the evil spirit from the Holy Spirit is critical to discerning whether sin can ever "equal" holiness, in human morality. Because every form of sin (including heterosexual sin) is a defiant human act of rebellion to God's commands, then sin is also an invitation to allow demonic rule, always without exception.

Thus "equality" for Obama is the same as making Satan equal to God, because he declares the demonic to be godly, when in fact nobody can serve two masters. Allowing sin to rule our national policies is an open rejection of Almighty God, and an open invitation to the devil, to manifest in our hearts.

Would you pray with me, for our President to repent, and renounce evil, and invite the Holy Spirit to rule his heart? Then let's petition all 100 Senators to protect traditional marriage.

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.