C4

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.”

Listen:

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?

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.

In an interview with Janet Mefferd yesterday, pastor Jim Garlow elaborated on his theory that gay people don’t actually want to get married. In fact, Garlow told Mefferd, gay people want to “destroy marriage” and “force us to affirm an immoral behavior.”

Garlow further warned that if the Supreme Court affirms marriage equality, Christians will be “forced underground. Their buildings will be taken away from them, many of their rights will be taken away from them.”

Garlow: I think it’s important for people to realize what’s really at stake here. And I know this sounds sound strange, most of us assume naively that what homosexuals are actually for is marriage. And that is not true, at least not universally true. What they want is to destroy marriage.

I think Masha Gessen out of Australia was the most open one I’ve seen on it. She’s a homosexual activist and she just said bluntly, ‘Let’s face it, we don’t want marriage, we want the end of marriage.’ And that’s exactly what happened, of course, in European countries, where they changed the laws regarding what the definition of marriage is and people just stopped getting marriage. And you’d think marriage rates would go up. Instead, they dropped because nobody respects the institution anymore.

And that’s what the heart of this is, not only to end marriage, they’re not demanding marriage for themselves, they want us, to force us to affirm an immoral behavior.

Mefferd: That’s it. And the religious liberty issue, and I know you’ve been really big on this as well, I think more Christians need to understand the connection between advancing LGBT rights and retreating Christian rights.

Garlow: If same-sex so-called marriage is established as the law of the land, many of the people who are listening to my voice right now, not maybe immediately but at some point in the future, if they are followers of Christ, will be forced underground. Their buildings will be taken away from them, many of their rights will be taken away from them.

Still outraged by Sen. Rob Portman’s reversal on marriage equality, Ohio-based Religious Right activist Linda Harvey of Mission America used her radio bulletin today to urge people to pray that the Senator’s openly gay son will become “a former homosexual” who will “exercise the option he has right now” of marrying a woman.

Harvey dubbed Portman’s endorsement of marriage equality “a betrayal of the first order” and lamented that conservative Ohioans are stuck “with a Senator who has caved because apparently he believes things that just aren’t true.”

The highest court in the land this week is hearing arguments to overturn man-woman marriage and if that wasn’t heartbreaking enough, families here in tomorrow just experienced a betrayal of the first order by U.S. Sen. Rob Portman. Because his own son is involved in homosexuality, Sen. Portman has rationalized away his former objections to same-sex marriage; he now says he wants the same opportunity for his son. Are you as frustrated by this as I am, friends? First of all, his son already has the right to marry now, he can marry a woman and someday when he is, we can all pray, a former homosexual, perhaps he will choose to exercise the option he has right now. I do hope you will join me in praying for this young man.

Rob Portman had obligations beyond his family however, when you’re a public figure you have enormous influence over public opinion by the policies you support or refuse to support. People in this state worked for Rob Portman and not for a candidate with liberal social values, one more like Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown, for a reason. People thought they could count on Portman if and when the going got tough on these issues. Well here we are with a Senator who has caved because apparently he believes things that just aren’t true.

The 700 Club today covered the marriage equality cases and dueling rallies at the Supreme Court. Host Pat Robertson and pastor Jim Garlow used the same tired talking points about how gays and lesbians don’t really want marriage.

Garlow, the Proposition 8 activist who addressed NOM’s anti-gay rally yesterday, told Christian Broadcasting Network reporter John Jessup that “there isn’t that much interest in marriage, there isn’t that much interest in commitment and monogamy, it isn’t there; it’s attempting to force us to affirm a lifestyle, that’s what’s at stake here.”

Robertson concurred and said that “the foundation of our society since the founding of our great Republic is under attack” by “a few people [who] want to have their way doing of sex affirmed by everyone else.”

“They say it’s homophobia to believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God,” Robertson said, “God is not a homophobe, God is almighty, He’s in charge of the world and this is the way he made it. “Two men do not have children, two women do not have children,” he concluded.

Watch:

The Religious Right and the Tea Party have not exactly been responding well to GOP strategist Karl Rove’s plan to spend big money bringing down unelectable Tea Party candidates in primaries or to RNC chairman Reince Priebus’ suggestion that the party make over its messaging.

Add to the list of right-wing discontents Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly, who this week sent out a six-page fundraising appeal urging supporters to “join together to save America” from Rove and his fellow “Establishment bullies.”

Schlafly blames Rove and the “Establishment” for every Republican president or presidential candidate since Reagan, all of whom she labels “RINOs.” But she sees hope for the “emergence of a new Reagan Republican Party” in the persons of senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee, and former senator Jim DeMint.

As for the rest of the party, “Establishment Members of  Congress are doing nothing to stop Obama’s grab to put all 2 to 5 year-olds under federal control,” she warns.

Excerpts from the letter are below. All emphases are in the original.

Dear Fellow American,

The battle for control of the Republican Party has begun and I am asking you to answer the call to action!

The Establishment Republicans want to lead the Party down the road of big-government spending and globalist entanglements by selecting our nominees, deciding what issues they talk about, and controlling all the political money.

They want grassroots conservatives and the Tea Parties to shut up and just do what they are told. The future of America depends on how you and I respond to this challenge.

…

Let me tell you where we are in this battle, and how fierce it has already become. I need your help!

After Ronald Reagan’s two terms were over, the Establishment operatives (sometimes called RINOs – “Republicans In Name Only,” or country-club Republicans, or “moderates”), grabbed control of the Republican Party and gave us a series of losers as presidential candidates such as Bob Dole and John McCain.

And don’t forget their choices of George H.W. Bush (who betrayed his “no new taxes, read my lips” promise), and George W. Bush who gave us phony “compassionate” conservatism (which really meant big deficit spending) and even tried to put the U.S. in an open-borders North American Union.

The Establishment and Karl Rove even supported Gerald Ford against Ronald Reagan in 1976.

We can’t afford to let that crowd pick our candidates again. But Rove now thinks he should be the “decider” of which primary candidates are “electable” and which are “unelectable.”

Please vote NO on his dreadful scheme.
…

We must sound the alarm and rally activists from Alaska to Florida about the embarrassment that Karl Rove and his big-government allies – posing as “moderates” – are to the Republican Party.

The Establishment is trying to purge the Tea Party conservatives from the Republican Party. Let’s be clear – we welcome the Tea Partiers.

We must show the nation that Republicans – true conservatives – don’t want Karl Rove, or any Establishment guru to run the Republican Party off a cliff.

…

Fortunately, we are seeing an emergence of a new Reagan Republican Party. In 2010 and 2012, Republicans elected some real conservatives to the Senate after defeating Establishment candidates in the primaries: Rand Paul in Kentucky (who defeated Mitch McConnell’s choice), Ted Cruz in Texas (who defeated a fabulously wealthy Establishment candidate), and Marco Rubio in Florida (who defeated Establishment candidate Florida Governor Crist, who then showed his true colors and became a Democrat).

Jim DeMint (now with Heritage) and Mike Lee of Utah were two other successful non-Establishment Republican Senators. It’s time for the grassroots to take control of the Republican Party away from the elitists who want to choose our candidates, tell them what to say, and how to vote.

Our litmus test for Republican primary candidates should be: “Are you a Karl Rove candidate?”

…

The Establishment is doing nothing to stop Obama from his announced plan to promote a Zero Nuclear World by cutting our nuclear missile force and refusing to modernize our anti-missile system.

The Establishment is doing nothing to stop Obama from taking over the curriculum of our public school system – a plan that is unwanted by Americans, illegal and unconstitutional. Establishment Members of  Congress are doing nothing to stop Obama’s grab to put all 2 to 5 year-olds under federal control through federal daycare, early childhood education, Pre-K, and mandatory all-day Kindergarten.

…

We absolutely must join together and save America. Time is running out. Eagle Forum is ready to lead the way, but we need your active support.

Please return your Conservative Activist Pledge right away. The conservative grassroots must rally and fight back.

And please, make the very most generous donation to Eagle Forum you possibly can. We’ve beaten Establishment bullies in the past, and with your help we will do it again!

Faithfully,

Phyllis Schlafly
 

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday where he joined other anti-gay activists in warning that a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality could lead to a “revolution.”

Perkins, who in November feared that the Supreme Court may spark a “revolution” and “break this nation apart” by striking down anti-gay laws, told Mefferd that the Supreme Court “could literally split this nation in two and create such political and cultural turmoil that I’m not sure we could recover from” if it strikes down Proposition 8 and DOMA.

“If you get government out of whack with where the people are and it goes too far, you create revolution,” Perkins said. “I think you could see a social and cultural revolution if the court goes too far on this.”

Perkins: I think the court is very much aware with the backdrop of the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade just two months ago that interjecting itself in this, especially when you have thirty states that have taken the steps that they have, could literally split this nation in two and create such political and cultural turmoil that I’m not sure we could recover from it.

Mefferd: I have had the same thoughts. It’s interesting; the National Organization for Marriage has been billing this as ‘1973 for Marriage.’ We’ve been telling people here about the March for Marriage taking place tomorrow and you guys are going to be involved in it as well, I know you’re cosponsoring it, but why do you think it is so important for Americans to come out and publicly stand for marriage like we’ve seen in France for example?

Perkins: That’s a good example. I’m just finishing my daily update that I’m going to be sending out and I made reference to France, you know support for natural marriage is coming from the most unlikely places, hundreds of thousands of people now have turned out multiple times in France to support natural marriage, young and old alike. It’s very important. We’ve been saying this all along that Americans need to speak out because the court likes to hold itself as being above public opinion, that they live in this ivory tower and don’t pay any attention to what’s going on; they do. I believe the court will push as far as they think they can without creating a social upheaval or a political upheaval in this country. They’re smart people, I think, they understand how organizations and how societies work and if you get your substructure out of kilter with the superstructure, if you get government out of whack with where the people are and it goes too far, you create revolution. I think you could see a social and cultural revolution if the court goes too far on this.

Concerned Women for America’s Chelsen Vicari in a blog post yesterday attacked Starbucks for supporting marriage equality, which she argues will open the door to anti-straight discrimination. Vicari called Starbucks CEO and gay rights supporter Howard Schultz “prejudicial and bigoted” for telling Thomas Strobhar of the Corporate Morality Action Center that he should sell his shares in the company if he is so distraught over Starbucks’ endorsement of same-sex marriage legislation in Washington state.

Vicari claimed that Starbucks “refuses pro-marriage supporters service” and “is only tolerant of approximately 2 percent of America’s 300 million citizens who live homosexual lifestyles.”

She even said that the coffee company might as well have “two separate drinking fountains for liberals and conservatives or ‘now hiring’ signs reading, “Heterosexuals Need Not Apply.’”

Goodbye pumpkin spice latte. Forever.

Last year during this exact week, I wrote a blog titled, “Starbucks Disrespects Values Voters,” calling out Starbucks’ CEO, Howard Schultz, for supporting a liberal political agenda that totally disregards the traditional values of many customers and staff members.

Another year gone by and Schultz has become even more extreme and intolerant. At Starbucks’ annual shareholders meeting, Schultz sent a clear message that he does not want the business of anyone who believes that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, pointedly telling one such shareholder, “You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.” This outburst reportedly came right after Schultz stated he wanted to “embrace diversity of all kinds.”

He doesn’t want our business. Schultz statement isn’t tolerant. It is prejudicial and bigoted. So where are the newspaper headlines reading, “Starbucks CEO Refuses Pro-Marriage Supporters Service,” which is exactly the message his statement conveys?

What’s next, Starbucks? Two separate drinking fountains for liberals and conservatives or “now hiring” signs reading, “Heterosexuals Need Not Apply”?

Considering that there are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals, Schultz should have heeded my warning a year ago. In fact, during this year’s meeting, conservative shareholder Tom Strobhar admitted that after the company voiced its support for same-sex “marriage” in Washington state, the company saw a drop in profits.

So in the end, Schultz is only tolerant of approximately 2 percent of America’s 300 million citizens who live homosexual lifestyles. I do not hold an MBA, but I do remember that 4th grade arithmetic teaches us that the profits made from 2 percent are less than the profits from 98 percent.

I’ve already dumped Starbucks. I prefer Dunkin’ Donuts, anyway.

Far-right activists continue to warn that President Obama is stealthily preparing to create a dictatorship, attack white Christian civilians and incite a civil war, and a new story from WorldNetDaily finally gives us absolutely definitive proof that Obama is plotting exactly that.

According to WND’s favorite forensic profiler Andrew Hodges, a joke that President Obama made about sequestration negotiations with congressional Republicans was really a ploy to begin imposing martial law, just as Saul Alinsky wanted:

In his newest analysis, he looks further into Obama’s statements in his press conference about the sequester issue in which he berated Republicans for not doing what he wants.

Hodges said “another spontaneous image” appeared from Obama’s “super intelligence.”

“Asked whether he couldn’t have pushed negotiations until a deal was reached, Obama replied, ‘I can’t have Secret Service block the doorway,’” Hodges explained

“He suggests the secret wish to block the Republicans from the door to the government. Failing to negotiate, he has made every effort to demonize/crush Republicans to gain total control of the government after the 2014 election. His ‘have Secret Service’ image further suggests a desire to totally control major government law enforcement agencies– to block any opposition,” Hodges said.

“The frightening image ‘of blocking the doorway’ to those who oppose him suggests progressively ideas of imprisonment/forced containment, and a picture of martial law. Extreme? Likely so for now but equally a potential major warning of his true intent – if everything fell into place,” he said.

…

“What exactly was he thinking and why? Undeniably this was extreme: a civilian force just as well funded and strong as our military – implying majorly armed. The question is what exactly was Obama secretly confessing about his future plans? His unconscious super intelligence suggests a warning from a very dangerous Obama,” Hodges contends.

…

“The background of murderous drone attacks he personally took delight in supervising – a suggestion of just how furious he is,” he wrote, noting Obama’s “pattern” of weakening the U.S. militarily and citizens individually by cutting budgets and restricting gun rights.

“Throw into the mix the seemingly extreme idea of using drones on the American people but still a possibility and we have yet another issue of war against the citizens,” Hodges said.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., staged a nearly 13-hour filibuster because the administration refused to confirm for him that Americans on U.S. soil would not be killed by Obama-ordered drone strikes.

“Remember, too, Obama was an Alinsky trainer. And Alinsky’s motto was “trick” – deception

…

“When he wonders (regarding Republicans) if he could do something else ‘to make these guys not paint horns on my head’ we indeed should be frightened beyond belief. He suggests America is in for a devil of a time to put it mildly – that deep down he harbors evil intentions,” Hodges said.

Hodges previously claimed that he found “proof” Obama stole the 2012 election because he joked about his refusal to have a second family dog during his victory speech:

“On election night after initial voting reports declared him the winner, Obama once more unconsciously pointed to a confession. Before his anxious and relieved supporters, Obama spoke of his pride in his daughters but commented, ‘But I will say this for now, one dog’s probably enough’ – on the surface referring back to promising his daughters a puppy after his 2008 victory,” Hodges said.

“But stay with his spontaneous right-brain image. Understand he could have chosen any matter on which to comment and any description but his brilliant unconscious mind which always speaks in a symbolic right-brain language – and carefully chooses its images – selected ‘one dog is enough.’

“Read his confession that America has just elected a dog of a president – and once was enough,” Hodges said.

“He suggests that he’s dogging it as president, faking it as an illegal president in a second way now with a stolen election. That he’s a real ‘dog’ for such deception. The image of a dog further suggests: a pet favored by the media and blind supporters who would not dare to explore his illegality by birth or unfair election; that he will dog or haunt America for another four years because a dog also bites especially a wounded one. (And Obama is deeply wounded beyond belief.) Once again Obama unconsciously points to his deceptive anger and indeed he has bitten/assaulted America in multiple ways, both covert and overt, and plans on more of the same.”