Voice of Christian Youth America (VCY America)

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is outraged by a proposal that would end the Boy Scouts of America's ban on gay members under the age of 18, warning in an interview on VCY America’s Crosstalk that such a “treacherous” compromise will inevitably “homosexualize the scouts.”

He warned that “boy-on-boy homosexual promotion” is “dangerous” and that no parent would want their son to have friends who talk about their “openly gay lifestyle” since “the sorts of things that are espoused in homosexuality are not morally straight.”

The Boy Scouts have really made a treacherous move and I think some pro-family leaders, some conservatives and some Christians have said ‘okay I’m already done with the Scouts.’ They are so appalled that the Scouts would move in this direction after they had already won, remember the Boy Scouts won in the Supreme Court, they won their constitutional right to live by their own standard, it was upheld by the Supreme Court. This would just lead to another court challenge that would make the scouts totally pro-homosexual because once you make the compromise and say that you can have scout kids of course the homosexual lawyers will challenge the adults, it will completely homosexualize the scouts, it will lead to more gay activism and I think it will destroy the scouts and their numbers will begin to plummet.

…

We have to remember that boy-on-boy homosexual promotion is also dangerous. I don’t think any parent wants a boy coming in talking about his openly gay lifestyle. We know from homosexual activism — I’ve been witnessing it for over twenty years — the sorts of things that are espoused in homosexuality are not morally straight. A lot of times you are seeing young people mimicking the sort of immoral things they see in the adult homosexual world. We simply don’t want homosexuality in the scouts in any way.

Later in the program, LaBarbera agreed with a caller who maintained that homosexuality leads to the collapse of society and feared that the Republican Party may soon “sell out God” and support gay rights, adding that such a position will lead to the establishment of a “wholesome” third party.

Caller: We were just recently at “Weekend to Remember” and that statement was made there by a man that had access to a lot of historical data, he searched back through the history of the world and there’s never been a government that has lasted more than three generations from the point of which they advocated and okayed homosexuality.

LaBarbera: We’ve seen this from historians, including secular historian Will Durant who said that America was already in decline and he cited homosexuality and its embrace, and that was way back in the 80s or maybe the 70s. So your caller is absolutely right and it is very sad to see Christian citizens now, including the Republican Party, being forced to choose between their faith and this political correctness. And if the Republican Party thinks the way to get ahead and to get more votes is to sell out God, they are deeply mistaken and I think it will lead to the formation of a more wholesome, pro-family party.

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?

Gun Owners of America has been enjoying its moment in the media spotlight recently, placing spokespeople  on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, drawing attention for its Capitol Hill lobbying efforts, and even being cited in official Senate Republican talking points about a filibustered judicial nominee.

It’s important to keep noting, then, that Gun Owners for America is an unhinged, conspiracy-theory promoting, extremist fringe group.

Adding to the evidence this week was GOA’s legislative counsel Michael Hammond, who joined VCY America’s Jim Schneider on Crosstalk radio Wednesday in order to share his theories that universal background check legislation might well lead to government-led genocide; that gun control advocates “bear some responsibility” for the Sandy Hook shooting; and that liberals have become “paranoic” and “racist against people who hold traditional American values.”

Schneider kicked things off by reading an email he’d been cc’d on explaining how universal background checks would lead us down a slippery slope to “confiscation” and “tyrannization.” Hammond wholeheartedly agreed, adding that there is a “real danger” that those would in turn lead to “extermination” and “genocide” not unlike in Nazi Germany:

Schneider: Let’s talk about this universal background check. Someone was drafting a letter to the president and they copied me in on the email, and here’s what  they said, and I’d like to get your reaction to it. They said that the consequence of a background check can be reduced to a simple formula: Examination (universal background checks) leads to registration (local, state and federal databases), which leads to investigation (bureaucratic decisions regarding fitness or need to bear arms), and that leads to confiscation, which leads to tyrannization (the oppression and genocide against a subgroup, whether by its ethnicity, religion, political views or status or against the entirety of a state citizen). So they use examination, goes to registration to investigation, confiscation, and tyrannization or…

Hammond: Which leads to extermination. And I was actively involved in rebuilding the Polish Solidarity Trade Union, which ultimately overthrew communism in the Eastern Bloc, and I can say that both when I talked to these people, they said, you know, ‘The Soviets have all these tanks stationed in our country and we have nothing.’ And let me say that 40 years before in the Warsaw ghetto uprising, the Nazis, who the first thing they did when they came into power was ban firearms, they exterminated the Jews in Warsaw and they did so because the government was the only one who was armed. And, if you watch documentaries of that period, the people facing mass slaughter and saying, ‘We just, what do we do? We have no firearms.” And so ultimately, registration, confiscation, tyrannization has the real danger of leading to extermination.

Schneider: So you wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that progression that this writer was talking about.

Hammond: No. I think there’s a danger that you go in that direction. There’s certainly been governments in our lifetime that have engaged in genocide on a very significant scale. And I have been on the radio in a lot of them, in places like Holland, in places like Poland, in places like the old Soviet Union, and I say to these people, ‘If, in America, we ever reach the point in which you were during our lifetimes, we would like to think that we would be able to defend ourselves.’

Later, discussing the Sandy Hook school shooting, Hammond said that Connecticut gun control advocates “bear some responsibility for what happened in Newtown” because they prevented teachers from carrying guns:

Hammond: Connecticut, as you probably know, had among the most stiffest gun control in the world prior to the shooting at Newtown, and as a result of politicians like Chris Murphy and Sen. Blumenthal and the other little Democrat politicians in that state. And all the gun control they had didn’t stop Newtown. As a matter of fact, what it said to Adam Lanza is, ‘You can kill all these kids, you can get your fifteen minutes of fame, you don’t have to worry that we’re going to allow any principles, staff or teachers to shoot back at you.’ These people in some respects, I think, horrifically bear some responsibility for what happened in Newtown.

Finally, Hammond reminisced about going to school during the Vietnam War and seeing “fourteen year-old kids walking up and down the hall with semi-automatic rifles.”

“Exactly what has happened to our country that we have become so paranoic, that we have become so gun-hating, in cases of the liberal media, and that the liberal media has become so almost racist against people who hold traditional American values?” he asked.

Hammond: When I was a kid, and there are very few advantages in life to being very, very, very old, but one, it means you have a little perspective. When I was kid during the Vietnam War, in high school, fourteen to seventeen year-old kids ended up walking back and forth across the campus, across the playground, up and down the halls, up and down the sidewalks of my ghetto school – it wasn’t a rural or suburban school, it was a ghetto school – with M1 semi-automatic firearms, fully functional, except they didn’t have a firing pin but you couldn’t tell that to look at them. Fourteen year-old kids walking up and down the hall with semi-automatic rifles, no one, no one thought that we were going to shoot up the school.

I graduated in 1967. 1968 they passed the first big gun control law, the Gun Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 [sic]. Now look, we’ve gone 40 years and we’ve reached the point in which holding up a Pop-Tart is considered threatening. Exactly what has happened to our country that we have become so paranoic, that we have become so gun-hating, in cases of the liberal media, and that the liberal media has become so almost racist against people who hold traditional American values?

Apparently, President Obama and John Brennan aren’t the only secret Muslim agents in the administration.

Yesterday, Vic Eliason of Voice of Christian Youth America interviewed Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly about Chuck Hagel, who is set to be confirmed as secretary of defense later today. Adding to the other ridiculous, last-ditch efforts to sink Hagel’s nomination, Eliason asked Schlafly about wild allegations “that Mr. Hagel has become or has been a part of Islam, he’s Islamic.” Rather than specifically address Eliason’s question, Schlafly said that since Obama “gives a pass to Islam” in “his attack on religion,” Americans “have to be on guard on that all the time.”

The two then went on to praise Hagel-critic Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily, who must be taking a break from his usual endeavors of exposing Obama’s foreign birthplace, secret Muslim faith and gay past.

Eliason: Phyllis, there have been those that allege that Mr. Hagel has become or has been a part of Islam, he’s Islamic. What substance is on this thing?

Schlafly: Hagel is the most dangerous appointee for secretary of defense we’ve ever had, he’s got so many things wrong with him. He’s for getting rid of our nuclear weapons, he’s for downplaying our anti-missile defense and he’s even for signing onto the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would give some more foreign people the opportunity to make decisions about our policies. Whereas we know the whole world is better off if we have military superiority. Well, when we talk about Obama and his attack on religion he gives a pass to Islam. So, we have to be on guard on that all the time.

Eliason: Well our good friend Jerry Corsi from over at WND had an interesting statement here, of course he refers to Mr. Hagel: ‘A former Nobel Peace Prize nominee warns that Senate confirmation of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense would send a message to Iran of weakened U.S. resolve, making it less likely America’s military might would in any way deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions.’

Schlafly: Well Jerry Corsi is very reliable and I would take his words very seriously, that’s absolutely true. I think it so dangerous to have Hagel as secretary of defense, who is trying to implement all of the pacifist ideas that Obama has.

She also agreed with a caller who claimed that officials like Hagel need to identify President Obama as “the enemy” of America.

Later, Schlafly compared the American policy of Cold War deterrence to the current policy for “dealing with the Islam,” while noting that “the Muslims are different” than the Soviets as “they seem to like to commit suicide.”

Schlafly’s classification of all Muslims as terrorists was part of a bizarre argument that criticized Hagel for supposedly seeking to do away with America’s nuclear arsenal that she claims we need to scare terrorists who also are not at all afraid of our nuclear weapons.

Schlafly: I want to point out one difference between dealing with the Communists and dealing with the Islam. When the Communists in Russia were in charge we had a policy called mutually assured destruction which we called MAD and it was that they knew that if they dropped a bomb on New York City we’d hit back and wipe them out and that was supposed to deter them from doing any bad attack. But the Muslims are different; they seem to like to commit suicide. I don’t think they are going to be deterred by that type of an attitude and we have to make sure that we have the weapons that are enough to scare them that they never attack in the first place.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is unsurprisingly outraged that the Boy Scouts of America may drop the national ban on gay membership, and yesterday appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show to call on the group to resist any shift in policies. He said that pressure on the BSA from gay rights advocates proves that they are “the most intolerant people on the planet ... maybe up there with the jihadists” and are on “the vanguard of restricting religious freedom.”

Mefferd: We are seeing this massive—as you said, this is becoming the issue, and we say this huge march in Paris a few weeks ago where you had over 1.5 million people marching against same-sex marriage in France of all places. In America, where are all the activists? Where are all the people on the right side of this issue? They exist, why are they being so quiet?

LaBarbera: I think a weird version of Christianity is creeping in, you know, ‘who are we to judge’ and that whole tolerance thing. Look, the most intolerant people on the planet are the gay activists, maybe up there with the jihadists. They are not tolerant and they are really seeking to redefine Christianity. If more pastors understood how homosexual activists want to redefine the word of God and redefine morality itself, maybe they would encourage people to get involved.

Mefferd: It would be nice, wouldn’t it? You could use some more company.

LaBarbera: Yeah because I think people don’t understand that this movement is in the vanguard of restricting religious freedom.

Elsewhere, while speaking to VCY America’s Jim Schneider on Crosstalk, LaBarbera warned that a change in policy in favor of “deviant sexuality” will lead to more incidents of sexual abuse as “so-called gay boys [begin] coming out of the closet in their Scout troops, telling other boys in the unit about their homosexuality or their bisexuality.”

Americans For Truth has called on the Scouts to release all their files, their so-called perversion files, of predatory cases. These should involve both men-on-boys and also these very sad cases where a Scout would molest another Scout, there’s that possibility too. We have to remember with this that if we have open homosexuality in the Scouts you’re talking about so-called gay boys coming out of the closet in their Scout troops, telling other boys in the unit about their homosexuality or their bisexuality. Do we really want that in the Scouts or should we just keep sexuality out of the Scouts? It doesn’t belong there, especially deviant sexuality, which is the homosexual activist movement.

LaBarbera compared the Boy Scouts to the military following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which he maintained “negated” their proclamations “about nobility and truth.” Later, he said the BSA was becoming “Obama’s Scouts” and accused Obama of “bringing down the morality of this country.”

Parents don’t want homosexuality, open homosexuality, promoted in their scout troop; they don’t want to send their son out camping with an open homosexual, that’s a bad role model. Homosexual practice is wrong. Our hearts go out to people who struggle with homosexuality, we want them to accept Christ, to leave that lifestyle as many people have, but proudly defending and celebrating homosexuality is wrong. So if you stand before God, the [Scout] oath says ‘the duty to God,’ our duty to God is to stand with righteousness, with God’s righteousness. If they end up embracing homosexuality they might as well throw that creed out the window. Just like our national military, you know our military is all full of lessons about nobility and truth and now they are promoting homosexuality in the military. They’ve negated their own proclamations by caving in to this sin movement.

…

In a way this is sort of a version of Obama’s Scouts. You know Obama is setting the tone for this country and it seems like all the boundaries are going. Just recently Obama gave a video presentation at a national homosexual organization which advocates even beyond homosexuality, even sadomasochism, and he endorsed that conference, it’s called Creating Change, put on by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Obama is bringing down the morality of this country and I think the progressives are excited and the homosexual activists and every other sin-movement are excited and they want to press for change very aggressively and they’re winning.

In an interview yesterday, Wisconsin Republican state senator Glenn Grothman suggested that Planned Parenthood is promoting sex-selective abortions to Asian Americans. While speaking to Jim Schneider of Voice of Christian Youth America, Grothman called Planned Parenthood “the most racist organization” in the country and speculated that Planned Parenthood is “aggressively promoting this stuff [sex-selective abortion] among people with an Asian background.”

Watch:

Grothman: Given the racist background of Planned Parenthood and not liking people who are not white, I wonder if one of the reasons why Planned Parenthood likes to do these sex-selective abortions is disproportionately they are done on people of an Asian background. Let’s face it; we all know Planned Parenthood’s background, very racist, probably the most racist organization—

Schneider: They specialize in putting their centers in minority neighborhoods.

Grothman: We know the historic comments of Margaret Sanger. It’s something that concerns me a little because I wonder given their racism the degree to which Planned Parenthood is aggressively promoting this stuff among people with an Asian background and I sure hope the state legislature takes a role and puts an end to it, at least in the state of Wisconsin.

Grothman has previously claimed that single moms deliberately lie about their pregnancies and voted against a bill providing survivors of sexual assault emergency contraception. Planned Parenthood has already condemned sex-selective abortions but many anti-choice activists have argued, without much evidence, that such abortions are a “growing problem” in the U.S.

Larry Pratt has been making the rounds criticizing any new laws aimed at addressing gun violence and today appeared on Crosstalk with Vic Eliason to argue that President Obama should be impeached if he signs any executive order regarding gun policy. But Pratt, the head of Gun Owners for America, didn’t say what an executive order would entail, and executive orders have been used by Presidents Bush (41) and Clinton in the past to prohibit the import of certain assault weapons. He told one caller that any executive order would be unconstitutional and merit impeachment. 

Caller: If Obama’s going to be signing an executive order to take away our guns isn’t there something we can do to arrest this man? It’s a treasonous act. He’s swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.

Pratt: Yeah, it’s called impeachment and that would be, along with defunding, the kinds of messages that need to go to Capitol Hill: When are you going to impeach this guy? When are you going to defund his illegal activities? Republicans can’t continue, at least I hope they cannot, continue to be spectators while the country is being torn apart.

Pratt’s gun group has a decidedly Religious Right bent, and so it came as no surprise that he said any laws on gun safety actually represent “the most pagan of paganism” because it “view[s] inanimate objects” like guns “as possessing their own will.”

Pratt: Frankly, it almost would seem that animism won’t go away. The left, which is largely made up of people who don’t believe in Jesus Christ’s blood as being necessary for our salvation, view inanimate objects as possessing their own will. That’s animism, that’s a return to the most pagan of paganism and look at what nutty political views it ends up supporting.

Eliason and Pratt then went on to discuss discredited conspiracy theories about government purchases of firearms and ammunition, which Pratt said proves that “the administration seems to view the American people as the enemy.”

Eliason: We talk about the humongous amounts of cartridges and bullets that are being sent or I guess assigned to some of the federal agencies that you wonder, why in the world are they getting bullets? You know what I’m talking about.

Pratt: I sure do and I think that is another indication that the administration seems to view the American people as the enemy. They are buying anti-personnel rounds from what we can tell; they are not buying practice rounds.

Eliason: No, they’re hollow-point.

According to Pratt, Obama is a “dictator” and implied that any new gun laws will face violent resistance. He argued that law enforcement agencies shouldn’t “obey such an outrageous executive order,” warning that those who carry them out may end up like war criminal Lt. William Calley or the Germans executed “for following orders after World War II.”

Pratt: It’s the talk of a dictator, ‘I will do what I want, whatever seems right in my own eyes I’m going to do,’ and the idea that there’s any restraints imposed by the Constitution is simply not acceptable to the ruling crowd in Washington and they’re getting bolder because now they don’t have to stand for re-election. I believe, first of all, they understand they probably don’t have the votes in the Congress so why make their Democrat buddies go walk the plank and vote against the Second Amendment, they remember what happened in ’94 when that happened and I don’t think they want a repeat of that.

But what they may not understand is that people are watching. If there is an executive order issued in lieu of congressional action, which would be unconstitutional either way, then I’m hearing such resentment and anger and opposition that their simply going to lose any credibility the federal government might have had. It’s going to be a byword, it’s going to be a joke and people are not going to obey such an outrageous executive order.

Eliason: People would be marching in the streets.

Pratt: That would be the nicest thing that would happen.

Eliason: The frightening thing is this: if the President makes such an executive order and seeks to enforce it, is the military or who is there to enforce it if the order goes through?

Pratt: Then he has to ask how many of those police officers and soldiers would actually carry out such an obviously outrageous order. We had consequences rightly come to Lt. Calley for the slaughter of the people of the little village of My Lai and we hung Germans for following orders after World War II.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC president William Gheen stopped by Crosstalk on VCY America yesterday where he warned that undocumented immigrants are playing the long game in their supposed plan to destabilize the U.S. The anti-immigrant zealot maintained that undocumented immigrants want voting rights so they can form a powerful voting bloc that displaces conservative voters and forces taxpayers “to pay reparations” to them. Gheen predicts that such reparations are designed to bring about an economic collapse, which he says is all according to their plan to “become more separatist and say, ‘well we need to have these lands in the Southwest back’” and realize the Reconquista.

If they lift the current penalties against illegal immigrants, allowing them to stay even if Congress does not convey full citizenship rights, that will immediately become the next battle. They will get the voting rights and they will have enough—a new illegal alien voting bloc in this country, millions strong. You will have the Democrats, the Republicans and the illegal aliens, and they are going to probably displace somewhere around 6-9 million American conservative or center-right voters that will no longer matter in American politics. They will have enough people to do whatever they want, if they want higher taxes for you to pay reparations.

We believe there are three phases. The legalization phase, which we’re fighting against now, if we lose that battle the illegal immigrants and their supporters will move to the reparations phase, where they will demand every—they’re already receiving over 57 percent of the illegal immigrants from Mexico in the country are already receiving some form of welfare according to the Center for Immigration Studies—so then they’ll try to milk the system for everything that they feel they’re owed. Then once the United States government finally stops printing money or it collapses or whatever the end game may be to this financial fiasco that we’re witnessing on a weekly basis, then we think they’ll become more separatist and say, ‘well we need to have these lands in the Southwest back.’

He also asserted that the left will want President Obama to stay in office indefinitely: “We know very clearly that there is a cult of support out there for Obama that treats him like a deity, treats him like a black Jesus,” Gheen claimed. “They’re basically trying to get him to where he’s in office for forever more until the emperor wants to leave.

Gheen, who has floated the possibility of violence and even a coup to “remove [Obama] from office,” later told a caller that he recommends that people purchase a gun to defend themselves from immigrants…but “to stay cool here because the Department of Homeland Security would love to have an excuse for Janet Napolitano and Obama to do their thing on a larger scale.”

Caller: I tell you what, with the federal government lying to us constantly like this, is it any wonder that people are arming themselves en masse?

Gheen: Well that’s approaching a line that we don’t deal with, we basically deal with the lobbying and the elections but we have to acknowledge the frustration at this point. You know, we’re asking people to continue working in elections, continue lobbying Congress, continue to use the civic, civil, peaceful processes here, but we know that people are getting fed up out there because they’ve seen all of those systems corrupted to a point where they’re not working. Congress is getting asked to rubberstamp things that have already be done and from what we can tell what Obama’s doing is not very much different than what John McCain or George Bush would’ve done. So we’ve got a situation where the American people are feeling very cornered and un-empowered. I would just caution everybody to stay cool here because the Department of Homeland Security would love to have an excuse for Janet Napolitano and Obama to do their thing on a larger scale. So we’ve got to keep it politically focused, keep it civic minded. And what people need to do to take care and protect their own family and friends, especially since illegal immigrants with criminal records are being allowed to roam freely around the country harming our citizens, within the law I’ve actually come to the point where I’ve told people, if you’re law-abiding, if you’re one of the good people, I support gun ownership and now would be a good time to own one if you don’t already.

Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus warned today that if the Supreme Court overturns the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) then the U.S. will likely legalize polygamy and incest “as society continues to slip down that slippery slope.” While speaking to Jim Schneider of VCY America’s radio show Crosstalk, Dacus also agreed with George Will’s assessment that “quite literally, opposition to gay marriage is dying,” alleging that teachers unions and Hollywood have spearheaded the “indoctrination” of youth.

Dacus: If the Supreme Court rules that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional, then we’re basically going to have an open heyday for homosexual marriage as well as other kinds of “marriage” being introduced and being protected through this case law precedent, such as polygamy, perhaps adult incest and who knows what else will be attempted to be added on.

…

Schneider: This past Sunday syndicated columnist George Will appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and said that the opposition to same-sex marriage is “quite literally dying” he said because opponents tend to be older Americans. What are your thoughts on this?

Dacus: Unfortunately, I have to agree with George Will on this. The polls show and the stats show that older people are the number one supporters of traditional marriage, they are older people and they are literally dying. The people who are the biggest proponents of homosexual marriage, they’re young people, they’ve come out of our public schools, the teachers unions have been establishing this agenda and this indoctrination through our public schools for quite some time. So they’ve succeeded in this indoctrination process in many of our public schools across the country for a new way of thinking, a new perspective. Along with Hollywood, we have a whole new mindset and in fact young people are overwhelmingly, I think it is 2:1, in favor of legalization of homosexual marriage. Of course, that number could easily change to include other forms of marriage as society continues to slip down that slippery slope.