Janet Mefferd

Trent Franks: Abortion Rights Backed by 'Evil' Forces, Will Fall like Soviet Union

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) has been making the rounds on conservative talk radio to promote his new anti-choice legislation that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. On Friday, the congressman spoke to Janet Mefferd about the bill’s chances of passing and about the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, which failed last year.

Franks warned that “truth [is] totally disinvited from the debate” over abortion rights in Congress and seemed baffled as to why anyone could disagree with him: “The fact that it’s even debated here is beyond my comprehension.” Franks blamed opposition to his legislation on “evil” forces and warned that if his bills don’t succeed then “we may never find or regain the will and the courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone.”

The fact that it’s even debated here is beyond my comprehension. Sometimes the hardest thing for me in Congress is to see truth totally disinvited from the debate and see some of the boldness that evil seems to have gained in our discourse. If we after seeing Gosnell cannot find the will and the courage as a people to protect these innocent babies, I am afraid we may never find or regain the will and the courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone.

Franks didn’t stop there, arguing that banning abortion “is central to the survival of our country and the civility of mankind.” He told Mefferd that his strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade includes ignoring the courts and doing what “Ronald Reagan did to the Soviet Union, he said we don’t have to defeat them, we will just transcend them.”

Franks: This issue as you know is one that I believe is central to the survival of our country and the civility of mankind. The other [bill] is the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act and between these two bills, one of them a legal conundrum and the other on just the human side, the notion that we make these little babies suffer this way, I believe that these two bills together, they have now made it into the Republican party platform, I introduced both of them some time back and a long time before Mr. Gosnell came along, but I believe that the two together have the most profound implications for Roe v. Wade. I’ll put it that way and drop it at that point.

Mefferd: Good, I’m glad to hear that. Of course, that’s a question on everybody’s mind, with Roe v. Wade in place as the law of the land, as the left always likes to remind us, how is it possible if you do pass this legislation, I’m sure you will get legal pushback, but a lot of people will be saying how could you even get this legislation passed if Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? How do you respond to that?

Franks: Well the same way I do as to how Roe v. Wade got to be the so-called law of the land. Someone passed a bill and it went to the courts and the courts made a decision. Unfortunately we put far too much focus on the courts. I raised my hand and swore to uphold the Constitution, I didn’t say ‘as long as the Supreme Court allows me to.’ The reality is that if this is upheld, if either of these are upheld, it presents an almost impossible conundrum for Roe v. Wade. We don’t know if they would overturn Roe or not and that’s true, but we can also do essentially like Ronald Reagan did to the Soviet Union, he said we don’t have to defeat them, we will just transcend them. They will fall on their own, you know, pressure themselves with their own weight.

E.W. Jackson: Homosexuality 'Wrong and Unacceptable'

E.W. Jackson, the Virginia GOP nominee for Lt. Governor, defended his frequent claims that gays and lesbians are “very sick people” who are pushing sexual abuse against children and the destruction of society in an interview with anti-gay radio host Janet Mefferd yesterday.

“Homosexuality is a sexual behavior and it is a behavior that the Bible says is wrong and unacceptable,” Jackson said. “To equate that with civil rights for black people or for women is so specious that it just amazes me that people buy into it, but they buy into it because it is emotionally appealing, it has no logic to it whatsoever.”

He also told Mefferd that gays need to “know the love of God in their lives” and that it would “betray God” to reassess his anti-gay remarks, which he said were made “without venom or hatred.”

NOM: Portman and Kirk Will Lose Re-Election for Endorsing Marriage Equality

National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown is convinced that marriage equality advocates, who just helped pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage in Delaware and Rhode Island, will go down in defeat since they are opposed to “the will of the majority of Americans” and solely rely on the support of “our cultural elite.”

Speaking with Janet Mefferd yesterday, Brown argued that Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), who both support marriage equality, will lose their re-election races in 2016 over the marriage issue…if they even opt to run again.

Brown: If the Republican Party were to change its platform, that would be the death knell for the Republican Party. Right now the Democratic Party has changed its platform, has wholeheartedly embraced the redefinition of marriage. The Republican Party right now gives voters — and again, the majority of voters who have been able to vote on this issue have voted to protect marriage in this country — it gives those voters a party that at this point stands up for traditional marriage. We need to be encouraging Republican lawmakers to be speaking out more on the importance of marriage, not attempting to imitate the Democratic Party in embracing the redefinition of marriage.

Mefferd: Very, very well said. You’re seeing people like Rob Portman and Mark Kirk come out as Republicans backing now homosexual so-called marriage. What do you think the response needs to be from the voters, working very hard to get them out of office? Brown: They need to be primaried, period. I think that folks in Ohio, if Rob Portman decides to run again, he will be primaried, he may not run again because there’s been such a backlash in his state, and I think the same is true of Mark Kirk.

LaBarbera: Gays Can Change Like Murderers, Rapists and 'The Most Vile Criminals'

Channeling Pat Robertson, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s Peter LaBarbera said that it is an “insult to God” to argue that gays and lesbians have an innate sexual orientation when God can change “murderers” along with “the most vile criminals, rapists, alcoholics [and] drunks.”

LaBarbera appeared Friday on The Janet Mefferd Show to criticize John Paulk, the onetime poster boy of the ex-gay movement who recently left the movement. He was appalled by Paulk’s claim that “you can be homosexual and still faithful to God” and argued that “it’s weird” to think Paulk believes “he’s become a better person after renouncing this ex-gay life.”

He says, “My relationship with the Lord is more real and authentic than ever before. My beliefs about the Bible are the same. I have not gone off the deep end having become a freakishly liberal gay Christian.” But he’s not a conservative. He gave up the part about not, you know, he says he didn’t want to continue the ex-gay life but he says he’s more real and vulnerable, he says: “Because of God’s recent work in my life I have become more loving, tender, vulnerable, and hopeful.” It sounds like he’s become a better person after renouncing this ex-gay life, it’s weird. This is John Paulk saying that he is “more loving, tender, vulnerable, and hopeful” since he’s basically renounced this part of his life where he’s overcome homosexuality. He’s trying to say that you can be homosexual and still faithful to God.



How dare anybody say Jesus Christ can’t heal homosexuals and help them overcome. Jesus forgives murderers; he restores the most vile criminals, rapists, alcoholics, drunks; yet we are going to say that Jesus can’t change homosexuals, people trapped in homosexuality? That is an insult to God himself.

Boykin: 'Liberal-Marxist Agenda' Set to 'Destroy our Military'

The Family Research Council believes the military is preparing to court martial Christians based on an Air Force memo which reminds officers and supervisors to “avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

FRC vice president Jerry Boykin appeared yesterday on The Janet Mefferd Show to warn that the memo is part of a “liberal-Marxist agenda” that seeks to destroy the military in order to remove “traditional American values” and “take God out of society so that people become dependent upon government.”

This is all about a very liberal-Marxist agenda. This nation was founded on a totally new concept called unalienable rights, God-given rights. If you look at every Marxist movement there’s always been an effort to take God out of the society so that people become dependent upon the government and I think that’s exactly what we’re seeing here. If you go after the military, you go after really what I think is the bedrock of America because the organization and the institution in America that has maintained American values more than any other has been our military and there has been an incremental erosion of our military. Changes that are being proposed and changes that are being enacted in our military are eroding the military in terms of its prestige, in terms of its ability to maintain traditional American values. You change the values in this society by going after the bedrock and I think that’s why the military has been targeted for this.

Boykin called the move a “direct assault on Christianity” engineered by people who are “deliberately trying to destroy not only the chaplaincy” but also “trying to destroy our military.”

Boykin: If you look at this situation Janet you ask yourself, are they deliberately trying to destroy not only the chaplaincy but are they trying to destroy our military? This and a series of other things, as you’ve said the assaults on religious liberty, but it’s the other things too. To include this latest announcement that they’re going to allow women to serve in certain frontline combat units which in no way is that supported by the average male or female that have ever been in those units but also it does not enhance readiness. So you ask yourself, what are they trying to do with our military?

Mefferd: Well they sure have paid a lot of attention to it but it hasn’t been to enhance the ability of the military to do its job. They are defunding it, they are doing these other sorts of policies. It certainly would be a question we would have to ask.

Boykin: This has got to be one that wakes America up. There is a large faith component in our society today and the majority of the people do identify with Christianity and this is a direct assault on Christianity.

Pamela Geller's Grand Boston Conspiracy Falls Apart

Pamela Geller embraced Glenn Beck’s crumbling conspiracy theory that the government is trying to cover up the alleged role of a Saudi national in the Boston marathon bombing in an interview with Janet Mefferd yesterday.

Mefferd: [Janet Napolitano] says this Saudi national was on a watch list but only while he was being questioned and then he was immediately taken off; does this sound strange to you?

Geller: If we can speak with any accuracy, she’s lying. She’s been lying and changing her story. First she said he wasn’t on the list, then she said it was a different Saudi; then she said he was pinged, while she said he was pinged when he left, she then said his name was spelled wrong and that’s why they didn’t know when he came back to the country. What is really disturbing about all this is that this is our national security, these are our babies and our families that are being put in harm’s way and they’re lying to us, they’re lying to us and they are covering for jihadists. This is what is happening. What is the motive for this? There can be no good motive.



Geller: How many jihadists in waiting are there in this country? That Saudi national that not only Michelle Obama visited, the first person of interest that was detained, who is now being deported in a rush deportation because he has ‘national security violations’ had visited the White House many times.

First, it seems that Geller confused the Saudi national, who is considered a victim and not a suspect, with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the deceased Boston bomber.

Geller also said that the Saudi national is about to be deported, even though The Hill already reported that the rumor is false and based on “another student from Saudi Arabia who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for violating his visa” and “is not believed to have any connection with the bombing.”

After arguing that the Saudi man in the hospital almost certainly had a role in the attack, she said that Michelle Obama visited him in the hospital where he is recovering…because of course the government would let the First Lady visit dangerous terrorists!

The Christian Science Monitor adds that the Saudi national was temporarily put on a watch list it was only so he couldn’t leave the hospital while he was being questioned. His name was then removed from the list after he was cleared by authorities, and he is not subject to deportation.

First off, [Bret] Baier said the wording of the paper was indeed somewhat dire.



But officials told him it was simply an automatic piece of customs paperwork triggered when police went to question the Saudi in the hours after the bombing.

To make sure he did not somehow get on an airplane before they could talk to him, they put him on a no-fly list. That automatically meant he was subject to visa revocation. The other language, including the reference to an “event,” followed from that.

“Also keep in mind, it’s just … a customs and border control document…. It’s not indicative of any investigative information,” said Baier.

After the FBI determined the man had no connection to the Boston crime, it took several days for the bureaucracy to scrub him out of its system. That is why the document existed for a short period of time, and why it shows evidence of officials trying to change it. But anyone searching the system for his name on the Sunday prior to the bombing would have found nothing, reported Baier, because no US government agency was looking for him.



The Homeland Security Secretary replied that the Saudi in question had not been on a watch list prior to the bombings and was never really a person of interest in the case.

“Because he was being interviewed, he was at that point put on a watch list,” Napolitano added. “And then when it was quickly determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watch listing status was removed.”

As if all this weren’t complicated enough, a number of news outlets have reported that there is a second Saudi man in Boston, unrelated to the student, who was taken into custody when he showed up at a port to retrieve a package, and a routine check showed he had overstayed his visa.

That’s the Saudi who is subject to deportation. The student who was caught in the bomb blast is not.

Janet Mefferd: Anti-Gay Activists Will Be Treated 'Kind of Like the Jews in Nazi Germany'

This week, a Michigan high school canceled a planned speech by Rick Santorum after Santorum refused to provide school district officials with an advance copy of his remarks. But Religious Right activists think there is another explanation for the cancellation. Fox News commentator Todd Starnes reports that he spoke to a conservative youth group spokesman who said that Santorum’s speech was cancelled because of his well-known anti-gay remarks. In the past, Santorum has likened same-sex unions to “man on dog” and “man on child” marriages.

Talk show host Janet Mefferd posted a link to Starnes’ article on her Facebook page today, noting that she can soon see the “day when every Christian who supports real marriage might be made to wear a yellow patch on the sleeve, a ‘badge of shame’ to identify us as ‘anti-gay haters.’ Kind of like the Jews in Nazi Germany.”

The comparison of anti-gay activists to the Jews who suffered and died under the genocidal Nazi regime is deeply offensive and absurd on its face. And Mefferd should also remember that homosexuals in Nazi Germany were forced to wear pink triangle badges and were sent to concentration camps.

Stemberger: Boy Scouts Will Face 'Physical Abuse' If It Doesn't Ban Kids Who Think 'It's Hip, It's Edgy To Be Gay'

Florida Family Policy Council head and anti-gay activist John Stemberger has created a new group, On My Honor, to oppose the “hyper-sexualization” of the Boy Scouts of America that he fears will take place if the group lifts its ban on gay members.

During an interview with Religious Right talk show host Janet Mefferd, Stemberger argued that if the BSA lifts the gay ban, the organization will experience a rise in “boy-on-boy” assaults and “emotional, sexual, psychological and physical abuse.”

He told Mefferd that kids these days all want to be gay and will then join the Boy Scouts to molest each other.

“It’s hip, it’s edgy to be gay and so they’re all saying they’re gay—they have no idea,” Stemberger said. “Well if scouting sends the message, ‘we’re open for gays,’ you’re going to have so much nonsense going on between older boys and younger boys.”

Mefferd: Now I know you are raising awareness as well about the dangers that open homosexuality within the scouting organization would present, what do you believe the biggest dangers would be if this policy were reversed and open homosexuality would be permitted in the Boy Scouts?

Stemberger: My personal opinion based upon my experience and talking to leaders all over the country and other scoutmasters, it is not going to be primarily adult gay men. Scouting has a very strict child protection program that requires two-deep leadership, that means that no adult can be alone with any child except with their own child at any time, they are extremely strict with it. So I don’t think the primary threat, although it could potentially be a threat, is going to be adults.

I think it is going to be boy-on-boy. My sister is a middle school teacher in Florida and she said, ‘John, everybody in the whole class is talking about ‘are you gay,’ ‘I’m gay,’ ‘I’m gender confused, what are you?’ It’s just like they don’t even know what they’re talking about. It’s hip, it’s edgy to be gay and so they’re all saying they’re gay—they have no idea. Well if scouting sends the message, ‘we’re open for gays,’ you’re going to have so much nonsense going on between older boys and younger boys, it’s just going to create a myriad of problems that really is going to result in further scandal, further disgrace to the scouts, not to mention just the tragedy of the emotional, sexual, psychological and physical abuse that will occur in the program. If even two children, even one child is going to be molested by another boy in the program, that is enough compelling in my judgment to say no, we are not going to do this, there is no reason for it whatsoever.

According to Stemberger, there really isn’t a ban on gays because you can still join as long as you are in the closet.

Later, Stemberger argued that the BSA should fear the example set by the Girl Scouts, which he claims is “being run by lesbians” and has “been really politicized and sexualized in a way that is inappropriate for children.”

Stemberger: Here’s an important point I want to make: currently there are people in scouting who are probably homosexual, there’s no litmus test, there’s no witch hunt to find out who they are; they’re discreet, they’re appropriate, they’re personal, they’re private, they’re not loud and proud, they’re not out there waving the rainbow flag and trying to make a big deal about it and trying to promote gay marriage and all this business. There’s no application question on what your sexual orientation is when you join scouting, the problem is what they’re allowing is open homosexuality. That’s a very different thing; that is promoting the gay agenda, that is promoting politics and it is just inappropriate. When it comes to children we think that sex and politics should stay out of the Boy Scouts, it should have no place in it whatsoever.



Stemberger: We have about two months to really make sure that this timeless institution is not transformed into something politicized thing like the Girl Scouts have, unfortunately where it is being run by lesbians and promoting Planned Parenthood, it’s just been really politicized and sexualized in a way that is inappropriate for children.

Mefferd: Yes, absolutely right.

Brian Brown: Anti-Gay March Was What the Civil Rights Movement 'Must Have Felt Like'

Yesterday in an interview with Religious Right broadcaster Janet Mefferd, National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown said that his group’s march against gay rights near the Supreme Court reminded him of the Civil Rights Movement. “I was not alive during the Civil Rights Movement but this is what it must have felt like,” Brown said.

This isn’t the first time Brown has compared anti-gay activists to the Civil Rights Movement, however, that hasn’t stopped him from criticizing President Obama for linking the movement for gay rights to the struggle for racial equality.

We were hoping for 5,000 people and we ended up with over 10,000. We filled the whole area in front of the court when we marched. It was a diverse coalition, we had African American leaders, Hispanic leaders, State Sen. Ruben Diaz brought 30 buses from the Bronx; it was just amazing. What I was most happy about, we talked about this before the rally, the way everyone conducted themselves. We were chanting, we were united but when folks tried to get in our way, there were some gay marriage protesters who tried to get in front of the march and stop us even though we had a permit, everyone just knelt down and started praying. I was not alive during the Civil Rights Movement but this is what it must have felt like, people were just so ecstatic to stand up and they did it in a loving, respectful way but they weren’t going to be silenced. I couldn’t be more happy with what happened today, I think it’s a huge step forward for the pro-marriage movement and I don’t think it’s going to be lost on the Supreme Court justices that we were there and we were there in force.

Earlier in the same program, Gary Bauer of American Values told Mefferd that young people tend to back marriage equality because “many of them have breathed the air of the poisoned culture,” and warned that any decision striking down anti-gay marriage laws “would be a serious disaster for our country.”

Bauer: Among young people many of them have breathed the air of the poisoned culture and they might have a different view on it but I do not believe the average college student, burdened with maybe $100,000 of student debt, looking at dim job prospects, is thinking first and foremost when they get up in the morning: wow, I sure do hope men can marry men.

Mefferd: Right, right. I don’t think that’s probably a front burner issue for any of them either. This is interesting though, what we are hearing now from the news reports, the SCOTUS Blog had a number of people who were writing articles today about this, indicating that Justice Anthony Kennedy thinks, it may be the case, that the case should be dismissed with no ruling at all. Now I don’t know how many people expected that coming out of the court today but what is your take on this idea that they could just keep it to California, they may just decide to dismiss the case altogether?

Bauer: I’m hearing the same thing; it would be something of a surprise. I wouldn’t be dancing a jig if that’s the ruling but it sure is better than the ruling that I fear which is that this propaganda campaign will panic Kennedy and maybe even somebody like Chief Justice Roberts to rule that this is a constitutional right hidden in that same provision that has the right to abort babies and that every state’s vote has been struck down. That would be obviously a disaster not only for folks like us but I believe it would be a serious disaster for our country.

Garlow: Christians Will be 'Forced Underground' if Court Affirms Marriage Equality

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.

LaBarbera: Gays 'Hate God' and are 'At War with Nature, with God and with Truth'

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday where he told Mefferd that gays and lesbians “hate God’s law and therefore they do hate God.” He lamented that people like themselves are put “in the category of hater” while “homosexual activists” show “real, objective hate.” “If you want to understand the homosexual movement,” LaBarbera added, “it’s a movement at war with nature, with God and with truth.”

I think ultimately that the deep philosophical answer is they hate God’s law and therefore they do hate God. I mean if you hate what God stands for, you hate God. I think the problem is that they define hatred ideologically, because you disagree with their belief system, they put you in the category of hater. As opposed to us, we can have somebody who disagrees with us but we don’t call them a hater, but then we do see objective hate which is like all the hate mail we receive from homosexual activists and all the terrible things they call us; that’s real, objective hate.



They have the media, they have academia, they have Hollywood, but they lack the truth. They are really at war with the truth. If you want to understand the homosexual movement, it’s a movement at war with nature, with God and with truth.

He argued that the gay rights movement has succeeded by using “psychological manipulation” and the “manipulation of emotions,” which has consequently led to God’s judgment on America.

LaBarbera: You know think about how the agenda has moved forward. It’s all this sort of psychological manipulation: you know me, I’m openly gay, therefore you must be pro-gay. There’s no logic there, there’s no reason; it’s a lot of manipulation. We’ve seen it with so many people, you know Candace Gingrich, the Cheney’s. It’s certainly not the basis upon which to decide public policy and huge cultural shifts like this and yet that’s the tactic that they’ve used because they know it works, it’s sort of a manipulation of emotions.

Mefferd: It is. As we’re looking at this whole situation, the Supreme Court cases both today and tomorrow, from a Christian perspective, how do you think we ought to be praying? How have you been praying? How should we continue to petition the Lord over this issue?

LaBarbera: I guess I take a somewhat cynical view that we’re being judged as a nation. God is leaving us up to our own devices and what I’ve been praying is there would be that remnant of truth, the truth-tellers who no matter would not bow the knee to the idol of the secular left, whatever the issue is, and on homosexuality we know this is a tough issue. One way we know is because we see things going the right way on the life issue and yet even some pro-lifers are pro-homosexual. That tells me that there’s a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation out there. So what I’m praying is that we will have an army of truth-tellers who will never cave in.

Perkins: 'Revolution' Possible if 'Court Goes Too Far' on Marriage Equality Cases

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.

Gaffney: Obama Administration Pursuing 'The Sharia Blasphemy Agenda of our Enemies'

During an appearance on The Janet Mefferd Show this week, Frank Gaffney of the far-right Center for Security Policy argued that the Obama administration has a “determination to pursue what amounts to the Sharia blasphemy agenda of our enemies” by “suppressing freedom of expression in this country.” Gaffney was referring to the arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims.”

Of course, Nakoula was not arrested for his role in the film but for violating his probation stemming from a 2010 bank fraud conviction. Gaffney also maintained that “he is the only person who has thus far been incarcerated as a result of this [Benghazi] episode,” even though just over a week ago a suspect in the attack was arrested in Libya and late last year suspects were arrested in Egypt and Tunisia.

Mefferd: What about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the filmmaker who last we heard is still in jail, what are we to make of that, the fact that he blasphemed Islam so-called and is still in jail.

Gaffney: Well this is a critically important point, Janet; he is the only person who has thus far been incarcerated as a result of this episode. And more to the point, what we have now is growing evidence of the Obama administration’s willingness and indeed determination to pursue what amounts to the Sharia blasphemy agenda of our enemies, that is to say suppressing freedom of expression in this country which is our constitutional right, which is a scandal further.

Beisner Explains Why Environmentalism Represents the 'Greatest Threat to Western Civilization'

Yesterday, Dr. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance appeared on Janet Mefferd's radio program where he explained that the modern environmental movement represents "the greatest threat to Western civilization" because it combines "the utopian vision of Marxism, the scientific facade of secular humanism, and the religious fanaticism of jihad" into a pseudo-religion that undermines Christianity:

Mefferd: That seems like, maybe to some people, like hyperbole Dr. Beisner, but why do you think that that's the case?

Beisner: Well, let me just give you four simple, direct reasons.

First, because unlike the Soviet Union and its satellites in the Cold War and unlike Islamic jihad today which were, or are, external and clearly recognized as enemies by the overwhelming majority of people in the free world, environmentalism is internal and thought by most to be friend, not foe.

Second, because unlike arid and nihilistic secular humanism, environmentalism speaks to the inherent spiritual yearnings of human souls and it provides plausible answers to dogged questions about how we got here and what causes suffering and how suffering might come to an end.

Third, because environmentalism incorporates the strengths of all three of those other threats: the utopian vision of Marxism, the scientific facade of secular humanism, and the religious fanaticism of jihad.

And fourth, finally, because environmentalism encompasses all the vague spiritualities that have frankly overwhelmed secular humanism in the West and now threaten the Christian faith as so many people now take to referring to themselves as "oh well, I'm spiritual but not religious," which basically means they are all involved in designer religion.

Phyllis Schlafly Denounces Rob Portman's 'Stupid' and 'Dumb' Marriage Equality Announcement

In an interview on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly attacked Sen. Rob Portman’s newfound support for legalizing same-sex marriage, calling his announcement “dumb” and a “stupid statement.” Schlafly, who unlike Portman has maintained her opposition to marriage equality even after learning that she has a gay son, said that Ohio voters may “feel sorry for him” because “maybe he was pressured by his son to do this.”

She insisted that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “does not proscribe a national rule against gay rights” and protects states’ rights.

However, Section 3 of DOMA requires the federal government to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples. Even the American Family Association’s legal counsel admits that Section 2, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex unions that are legal in other states, likely violates the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Mefferd: What do you make of Sen. Portman’s announcement last week?

Schlafly: I think it was a rather stupid statement that he made. He doesn’t appear to understand what DOMA is all about. His statement is not in accord with the facts and it’s inconsistent. If he stands up for states to be able to make their own decisions about marriage, DOMA allows that, we have about a half a dozen states that have made that unfortunate decision and they’re not interfered with by DOMA. I don’t understand. Portman was always advertised as one of the brightest of the Senators and he doesn’t seem to understand that the Defense of Marriage Act does not proscribe a national rule against gay rights; it doesn’t do that at all. It just says if one state adopts same-sex marriage the other states simply do not have to recognize it. What can be more states’ rights than that?



Mefferd: That shouldn’t be the way people shift positions as far as public policy is X is happening in my family therefore I’ve changed my mind completely for the entire country.

Schlafly: I agree with you and I think it’s really a dumb way to create legislation and my guess is that the Ohio voters will take care of that in the next election; I think they won’t respond to that type of an argument. They’ll feel sorry for him, maybe he was pressured by his son to do this, but I think the legislators should stand up for what the majority of people want and not decided based on personal experience.

Wildmon: Overturning DOMA and Prop 8 May Lead to Hate Speech Laws

During the debate over the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Religious Right groups like the American Family Association warned that the law would “criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality” and “take away our religious freedoms.”

Of course, none of that happened, but that hasn’t stopped anti-gay activists from making the exact same false claims again and hoping more people will fall for it.

Yesterday, AFA president Tim Wildmon appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show and alleged that if the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) then we will see “persecution against Christians” and restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Wildmon: You’re headed down the road of persecution against Christians who believe in the Bible as their standard for moral behavior. In Canada now they have different rules there where you can’t even criminalize the lifestyle itself or you’ll be charged with a hate crime. You know that’s the road we’re headed down if these laws, if DOMA is struck down, if Prop 8 is struck down, then you’re headed for control of speech, even if it’s religious speech.

Ironically, the AFA’s own legal counsel, Pat Vaughn, admitted that “the Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional.”

FrontPageMag's Infiltration of the Muslim Student Association Was a Bust

Intrepid FrontPageMag reporter Mark Tapson didn't quite find what he was looking for when he infiltrated the Muslim Student Association’s annual West Coast conference last month...but, he alleges, that's just more proof of a secret Muslim Brotherhood plot to "radicalize" college students. 

Tapson told Janet Mefferd in a radio interview Friday that far from finding anything “radical” or “damning” at the conference, “it was largely very innocuous.” He had high hopes for a workshop called “Islamatics,” for instance, but found that it was just about Islam and American politics. He even took pains to register for the conference under a “variation” of his name, only to be admitted with no questions asked.

But Tapson has a theory about why the MSA’s conference was so “innocuous.” It’s all part of Muslim Brotherhood plan, he tells Mefferd, to capture “the hearts and minds of the young.” This campus organizing and community-building, he says, “radicalizes them and it steers them toward further radicalization down the line.”

Tapson: Um, there were some lesser speakers who also got political. There was a workshop called “Islamatics,” which I expected to be more interesting than it actually was. It was basically a Washington, DC, Muslim talking about lining up Islamic ideals with the current political parties, ‘bridging the gap between their religion and their votes,’ as he put it.

Mefferd: Wow.

Tapson: But, you know, it was largely very innocuous. I mean, there was nothing beyond what I’ve already told you, really. There was very little that you’d consider radical. Highly politicized, yes, but nothing damning.

Mefferd: I think this is very true that, from what you’ve reported, that there wasn’t a lot of radical talk and it was kind of innocuous in a lot of respects, but you point out that for the Muslim Brotherhood front groups that organized this thing, it serves as a very successful recruitment and radicalization tool. Is that really, at root, the reason for the conference, or at least a primary reason for the conference, that other groups, CAIR or ISNA or, you know, whatever it is can have contact with a younger generation?

Tapson: Oh, absolutely. It’s all about the younger generation. And, politicizing and organizing that younger generation in campus groups and strengthening their sense of community as Muslims, strengthening their campus activism, that’s all, that’s a very important goal because it radicalizes them and it steers them toward further radicalization down the line. So, yeah, it's all about capturing the hearts and minds of the young.

Mefferd: Oh, wow.

 

Marriage Equality Opponent Says 'Bigger Problem' Is No-Fault Divorce

Often lost in the debate over marriage equality is the fact that many of its leading opponents aren’t just interested in keeping the status quo on marriage. Instead, they're seeking to reverse what they see as a decline that began with laws granting greater freedom to women within marriages – specifically, the right to no-fault divorce.

In a conversation with radio host Janet Mefferd Friday, anti-gay writer Frank Turek responded to marriage equality supporters who point to divorce rates among straight couples. “You don’t make the car better by slashing another tire on it,” he said. “ You go back and repair the first tire. And I’m the first one to say that the bigger problem right now is no-fault divorce.”

Turek: I would agree with them that heterosexuals have debased it, heterosexuals have slashed one of the tires of marriage. But that’s not an argument for slashing another tire.

Mefferd: Good point, good point.

Turek: You don’t make the car better by slashing another tire on it. You go back and repair the first tire. And I’m the first one to say that the bigger problem right now is no-fault divorce.

Mefferd: Ah, yes.

Turek: But that is not an argument for same-sex marriage, in fact it’s an argument against it. Why? Because it shows you that when you liberalize marriage laws, you actually have a negative effect on society, which is what the no-fault marriage laws have done. So if you’re going to make marriage even more liberal, if you’re going to even further tear down the definition of marriage and make it totally genderless now, you’re going to have even worse results. You’re going to have even more illegitimacy, more kids that aren’t taken care of.

Now, I know the same-sex marriage advocates are going to say, ‘What, so same-sex marriage is going to do to your marriage?’ Well, it’s not going to do anything to my personal marriage, but it’s going to debase the institution of marriage into the future, make it a genderless institution, and that will hurt children and hurt the whole country.

LaBarbera: 'How Do Two Guys Consummate Their Marriage? Yuck.'

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality president Peter LaBarbera appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to discuss the prospects of the Illinois marriage equality bill, or as he called it, “homosexual so-called marriage.” LaBarbera argued that same-sex couples cannot truly be married because they can never consummate the marriage: “If you want to just think of how wrong homosexual so-called marriage is just ask yourself: how do two guys consummate their marriage? Yuck.”

Later, he lamented that soon gay and lesbian teachers may be able to talk about their marriages in school just as a “normal heterosexual married person could.”

LaBarbera: If you want to just think of how wrong homosexual so-called marriage is just ask yourself: how do two guys consummate their marriage? Yuck.

Mefferd: I’m sure they don’t like that question, Peter.

LaBarbera: Yes, they don’t like it and it’s because it’s absurd. The whole concept is absurd. It’s not marriage. You know one angle that I’m going to be writing about Janet is if you’ve got homosexual so-called marriage legalized you’re going to end up teaching gay sex-ed, there is no way around it.



LaBarbera: I believe it was on NPR in Boston after homosexual so-called marriage was legalized there, or forced by the courts, one I believe it was a teacher who said she was emboldened to talk more frankly about homosexuality in the schools in Massachusetts. Think about it, if a teacher is so-called married, say a guy, a male teacher is married to another man, so-called because of course it’s not really marriage, he gets to talk about that marriage in the classroom just as a normal heterosexual married person could talk about — you know a man could talk about his wife.

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/5/13

  • PFAW: The Unfortunate Filibuster of Caitlin Halligan.
  • Eric Lach @ TPM: Report: Dominican Escort Now Says She Made Up Menendez Claims.
  • Alan Colmes: Debating Gun Control Regulations.
  • Jeremy Hooper: Talk show host Janet Mefferd warns of 'huge unforeseen situation' connected to marriage equality; uses 9/11 allegory.
  • Tyler Hansen @ Media Matters: Fox's Dobbs Pushes Conspiracy That Government Is "Arming Up."
  • SPLC: The Year in Hate and Extremism.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious