Janet Mefferd

Right Wing Leftovers - 7/23/13

  • Oh good, Christine O'Donnell is thinking of making another run for the Senate.
  • Apparently, Rep. Peter King is now thinking of running for president solely because some reporter from Newsmax convinced him that it is a good idea.
  • Jennifer LeClair prays that Lady Gaga will start "going gaga over Jesus and used her celebrity for His glory, millions would stop buying immoral filth and start singing songs to God."
  • Michael Brown tells closeted and married gay men that "commitment to love your wife and your children trumps your sexual desires and romantic attractions, and to destroy your family for the sake of those desires is, indeed, 'the most selfish thing in the world.'"
  • Is any surprised that Ken Cuccinelli thinks that people ought to be prosecuted for adultery?
  • Finally, do you know what this country needs? "A Congress full of Rep. Gohmerts."

Anti-Muslim Activists Fear Islamic Enclaves in Brooklyn and Chicago That Will Spread Across America

Apparently, radical Muslim groups aren’t just setting up in national parks, but they are also carving up parts of major US cities. Christian Braodcasting Network’s Erick Stakelbeck talked to Janet Mefferd yesterday about the threat of Sharia law-administered enclaves in the US, warning that the Muslim Brotherhood acts like “termites” by “gradually eating away at the host society from within.”

Mefferd said Brooklyn and Dearborn, Michigan — Stakelbeck added Chicago — are quickly becoming radical Muslim enclaves, asking, “What do you do when they are able to establish enough beachheads that there aren’t enough places to move back to?”

Stackelbeck claimed that progressives, both the “hardcore left” and “your garden variety liberals,” are helping the Muslim Brotherhood by “crying Islamophobia” even though “if the radical Islamists get their way the first people with their heads on the chopping block will be the left.”

“We’ve basically lost one whole side of the political aisle when it comes to confronting this threat,” Stackelbeck said. “As a nation we are collectively shaking our fist at the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob right now.”

Rep. John Fleming: Obama Administration and Gay Rights Advocates Pushing Atheism, Socialism

Louisiana Republican congressman John Fleming is upset that “those who want to promote homosexuality as a mainstream lifestyle” are trying to change Americans’ “whole way of thinking to that secular humanist, atheist viewpoint” and allow “just about any kind of lifestyle you can think of.” Fleming made the remarks in an interview yesterday with conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd, criticizing Obama administration officials for working “to rid government of any last vestiges of religion, especially Christianity.”

I do believe that those who want to promote homosexuality as a mainstream lifestyle and to change the whole nature of the marriage relationship that has been for centuries one man and one woman, they view that as inconsistent with religious beliefs, so what they want to do from the administration is to change our whole way of thinking to that secular humanist, atheist viewpoint, which means it opens it up to just about any kind of lifestyle you can think of. So I really think that this is a push from the administration and throughout the administration, other people, to rid government of any last vestiges of religion, especially Christianity.

He said that the supposed push for atheism is part of an alleged plan, including Obamacare and government-dictated school lunches, to “push socialism on the American people.”

I would say that the global issue in this whole thing is to push religion completely out of government at any level at all to make this a socialist secular humanist society because as you know, Janet, socialism is incompatible with religious beliefs. So if you’re going to be promoting Obamacare, which is the cornerstone of socialism; if you’re going to have a government that manages its people on a microscopic level; if you’re going to have a growing government, a top-down, directing you as to what your children can eat in the lunchroom and all of these things; that is inconsistent with religion, especially Christianity. So I see this as just another front to push socialism on the American people.

Bozell: Romney Lost Because The Media Failed To Report The Obama Was A 'Pothead'

Yesterday's Janet Mefferd program featured a truly idiotic interview with the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell about his new book "Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election---and How to Stop Them from Doing It in 2016," the premise of which seems to be that there were a variety of negative stories about Mitt Romney but none about President Obama.

Apparently, if the media had just dedicated more coverage to the fact that Obama smoked pot as a youth and ate dog as a child while living in Indonesia, Romney would be president today: 

Mefferd: You're not allowed to touch those on the left; you're not allowed to dig into the past of Barack Obama and expose what little was exposed before 2008.  And it just ramped up, didn't it?

Bozell: You just pitched me a softball. What about the past?  How should somebody's past be covered?  Well, we know about Mitt Romney, we know that because the Washington Post spent five thousand four hundred words of this, we know that had a dog on his roof.  Everyone knows that story.  Now why do we all know that story? Because it was reported endlessly because dogs on a roof are important to report. 

Well, if dogs on a roof are important, what about dogs in your stomach? What about eating dogs? Is that important? Now, am I making a false accusation or a nefarious accusation about Barack Obama? No, I'm quoting him in his own book. He had said how he ate dog. How is that not newsworthy but leaving a dog on a roof is?

The Washington Post; five thousand four hundred words devoted to an essay on Mitt Romney's youth and it all revolves around, remember, the haircut in 1965?  We had to know that. So that's the microcosm of Mitt Romney's youth.

They then did a five thousand word essay on Obama's youth, and it's all about his love for basketball.  He had a love for something else, Janet.  It was called marijuana. He was a pothead. He was a member of the Choom Gang. What they did was they'd get stoned all the time.  Is Brent making an outrageous accusation? No, it's right in Barack Obama's book.

Huelskamp: Supreme Court Legalized Polygamy

Yesterday, while speaking with Janet Mefferd, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) expanded on his claim that the Supreme Court Justices who ruled on Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act should’ve flunked law school.

Huelskamp said Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision on DOMA was “outrageous” and based on smearing gay rights opponents: “If you’re writing for the left and you’re not gonna follow the Constitution you have to make it up as you go along so you inject name-calling into a constitutional decision, I mean that’s an outrageous decision.”

He also called Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling on Prop 8 “crazy” and described it as an example of left-wing bias. Huelskamp even argued that the DOMA ruling effectively tossed out state laws barring marriages between a mother and her daughter, adding that “polygamy should be allowed under this decision.”

“What’s the impact on our children? That’s what the left doesn’t care about,” Huelskamp said, repeating his earlier claim that “children will be hurt” by the rulings. “That’s why this is showing up in these decisions that you know what just because two adults or three adults desire one thing that doesn’t mean it’s best for our children.” 

The congressman also told Mefferd that Republicans are too timid in their opposition to gay rights and should also focus on the “fiscal impact” of gay marriage and what he believes is the legalization of polygamy: “There’s a real big fiscal impact, we’re going to extend 1,100 benefits to homosexual and polygamous couples, perhaps, what’s the impact on that?”

Ex-Gay Pride Month to Push for Congressional Resolution, Organizing Music Video Contest

Voice of the Voiceless, the “ex-gay” group led by DL Foster and Christopher Doyle, is working with the Family Research Council to host the upcoming Ex-Gay Pride Month dinner. As Doyle explained in an interview with Janet Mefferd yesterday, attendees will lobby Congress to “pass a resolution for tolerance for the ex-gay community” and condemn its supposed persecution at the hands of gay rights supporters. He also wants Congress to approve a resolution sanctioning sexual orientation conversion therapy, which is rejected and deemed dangerous by all major psychological organizations, and to oppose state efforts to limit conversion therapy on minors. 

Ex-Gay Pride Month is also organizing a music video contest to find “a voice that sings about the struggles and victories of ex-gays”: 

Right Wing Leftovers - 6/28/13

  • Paul Strand of the Christian Broadcasting Network commends CBN for “exposing a secret, long-term strategy to convert America into a pro-gay culture.” 
  • CBN’s David Brody writes that “Anthony Kennedy and his cohorts may have decided that DOMA is unconstitutional and no longer the law of the land but by a 1-0 margin God decided a long time ago that traditional marriage is the law of the World.” 
  • Janet Mefferd wishes she lived in Senegal because homosexuality is illegal there.
  • A Southern Baptist pastor has “set aside this Sunday as A Day of Mourning and Prayer” to grieve the Supreme Court’s recent marriage decisions. 
  • Michael Orsi of Ave Maria responded to the Supreme Court’s DOMA and Prop 8 ruling by arguing that contraception “opened the way for the destruction of marriage.” 
  • American Family Association president Tim Wildmon says it is “beneath contempt for a magazine of The New Yorker’s stature to use Bert and Ernie, characters from a children's program, to celebrate behavior which is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy,” and condemns the DOMA ruling as “a tragic day for kids who will wind up in same-sex households.”

Mefferd: Gay Rights Led to America's 'Death Throes' and 'Totalitarian' Laws

On Wednesday, Religious Right broadcaster Janet Mefferd didn’t hold back in expressing her outrage over the Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the appeal of the Prop 8 case over standing, calling the court’s ruling “completely insane.”

“If you think this is just an attack on marriage, it isn’t; it’s an attack on your liberty, an attack on the rule of law and it’s an attack on every person in California who went to the polls and legally voted to change the constitution of the state of California,” Mefferd said, “and the Supreme Court basically spat on them today.” Mefferd had a dim view of California: “Look who you have running your state, all these people have done in the California legislature is it’s gay law here and gay law there and gay role models and ban gay reparative therapy for minors…it’s totalitarian.”

But it’s not just California that’s at risk, she explained, as all of America is now in its “death throes.”

“It’s not about love, it’s not about equality, it’s not about civil rights, it’s about absolutely shaking the fist in the face of a Holy God and thinking that you’re going to get away with it,” Mefferd warned. “You really think the United States is going to get away with this? You think we’re going to be thriving three hundred years from now if we just completely tear apart this civilization? Are you kidding me? We are delusional if we think we can survive as a civilization long term.”

Mefferd added that if Americans keep “degrading everything that is good” then “you’re over, it’s over.”

On her Facebook page, Mefferd pointed to a video of a dog burying a dead puppy and called it a metaphor for America’s imminent demise.

LaBarbera: Homosexuality a 'Masculinity Deficit,' a 'Weird Sin'

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality visited the Janet Mefferd show on Tuesday to discuss “ex-gay” ministry Exodus International’s decision to shut its doors and apologize to the gay community. LaBarbera, unsurprisingly, was none too pleased with Exodus’ reversal. He told Mefferd the story of an “ex-gay” acquaintance, Andrew Franklin, who helped him understand that homosexuality is merely a curable “masculinity deficit.”  He added that people react to homosexuality differently than other “sins” because it “is just a weird sin, so it’s different.”

LaBarbera: The Lord worked in his life, he’s acquiring, you know, masculinity. I think the issue that really hit me, Janet, was, this is really, homosexuality is a masculinity deficit. It’s an issue of masculinity for these guys.

Mefferd: Interesting. And yet, you hear from the other side all the time that people like Andrew Franklin don’t exist. I mean, Wayne Besen has made a whole career on the ex-gay movement as, you know, a misnomer, it doesn’t exist and it’s a big lie.

LaBarbera: Well, they exist. And God is working in their lives just as God works in the lives of all of us, helps us overcome our sin. And I think this is just a weird sin, so it’s different. And that’s why I think people, they want to cop out and say, ‘Oh, they’re born gay, just leave them alone.’
 

Right Wing Leftovers - 6/26/13

  • Janet Mefferd’s reaction to Washington, DC, churches ringing their bells in support of marriage equality: “America the Pagan Country rejoices in its evil.”
  • Gary Bauer believes the “liberal media” is tricking people into thinking the Supreme Court approved marriage equality nationwide.
  • Yesterday, Texas Republican state Rep. Bill Zedler called Sen. Davis a “terrorist” and state GOP leaders claimed that Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood and sonogram laws were “not germane” to Davis’ abortion rights filibuster.
  • Half-term governor Sarah Palin tells Breitbart News she will back primary challenges to GOP immigration reform supporters because “every politician should be held accountable for breaking their campaign promises.”

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.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious