Janet Mefferd

Farah: National Debt Violates at Least Two of the Ten Commandments

WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah has a new project: erecting billboards listing the Ten Commandments in major American cities. So far, he just has a handful of billboards up in Las Vegas, but he’s hoping that eventually he will be able to fund “hundreds of thousands” of them across the country. Farah joined Janet Mefferd yesterday to talk about the campaign, telling her that our economic troubles are “just a symptom, frankly, of a moral problem,” namely that the national debt violates the biblical commandments against covetousness and stealing.

Farah might be interested to learn that the United States has held a public debt for all but one year of its history, meaning that by his own definition even his beloved Founding Fathers and Honorary Founding Father Ronald Reagan were complicit in violating the Ten Commandments.

Mefferd: What concerns you most about our country right now, what do you think is the greatest, you know, sin, greatest moral failure in our country that most needs this reminder that God has issued us these Ten Commandments?

Farah: Well, you know, I think if you ask most people what the biggest problem we face, it’s in our economy, is being devastated. But I think that’s just a symptom, frankly, of a moral problem at the very basis of that. You know, when you decide, for instance, as a nation, that you’re going to spend your grandchildren’s money and their great-great-grandchildren’s money racking up debt that, you know, people will be paying off for generations, that is covetousness, that’s stealing. How many commandments are we breaking right there?

Mefferd: That’s right.

Farah: And, you know, again, I’m not trying to make this a materialistic thing, but what I’m saying is, it all ties in together. When you turn away from God…you know what, God gives us the desires of our heart. And when we decide we don’t want any part of God, he allows us to make that decision and live with the consequences. And I believe that’s what we’re, what’s happening to America right now, we’re spiraling down and we’re, you know, we’re not the nation we used to be. And unless we turn around and we follow that 2 Chronicles 7:14 prescription, we’re going to continue in that direction.

 

Tebow Cancels Appearance at Robert Jeffress' Church (UPDATED)

Earlier this month we broke the story that Tim Tebow was scheduled to appear at a megachurch led by far-right pastor Robert Jeffress. Today, Tebow announced on Twitter that he is pulling out of the event “due to new information that has been brought to my attention.”

Jeffress has claimed that Roman Catholicism is Satanic, criticized Mormonism and Islam as faiths from the “pit of Hell,” warned that President Obama is ushering in the Antichrist and frequently attacked gays and lesbians.

The preacher has been making the rounds on conservative media denying claims about his extremist rhetoric, and yesterday told radio host Janet Mefferd that liberals simply cannot understand his words because they are “spiritually blinded” and are “the most intolerant and hateful people.”

He added that Tebow won’t cancel his appearance “as long as he listens to the Holy Spirit and to God’s voice.”

Or maybe Tebow is just another victim of gay brainwashing

UPDATE: In an interview today with fellow anti-gay activist Tim Wildmon, the president of the American Family Association, Jeffress said that Tebow told him “he would like to come back to our church at a later date” once the current controversy blows over.

Mefferd: Gay Rights Should Not 'Trump the Rights of Christians' to Not See Gays (UPDATED)

Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd this week waded into the controversy about an Indiana high school where a group of students wanted to organize a separate prom that would specifically prevent gay and lesbian students from attending.

After lamenting that “public schools are morally bankrupt,” Mefferd asserted that proms which allow all students — gay or straight — to attend actually violate the rights of Christian students who disapprove of homosexuality.

What right in particular, you might ask?

According to Mefferd, apparently the right of students not to even see gay people!

She maintained that the students’ desire not to see gay students outweighs the rights of gay students to attend their own prom.

“Why should the rights of the [gay] activists trump the rights of Christians” who don’t want “to see that,” Mefferd asked.

Mefferd: Everything is so upside down in our society now and right and wrong have completely switched where what is really wrong is to say you shouldn’t have two boys allowed to go to the high school prom. Now we can get into a big issue of the public schools are morally bankrupt at this point and we all ought to exit and just let them, let them do their thing, and that may be the ultimate answer; on the other hand, I feel for these Christian kids who are in a prom or kids who are at this high school who say, ‘you know something, do we have to go down this road?’ Whether the homosexual activists like it or not, and I know this isn’t politically correct to say this, but not everybody wants to see that. I know that that’s offensive to the activist crowd, they want us all to see it, they want us all to approve of it, they want us all to call it blessed and okay and rejoice and have parties and throw confetti in the air over this whole thing. But the fact of the matter is it’s a moral issue. You will always have Christians who will disagree with this and why should the rights of the activists trump the rights of Christians?

Update 2/20: Mefferd spent a good part of the weekend tweeting at us, and a good portion of her show yesterday railing against us, claiming that we had "libeled" her with this post. Today, we received a letter [PDF] from her attorneys demanding that we remove this post and asserting that even though we had quoted her verbatim, we had misrepresented her views.

According to this letter, Mefferd claims that she was merely saying that some people object to seeing gay couples at prom, not that Christians have a right not to see gay people in general:

Ms. Mefferd’s comment, in discussing a controversy in an Indiana high school about attendance by homosexual couples at a high school prom, was that ‘not everybody wants to see that.’ (emphasis added). Ms. Mefferd was not making a statement about homosexual people, or any other people for that matter, when making that statement, as Ms. Mefferd would have said ‘not everybody wants to see them.’ Mefferd’s statement was about the inclusion of homosexual couples at a high school prom, and made a factual statement that ‘not everybody wants to see that.’

What’s the difference you ask? Good question. We stand by our original post and think that the audio clip we posted speaks for itself.

Religious Right Activists Fear Boy Scouts Will Soon Face 'Homosexual Indoctrination'

Conservative leaders are continuing to rally opposition to a proposed plan to end the national ban on gay members in the Boy Scouts of America with warnings about pedophilia and “indoctrination.”

Family Research Council vice president Rob Schwarzwalder told Janet Mefferd yesterday that fathers cannot trust their sons to be around gay people.

Mefferd called gay rights advocates “totalitarian” for opposing the ban and lamented that the “violins are playing full blast” in the media when they cover stories about gay youths kicked out of the Boy Scouts.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said in a statement that “people like Jerry Sandusky” would be “permitted to be Scoutmasters” if the policy changes, adding, “To allow homosexual Scoutmasters or homosexual Scouts will put young boys at risk.”

Concerned Women for America started a letter-writing campaign against the move before gays attempt “to infiltrate the next generation.” The group even claimed that if gays are allowed to join the Boy Scouts, it would mean that “our religious liberties are being taken away”…somehow.

The Texas Pastors Council called on parents to “defend our children” and not “allow our boys to be targeted by those who believe there is no moral code and no definition of gender” and stop those who are bent on “forcing their immorality on society.”

Pastors, if the scouts fall, the church is next in the sights of the activists committed to forcing their immorality on society – WILL YOU COME?

Fathers, if we allow our boys to be targeted by those who believe there is no moral code and no definition of gender – WHO WILL DEFEND OUR CHILDREN?

Mothers, your voice of courage and protection of the virtue of our children is desperately needed – WILL YOU STAND ALSO?

Florida Family Policy Council president John Stemberger went on another anti-gay rant, alleging that the BSA will “open a can of worms that would cause a mass exodus” and “devastate the Boy Scouts permanently.”

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

As an Eagle Scout, former Scoutmaster and a Vigil Honor Member of the Order of the Arrow, I have a deep personal interest in passing on the rich experience of Scouting to my two sons and I pray that the BSA does not open a can of worms that would cause a mass exodus from a program that America needs now more than ever to train boys to become responsible men. A change of this policy could transform and devastate the Boy Scouts permanently. Additionally, the vast majority of Americans do not support changing the policy to allow openly homosexual scout leaders, so this proposed change makes no sense on many levels.

2000 presidential candidate Alan Keyes in WorldNetDaily warned of “homosexual indoctrination” and “idolatry” in the Boy Scouts if they change the policy:

The simple words of the Scout Oath were meant to encourage boys in the habit of walking this straight path; hence the endeavor to be “morally straight.” But the oath first of all made it clear that the Scout looked first of all to God as the standard of moral rectitude. Try as they might, the present-day trustees of the Scouting movement will never fit the square peg of God’s standard into the round hole of homosexual sin. Moreover, though they begin by admitting practicing homosexuals into the ranks, they must end in acknowledging homosexual activity as morally correct, else they will involve the whole movement in the perjurious administration of an oath openly violated in practice. For in that moral sense, it is not possible to be gay and morally straight at the same time. Thus what the present trustees of the BSA reportedly may do involves rejecting God’s standard for male sexual behavior. And it involves doing so in a way that willfully abandons the straight path blazed by the footsteps of Christ.



By accepting a humanly fabricated redefinition of the moral standard, the BSA will fall prey to the inevitable logic of such idolatry. “Their idols are … the work of human hands … those who make them become like unto them; so do all who trust in them.” (Psalm 115:8) It will speedily become evident that what masquerades as tolerance is actually indoctrination, seeking to mold boys according to the standard the BSA trustees will have raised above God’s standard. For if homosexual activity is morally acceptable as an expression of love and good fellowship, then those who express their love accordingly do what is right.

But the aim of Scouting is to encourage young men to do what is right in various ways. Therefore, once the moral prejudice against homosexuality is regarded as a violation of right, doing things that habitually assault and break down this prejudice becomes part of “moral training.” Just as, on many campuses now, refusal to experiment with homosexuality is frowned upon as a sign of bigotry, so henceforth in Scouting braking down this prejudice would be recognized as a meritorious activity. Though camouflaged in different words there will be a merit badge for this experimentation as part of the regime of homosexual indoctrination. God knows what that will lead to; and given now widely publicized possibilities, so should the BSA Inc.

LaBarbera: Gays as 'Intolerant' as 'Jihadists' and Will Use the Boy Scouts to Push 'Deviant Sexuality'

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.

DeMint: Democrats Want Immigration Reform to Recruit 'New Voters and Union Members'

Former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, the incoming president of the Heritage Foundation, spoke with Janet Mefferd yesterday about immigration reform and the future of the GOP.

DeMint was unhappy with President Obama’s immigration proposal and the bipartisan framework presented this week in the Senate, both of which include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Democrats, he claimed, “are much more interested in new voters and union members than they are in fixing the system and honoring our heritage of immigration.”

Unfortunately, and I’ve worked with the folks who are advocating for this for a number of years and it appears the Democrats are much more interested in new voters and union members than they are in fixing the system and honoring our heritage of immigration. I don’t think we can help our naturalized American citizens by tearing down those things that create the opportunity in our country, and border sovereignty, rule of law, those things create the freedom and opportunity that immigrants come here for. And if we change the things that make us successful then we hurt the very people that we’re saying we want to help. So this is an irrational approach in my mind. I know there’s some people involved with this who want to do the right thing and solve the problem. But I’m afraid the people driving this, like the president, are just more interested in the citizenship track than they really are fixing our system.

DeMint, the architect of the 2010 Tea Party takeover, also denied that the GOP needs to moderate its positions to appeal to more voters after its drubbing among women, young people, African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans in 2012. “We’re just not telling our story well and we’re not doing a good job of showing the victims of progressive liberal policies,” DeMint said. “And there are a lot of them around the country and minorities are the biggest victims of these policies.”

We have ideas that we want people to embrace because those ideas make our country better and lives better for Americans. So it’s easier for Obama, who just finds out what people want to hear and he tells them that. He doesn’t have to deliver any particular policy or laws. We do. But we have success stories all over. We have fantastic job creation where energy is being developed in states. We have job creation where you have freedom in the workplace not to join a union, that’s why Boeing is in South Carolina. We’re just not telling our story well and we’re not doing a good job of showing the victims of progressive liberal policies. And there are a lot of them around the country and minorities are the biggest victims of these policies. I’d say Republicans have done a miserable job of communicating. And that’s why I left the Senate. We need to take our message directly to the American people and make those ideas so winsome that candidates have to embrace them.
 

Anti-Gay Activists Slam Boy Scouts for Endorsing 'Deviant Sexuality'

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religious Right Activists Warn of Pedophilia if Boy Scouts Open Doors to Gay Members

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

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

Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd followed suit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Religious Right Angry over 'Dangerous' Decision to End Ban on Women in Combat

While the Religious Right reacted with apoplectic rage following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the lifting of the ban on women in combat has brought dejected but relatively subdued responses from conservatives.

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer, who in December spoke out in favor of the ban by lying about the Israeli military’s policy on women in combat, tweeted that the decision was part of Obama’s plan to “feminize and weaken the U.S. military.”

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said that “lives could be lost unnecessarily” by the new policy, which “will harm men and the mission of the infantry as a whole.” “The administration has a pattern of irresponsible actions like this using the military to advance a social agenda,” she said, “This kind of a social experiment is a dangerous one.”

Faith and Freedom Coalition head Ralph Reed maintained that the Obama administration is “putting women in combat situations is the latest in a series of moves where political correctness and liberal social policy have trumped sound military practice.”

Richard Viguerie’s group claimed that “Obama’s plan to introduce women into frontline combat roles in the U.S. military is a dangerous and irresponsible social experiment, not an opportunity for women to serve their country and advance in their chosen profession.”

Radio talk show host Janet Mefferd on her Facebook page wrote that the move is further proof that the Obama administration is “intent upon undoing this great country” and will “stop at nothing to achieve it.”

Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin, who was reprimanded by President Bush after he made anti-Muslim and political speeches while in uniform, called the decision “another social experiment”:

The people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment, and they have never lived nor fought with an infantry or Special Forces unit. These units have the mission of closing with and destroying the enemy, sometimes in close hand-to-hand combat. They are often in sustained operations for extended periods, during which they have no base of operations nor facilities. Their living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions. Commanders are burdened with a very heavy responsibility for succeeding in their mission and for protecting their troops.

This decision to integrate the genders in these units places additional and unnecessary burdens on leaders at all levels. While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast moving and deadly situations. Is the social experiment worth placing this burden on small unit leaders? I think not.

Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America said that the “majority of women” don’t care about the ban or want its elimination:

News of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's intent to lift the long-standing ban on women serving in direct combat is further proof that this administration simply does not care about the issues about which the majority of women care. Once again, their interest on women issues is driven by special interest groups. The point of the military is to protect our country. Anything that distracts from that is detrimental. Our military cannot continue to choose social experimentation and political correctness over combat readiness. While this decision is not unexpected from this administration, it is still disappointing. Concerned Women for America (CWA) and its more than half-a-million members around the country will continue to do all we can to see that our men and women in uniform are governed with the respect and resources needed to do the hard task of fighting for and protecting our freedoms.

“God help us,” lamented Denny Burk of the Southern Baptist Convention, who seemed to suggest that women shouldn’t be in the armed forces at all:

Are the fortunes of women in our country really enhanced by sending them to be ground up in the discipline of a combat unit and possibly to be killed or maimed in war? Is there a father in America who would under any circumstance risk having his daughter shot or killed in battle? Is there a single husband in this country who thinks it okay for his wife to risk being captured by our enemies? To risk becoming a prisoner of war? Is this the kind of people we want to be? Perhaps this is the kind of people we already are. I would sooner cut off my arm than allow such a thing with my own wife and daughters. Why would I ever support allowing someone else’s to do the same? Why would anyone?

What kind of a society puts its women on the front lines to risk what only men should be called on to risk? In countries ravaged by war, we consider it a tragedy when the battle comes to the backyards of women and children. Why would we thrust our own wives and daughters into that horror? My own instinct is to keep them as far from it as possible. Perhaps this move makes sense with an all volunteer force, but what if the draft is ever reinstituted? Are we really going to be the kind of people who press our wives and daughters to fight in combat?



Everyone in America ought to be scandalized by this news, but I’m wondering if it will even register on the radar of anyone’s conscience. To the extent that it doesn’t, we reveal just how far gone we are as a people. God help us.

Aaron Ahlert of FrontPageMag said the move is “sure to have deadly consequences” and represents the Obama administration “forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat.”

It didn’t take long for the Obama administration to advance a pernicious piece of its promised radical agenda. Two days after the president laid out his far-left vision during the inauguration, senior defense officials announced that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will lift the military’s ban on women serving in combat. The move overturns a 1994 provision that prohibited them from being assigned to ground combat units. Panetta has given the various service branches until 2016 to come up with exemptions, and/or make any arguments about what roles should still reman closed to women. Thus, another bit of gender radicalism has been shoved down the nation’s throat through executive fiat — and this one is sure to have deadly consequences.

...

It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that sexual tension, regardless of the legitimate or illegitimate motivation behind it, would be lessened under front line, life-threatening combat conditions. Nor is it inconceivable to think that close personal relationships of a sexual nature would make some soldiers take the kind of unnecessary risks to save a lover that might not only endanger themselves, but their entire unit.

...

Once again, elections have consequences. Barack Obama has made it clear that part of his progressive agenda includes forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat, absent any input from Congress. Once, the United States military was all about projecting lethal power around the globe to protect America’s interests. Now, it is all about promoting diversity, inclusion and equality of outcome, irrespective of military readiness and cohesion. For progressives, who have elevated political correctness above all else–national security included–such radical egalitarianism is cause for celebration. For Donnelly and countless other Americans, it is anything but. “No one’s injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman,” she contends.

Troy Newman Compares Planned Parenthood Fight to World War II, Underground Railroad

Operation Rescue head Troy Newman appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to discuss the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and new tactics to recriminalize abortion and fight Planned Parenthood, making sure not to mention the growing support for Roe. Newman said that Operation Rescue and other anti-choice groups must act like the allied bombers who destroyed Nazi arms factories during World War II.

Newman: I’ll give you a little analogy; in 1943 the allied forces sent 1,500 bombers into Germany to destroy the ball-bearing factories and the aviation factories because they knew without ball-bearings they couldn’t produce armaments and methods to destroy the allied forces. So I want to diminish the enemy’s ability to make war on children and I’ve got several plans we’ll be talking about but that that’s the idea. They are going to be well-funded, they are going to be governed by the most radical pro-abortion president ever and the Supreme Court but we’re going to be going after their ability to make war on children.

He also compared the Operation Rescue demonstrations, which have been linked to violence, to abolitionists working in the Underground Railroad and called on activists to channel Gideon, whose 300-man army destroyed the Midianites in the Book of Judges. “I think I told you on a previous radio show, I got tired of going to jail,” Newmain said, “it’s the abortionists that need to go to jail.”

Newman: We peacefully came and laid down our lives and they asked us to leave, ‘Get out that door, go away, get off this property,’ we’d say, ‘I’m sorry I cannot in good conscience get up because if I do the abortionist will come in and he will kill children. So they beat us up and they threw us in jail and they sued us into oblivion and then they passed a federal law to make it a federal crime, a lot like the Fugitive Slave Act. If you were running the Underground Railroad you could face federal time for harboring slaves.

Mefferd: And the RICO lawsuit, the racketeering, it was supposed to be a law used to go after the mob and they started using it against pro-lifers. How much did the lawsuit filing by NARAL and NOW and all these groups, how much damage did that do to Operation Rescue and other big pro-life organizations in terms of the strategies you employed?

Newman: For us rescue was going away anyway because of the massive amounts of jail time. I think I told you on a previous radio show, I got tired of going to jail; it’s the abortionists that need to go to jail. So we were changing our tactics anyway. I think what it did to the rest of the pro-life movement is it made them more fearful of the government and what they could possibly do to them then what happened in actuality. At the end of the day, I’m still standing, I’m still rescuing, I’m still more resolved to end this child-killing than I was back then so they just made me a better pro-lifer.

Mefferd: That’s great. We need about 100 million of you, Troy.

Newman: I’d settle for about—Gideon, 300 courageous men in America that will stand up against Planned Parenthood and we will win the day.

Mefferd and LaBarbera Agree Gay Rights Supporters Don't Show 'Compassion' to People with HIV

For decades, the gay community and its allies have been doing incredible work combating HIV/AIDS and providing care for people with the virus, but according to anti-gay activists Janet Mefferd and Peter LaBarbera, gay rights supporters have tried to whitewash the epidemic and show little compassion to HIV-positive people.

While discussing LaBarbera’s “20 Resolutions for Pro-Family Advocates Battling the Homosexual-Transgender Agenda in 2013” on her radio show, Mefferd said that the Religious Right had an opening to exploit the issue of HIV/AIDS “because we’ll say, we care about people who are having terrible diseases because of the behavior and where is the compassion on your side for these people who have these illnesses?”

Of course, Mefferd and LaBarbera have both defended efforts to criminalize LGBT status, which only exacerbates the spread of HIV.

LaBarbera: Boy, about fifty years ago the whole issue of homosexual behavior was taboo. Now, they are basically running society, they are deciding which issues get covered on the news, which people get to speak at inaugurals, I mean wow, this country is really de-Christianizing fast.

Mefferd: That’s right. One of the things you’ve mentioned and this is one of your resolutions as well, but you mention the fact that we don’t talk very much at all anymore about the health consequences of the behavior. It used to be in the ’80s when then AIDS crisis was at its peek peak at the time, when Elizabeth Taylor and everybody came out and they had the red ribbons at every awards show and everything, everybody wanted to raise money and solve the AIDS crisis; people aren’t talking about AIDS anymore and yet it is still an issue, isn’t it? We still have venereal diseases and all kinds of bad health consequences to this, how are they successful and able to get this whole subject to be something we don’t talk about anymore?

LaBarbera: Well, it’s just the media, they have the media in their pocket and so the media is like a massive affirmative action program for the gay agenda, the media does not want to talk about the obvious connection between homosexual behavior and sexual diseases, especially for men. I put in my point four on my list, you know getting back to the behavior, try Googling ‘MSM, ‘CDC’ and ‘HIV,’ and you get this laundry list of articles about the strong, disproportionate connection between men who have sex with men and sexual diseases like HIV.

Mefferd: And on that point we could really make a lot of progress because we’ll say, we care about people who are having terrible diseases because of the behavior and where is the compassion on your side for these people who have these illnesses? This is awful.

LaBarbera: Absolutely.

This post has been updated, 1/16.

Gaffney Claims Hagel Acts Just Like 'Somebody Who is Actually an Iranian Agent'

Frank Gaffney appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to warn that President Obama’s Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel is not only “a guy who cannot be all that concerned about the men and women in uniform” but also a “shill” for Iran. Gaffney, whose anti-Muslim activism is so extreme that it has even drawn the ire of many Republican groups, told Mefferd that Hagel is acting just like an Iranian spy.

“You couldn’t find a guy who has been more active in terms of promoting the interests of Iran at the expense of the United States than Chuck Hagel other than somebody who is actually an Iranian agent,” Gaffney said, “I’m not suggesting that he is, I don’t know, but I certainly think that’s the point of comparison here because it’s almost that full-throated.”

Mefferd: Obviously people have been talking about Chuck Hagel and his anti-Israel position; he also has a lot of interest in disarming us, doesn’t he?

Gaffney: He is a man who served in the military with distinction in Vietnam, by virtue of that I think many, including veterans groups, have been inclined to think he’ll be a formidable ally of the men and women in uniform. I think that’s anything but the case. To be frank about it, a guy who believes that you can further eviscerate the funding for the Defense Department suggests to me he’s a guy who cannot be all that concerned about the men and women in uniform because it ensures that they will not have the wherewithal that they require to protect us. That’s obviously not good for us but it isn’t going to be very safe or healthy for them either as they go into war without that kit.

Mefferd: Right and you would think that Iran getting excited about Chuck Hagel’s nomination would tip off a few people that this is probably not in the best interest of the United States to have Chuck Hagel in this job.

Gaffney: He’s earned the support of the Iranian regime. I have to say, over many years he has shilled for them it seems at just about every turn. He has objected to sanctions, I guess there have been one or two votes where he played along with it, but mostly he’s been objecting to it certainly since he left the Senate. He has categorically rejected the idea that we might have to use military force to prevent the sort of threat that I believe is now imminent in terms of a nuclear armed Iran. He has been exceedingly aggressive in promoting the idea that we need to engage with them on essentially whatever terms they demand. In other words, you couldn’t find a guy who has been more active in terms of promoting the interests of Iran at the expense of the United States than Chuck Hagel other than somebody who is actually an Iranian agent. I’m not suggesting that he is, I don’t know, but I certainly think that’s the point of comparison here because it’s almost that full-throated.

Matt Barber, Whose Idol Backed Segregation, Lectures Everyone Else about the Civil Rights Movement

Forgive us for not buying Liberty University law dean Matt Barber’s attempt to lecture everyone about the Civil Rights Movement in an attempt to smear gay rights advocates. Barber, who is also the Director of Cultural Affairs for Liberty Counsel, on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday said it is “so offensive to me” and his many African American friends that “sexual anarchists” have “cynically co-opted and hijacked the language of the very, very noble civil rights movement and applied it to their disordered lifestyle.”

“The civil rights era, the true civil rights fight is pretty much over,” Barber later agued, rather astoundingly.

“So people want to be part of something bigger than themselves, they want to feel like they’re doing something important, so they cynically manipulate people and use the language of civil rights in order to dupe well-meaning young people into a cause that is contrary to freedom and facilities a lifestyle that is emotionally, spiritually destructive and doesn’t do society any good either.”

Listen:

Maybe it’s just me, but does anyone else find it problematic that a person whose idol is Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, is now using the civil rights movement in a harangue against gay rights? Falwell was a fierce opponent of the Civil Rights Movement and a proponent of segregation.

He preached against Brown v. Board of Education, which banned racial segregation in public schools, telling his church, “When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line. The true Negro does not want integration.”

Falwell kept his private Christian school segregated to help families avoid integration in public schools and opposed the Carter administration’s attempt to challenge the tax status of segregated schools. He also subscribed to the belief that black people were under “Noah’s curse on Ham” and argued that school “facilities should be separate.”

“If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God's word and had desired to do the Lord's will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made,” he said, warning that integration and interracial marriage will “destroy our race.”

Sound familiar?

He condemned the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a “civil wrong” and attacked movement leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr., as “Communists” who sought to “bring about violence and bloodshed.” The televangelist even opposed sanctions against South Africa’s apartheid government and said that anti-Apartheid protests were “instigated primarily by Communist-sponsored people.”

Falwell’s rhetoric against the Civil Rights Movement are actually remarkably similar to Matt Barber’s own anti-gay diatribes, as Barber seemed to have taken a page from Falwell in warning that gay rights advocates are inspired by Karl Marx and that radicals “trying to impose a globalist, Communist structure” are the real culprits behind the gay rights movement. He claimed that “homosexual activism, undermining the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic and doing away with it, that is the ice breaker that breaks the ice so that the bigger Communist ships and the redistributionist ships.”

While surely Barber would distance himself from Falwell’s harsh condemnation of the Civil Rights Movement, he is not afraid to use the same harsh and demagogic rhetoric of the late televangelist in order to attack supporters of gay equality.

Jamie Glazov Warns 'Anti-American' Obama will Imprison Critics of Islam

Last month, we reported Jamie Glazov of the David Horowitz Freedom Center told the Christian Broadcasting Network’s sports reporter/terrorism “expert” Erick Stakelbeck that progressives and radical Islamists – united over their shared “hatred for humans” – would succeed in “destroying this country.” Glazov fired off a totally-not-unhinged response in late December, comparing me to someone who aided the Holocaust, and then went on The Janet Mefferd Show to make sure that everyone knows that he is definitely not crazy:

Glazov: This is how I see it; this is how I see the picture: you come into a person’s house and you gain control of it with certain thought rules and certain speech rules and then you go to the top window and you open the top window and you yell to the enemy, ‘come in guys, come in guys, I did it, nothing can be said and you can come in now.’ So that’s what the left has done in America and it’s opened the top window and it’s waving in the Islamists.

Mefferd: I really hate to agree with you but I have to agree with you.

Glazov: And Janet, by the way, people think—and when I say people of course there’s people that understand—but I just mean the mainstream media and a very large number of people that you would run into the street and I start talking like this and they think I’m crazy.

Glazov later predicted that there will be more Fort Hood-style attacks because “people who hate America and reach out in solidarity to the people who want to destroy freedom in America are in the White House.”

Glazov: The Obama administration has made sure that Islam and jihad and all of those words referring to the enemy we face are nonexistent in our law enforcement and intelligence agency manuals. In other words, we’ve got more Fort Hoods to come and on a much larger scale because the left has succeeded in molding the boundaries of discourse of our society. I’ve been studying since I was thirteen and why I’m horrified is while I’ve been observing the left my whole life, it’s like watching ‘The Exorcist’ for me now when I was eleven years-old in the dark, because they have taken over the White House. People who hate America and reach out in solidarity to the people who want to destroy freedom in America are in the White House.

He told Mefferd that President Obama is an “anti-American president” and is “helping the Muslim Brotherhood not only come to power throughout the Middle East but in penetrating the White House.” Later, he argued that critics of Islam may soon be “going to jail.”

Glazov: We have an administration that only sides with the enemies of the United Sates. This is an anti-American president and it’s depressing. Look, I’m a fighting until the end, my parents came from the Soviet Union, we know tyranny, we smell it here, I’m going to keep scooping the water out of the sinking ship but I’m sorry to say, we are sinking. We have an administration that is helping the Muslim Brotherhood not only come to power throughout the Middle East but in penetrating the White House.

Mefferd: That’s right.



Glazov: With the OIC [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] and the administration our free speech is really under threat. This is frightening. We might be all going to jail in a very short amount of time if we even breathe a word about Islam.

Andrea Lafferty Cites CT School Shooting to Rally Opposition to Non-Discrimination Policies

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition used the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in order to bolster her campaign against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act over the bill’s protections for LGBT employees. While speaking to Janet Mefferd yesterday about the Orange County, Florida, school system’s new non-discrimination policy that is similar to ENDA, Laffery said that just as parents are upset about the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting and are concerned about keeping their children safe, they should also be worried about ENDA’s “devastating effects” as schools will have “people with some real issues playing out their personal problems in the classroom.”

ENDA, the bill itself as I have been talking about it won’t become law, but they’re going to piece meal it. They’re going to start by making federal contractors—if you want to be a plumber for the government or want to do this, that or the other with the government, you have to comply with this order. They make try and find other ways of doing it, implementing the whole ENDA but I’m not sure exactly how at this point. But what I think people should focus on is: what does this mean locally?

People are really upset because of this tragedy up in Connecticut and protecting our children and we’re going to see some devastating effects. What they did in Florida is they passed a measure which affects adults, teachers, staff and kids. Our concern is that transgender children in schools are a different issue than teachers and staff. What we’re going to see is people with some real issues playing out their personal problems in the classroom.

Like other Religious Right activists who have warned that ENDA will lead to sexual assault and death, Lafferty maintained that ENDA is part of the left’s “open season” on Christians on behalf of “fringe minorities and people that are truly sick.”

Lafferty warned that Chick-fil-A restaurants may soon be “forced” to hire “weirdos” seeking to undermine Christian businesses, warning that transgender people are committing “the ultimate act of self-hatred” and need “special medical treatment” rather than job protections.

Lafferty: I fully expect that depending on how the administration pushes this, we’re going to see people applying for jobs at Chick-fil-A and Christian businesses because families go there because A) the food is good and B) they want to support what Chick-fil-A stands for, and no better way of hurting a Chick-fil-A restaurant than to have a bunch of weirdos working there.

Mefferd: That is so weird you say that because I had an experience like that at Chick-fil-A just a couple of weeks ago, exact same experience. I thought: that’s very strange that this person is working at Chick-fil-A.

Lafferty: They may have chosen to hire this person but they’re going to be forced to.



Lafferty: I think minorities, those protected classes, are going to be shocked when they find out that a transgendered man or woman is going to be treated the same as an African American man or woman. That’s not right and the laws will be overridden if ENDA should pass. That’s why they are going jurisdiction by jurisdiction to try and force communities to accept this. This is the ultimate act of self-hatred and we are lifting this up? We should be giving them special medical treatment maybe.

Mefferd: Get them some help.

Lafferty: Not protected class [status].

Glenn Stanton: 'There is More Evidence for Bigfoot than there is that Homosexuality is just Who We Are'

Janet Mefferd spoke to Focus on the Family official Glenn Stanton yesterday about a new study in The Quarterly Review of Biology which suggests that epigenetics may explain what causes homosexuality. Right off the bat, the two were wary of the study because its principal researchers work in the field of evolutionary genetics and anyone who believes in the theory of evolution should not be trusted. Stanton maintained that upholding the science of evolution “takes as much faith” as believing in creationism!

Mefferd: It’s strange, you have scientists here headed up by an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Santa Barbara and right away I saw ‘evolutionary biologist.’ Is there more of a propensity do you find for people who subscribe to evolution and have an evolutionary bias to buy into this?

Stanton: They do come with that bias but basically the evolutionary sociobiology as they call it is a very interesting field of study, basically as I read it and I read it all the time because that’s the norm or the orthodoxy, it’s basically trying to utilize evolutionary theory for explaining what God did: there’s a male nature, there’s a female nature, we’re affected by these things. So they talk about our evolutionary development for why men tend to be more sexually adventurous and why women tend to be more sexually conservative, well you know it takes as much faith to believe that these things evolved as it does to say, that’s the way God wired us.

He later argued that any instance where scientific findings contradict his religious views, the science is wrong and leads to rebellion against God.

Stanton: To understand it, at the end of the day there is no real separation between good science and our Christian faith. It was Christians and a Christian worldview that created scientific investigation; it has its roots in that. At the end of the day, God is right, he is true, he is lord, and he set things in orbit, not just inter-planetary, but within our human makeup. When we follow those things, good things happen; when we rebel against them, bad things tend to happen.

Stanton dismissed those who have researched the biological or hormonal link to homosexuality as biased and “politically motivated” ideologues, unlike say a Religious Right activist who has his masters in religion. He concludes by arguing that “quite literally there is more evidence for Bigfoot than there is that homosexuality is just who we are.”

Stanton: Up to now most of the scholars have been politically motivated, they have a very deep, personal interest. But here’s the thing and all your listeners need to know this, there is no evidence whatsoever that has come up in the last twenty years—and not for a lack of trying—but no evidence that has come up in the last twenty years that shows any evidence that homosexuality is solely and purely genetically driven, like we are not born that way. Quite literally, this is a provocative statement, but quite literally there is more evidence for Bigfoot than there is that homosexuality is just who we are, we’re just born that away because of our genetic makeup and you’re not going to hear that from the mainstream media.

MRC's Gainor Says 'Complete and Utter Scumbag' Jon Stewart Is Leading the War on Christmas

The Media Research Center’s professional hyperventilator Dan Gainor appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to warn conservatives that they are losing ground in the “War on Christmas” as the media and liberals have teamed up to stop Christmas celebrations everywhere! He channeled Bryan Fischer in arguing that the “War on Christmas” is really a “war on Christ” and part of the left’s evil plot to “eradicate” and “destroy” religion.

Gainor: If you are a person of faith in this country, any faith unless it’s Islam, the media are out to get you. They are particularly after Christianity, Judaism as well, any sort of traditional values religion, they don’t want your values, they don’t want your faith on TV, they don’t want it in the media and the left is out to eradicate it.



Mefferd: How much worse would you say that it is getting, this War on Christmas, compared with previous years? How much is it ramped up?

Gainor: I think it’s ramped up a lot. I think the left smells blood in the water and they have all year. This is not just a War on Christmas, that’s the point that everyone listening needs to understand, this is a war on faith, this is a war on Christians, this is a war on Christ. So when we saw the Chick-fil-A war, that was just one battle, it wasn’t a Chick-fil-A war, it was just one battle in a greater war where if you come out and express belief in traditional values, particularly traditional faith, the media and the left will seek to destroy you.

Gainor called The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart a “complete and utter scumbag” over a manger scene joke and falsely claimed he never makes jokes about Islam, adding that no one should make jokes about Islam either. In fact, Gainor’s own group is dedicated to attacking positive portrayal of Islam and negative stories on Islamophobia in the media.

Ironically after attacking people who boycotted Chick-fil-A, he called on people to “systematically target” broadcasters and advertisers of programs like The Daily Show and to boycott the Girl Scouts because it is “destroying young women” and the Salvation Army, purportedly for not saying “Merry Christmas.” If that is the Salvation Army’s greatest offense, then Gainor and Mefferd should join the Chick-fil-A boycott, as the fast food chain only uses the phrase “Happy Holidays” as well.

Gainor: The Huffington Post today, I think there is the ’27 Gayest Christmas Songs,’ they are all trying to undermine the holiday to make it their own lefty craziness. Then they say, ‘well you know it’s still Christmas.’ You’ve got Jon Stewart—let’s face it, Jon Stewart is very funny but he is also a complete and utter scumbag. He did a manger scene and this could be delicate to talk about on radio and he did this on TV, I’m trying to dance around this this being radio, but he did a manger scene that was displayed in the nether regions of a naked female, and he got wildly abused for this. Well you know Jon Stewart doesn’t celebrate Christmas so he doesn’t care, it’s not seen as a religious offense.

Mefferd: But there’s not that respect for other people’s religious beliefs.

Gainor: You don’t see him making fun of Ramadan the same way and he shouldn’t and I like to think I don’t. I have a neighbor who is Muslim, I respect him, he’s frankly one of my neighbors I get along with best. We shouldn’t be calling for them to start attacking other religions too. No what we should be saying is you have to have some respect here and if you don’t, we’re going to systematically target your broadcast outlets, we’re going to target your advertisers and we’re going to retaliate. That’s what I meant about Salvation Army, if a Christian organization is afraid to say ‘Merry Christmas’ then I’m done with them with my holiday money and I love giving to Salvation Army. But look I’ve defunded the Girl Scouts because as much as I love the cookies and I do, they are a lefty organization that is destroying young women in America now and I will not give them a penny. Even though one of my coworker’s has a daughter in Girl Scouts and he no longer can successfully sell cookies in our office.

Barber: Gay Rights Advocates are 'Throwing Children Under the Bus'

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show this week to report on his group’s so far unsuccessful lawsuit against California’s new law prohibiting the use of ex-gay therapy on minors. Barber asserted that “anecdotal, unsubstantiated, politically motivated claims of suicidal thoughts” that frequently result from the unsafe and degrading therapy techniques “have nothing to do with science.” “Simply on the science alone they just don’t have a leg to stand on,” Barber said.

But as we’ve reported before, the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers and American Psychiatric Association have all found that sexual orientation conversion therapy is a dangerous sham.

Barber, who just yesterday he claimed that nearly half of all gay people are victims of sexual abuse as children, doesn’t really care about the findings of the country’s leading medical organizations, he just cares about preserving extremely harmful practices under the pretense of defending children against the supposed gay menace.

“The homosexual activist lobby is an insatiable beast” intent on “throwing children under the bus,” Barber claimed. He warned that gays are working to “turn our public schools into indoctrination centers” and “using these kids as pawns in a dangerous and selfish political game of chess.”

Barber: I know from personal experience dozens and dozens of former homosexuals, typically it’s through a relationship with Jesus Christ that they are able to come to a full and complete freedom from their unwanted same-sex attractions. We know the untold thousands of people who have left homosexuality, those results speak for themselves. You match that up against these anecdotal, unsubstantiated, politically motivated claims of suicidal thoughts and so forth, we see that this is clearly a political move; it has nothing to do with science or helping these children. They are using these kids as pawns in a dangerous and selfish political game of chess.



Barber: We’ve seen, as I mentioned before, thousands of people who have left homosexuality but they have to be able to establish that it’s fixed for legal purposes so that’s what it all boils down to, it’s all about the legality. We’re confident even the Ninth Circuit will hold that clearly this is an overreaching law that is politically motivated, intended to silence opposition to homosexuality and that simply on the science alone they just don’t have a leg to stand on.

Mefferd: You look at how the LGBT activists are operating in California and it just seems like there is no limit to what they want, it’s just one thing after another out there, they get one thing and then they move on to the next thing and they move on to the next thing and with great vigor.

Barber: That’s right. The homosexual activist lobby is an insatiable beast, as I’ve often said before. They do want everything that we’ve said that they wanted and that is not just affirmation of homosexuality but celebration of homosexuality under penalty of law, they absolutely want to turn our public schools into indoctrination centers and the narrative that people can and do leave homosexuality does not align with their political, cultural and legal goals so they are throwing children under the bus here—in order to try ends justifies the means agenda here.

Conservative Activists Condemn APA for Declassifying Transgender Identity as a Mental Disorder

Janet Mefferd hosted Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality yesterday on her radio show to criticize the American Psychiatric Association for its decision to remove “gender identity disorder” from their manual on mental health. Mefferd even wondered if the APA’s reasoning behind the move might “give pedophiles moral cover.”

According to LaBarbera, “these professional bodies have all been infiltrated by LGBT activists” and have “politicized” science. After lamenting that now schools will have to provide protections for transgender students, he said that sex reassignment surgeries should be made illegal.

One of the things they’re going to do, we all know it, these professional bodies have all been infiltrated by LGBT activists, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, and they are going to set down these guidelines for these poor children who we’ve seen you know with ‘the little Johnny wants to go to second grade in a dress,’ and people who still have common sense in our society say that’s ridiculous, that’s preposterous, that has an effect on all the other kids in school, but we’re going to get these guidelines that say ‘go with that.’

A lot of people go by science, even though science has been very politicized as we’re discussing here, and they go by science and they say ‘well maybe Johnny wasn’t mean to be a boy, he was meant to be a girl.’ We already see parents doing that with their gender-confused children. The importance of this saying it’s no longer a disorder means basically it will propel this radical transgender movement forward. The transgender movement, there’s a whole bunch of variations, some are people who just want to live as another gender without getting the so-called sex-change operation, at its extreme it’s getting these awful , disfiguring sex-change operations which I believe shouldn’t even be legal.

The two agreed that schools should be able to discriminate against homosexual and transgender teachers and warned that a lesbian teacher may try to put a picture of her partner on her desk!

Later, LaBarbera made a completely incoherent argument where he claimed that schools must discriminate against transgender students because if they don’t then “the majority loses its right to guide their children morally and spiritually to the school.” “Law used to be to restrain sin, that’s the biblical purpose,” LaBarbera said, “but now it is flipped in American society and law is encouraging sin.”

Mefferd: One of the fears about ENDA was that if you couldn’t discriminate for example against a transgender teacher, then your kid is stuck with a transgender teacher. Is that something as a potential implication of this news?

LaBarbera: Absolutely. Because you have to see unequal things as equal under the law, that’s the whole point. Same thing with an openly homosexual, what if you had a homosexual activist teacher? What if you had a lesbian teacher for second grade students and she is in a state with a sexual orientation or gender identity law on the books, she wants to put a picture of her lesbian lover on the desk, you can’t stop that. It’s the same with this gender identity.



Mefferd: That does become really troubling when you think about whether or not this will cause, as you mentioned before, a little boy who likes to dress up in girls’ clothing, the school not being able to tell them you can’t wear it. I guess it has yet to be established whether or not a school would have the right to say ‘a little boy has to dress like a little boy’ but it sure does open the question now.

LaBarbera: You know where the ACLU and the gay lobby wants to take it, the trans lobby, they want to say no, the school would not have the right. So the majority loses its right to guide their children morally and spiritually to the school, that’s what’s happening, which is why a lot of people are pulling out of the public school. If gender identity becomes a right, then who is school to trample on the rights? That’s why we see men in female restrooms because they have been given so-called rights to act on their perceived gender identity. It comes back to: what is the purpose of law? Law used to be to restrain sin, that’s the biblical purpose, but now it is flipped in American society and law is encouraging sin.

Mefferd: Of course, that’s the brave new world we’re all living in.

Joel Gilbert Faults Karl Rove For Focusing on Economy Rather Than Obama's 'Real Father'

Karl Rove, whose American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS spent hundreds of millions of dollars attacking President Obama’s economic record without avail, has become something of a punching bag for a defeated and embittered Religious Right. Shortly after the election, Gary Bauer faulted Rove for focusing on the economy rather than on abortion rights and marriage equality and radio host Janet Mefferd expressed concern that “we didn’t even talk much about radical Islam.” A few days later, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios even accused Rove of moderating the GOP’s previous focus on anti-gay policies.

Today, Joel Gilbert, director of the widely distributed anti-Obama movie “Dreams From My Real Father,” joined the pile-on. In an interview with Renew America’s Cliff Kincaid, Gilbert argued that Rove made a fatal mistake by focusing his attacks on the economy rather than on Gilbert’s theory that the president’s real father was communist organizer Frank Marshall Davis. "If Republicans had made Obama's Marxist agenda and personal background the main issues of the campaign, Americans would have had a much clearer understanding of the choice between American values and Marxism,” Gilbert said.


"I heard complaints from Rove's conservative donors four weeks in advance of the election," filmmaker Joel Gilbert told Accuracy in Media. "They kept asking, 'where is the money being spent?'" The questions intensified after Obama's victory and the Democrats achieved a larger 55-45 majority in the Senate.

Gilbert, who directed the documentary "Dreams from My Real Father," about Obama's Marxist roots, notes that Rove had argued to conservative donors that the winning strategy for Republicans was to place ads focusing on the poor economy.

Gilbert's film, which was distributed to millions of voters and argued that Obama's real biological and ideological father was Communist Party USA propagandist Frank Marshall Davis, attempted to expose Obama's character and background. But Rove, Romney and Republican leaders did not want to raise these issues. In fact, Rove had argued that calling Obama a socialist or left-winger would backfire.

Gilbert argued that Obama was a pop-culture phenomenon with a high "likability" factor and that "Voters perceived Obama as a nice man with an inspiring family story." The right strategy, he says, was to expose Obama's Marxist views, the role of Frank Marshall Davis in molding Obama's political philosophy, and Obama's questionable statements about his own upbringing.

Gilbert says, "If Republicans had made Obama's Marxist agenda and personal background the main issues of the campaign, Americans would have had a much clearer understanding of the choice between American values and Marxism."

Gilbert’s film, meanwhile, is on record as having “revolted” focus groups of swing voters and disgusted at least one Florida voter so much that he decided to vote for the president.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious