Janet Mefferd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Mefferd: Yes, absolutely right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mefferd: Wow.

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

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

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

Mefferd: Oh, wow.

 

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

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

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

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

Mefferd: Good point, good point.

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

Mefferd: Ah, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/5/13

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

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.
 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious