Janet Mefferd

Erick Stakelbeck: 'Imam Obama' is Aiding the Muslim Brotherhood

The Christian Broadcasting Network’s terrorism analyst Erick Stakelbeck has no credentials to report on security issues (he is a sports reporter), but that hasn’t stopped him from playing the role as “expert.” Stakelbeck appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show to repeat right-wing talking points to claim that President Obama is a failed leader. He said Obama is “using the bin Laden raid as his sole, only foreign policy talking point,” arguing that it doesn’t reflect “foreign policy” and that “anyone in their right mind” would have made the call to go into Pakistan to find bin Laden (unless you’re Mitt Romney). But then Stakelbeck claimed that mission didn’t really matter since bin Laden “was basically isolated and neutralized at that point anyway.”

He went on to talk about how Obama is “empowering and emboldening the Muslim Brotherhood,” “throwing Israel under the bus” and “appeasing the Iranians,” and even said that Obama may pull of an “October surprise” by making a deal with Iran or sending troops into Libya. “Who knows what else they have up their sleeve, I have to say these are people who are leftist ideologues, they are hell-bent in their words ‘fundamentally transforming America,’ and I don’t think they’re going to go quietly,” he said.

Stakelbeck also discussed with Mefferd the non-scandal in Benghazi, arguing that the President has turned into “Imam Obama” over his UN speech where he said: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.” Stacelbeck decried the speech and lamented, “This is an American president saying that in front of the UN? This is madness,” apparently forgetting that President George W. Bush made similar statements during the Muhammad cartoon controversy. He concluded that Muslim countries can never have democracy because “Islam and true democracy are not compatible.”

Stakelbeck: He goes in front of the UN two weeks later and blames this obscure YouTube clip that no one has seen that’s defaming Mohammad. Not only that, when he goes before the UN General Assembly in a stunning statement which the mainstream media also ignored, he says ‘the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.’

Mefferd: As if we all accept him as prophet, right?

Stakelbeck: Thank you Imam Obama. Not ‘Islam’s prophet,’ ‘the prophet of Islam.’ This is an American president saying that in front of the UN? This is madness.

Mefferd: I know.



Stakelbeck: I don’t believe that Islam and democracy are compatible. I know that’s a very controversial thing to say but if history is a judge and the Koran is a judge, then I believe that’s a fact, that Islam and true democracy are not compatible.

E.W. Jackson: God will turn Black Voters 'Overwhelmingly' against Obama and Democrats in November

Bishop E.W. Jackson of Staying True to America’s National Destiny (STAND) continues to tell (largely white) Religious Right leaders that black voters are about to move against President Obama in huge numbers to punish him for supporting marriage equality for gays and lesbians. While Jackson came in fourth place in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Virginia with less than 5 percent of the vote, he won accolades in the conservative movement for his new video comparing Democrats to salve masters.

While speaking to talk show host Janet Mefferd, Jackson claimed that his video is part of a larger move of God to move African American voters against Obama and other Democrats. He told Mefferd that black Christians are “overwhelmingly” supporting his mission to punish the Democrats for backing gay equality, saying that the party is “in rebellion against God” and lost the confidence of Black America.

Unfortunately for Jackson, polls show Obama receiving over 90 percent of the black vote, in line with past elections showing tremendous support for Democratic presidential candidates among African Americans.

Jackson: When the Democrat Party [sic] said we’re making same-sex marriage a part of our platform and the President came out in support of it I think those were straws that broke the camel’s back and people say ‘you know, we’ve had it.’ Black folks have voted overwhelmingly against these things when they’ve come up on state constitutional questions and now I think many are saying, ‘you know what I voted for this president the first time, I cannot vote for him again and I cannot support this party because it’s in rebellion against God.’

Mefferd: What has been the reaction, you have mentioned a lot of people have been reacting to your video and overwhelmingly you’ve had great support from black pastors, what about rank and file black Christians listening to what you’ve had to say, are they with you?

Jackson: I think overwhelmingly yes. I think there’s a generational issue here and people ask me, ‘how can the black community support people who just absolutely reject their most core values’ and I said because it’s not logical, it’s emotional. There’s a sense of fear, there’s a sense that this is what we’re supposed to do, but I think younger people are coming along. I noticed younger pastors, when I said younger I’m not talking about 20s and 30s I think in the 50’s they’re saying ‘you know what we need to take another look at this?’ I am finding that rank and file black folks have come up to me and they’ve said: how do I change my registration? I’ve voted for this party in the past, I’ve been a kneejerk Democrat, I’m never going to do that again. I’ve had people come to me in tears and say ‘thank you for waking me up.’ God is doing something Janet, it’s far beyond me and that video, I believe God is doing something to stir the hearts of His people as an eagle stirs a nest.

Later, while discussing the manufactured scandal regarding the New Black Panther Party case, Jackson said that the Justice Department has “turned loose their investigative powers on anybody who seems to question them” and that the Obama administration is “going to try to hurt you” if you stand in the way of their supposedly anti-Christian agenda.

Jackson: I complained when they intimidated voters during the last election and you can imagine what kind of response I got from Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, absolutely none. They ignored me. In fact if you press too hard apparently they have actually turned loose their investigative powers on anybody who seems to question them, they’ve done that on more than one occasion to people. So it’s just clear to me that we’ve got in a sense an administration that’s decided it’s not interested in God, the Bible, Christianity or any of that, it’s interested in pursuing its own willful agenda and if you get in the way, they’re going to try to hurt you. We just need to make sure that we are prayed up and we’re trusting in God because He is our ultimate protection anyway. Even though STAND does not endorse candidates, we’re standing on principle; I trust that the outcome of this election will at least begin to move the country back toward more traditional values, toward our Constitution, our Declaration and our Judeo-Christian principles.

Kuhner: 'Gay Gestapo' Will Have Opponents 'Burnt at the Stake'

Janet Mefferd brought Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner on her radio show yesterday to shower praise on his wildly anti-gay column attacking Tammy Baldiwn, the openly gay Democratic congresswoman running for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin. They kicked off the program by mocking gay Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank’s marriage to his “male husband or wife” and Kuhner joked that he will support same-sex marriage only if Frank or his husband can get pregnant.

Mefferd: I love this line, the left got so mad at you for saying this, you say, ‘the last thing Wisconsin needs is Barney Frank in a dress’ and I thought, who is that insulting, Barney Frank’s manhood? I’m not even sure. Aren’t they transgender-friendly, why are they mad about that?

Kuhner: He’s married now and I’ve issued a challenge to Barney Frank. I said, Barney, the purpose of marriage is to have children, now if you and your male husband or wife, I don’t know how to put this, your male partner, if one of you can get pregnant because now they’re in the honeymoon phase, they’re lovers, I said if one of you can get pregnant and you can pull off a miracle I will openly support gay marriage. So I am waiting for a miracle from Barney.

Mefferd: That’s very magnanimous, well good for you.

Kuhner had previously told Mefferd that the LGBT community promotes “civilizational collapse” and is “even worse than the radical Islamists” and “brutal dictatorships,” and yesterday maintained that the “gay gestapo” is the “most frightening, scariest lobby” in politics. He said Baldwin’s Republican opponent Tommy Thompson should not have apologized over a campaign aide’s smear email targeting Baldwin for attending a gay pride rally, arguing that a pride parade is like a “bordello” and “pornography on asphalt.” Kuhner advised Thompson to remind voters that homosexuality is “destructive” and “harmful” to children.

Kuhner: Here you have a woman who is not just an open lesbian, she’s been an active promoter of the gay lifestyle, she’s an active promoter of gay pride, she’s always in these marches. I’ve been to some of these marchers, for example, you go to the one in San Francisco, it’s a bordello. The public displays, this is not fit for people to see. It’s basically pornography in public, on asphalt. When I look at this and I see the way Tammy Baldwin has behaved and conducted herself and the values that she preaches and champions I don’t understand why Tommy Thompson is apologizing, in fact I would do the opposite. If I were Tommy Thompson I would say very simply: marriage is between a man and a woman, we do not believe that homosexual behavior is natural and moral. Every major faith: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, going back thousands of years, in most cultures today, in most civilizations today, understand marriage to be between a man and a woman. 

If Tammy Baldwin wants to be lesbian in the privacy of her own bedroom, that’s her business. But when she makes it a public issue, when she starts promoting a lifestyle that we know is immoral and we know is destructive and we know has a harmful impact, especially on children. Children who are adopted by homosexual couples clearly don’t do as well as children that are adopted by heterosexual couples. Why? Because children need — newsflash to the liberals — a mommy and a daddy. Instead what we have is the gay gestapo who go out and try to intimidate morally, economically, professionally and personally anybody who speaks out against the homosexual agenda. After my piece came out—Janet I said this on your show before and I’ll say it again—the homosexual lobby is to me the most frightening, scariest lobby whenever I publish a piece. They are the worst.

They ended the show by warning that gays promote a form of “totalitarianism” and “will do everything possible to destroy” those who are in their way. “Either you accept homosexuality or you are burnt at the stake,” Kuhner said.

Kuhner: There’s nothing tolerant about it, there’s nothing inclusive about it, there’s nothing compassionate about it. They preach an intellectual, moral totalitarianism. Either you accept homosexuality or you are burnt at the stake, professionally your career will be finished, and they will do everything possible to destroy you. Well to me, that’s not America.

Mefferd: No, that’s not America and that’s why this agenda has to be stopped. As you said very well, it’s one thing to allow people the personal freedom to conduct themselves the way they choose in their own home and not have the state intrude into people’s bedrooms, but when it becomes a matter of public policy, as you say very well, it affects all of us, it affects our religious freedom when it comes down to it.

Jeffress: 'Cult' Member Romney Still Better than Obama, who has his 'Fist in the Face of God'

After Mitt Romney secure the Republican nomination, prominent Southern Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress has said that Christians should vote for the Mormon candidate over President Obama since he “espouses unbiblical principles.” Such a sentiment is striking since Jeffress attacked Romney’s Mormon faith in the 2008 and 2012 primary elections, hoping that the GOP would nominate an evangelical Christian like Rick Perry over Romney as Mormonism is “a heresy from the pit of Hell.” Now, Jeffress is rallying evangelical support for Romney, despite his prior warning that electing a Mormon will lead to God’s judgment.

Jeffress told Janet Mefferd, who has also criticized Romney over his faith, that it is still better to vote for Romney, even though he is a member of a “cult” and “false religion” that believes in a “multiplicity of gods,” than Obama because of his stances on marriage equality and abortion rights. The pastor said defeating Obama is even worth potentially giving Mormon missionaries a tool to bolster “legitimacy of their faith” and make more converts.

I still think there are concerns out there among evangelicals about voting for a Mormon. I’ve made peace with it; the way I’ve made peace with it is to make it very clear on programs like yours that Mormonism is a cult, it is a false religion, Mormons worship a multiplicity of gods, they deny the Bible, in fact they think the Bible is so error-filled there had to be a second book of revelations. I want to make it very clear that I don’t believe Mormonism is Christianity but I do think that in this case it is better to vote for a non-Christian who supports biblical principles like life and marriage than voting for a professing Christian like Barack Obama who absolutely repudiates what Jesus Christ said about some key issues.



I don’t want to minimize the Mormonism issue. I had probably the most well-known pastor in America say to me last week; you know one concern is the mission implications of this, Mormons are so involved in missions overseas, they’ll be able to point to a Mormon president as legitimacy of their faith. So I think we need to be clear that Mormonism is a false religion that leads people away from rather than toward the true God, but having said that we are making this choice in spite of that.

He warned that America is “about to go over the moral and spiritual cliff from which there is no return” if Obama is re-elected, asserting that his administration is “openly involved in high-handed sins” and shaking its “fist in the face of God” on matters like same-sex marriage.

You know in the Old Testament the Bible had what it called high-handed sins, sins that were like a clenched fist in the face of God. We are now seeing an administration that is openly involved in high-handed sins: the embracing of gay marriage. A friend of mine said to me recently, ‘think about this just ten years ago if a pastor or a sandwich company were to say marriage is between a husband and a wife, a man and a woman, no one would have batted an eye at that, but today that is labeled as hate speech,’ now what has changed? It’s not the Bible or the message that has changed, it shows what has happened in our culture. I know this sounds alarmist but I believe we are at the precipice, we are at a tipping point in our country right now, we are about to go over not the fiscal cliff, we are about to go over the moral and spiritual cliff from which there is no return, and that is why it is imperative for Christians to get out and vote in this election.

Janet Huckabee: 'Women are Really on Fire for Todd Akin'

As her husband Mike Huckabee has emerged as one of Todd Akin’s biggest boosters, Janet Huckabee is now hitting the campaign trail along with the Duggar family for Akin, whose campaign has been unraveling after he said survivors of “legitimate rape” rarely become pregnant as a result. She told conservative radio show host Janet Mefferd, who noted before the broadcast that “portions of The Janet Mefferd Show are sponsored by the Todd Akin for U.S. Senate campaign,” that “women are really on fire for Todd Akin” and “women know what they want and right now I think they want Todd Akin to be their Senator.” Despite Huckabee’s spin or presence in an alternative reality, polls have consistently shown McCaskill with a double digit lead among women voters.

Mefferd: As you’re going around and you’re talking to women and you’re doing these events around the state of Missouri, what are you hearing from women in particular about their support for Todd Akin and what they think conversely about Senator McCaskill?

Huckabee: I think women are really on fire for Todd Akin. They’re out there, they’re praying for him, they’re lifting him up in prayer, they’re giving financially. You know everybody can’t give millions and millions of dollars, and it’s to me more important that a thousand people give one dollar than it is for one person to give a thousand dollars, because if you have a thousand people that are willing to give a dollar the amount is the same but you have a thousand people that have put skin in the game and you have a thousand votes of people who are going to say ‘hey, I’m going to vote for him.’ I tell people it doesn’t matter what you give, it’s equal sacrifice that you’re willing to make phone calls, that you’re willing to put up signs, that you’re willing give that dollar or that thousand dollars, whatever you can do and women around the state are doing that. To me it’s exciting, they always want to say ‘do you want to talk to the man in charge or the woman who knows’? Women know what they want and right now I think they want Todd Akin to be their Senator.

Mefferd: Oh I agree, it is so exciting. Go to JanetMefferd.com, click on that box that says ‘Support Todd Akin, Help Take Back the Senate’ and get involved today.

LaBarbera: ‘Dictator Obama’ Championing ‘Gay Affirmative Action’

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality on Friday spoke to Religious Right talk show host Janet Mefferd, who insisted that the Obama administration wants to “give preference to somebody who is a homosexual to be a security guard” to guard embassies in countries like Libya. However, the job posting in question “does not list same-sex domestic partners of government employees as a prerequisite,” as Media Matters had already noted, but lists same-sex partners under their “Eligible Family Member” guidelines, which includes spouses, children and siblings. “It’s beyond dumb, I didn’t know that when Barack Obama was campaigning in 2008 that he was going to give us gay affirmative action,” LaBarbera said, “hey who is in favor of affirmative action based on aberrant, deviant sexual conduct.”

“We’ve seen this all over the world, the Obama administration is now promoting homosexuality as a ‘human right’ and they are in your face, going in Muslim countries and heavily Christian countries promoting homosexuality in their embassies, this is an incredible, revolutionary development,” he said.

“I don’t know those gay security guards, that’s who I want to defend me,” LaBarbera said. He went on to refer to the President as “Dictator Obama,” asserting that the job posting violates DOMA.

Mefferd: One of the things we’ve learned now is in the months leading up to the 9/11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, the US embassy in Libya was seeking to hire two body guards with limited English language skills, we know this for about $13,000 a year, and in these job descriptions that the US embassy in Libya posted online they explicitly stated that they would give preference to filling these positions with qualified US citizens who were family members of US government employees and this included those with same-sex domestic partners. Now I’m thinking to myself, how does this jive with Libya? Don’t you think that’s a dumb idea, am I missing something here?

LaBarbera: It’s beyond dumb. I didn’t know that when Barack Obama was campaigning in 2008 that he was going to give us gay affirmative action, don’t you think that would have been an interesting point? Hey, who is in favor of affirmative action based on aberrant, deviant sexual conduct? See that’s an interesting concept but if you’re going to do it let’s do it in a Muslim country where homosexuals can actually be killed for practicing homosexuality and we’ve seen this all over the world. The Obama administration is now promoting homosexuality as a ‘human right’ and they are in your face, going in Muslim countries and heavily Christian countries promoting homosexuality in their embassies, this is an incredible, revolutionary development and it’s hardly even been a campaign issue.

Mefferd: And the silly part about it is why would you give preference to somebody who is a homosexual to be a security guard, what is the connection there?

LaBarbera: I don’t know. Those gay security guards, that’s who I want to defend me. But also what about DOMA? This is a violation of course of the spirit if not the law of the Defense of Marriage Act which is supposed to give preference to normal, male-female married spouses in our US government and Obama just said, ‘hey, we’re not going to follow that anymore,’ and just decided to make a new law.

Mefferd: Right, because he has been denigrating DOMA for a long, long time and has not defended it in court even though he is required to as the President of the United States to uphold federal law, he’s just not doing it and nobody is holding his feet to a fire on that. Does that drive you as crazy as it drives me that he just gets away with it?

LaBarbera: Yeah, you know Dictator Obama, hey, write a new law, we’re not going to enforce that law.

LaBarbera also lauded the American Family Association’s campaign to pull students from schools that participate in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Mix It Up at Lunch Day,” where students are encouraged to sit with their peers whom they don’t normally talk to or associate with. While he couldn’t find an example of how “Mix It Up at Lunch Day” promotes the “gay agenda,” he said the event should be opposed simply because it connects schools to the “anti-Christian” and “evil” SPLC.

What this event is, this seemingly innocuous event, of getting kids to sit next to somebody else during the lunch hour, but what this really is is luring the schools in, getting them hooked on the SPLC and later on they find out that the SPLC promotes homosexuality in the name of tolerance. This is one of their more innocuous activities but if you are allowing the SPLC in as an institution then you are saying essentially you agree with the SPLC’s concept of tolerance, which these days is a radically pro-homosexual agenda.



Their purpose is to get us out of media, to delegitimize us, to make it ‘oh why did you call that hate group, hey you don’t call the KKK every time you do a story on black people,’ which is the way they think. It’s evil, it’s really insulting to Christians, especially to African American Christians the idea that the opposition to homosexuality is analogous to being like a racist, that is an anti-Christian thought process that the SPLC is going through.

Jeffrey Kuhner Says Obama is a ‘Cultural Muslim’ who will be Impeached and Removed from Office if Re-Elected

Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner while speaking to Janet Mefferd yesterday insisted that listeners should not believe claims that President Obama is a Muslim but instead argued that he is a “cultural Muslim” who is working to bring down the US in order to further the cause of anti-American Islamists. After delivering a tirade of already-debunked myths regarding the Obama administration’s response to the Libyan embassy attack, Kuhner said Obama is “literally unleashing radical Islam” in the Middle East and predicted that Obama will be impeached and ultimately removed from office if Republicans win control of both houses of Congress.

He is a disciple of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, it’s not that complicated, he is a believer in black liberation theology, he believes that the Third World’s poverty is due to Western imperialism, Israeli imperialism and American imperialism. So he’s a cultural Muslim in the sense that he identifies with the Muslim world, he identifies with the Arab street because like his father and like his mentor George Marshall Davis [sic] and like his spiritual adviser Jeremiah Wright, he sees them as victims of the West and of America. So in his mind, these Islamists are anti-American because we’ve mistreated them so if we just topple these dictators and allow them to come to power and not interfere in their internal affairs then they’ll love us. So that’s why he didn’t interfere in Iran and he let the mullahs crush the pro-democracy movement there, it’s why he pulled the plug on Hosni Mubarak even though the Muslim Brotherhood is infinitely worse than Mubarak, they’re more brutal, more authoritarian, more dictatorial, Christians are being slaughtered in that country every day, and now we have this Islamist monster in Libya. So in his mind he thinks he’s a great liberator but all he is doing is literally unleashing radical Islam.



The Obama White House literally left our U.S. officials to die, he cannot get around that. So I think this will eventually engulf him—I’m not saying today, I’m not saying tomorrow—like Watergate, these things take time. But even if he wins re-election, this will haunt him throughout his second term, it will be a cloud over his entire presidency and if the Republicans manage to lose this election but manage to get control of the Senate he will be impeached and I believe he will be convicted.

Pamela Geller Warns 'The New Fascism' of the Left is Coming to Destroy Freedom

Pamela Geller discussed with Janet Mefferd her new campaign with ads that read, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man,” and the arrest of journalist Mona Eltahawy for vandalizing one the ads in a New York subway station. In a blog post, Geller called Eltahawy’s actions “a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome” since she survived physical and sexual assault while detained by Egypt’s Interior Ministry. Geller backtracked in the interview and said she didn’t refer to her actions as a case of Stockholm syndrome, even though she did exactly that on her blog, but went on to say that Eltahawy now stands up for the “savage” (i.e. Muslim) only “once they become Jew-haters.” Or maybe, because unlike Geller, Eltahawy does not paint all Muslims with the same brush and blame every single Muslim for the attack she faced in Egypt.

Mefferd: This is interesting, you write today about this woman Mona Eltahawy who went and defaced your ad in the name of free speech, it was just vandalism, the Stockholm syndrome angle was new to me, I had not realized she had been assaulted last year. Why in the world would she go from being assaulted in Cairo to doing this, wouldn’t she think these people were savages after what she went through?

Geller: Why indeed. Actually the word that she used for them at the time was beasts, they were beastly, she said. I guess they cease being beastly once they become Jew-haters, once they’re Jew-haters they are I guess cleansed of any beastliness. I don’t mean to be funny but it’s really true, it’s the same jihad, it’s the same mandate that possessed them in Tahrir Square that possess them in their war on the Jews in Israel. Yes I agree it was decidedly—I know people have called it Stockholm syndrome, I don’t, because when the attacks were on her she saw it in crystal clear moral terms, when the attacks are against the tiny state of Israel, then all the sudden she is attacking.

Geller, who literally runs a group called the American Freedom Defense Initiative, told Mefferd that “it’s interesting how fascists always cloak themselves in the word ‘freedom’” and claimed that anti-fascists are the new fascists. She even blamed the vandalism on a culture of “lawlessness” promoted by the media, the “very violent and misogynist” Occupy Wall Street movement and Obama, who she says is also “aiding and abetting of Al-Qaeda and jihadist elements.”

Not to be outdone, Mefferd claimed that the “radical left agenda” is pushing a “creeping anti-Semitism” reminiscent of the Holocaust.

Geller: We certainly don’t think this should be encouraged, which the media is doing; they are encouraging this kind of lawlessness. It is sort of the whole Obama administration culture that we are living in, the OWS, the Occupy Wall Street, this was sanctioned by Obama, very violent and misogynist, lawless movement. Good people have to stand up, we have to defend ourselves, we have to defend our freedom.

Mefferd: I agree. You know what really depresses me, I was talking about this with my husband not too long ago, I remember at the time Schindler’s List came out and there was so much discussion as Steven Spielberg had done all these interviews with Holocaust survivors and we heard so much good with ‘never again’ and remember these stories that we want to preserve so this will never ever happen again. And yet we’re seeing this creeping anti-Semitism come up and it’s scary, it scares me, because it doesn’t just affect the Jewish population, it affects Christians, it affects anybody who goes against the radical left agenda.

Geller: Oh yeah. It’s pure fascism. Of course the new fascism—it’s interesting how fascists always cloak themselves in the word ‘freedom’ and now they’re cloaking themselves, I mean actually many of these groups are called ‘anti-fascist groups.’ I’m telling you it’s the big, giant lie and the more absurd the lie the more they tell it with absolute certainty and conviction. These are dangerous times. I think it’s most manifest in the handling of the attack, which was an act of war on our embassy in Libya and here you have Obama who was largely responsible for sanctioning the aiding and abetting of Al-Qaeda and jihadist elements in the revolution against Gaddafi.

Randy Thomasson: 'Gay Rights are Antithetical to a Free Society' and the 'Devil's Work'

Save California’s Randy Thomasson went on yet another anti-gay tirade while appearing on The Janet Mefferd Show, this time excoriating gay rights advocates for successfully pushing a new law in California that puts limits on harmful and discredited sexual orientation conversion therapy. He claimed that the Democrats who backed the measure decided “to do the Devil’s work” and “to go against religious freedom, against free speech, against the freedom to even love your own child and care for your own child.” He argued that LGBT people were likely abused as children but because of the new law, parents will be prohibited by the “completely insane” law from providing counseling to a child who survived sexual abuse.

Let’s talk about hepatitis, let’s talk about HPV, let’s talk about a whole host of sexually transmitted diseases, let’s talk about higher cancer rates for homosexual men, let’s talk about earlier deaths for homosexual men; you’ve got to realize the harm of children going into this lifestyle, it puts them at greater risk of all of these ills. Again, the Democrats are saying ‘no, no, no,’ we want to go with our homosexual activist friends, our volunteers, our political supporters, we are going to go against religious freedom, against free speech, against the freedom to even love your own child and care for your own child, and we are going to do the Devil’s work here and that exactly what’s been done.



To label something that is helping the child overcome a conflict, the feelings that have resulted from trauma, you cannot say that it’s harmful to be helpful to a child deal with trauma, it’s absolutely opposite of that. So the state is coming in to say ‘let’s push aside parental rights, this is a health or safety issue’ is completely bonkers, it’s calling black white and white black, it’s calling right wrong and wrong right, it’s completely insane and it’s very angering to think about the child who belongs to the parents and the parents have a God-given right to seek what’s best for that child and if the child’s been molested at a camp or somewhere else, the parent wants counseling for the gender-confusion that’s resulted, even if the parent wants the counseling, even if the parent pays for the counseling, even if the parent finds the counseling, the state says to the parent ‘you can’t do that’ and tells the molested child ‘no help for you.’

Later, Thomasson said that gay rights supporters want to “wipe out all the competition” by placing limits on the pseudo-scientific practice, warning that next the state might decide to ban vaccinations or chemotherapy. He concluded by telling Mefferd that gays and lesbians should not receive civil rights protections since they can change their sexual orientation as “people get out of addictions in America when they work at it and try,” calling gay rights “dangerous for America” and “antithetical to a free society.”

Look at what we have in our society, we have conflicts in society, we have disagreements in society, but do we allow those who are in power to wipe out all competition? In fact, we have rules about companies can’t have a monopoly, right? The US Supreme Court has been involved in those types of rulings. But here we see that a rival, homosexual activists say ‘we want to wipe out our rivals here,’ look if something is controversial then you can’t wipe it out, otherwise, you have to apply the same rule: let’s wipe out regressive therapy, which is controversial, let’s wipe out tarot card therapy, let’s wipe out chiropractic care, let’s wipe out vaccinations, let’s wipe out chemotherapy, see you can’t in a free society get rid of all controversies, you have to allow controversy and disagreement within a free society.



Homosexuality is not biologically based, we’ve never heard bisexuality or transsexuality is biological, it’s obviously a chosen thing. But when you look at what has happened is it’s been turned into a minority even though a minority civil rights protected class requires that there be an immutable, non-changeable, characteristic. We have thousands and thousands of former homosexuals, showing that change occurs; people get out of addictions in America when they work at it and try. Now we have this turned into a hammer upon everyone else; ‘gay rights’ defeats and trumps everyone else’s rights who disagree and that’s why it’s so dangerous for America, gay rights are antithetical to a free society.

David Horowitz Says Huma Abedin is 'Worse than Alger Hiss' and Grover Norquist is a 'Practicing Muslim' Subverting the GOP

David Horowitz has been promoting his new book Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion on conservative talk radio by attacking Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin as a Muslim Brotherhood agent and arguing that President Obama was only elected because he is black because “part of the racism of our society is [that] if you’re black you can get away with murder.” Horowitz’s interview with Janet Mefferd was no different, as he charged that Abedin “is a Muslim Brotherhood operative and she has been all her life” and that she has been pushing foreign policy favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood. Horowitz even said that Abedin “is worse than Alger Hiss,” the accused Soviet spy.

But it is not just the Obama administration which has been penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, as Horowitz warned that “the Republican Party has also been infiltrated” thanks to conservative luminary Grover Norquist, whom he said is a “practicing Muslim.” Norquist is a reviled figure among anti-Muslim activists like Horowitz, who in 2011 lashed out at Norquist from the podium at CPAC, mainly due to the fact his wife is a Muslim-American and he works with Muslim Republicans like Suhail Kahn.

Horowitz: We have a medieval enemy with twenty-first century technology aimed at us, they’ve infiltrated our government. If you wondered how it’s possible that Obama and Hillary would not know or would pretend what was happening wasn’t happening in the Middle East or how they could turnover Egypt as they have to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of Al Qaeda and all of these terrible Islamic Nazi organizations, the answer is not really hard to find: the chief adviser to the American government on Muslim affairs, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, is a Muslim Brotherhood operative and she has been all her life, and her whole family is. This is worse than Alger Hiss, for those in your audience who are old enough to remember, Alger Hiss is a Soviet agent who was right next to Roosevelt at Yalta.

Mefferd: It’s very true and yet you had these five congressmen, Michele Bachmann and the others, who tried to say the inspectors-general need to look into this, and even Republicans stood up on the floor and said no!

Horowitz: You had Boehner and McCain, and McCain is just bonkers. But the Republican Party has also been infiltrated. Grover Norquist is a Muslim, he is a practicing Muslim.

Later, Horowitz explained that liberals and radical Islamists are working out of their shared “hatred for America” and promoted the ridiculous and debunked conspiracy that Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s book Dreams from My Father.

Mefferd: Why is it that you see so many who are radicals and progressives supporting radical Islam?

Horowitz: Because they share a common enemy: the great Satan, which is us, and the little Satan, which is Israel. It’s very simple, the left for many, many years now, maybe half a century, has had no practical program, they have no idea what they were going to do with the world when they get the power. So what organizes them is their hatred for America. Why would you want to bankrupt America? Why would you want to take its military down? Why would you apologize to our enemies, as our President has done, unless you were a radical and you believe that we’re the great oppressor nation. I know he talks out of two sides of his mouth, he actually makes Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout in the realm of rectitude in what he’s saying, this guy lies so easily. Of course because he’s black he gets a pass on everything. We have reached a very low point in our national evolution. I’m hoping that this book, you know it’s not going to change the world, but those people who are buying and reading “Radicals” will at least understand the mentality behind these people and how influential they are. Bill Ayers is an America-hating terrorist and was Barack Obama’s closest political ally for twenty years and wrote his autobiography.

Bachmann Warns Obama May be Aiding the Rise of Global Sharia Law

 We know that when Michele Bachmann speaks, even fact-checkers can’t fully cover all of her dubious and debunked claims in just a single article. Now that Bachmann is completely engrossed in promoting her latest conspiracy theory focusing on the supposed Muslim Brotherhood “penetration” of the US government, she took to The Janet Mefferd Show to misrepresent President Obama’s address to the United Nations General Assembly to claim that Obama is not only refusing to defend the freedom of speech but may be even actively backing the curtailment of speech rights in favor of Sharia law.

The congresswoman told Mefferd that Islamic countries may be using “riots and terrorism” to ensure that “Sharia law will dominated over our United States Constitution.” “Our president either doesn’t know what’s happening or he’s playing along with what their goal is,” Bachmann said. “Either option is very dangerous for the free speech rights and the protection and safety of the American people.”

She also failed to mention that when Obama criticized “those who slander the prophet of Islam” it was part of a larger chastisement of religious bigotry, including against desecration of images of Jesus Christ, the destruction of churches and Holocaust denial.

Bachmann: We have just had four Americans killed, including two marines and an ambassador, and our President says to the UN the future does not belong to those who speak against the prophet? We need to remember that the fifty-seven Muslim governments across the world have what they call a ten year plan, it began in 2005 and their goal by 2015 is to criminalize any speech anywhere in the world that speaks against Islam or against the Prophet Mohammad. This is their plan. So their pretext is to find something they can point to and then have riots and terrorism and then force the rest of us to give up our free speech rights so that then that means their law, Sharia law, will dominate over our United States Constitution. That’s really what’s happening. Our president either doesn’t know what’s happening or he’s playing along with what their goal is. Either option is very dangerous for the free speech rights and the protection and safety of the American people.

Bachmann also maintained that Obama was simultaneously fashioning himself to be “‘Emperor of the World,’ telling the world what to do,” while also catering to the wishes of Muslim countries. She said that the President refused to make clear that “under no circumstances will the United States ever subvert the Constitution to Sharia law” and did not “articulate American values” against the coming global Islamic caliphate.

Bachmann: It almost sounds like he’s trying to speak as “‘Emperor of the World,’ telling the world what to do, as opposed to being the President of the United States who should be adamant and say it’s outrageous that these Islamist countries should be calling on the United States to take away the constitutional protections of the American people. This is very important to think that the United States would restrict speech of Americans. Now the president did talk in his remarks about the fact that we do have a constitutional right to free speech but really the only focus of that speech should have been under no circumstances will the United States ever subvert the Constitution to Sharia law. We didn’t get that kind of a forceful statement from our President.

Mefferd: No and that goes back to the day right after the consulate attack I think Mitt Romney did so much better than the President himself and saying we’re Americans, we believe in free speech, this was unacceptable. From Obama, it was sort of a ‘Chris Stevens was a really great guy’ and that was about it.

Bachmann: It was; it was ridiculous. Here we’ve been attacked, these were acts of war, what happened to us in Cairo, what happened to us in Libya, these were acts of war. Again, don’t forget these fifty-seven Muslim governments have a ten year plan: their goal is to criminalize speech against Islam. Why? Because they intend to establish a Caliphate, an Islamic government, across the entire world so that it isn’t just our speech rights that we would give up, we would have to give up all rights eventually and we would have to conform to Sharia law, the Islamic law. As women know, this would be a disaster for women, for freedom, for free speech. We’re not an Islamic nation, people can believe whatever they want to believe here, but we’re not an Islamic nation, we believe in freedom and I only wish our President would articulate American values. That’s one thing we’re getting from Mitt Romney, we are not getting it from Barack Obama. I’ll say it again, I believe he is the most dangerous president we have ever had on foreign policy and for that reason alone he must not have a second term.

Clearly, Bachmann missed the part in Obama’s speech (or all of it) where he forcefully defended the freedom of speech, expression, and religion as American values and unambiguously rejected violent extremism and discrimination against women and minorities.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.



The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources -- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.

D'Souza: Obama is 'Actively Supporting' Attacks by 'Radical Muslims' Against America

Pseudo-intellectual Dinesh D’Souza joined Janet Mefferd last week to promote his much derided anti-Obama movie 2016, where he once again made the erroneous and unfounded argument that Obama refuses to pursue “Muslim jihadists” because he “views those guys like freedom fighters,” deliberately ignoring the long list of senior terrorists killed under Obama’s leadership. According to D’Souza, Obama only approved the killing of Osama bin Laden because the Al Qaeda leader “came to our country to knock down a bunch buildings” and is “just a gangster, he’s like an international serial killer.” The President continues to sympathize with other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, D’Souza states, even though Obama increased the US troop presence in Afghanistan along with the number of attacks on militants in Pakistan.

D’Souza: You know, Obama's been boasting, certainly he deserves credit for the bin Laden operation, remember the bin Laden operation is different from than these Muslim jihadists in Iraq or Afghanistan or even the Palestinians in Israel, I think Obama views those guys like freedom fighters, fighting to liberate their country from US occupation. But bin Laden is not defending his own country, he came to our country to knock down a bunch buildings and so from Obama's point of view he's just a gangster, he's like an international serial killer. So there's no inconsistency with calling Obama an anti-colonialist on the one hand and yet saying he approved the bin Laden killing on the other.

The filmmaker also told Meferd that Obama is “actively supporting” a “bid by the radical Muslims” to create an Islamic caliphate. D’Souza also said that Obama has sidelined Egypt’s military in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood aligned president, not mentioning that his administration just offered $1.5 billion to Egypt’s military for defense cooperation. D’Souza even claimed that Obama considers the US to be an “evil” world power: “So for [Obama], it’s not Iran that’s a bad guy, it’s not North Korea, we’re the bad guy, and he sees his job amazingly as one of containing the United States. I think he believes in American exceptionalism, he just thinks that we’re exceptionally evil, we’re the guys that need to be controlled.”

D’Souza: I think what we're seeing is very troubling, we're seeing a real bid by the radical Muslims to do something that they haven't done in 400 years which is to attempt to restore Islam as a global power and they see an opportunity to do this thanks to the Obama administration's complete abdication of responsibility, one by one our allies are falling in the region, one by one our adversaries are coming to power, and Obama doesn't just seem unbothered by this he seems to be actively supporting it.

Mefferd: He does. I compared his statement in both written and on TV with what Mitt Romney did today. What a difference, Romney expressed we are Americans, we stand for freedom of speech, we will not tolerate that sort of thing; we didn't hear that language from Obama, which really dovetails with what you said in 2016, he's not that mad about it perhaps.

D’Souza: No, there are some people, and some conservatives too, who think Obama's an amateur, he's a blunderer, he doesn't know what he's doing, and you can say all right a year and a half ago when he supported the democracy movement in Egypt he thought it might result in a pro-American government in Egypt, but now he can see very clearly that no, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate won the presidential election, they won the parliamentary election, the bottom line of it is that Egypt is moving into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. What does Obama do? So right now there's a power struggle going on between the military and the Brotherhood, and Obama is clearly on the side of the Brotherhood, he's telling the military, 'hey guys, you better turn over power or the US is going to cut off aid.' So Obama is actively accelerating the transition of power in Egypt into the hands of the largest organization of radical Islam in the world.

Mefferd: A lot of listeners will hear you say that Dinesh and ask, why would Obama want an Islamic caliphate to come to power?

D’Souza: Well I think for Obama there is a simple goal: reduce the global power of the United States, in other words, reduce America's footprint in the world. Why? Not because Obama is a traitor or a secret Muslim or something, rather he wants to reduce America's footprint in the world because he feels that we've been stepping on the world. So for him, it's not Iran that's a bad guy, it's not North Korea, we're the bad guy, and he sees his job amazingly as one of containing the United States. I think he believes in American exceptionalism, he just thinks that we're exceptionally evil, we're the guys that need to be controlled.

LaBarbera Denounces 'The New Normal' for its 'Incredible Propaganda,' Wants Ex-Gays on TV

Yesterday, Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality stopped by The Janet Mefferd Show to discuss the premier of the NBC sitcom, “The New Normal,” a comedy about a gay couple and their surrogate mother. After Mefferd talked about how she found it “ironic” and a “bizarre coincide” that the show premiers on September 11, LaBarbera lamented that actor Justin Bartha co-stars in “The New Normal” since National Treasure was one of his favorite movies. LaBarbera went on to attack the “shocking” show for being “extremely manipulative” and pushing “incredible propaganda.”

Later, LaBarbera wondered why there hasn’t been a “healthy, contented ex-gay in a movie or a TV show,” noting that he doesn’t want to see an ex-gay character like Exodus International president Alan Chambers, who recently lost support from Religious Right activists after admitting that “99.9%” of people who have tried to change their sexual orientation have failed to realize such a conversion.

Mefferd: Peter let’s talk a little bit about this TV show that is coming out, I’m sure a lot of people that are listening right now know about it, it’s premiering on NBC tomorrow night, it’s called “The New Normal,” which I find a little ironic considering it’s premiering on 9/11 and everybody always talked about ‘the new normal’ after 9/11, it’s kind of a bizarre coincidence. Tell us a little bit about this TV show, what do you know about it?

LaBarbera: Well first of all I’m depressed because it stars the guy who was the sidekick in National Treasurer, the Nicholas Cage movie, which was one of my family favorites and he plays a homosexual in the TV show “The New Normal.” It’s about two gay guys who want to adopt a child, I’m sorry want to have a child by inseminating a woman, so they’re interviewing in the trailer, the two gay guys are interviewing the woman who will bear their child. Of course it’s extremely manipulative, they ask her why they want to carry a child that’s not yours, and she says she looked out and she saw a lesbian couple being yelled at by a homeless woman and she thought it was just like another family, so even in the trailer you can see the incredible propaganda that we’re going to be subjected to in this movie. What’s most shocking about it is it’s just so out in the open now that NBC can be doing heavy duty promotion of a TV show that’s built totally around the idea of two homosexual men adopting a baby, is that really ‘the new normal’ for America in 2012? It’s shocking.



LaBarbera: It’s all about manipulation and Hollywood has been doing this for so long and there’s no issue that they do it more on than the homosexual issue. When is Hollywood ever going to have a healthy, contented ex-gay in a movie or a TV show? Not a caricature, not the miserable, struggling ex-homosexual sort of like I guess, I’m tempted to say Alan Chambers, who is still gay or they are acting like they are gay and they are starting to adopt gay activism. I’m talking about a fully happy, contented former homosexual. Will it be decades before we see one of those on TV?

Later, Mefferd and LaBarbera both mourned the rise and success of the gay rights movement in the U.S. “I’m watching this stuff unfold and I’m not a Jeremiah type generally, I tend to be pretty cheerful,” Mefferd said, “but I look at this and think, I don’t think a country can recover from this, I really don’t.”

The two even agreed that the current presidential race is one sign that America is under God’s judgment as LaBarbera maintained President Obama has “totally given over to the homosexual agenda” and Mitt Romney has “come out for homosexuality in the Boy Scouts.”

Mefferd: What it comes down to Peter is when you don’t have an objective moral standard in a society you can’t long stand. I’m watching this stuff unfold and I’m not a Jeremiah type generally, I tend to be pretty cheerful, but I look at this and think, I don’t think a country can recover from this, I really don’t.

LaBarbera: I tend to be a realist too which is why I don’t go around saying, we’re all going to come out of this OK, who knows? If there’s a revival I think there’s hope for us. I think without a revival I kind of agree with you, I think we’re seeing all the signs of a society in steep moral decline. Even this presidential race we’re faced between one candidate who has totally given over to the homosexual agenda, then the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, has actually come out for homosexuality in the Boy Scouts. It almost seems like our candidates themselves are sort of a judgment on this country.

Mefferd: Right and I wonder if we’re not under judgment as well because those are the two candidates.

LaBarbera: Yeah, I agree.

Charlotte Prayer Rally Repents for 'Homosexuality and its Agenda that is Attacking the Nation'

David Benham organized a prayer rally in Charlotte to coincide with the opening of the Democratic National Convention called Charlotte 714, based on 2 Chronicles 7:14, along with groups like the North Carolina Values Coalition and Operation Save America, which is led by his father Flip Benham.

While speaking to Janet Mefferd yesterday about the prayer rally, Benham said that Charlotte was chosen not only because it is the site of the DNC but also because the city was one of the few areas to vote against Amendment One, the same-sex marriage ban voters passed in May. Benham called Charlotte’s vote against anti-gay discrimination a sign of the “very desperate spiritual situation and moral situation in our country,” requiring “a citywide church service of repentance.”

Later, Benham told Mefferd that America’s Christian majority must repent for tolerating abortion rights, no-fault divorce, legal pornography, “homosexuality and its agenda that is attacking the nation” and the “demonic ideologies” that he says have taken over the education system.

In North Carolina you know we just fought for Amendment One which was a constitutional amendment that simply said, this is exactly what the amendment said is the only legal marriage in North Carolina was between a man and a woman. We received—it was such a battle in North Carolina it blew me away. I already knew in my heart as most all of us Christians in America know that we are in a very desperate spiritual situation and moral situation in our country but it really hit home during Amendment One, so much so that when Amendment One passed I realized the only three counties in North Carolina that actually voted against the amendment were Charlotte, Raleigh and Asheville, our three cities. So we had all the rural areas and all the suburban areas but we lost all the cities. So I felt like, OK it’s time that we have a citywide church service of repentance and that’s the reason that we decided to do it right in the heart of Charlotte the night before the DNC.



We will always finger point but we don’t realize that OK if 87% of Americans are Christians and yet we have abortion on demand; we have no-fault divorce; we have pornography and perversion; we have a homosexuality and its agenda that is attacking the nation; we have adultery; we have all of the things; we even have allowed demonic ideologies to take our universities and our public school systems while the church sits silent and just builds big churches. We are so complacent, we are so apathetic and we are very hypocritical in the church, that’s why the Bible says judgment begins in the house of God. So when we prayed at 714 we asked God and our city to forgive us for allowing these things in the house of God.

Alliance Defending Freedom and Focus on the Family Unveil New Anti-Anti-Bullying Strategies

Alliance Defending Freedom, formerly the Alliance Defense Fund, has been working with Focus on the Family to put together an “anti-bullying yardstick” that provides quite weak and watered-down measures to fight bullying. But backing ineffective measures to combat bullying may be the point, as the Religious Right has fiercely opposed comprehensive anti-bullying policies because of protections that would help curb anti-LGBT bullying, even to the point of supporting loopholes for bullies. Ironically, just today the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) released a report detailing the disproportionately high rates of bullying faced by LGBT youth, and how such bullying is less likely to materialize in schools with stronger anti-bullying policies.

ADF attorney Matt Sharp appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to denounce “oppressive” anti-bullying policies, and while Sharp insisted that the campaign is not linked to either the ADF or Focus’s anti-LGBT advocacy, it probably didn’t help that he was speaking to a talk show host who has consistently denounced LGBT rights and people. Just before Sharp appeared on her program, Mefferd criticized the Democratic Party for backing marriage equality by asking, “where’s the lightning?”

Sharp said that gay rights groups are using bullying as “an avenue for them to insert their homosexual agenda into the schools” and promote “the re-education of students.” He claimed ADF and Focus will provide an alternative to “the propaganda of homosexual activist groups that seek to promote their agenda in the schools,” describing their “propaganda” as books that dare to recognize the reality that some children are raised by same-sex couples!

Sharp: It’s important for schools to have proper respect for the First Amendment rights of students to express their views on religion, politics and other subjects without fear of being labeled as bullies or being punished by an oppressive anti-bullying policy that violates their rights.

Mefferd: Definitely, so we’ve seen a lot of these activist organizations getting involved in the schools, GLSEN is one that comes to mind because they’re been so big and have been so active, talk a little bit about what they have done in the way of anti-bullying policies?

Sharp: Yeah, we’ve seen several instances where they will come into schools and place pressure upon schools to adopt their model policies that are really just an avenue for them to insert their homosexual agenda into the schools. We actually saw a situation not too long ago up in Iowa where the group was promoting the re-education of students and tolerance training and all of this stuff that was meant to normalize same-sex marriage in these books they were giving to young elementary students portraying a family with two daddies and two mommies and things like that. The school district really didn’t know how to respond so it was important for us to get involved with them and help them to know that you don’t have to cave into these groups, there’s alternatives, that’s why we’re really excited about teaming up with Focus on this to provide an alternative to schools, to help them know what a proper anti-bullying policy that protects all students equally looks like without having to accept the propaganda of homosexual activist groups that seek to promote their agenda in the schools.

Sharp later asserted that groups like GLSEN “focus upon specific characteristics and elevate those to say ‘bullying against this is really bad and we don’t want that in school but other types of bullying may be tolerable.’” Actually, that is exactly what the ADF is doing by supporting religious exemptions for bullying. He even speak about bullying as almost only dealing with physical harm, which again ignores the serious harm posed by verbal abuse, cyber-bullying and harassment.

His argument is that enumeration, the policy of mentioning certain distinguishable characteristics tied to bullying to help combat bullying not only after it occurs but also to prevent it from happening in the first place, somehow doesn’t protect all students. For example, research shows that students with mental and physical disabilities are more likely to face bullying, and therefore enumerated anti-bullying policies frequently list ability as a highlighted characteristic. Similarly, studies demonstrate that LGBT and LGBT-perceived youth have a higher likelihood of being bullied.

Policies that mention sexual orientation and gender identity, along with ability, race, class, sex, national origin and religion, as characteristics that are linked to bullying help strengthen anti-bullying programs and don’t leave anyone out, as Sharp implies.

But ADF and Focus don’t really have a problem with enumeration, they just have a problem with anti-bullying plans that may be used to protect LGBT students. If ADF or Focus simply took a principled stand against enumeration in anti-bullying policies, then why haven’t these groups denounced them before they began including characteristics like sexual orientation and gender identity?

Indeed, putting an added emphasis on factors that are commonly connected to bullying does not make any student less protected—or as Sharp baselessly argues, allow for other cases of bullying—but help reduce bullying and create a safer climate for all students.

Anti-Immigrant Leader Kris Kobach Levels Dishonest Attacks on Obama Immigration Directive

Kansas Secretary of State and SB 1070 architect Kris Kobach spoke to Janet Mefferd today about a new lawsuit contesting the recent executive order blocking deportation of some younger undocumented immigrants. According to the executive order, young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children can apply for “deferred action,” giving them protection from deportation, as long as they have no criminal background and either have served in the military or received a high school diploma or GED. Kobach told Mefferd that the “shocking” decision has no precedent.

However, this is not the first time prosecutorial discretion has been used in immigration cases. As the Immigration Policy Center notes, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “exercised its prosecutorial discretion when it adopted a new policy establishing a procedure for surviving spouses and children of deceased U.S. citizens, who were no longer eligible to apply for permanent residence, to apply for deferred action.” Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion in Arizona v. United States (2012) also affirmed the right of the federal government to exercise such discretion:

“A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the opinion. “Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.”

“Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law em¬braces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who com¬mit a serious crime,” Kennedy’s majority decision continued. “The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service.”

Later in the interview, Kobach suggested that undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. on no fault of their own should leave the U.S. and return to their country of origin once they become adults and even falsely claimed that immigrants who commit crimes in the U.S. are eligible for deferred action.

Kobach: This order by Napolitano orders the ICE agents to break the law, regardless of what federal law says, we’re telling you to let them go. So it’s a clear violation of federal law, also it’s a usurpation of the legislative power of Congress. The DREAM Act has been proposed in Congress 24 times in the last 11 years, it never passed and yet this administration thinks it can just circumvent Congress and that violates our constitutional separation of powers.

Mefferd: Boy, because one of the things you state in the lawsuit is the directive commands ICE officers to violate their oaths to uphold and support federal law. In other words, Obama by issuing this executive order somehow thinks he can just make people do things but these ICE agents feel, actually it’s not just a feeling it’s actually what the truth is, they have an obligation to uphold federal law and he’s undermining it.

Kobach: That’s absolutely right. I think we have to just step back here and think how shocking this is. Prior to the Obama administration, if you asked me ‘could you give me an example of where a president has ordered federal law enforcement agents either to break the law or to look the other way when the law is being broken’ I would say no, I don’t think I can give you examples.



Kobach: Under our laws and under the laws of most countries in the world once you hit the age of 18 you can no longer blame your parents for your situation. So if you are in this country 13 years after you turned 18, you’ve been illegal all that time and you’ve been responsible for your own behavior. To say that you are somehow inculpable or just a victim of circumstance is just ridiculous. These cases are not you know college valedictorians and top of their class, these are people of all different stripes who are committing crimes some very serious crimes, some not committing crimes, but the bottom line is they are in the country illegally as adults and the President is trying to claim that they somehow have a moral right or a legal right to stay and they do not.

Mefferd Outraged That People 'Who Don't Have The Slightest Similarity to Us' Allowed to Pray at RNC

Yesterday, Ishwar Singh, president of the Sikh Society of Central Florida, became the first Sikh to speak at a Republican National Convention when he was invited to deliver the invocation ... and Religious Right activists were predictably concerned:

Fischer was not alone, as Janet Mefferd also voiced her concerns that people "who don't have the slightest similarity to us" are being allowed to pray at the convention ... and that includes Mitt Romney: 

This adds new spin to my view of what's going on at the RNC right now because you still hear a little bit of talk God here and there, but it's different. When Mitt Romney talks about God, he's not talking about our God and he has yet to give his speech yet.

But we now have a party that is allowing people to pray at the Republican National Convention who don't have the slightest similarity to us, when it comes to our view of God, at all. At all.

It wasn't that long ago that Pat Buchanan at the 1992 RNC was talking about the great culture war and being a Judeo-Christian nation and how important it was to hold that all together because that was the foundation upon which our country was built. And he was right. He got skewered for it, but he was right.

And look how far we've come. Now, 2012 we have somebody from an Eastern religion offering the invocation at the Republican National Convention. I'm not saying people from different religions can't vote Republican, but what this really is is a syncretism that is kind of seeping under the door like a gas.

Tony Perkins Takes a Victory Lap over Republican Party Platform Changes

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins continued to brag about his role in shaping the Republican Party platform, as he along with Religious Right activists like David Barton and James Bopp heavily influenced the document dubbed the “most conservative platform in modern history.” While speaking to Janet Mefferd yesterday, Perkins said he “inserted the language as it pertains to marriage and some other key issues” and was happy to report that “we have one of the most conservative platforms that the Republican Party’s ever had.” Perkins also noted that Mitt Romney’s representatives worked closely with him on drafting the platform’s new language.

I was very concerned with the distancing from the moral and the social issues, that the platform might take or veer or careen to the left and so I ran as a delegate from my home state of Louisiana and I ended up being selected as a delegate and selected for the platform committee. I worked on the platform last week in fact inserted the language as it pertains to marriage and some other key issues and we have one of the most conservative platforms that the Republican Party’s ever had so I’m very encouraged by that. I worked closely with the Romney folks that were representing his campaign, were pleasant to work with, there was not a lot of arm-twisting that went on, so from that standpoint I’m encouraged.

Perkins also talked to Mefferd about the Southern Poverty Law Center, the group which along with President Obama he has implicated in the recent shooting at his group’s headquarters. According to Perkins, SPLC is now all about “making money” through “shady activities.” He denounced the SPLC for its anti-bullying program called “Teaching Tolerance,” which he maintained is “pushing a very left-leaning agenda, including the homosexual agenda.”

They’re not concerned about poverty; they’re concerned about making money. There’s a lot of shady activities surrounding the Southern Poverty Law Center but what’s given them leverage, especially in the last three and a half years, has been their connection to the Obama administration’s Department of Justice and Department of Education. They have a program called ‘Teaching Tolerance’ that they do in elementary schools and middle schools across the country and it’s really nothing more than a venue for their left-wing propaganda. So I encourage parents to begin looking at what their children are bringing home because it may actually look on the surface as if it’s you know harmless stuff but when you begin to dig into it you see them pushing a very left-leaning agenda, including the homosexual agenda, it’s prominent in all of their material and parents need to be made aware of that.

Dinesh D'Souza Says Obama is 'Weirdly Sympathetic' to Terrorists, Sees them as 'Freedom Fighters'

While promoting his new movie about President Obama on conservative radio shows, Dinesh D’Souza accused Obama of viewing the U.S. as an “evil empire” while sympathizing with anti-American terrorists.

D’Souza told Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio that Obama “subscribes to a very radical Third World ideology” and that he thinks “from Obama’s point of view we are the ‘evil empire.’”

D’Souza: We normally think we’re having a policy debate between liberals and conservatives who agree about goals but disagree about means. I think when you’re dealing with a Bill Clinton for example that is true, we all want a prosperous economy, we all want America to be a force for freedom in the world, we’d like America to stay number one as long as possible. I think Obama stands outside this consensus and he does so not because he’s a traitor but because he subscribes to a very radical Third World ideology that sees America has the rogue nation in the world. You’ll remember Reagan’s phrase ‘the evil empire’ referring to the Soviet Union, I think from Obama’s point of view we are the ‘evil empire,’ we are the one who needs to be contained.

In an interview with Janet Mefferd, D’Souza claimed that Obama “is weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis who are captured in Iraq or Afghanistan” and “views those guys in favorable terms.” D’Souza says Obama thinks America is an “evil power” and sees “the Muslims who are fighting against America” as “freedom fighters.”

Mefferd: What do you think, a lot of people have talked quite a bit about to the degree to which Obama will reach out to the Muslims, give them a pass, give them special treatment, how does that fit into the whole narrative about anti-colonialism?

D’Souza: It fits in this way Janet, because I think Obama is weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis who are captured in Iraq or Afghanistan, giving them constitutional rights, wanting to close down Guantanamo or when Obama keeps taking the Palestinian position against Israel, some people think that the reason he does this is because he must be a secret Muslim himself. I think that’s wrong. But what I do think Obama thinks is he thinks, ‘look, America is the evil power occupying these poor Third World countries, so the Muslims who are fighting against America are freedom fighters, they’re like Mandela, they’re like Gandhi, they’re like Obama’s own dad fighting to push the British out of Kenya.’ He views those guys in favorable terms and he sees America, not Iran or North Korea, but America as the rogue nation that has to be pulled back.

According to D’Souza, this is all because of Obama’s lefty mom who “wanted to marry a Third World anti-American guy” and “cultivated in Obama this sort of anti-capitalist and somewhat anti-American ideology.” D’Souza explains that Obama’s mom “rebelled against her family and her church and her country” and saw “America as a force for evil in the world,” and Obama learned from her and his leftist “surrogate fathers” a “Third World ideology.”

D’Souza: Actually the mom, Obama’s mom, whom Obama portrays as this Midwestern girl from Kansas, but really no, she became an atheist and a leftist and at times even almost a communist, she would say things like ‘what’s wrong with communism?’ and she wanted to marry a Third World anti-American guy and in succession she married two of them. She was the one that cultivated in Obama this sort of anti-capitalist and somewhat anti-American ideology and then of course Obama, once it took, throughout his life would go looking for other guys, mentors, surrogate fathers if you will, who are like his dad and like his mom and then he would study under them and learn chapter and verse of this Third World ideology.

Mefferd: So interesting his mom, a lot of people may say, why would she deliberately seek out a Third World anti-capitalist?

D’Souza: That seems so odd doesn’t it? But it happens in America sometimes, it certainly happened in the ‘60s. Obama’s mom was sort of a ‘60s girl before the ‘60s, she rebelled against her family and her church and her country. In a way, she began to see America as a force for evil in the world.

Barber: Pro-Gay Donors & Activists Have 'Poisoned' the GOP and Must Be 'Rooted Out'

On Friday's episode of "The Janet Mefferd Show," Matt Barber was interviewed to give his thoughts on "the GOP and their buckling stance on homosexuality." Barber was, not surprisingly, highly critical of any effort by the Republican Party to try to appear less openly-hostile to gays and blasted the party for even letting groups like GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans or pro-gay donors have a seat at the table. 

Such groups were, Barber asserted, really just gay activists in disguise who are intent destroying the Republican Party from within.  As such, they and like-minded donors have "poisoned" the GOP and need to be "rooted out" because the "most important election in history" is approaching and the party cannot risk alienating its Chick-fil-A-loving, anti-gay base at a time like this:

You know, that's all we need is the Republican Party looking more and more like the Democratic Party. What the Log Cabin Republicans are doing here - and let's be very clear here; groups like GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans who call themselves Republican or conservative, they're just a bunch of radical homosexual activists in conservative or Republican clothing. These guys know exactly what they're doing, they're trying to undermine the Republican Party from within I believe intentionally, I believe it's covert and they know what they're doing.

So this does not bode well, the fact that the Republican Party is even entertaining these radical activists here and they're looking at essentially spending a dollar to save a dime - I mean, imagine alienating the entire base of the Republican Party in order to appease a few radical homosexual activists; it's counter-intuitive, it's thick-headed, and this is the most important election, I think, in history that we have coming up right now, and now is not the time for the GOP to be alienating the base of the party.

...

They are not conservatives. They are liberal Republicans more suited to the Democratic Party but fiscally conservative, oftentimes, and so they have essentially poisoned, in large degree, the Republican Party and, I think, need to be rooted out.

You know, we saw what the base of the Republican Party believes with the overwhelming outpouring for Chick-fil-A, for natural marriage, for traditional values and for the Republican Party to even entertain the idea because a few of these donors have deep pockets of running afoul of these traditional values that the Republican Party platform has been based on for years, it's just a stupid idea.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious