Janet Mefferd

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.

Janet Mefferd Suggests Groups Should Stop Reporting on the FRC's Anti-Gay Rhetoric

Janet Mefferd hosted Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality yesterday to discuss the deplorable and unconscionable shooting at the Family Research Council’s headquarters. Mefferd criticized the Human Rights Campaign for posting an article the day before the shooting “that was very inflammatory about the Family Research Council, ‘they want to export homosexuals from the US’ and ‘they equate homosexuals with pedophiles’ and all this stuff,” and wished there would be “public pressure on some of these gay rights organizations to tone it down”:

Mefferd: I was reading through for example what the Human Rights Campaign had posted the day before the shooting and they had a whole list there that was very inflammatory about the Family Research Council, ‘they want to export homosexuals from the US’ and ‘they equate homosexuals with pedophiles’ and all this stuff. I thought: if you were somewhat of an unstable person and you read this sort of stuff and you were in line with what they believe I think it could drive somebody to violence. So we’re back to the question of, to what degree should there be public pressure on some of these gay rights organizations to tone it down?

LaBarbera: Well I think it has to come from people holding them accountable and we know that the left-wing, the liberal media is basically now a cheerleader for the gay cause so it comes down to I guess alternative media, the internet. Certainly in the Chick-fil-A situation the gay activists were beaten back a bit and they know it in the sense that they overreached. But in this case, this idea of this hate proposition, where the SPLC just went for it and started ticking off every pro-family group out there. Except they keep Focus on the Family off the list, I think intentionally to say ‘hey those are the good Christians,’ of course Focus on the Family has deemphasized politics in the last few years so maybe that’s why they’re not on the SPLC’s list because the SPLC is trying to marginalize the FRC’s and the Americans for Truth’s out there, they want them out of the picture, they want them to have less power so that their pet cause, which happens to be homosexuality, will grow in power. That’s what this is all about; it’s all about helping gay activists win their goal, one of which is same-sex so-called marriage.

First to LaBarbera’s point: Kyle noted yesterday that FRC received the designation “because of its dissemination of false and demonizing propaganda about gays and lesbians,” not due to their opposition to marriage equality.

As for Mefferd, it is absurd to claim that HRC or any other organization is wrong to point out exactly what the FRC has said about homosexuals. Here’s FRC senior fellow Peter Sprigg explicitly stating that he prefers to “export homosexuals from the United States”:

And here is Sprigg and FRC president Tony Perkins linking homosexuality to pedophilia (0:52):

To say that it is “inflammatory” to report on exactly what the FRC says and believes is patently absurd. If the FRC is proud of its anti-gay rhetoric, then they and their allies should stand by it and not criticize others for simply pointing out their attacks on the LGBT community.

William Owens Likens Obama to White Supremacists over Gay Marriage Views

William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors spoke to Janet Mefferd yesterday, where the anti-gay activist whose anti-Obama campaign is being bankrolled by Religious Right groups lashed out at Obama in an incoherent screed where he likened the President to white supremacists hostile the civil rights movement:

Mefferd: I wonder if he had really considered what the reaction would be because he has taken the African American community so much for granted, the support of your community so much for granted, do you think he had any inkling that he would get the reaction of a lot of the black pastors that we’ve seen?

Owens: I don’t think he did. I think he felt that he could continue to do as he’s been doing. He’ll take up the cause of the Latinos, he’ll take up the cause of the homosexuals, but it’s like the African Americans don’t exist. And he said I’m not the president of the African Americans, I’m the president of America. What if the white leaders who were in office when the civil rights bill had passed, what if they had said that, ‘We’re the politicians for the white community’? We wouldn’t have gotten a right to vote, we wouldn’t have gotten the rights we enjoy today. So we’re going to take him on even more, as a matter of fact this is one of my last interviews until we come out with a new news conference next week, we’re coming out fighting.

What President Obama said was, “I’m not the president of black America. I’m the president of the United States of America.” In fact, that is the exact opposite message employed by the white supremacist leaders that Owens compared Obama too, as Obama said he was the President of all Americans, including African Americans.

As for his other claim that Obama pretends “like the African Americans don’t exist,” that is not only patently absurd but he also spoke to a group of black pastors immediately after his announcement endorsing marriage equality and regularly seeks guidance from a number of black pastors.

Later, Owens said that supporting gay rights is “like waving your thing in God’s face” and said that same-sex marriages are “destroying the foundation of the family” and are “not honorable to the child”:

Mefferd: There seems to be a lack of fear of God in a lot of these activists, a lot of these people who are moving forward as if this is no big deal but in fact this is really an affront to God, would you say that’s the case?

Owens: I would say that’s the case. It’s like waving your thing in God’s face and saying, ‘You don’t matter.’ That’s exactly what I think. They do not honor God’s word; they don’t honor Him; not God’s people.



Mefferd: Why do you think the marriage issue is so important from a civilization stand point?

Owens: The marriage issue is so important because the marriage is a family ordained by God. If you destroy that you’re destroying the foundation of the family. We have a little boy; I’ve raised six children already. How can a man and a man be a parent to a child? By their nature, they cannot. How can a woman and a woman? My little boy takes both of us, he takes the love and tenderness of a mother and he takes the love and whatever the dad gives he needs that too. So to do different is disloyal, it’s not honorable to the child. We cannot say a marriage is right between the same sex.

Religious Right Still Oblivious of their Double Standard on Boycotts

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality joined Janet Mefferd yesterday to attack gay rights advocates over calls to boycott Chick-fil-A because of the company’s anti-gay advocacy, including their donations to anti-gay organizations, as an attack on private enterprise: 

Of course, much like activists from the National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and the American Family Association, after denouncing boycotts as a grave wrong…they simultaneously called for boycotts of companies that support gay rights, such as General Mills, Chili’s and Target. According to LaBarbera and Mefferd, it is inappropriate for companies to back gay rights efforts or groups because they will be offending customers when they should be remaining neutral in the “culture war.” However, if a company like Chick-fil-A opposes gay rights, then it is an admirable decision worthy of support and any criticism of their activism is an assault on freedom.

LaBarbera: I think our next step is going to a place like General Mills and saying why are you doing this? You can’t even maintain a neutrality? Can’t you at least be neutral? Not give to the homosexual activists? If you’re not going to give to Americans for Truth, OK that’s fine, but don’t give to the homosexual lobby because the mass, silent majority of Americans does not support radically redefining marriage to include two men or two women, they just don’t support that.

Mefferd: I agree, one of the other companies that has really started supporting it too is Target. I was made enough, I don’t go out and tell people what to do, but I was mad enough personally as a mother when this has been such a family-oriented company over the years, they had Amy Grant doing their publicity years ago, now they are selling same-sex wedding cards, they had two men on an ad for a wedding registry. I finally just said, you know what enough is enough, enough is enough, I’m not shopping here anymore, and I emailed them and I said I’m not shopping here anymore and I spend a lot of money at Target, I’ve just had enough.

LaBarbera: I’m with you on boycotts. We can’t boycott everybody. At Americans For Truth our policy is we pick specific boycotts, for example we’re boycotting Chili’s restaurants and Maggiano’s. They’re owned by a company, Brinker International, that supports the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force which is one of the most extreme and radical homosexual organizations in the world. So we are targeting certain corporations. The message here is we need to defend Godly values, if you’re in a culture war and only one side is doing all the fighting, spending all the money, bieng aggressive, while the other side is ambiguous about whether they should be in this battle at all, guess who is going to win? There is nothing Christian or noble about disengaging from the culture war, that’s for sure.

Mefferd: ESPN and Sports Reporters Push Liberal Ideology

On yesterday’s edition of The Janet Mefferd Show, the host and her guest, Matt Philbin of the Media Research Center, took aim at an unlikely vector of liberal ideals: the world of sports. Reflecting on an MRC report, Mefferd said that ESPN and other sports broadcasters are “using their sports platforms really to push this liberal economic and social ideology.” Philbin asserted ESPN hires people with a “liberal pedigree” and its website includes content that is in “support of the gay agenda.”

Philbin held up liberal commentator Keith Olbermann, who previously worked at ESPN, as proof of the network’s liberal bias. He conveniently ignored the fact that Texas Republican senate candidate Craig James is also a former ESPN broadcaster and ESPN’s chairman and vice president are both Romney donors.

Mefferd: If you are a big sports nut you’re noticing also that from time to time you’ll see a little bit of political material creep in on the sidelines and that’s really the intent of a lot of people on the left, they want to politicize the games, but it’s true of sports in general, and if you follow sports TV at all, ESPN, some of those other sports shows, you’ll see this, and in fact, the Culture and Media Institute of the Media Research Center has put together a report all about this documenting the trend of commentators and sportscasters using their sports platforms to really push this liberal, economic, and social ideology. Matt Philbin is with us, managing editor of the Media Research Center. So Matt, let’s talk about sports in general and what you guys noted looking at channels like ESPN or some of these other sports shows, where do you see this liberal ideology kind of creeping in?

Philbin: Well, you can see it all over the place, and uh, I would just, uh, just a reminder, that, uh, Keith Olbermann came from ESPN. Before he went to MSNBC, he came from SportsCenter which he actually helped create, I believe, uh, so, ESPN has a long liberal ESPN and you can see that in a lot of its programming. And you can see that on its website as well. Its website has always, for years now, has featured commentary in support of the gay agenda.

Philbin later maintained that sports journalists, like other journalists, have “an antipathy toward conservatives and toward traditional Americans.” The two also took umbrage in particular to the sports network’s supposedly cozy relationship with President Obama: Mefferd was dismayed that ESPN is helping the President “show his softer side” by broadcasting his NCAA bracket selection.

Of course, President Bush, a former baseball franchise owner, previously appeared on ESPN to talk fishing and baseball.

Philbin: They’re just pulling from the same sort of pool of people as the mainstream media is, sort of, uh, habitually liberal journalists who really have an antipathy towards conservative and toward traditional Americans.

Mefferd: What about ESPN and its relationship with President Obama, because they’ve sort of fawned over him as well, haven’t they?

Philbin: Oh, They think he’s terrific.

Mefferd: Sports picks and everything.

Philbin: Yes, you know, oh, They’ve had him on to pick his, uh, brackets in the NCAA tournament. They’ve had him speak about reforming college football’s BCS system. Things that really, a President doesn’t have much interest, or shouldn’t have much interest in talking about.

Mefferd: Well, he wants to be a man of the people I guess. Show his softer side, I guess. “They’re calling me a socialist too much, quick, ESPN, let me do my March Madness picks!

Philbin: That’s right, I’m, just like them.

Mefferd: Just like them. 

FRC’s Sprigg: Gay Rights Movement Winning Through ‘Intimidation’ and ‘Emotional Blackmail’

On the Janet Mefferd Show yesterday, the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg shared his theory of how gay rights activists are winning the battle for public opinion: through “intimidation” and “emotional blackmail”:


Sprigg: There are people with big bucks who are trying to move the Republican Party in a more liberal direction on this issue. And while, you know, I think it will be a long time before – I don’t think it’ll ever happen that the Republican Party will endorse same-sex marriage – but what I fear more than that is some candidates in office and officeholders simply going silent on the issue.

Mefferd: Oh, that’s happening.

Sprigg: That is definitely happening and that’s where the big concern is, because if we are not willing to fight to defend marriage, then that increases the chances we will lose it.

Mefferd: Well, and that’s what’s so frustrating, especially for us as Christians, when we look at so many people who don’t have the spine to talk about it. ‘Well, let’s just work the issue back around to the economy, everybody wants to talk about the economy, I don’t want to talk about something controversial.’ Part of it, I think, is because they don’t want to be vilified, they don’t want to be called names, because that’s what the activist crowd does, they call you names, they insult you, they make your life pretty miserable. Look what they’re doing to Dan Cathy! Who does want to put up with that?

Sprigg: Right. That’s exactly right. It’s a form of intimidation that they’re using, a sort of emotional blackmail almost. And with some people it’s effective. They don’t want to pay that price.

Jeffress: Gays Lead a 'Miserable Lifestyle'

On yesterday’s edition of The Janet Mefferd Show, anti-gay pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas labeled the message of liberals “hopeless,” and said that gay people lead a “miserable lifestyle” that is predisposed to “depression, or suicide, or alcoholism.” Jefress’s comments are the latest in a string of anti-gay screeds. He has previously implied that gay rights will result in the “inevitable implosion of our country” and that gays are using a variety of “brainwashing techniques” to “inject homosexuality” into our culture.

Jeffress: God’s plan for sexuality is one man with one woman in a lifetime commitment called marriage. Any deviation from that is sin. And of course, I’m always, the retort to that is 'oh! Are you pulling a Rick Santorum and saying that homosexuality is like bestiality, uh, incest, or pedophilia'? And I say 'Yes.'. It is just as immoral as those practices. But then I’m quick to add, it’s also just as immoral as adultery, pre-marital sex, or unbiblical divorce. Any deviation from god’s plan is sin.

Mefferd: Well, but so much of what they’re trying to do now is not just say “accept us and don’t be discriminatory in your beliefs”. But also, embrace it, see that the bible really was wrong in these passages, in Leviticus and Romans I and it’s really not commending homosexuality. It’s almost as if they’re trying to co-opt the bible and make it say what it obviously does not say.

Jeffress: Absolutely, you have to do so many hermeneutical gymnastics. But what you really have to do is just throw out the bible to get to the point that you say, that uh, it’s uh normal. There are two agendas that homosexuals have in order to gain acceptance. First of all they try to normalize their behavior but also to marginalize as bigots those of us who oppose homosexuality. Normalize and marginalize are the two tactics. And they are being extremely successful about it.

...

Jeffress: We’re the ones that have a message of hope. And the message of hope we have is you don’t have to stay the way you are. You can experience freedom. You can experience life as god intended you to have it, by trusting in Christ and following his plan. You know, it’s the liberals that have no message of hope. It is the liberal message; 'you’re born that way, and you have to stay that way until the day you die.' I mean, why is it that gays, and I talk about this in my book, you know, have such a more preponderance for depression, or suicide, or alcoholism. It is a miserable lifestyle. And that is why we, as preachers of the gospel and Christians, we’ve got the message of hope, and we need to quit being ashamed to share it.

Kincaid: Islam and Communism 'Are Synthesized in the Person of Barack Obama'

Cliff Kincaid has been making the rounds on right-wing radio to promote his bizarre new conference on how President Obama and George Soros are spearheading a secretive Islamic-Communist plot to destroy America. He spoke to Janet Mefferd yesterday where he detailed how his new conference will look into the ways radical Islamists and Communists are working together and “how these two movements coincide or parallel each other and actually are synthesized in the person of Barack Obama.” Indeed, Kincaid believes that George Soros is creating a new version of the Communist International and “has become the new Armand Hammer.” He also called for the reestablishment of the House Internal Security Committee, which was previously known as the House Un-American Activities Committee until it changed its name in 1969.

My group America’s Survival has held conferences over the years, some of them dealing with global Islam, some of them dealing with international Communism, and I came to the conclusion that some of the speakers and people coming to the different conferences were speaking past each other and I thought, we’ve got to get them together to look at how these two movements coincide or parallel each other and actually are synthesized in the person of Barack Obama, and that’s what we’re trying to do.



It’s incredible what we’ve developed. It gets even beyond what we know because we’re trying to pursue this to its logical conclusion: how are they working together? Look, we don’t have all the answers. One of the things that we’re trying to do is organize people at our conference and around the world, especially in the United States, to bring back the congressional committees that we used to have that investigated these things. We don’t have the House Internal Security Committee anymore, we don’t have the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security; we do have something called the Homeland Security Committee run by Peter King but he’s only looking at the Muslim part of the problem, we have to take a look at both of these international movements. Here’s where Soros comes in. There used to be something called the Communist International, the Comintern, it used to fund the Communist Party, all these Marxist and Communist and Soviet fronts, we believe and we have a report coming out that’s going to prove this that it’s really moneybags Soros that has filled the void there, it’s almost as if Soros has become the new Armand Hammer.

Kuhner: 'Judas' John Roberts Ushered in 'The End of our Constitutional Republic'

Washington Times columnist and Edmund Burke Institute president Jeffrey Kuhner doesn’t seem too happy with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the health care reform law, telling Janet Mefferd yesterday that the ruling “signals the end of our Constitutional republic as we know it” and “the end of traditional America as we know it.” “We are now living in an age of a creeping, soft, socialist tyranny,” Kuhner warned, even alleging that the government can potentially mandate that people stop “using toilet paper because it’s bad for the environment.” He argued that Chief Justice John Roberts “is a Judas” who “did it for his thirty pieces of silver” in the form of favorable reactions from the media:

Kuhner: Today it’s going to be health insurance, tomorrow it’ll be eating broccoli or buying an electric car or not using toilet paper because it’s bad for the environment. There is now no end; there is no limit on the power of the central government. That’s why it’s an ominous precedent, it’s a revolutionary precedent; I believe it signals the end of our Constitutional republic as we know it, we are now living in an age of a creeping, soft, socialist tyranny. This election I believe is the last chance for the American people to now stop Obamacare, stop the government takeover of healthcare, to stop this out of control imperial presidency, and to save our republic. After the next election, Obamacare will be fully implemented, the precedent of the Supreme Court will now be established and it will be the end of traditional America as we know it.

Mefferd: It’s interesting, when Obama has been issuing these executive orders, a lot of people have accused him rightly I believe of being confused of what his branch of government is supposed to do, do you believe that Roberts superseded his branch of government? He’s the judicial branch. Do you think he was doing something beyond the authority of the court to start saying alaw is this and not this regardless of what was argued?

Kuhner: Yes. In fact, I’m going to be very candid with you and I’m not going to mince words, I believe Chief Justice Roberts is a Judas. And I believe like Judas he did it for his thirty pieces of silver. And what were his thirty pieces of silver? It was one puff profile piece after another.

Janet Mefferd Warns Listeners They Might Vomit from Story about Anderson Cooper Coming Out

On her radio show Tuesday, Janet Mefferd warned listeners who tuned in that they might vomit like a sick child with a stomach ache over the story they were about to hear…about Anderson Cooper coming out of the closet. While Mefferd noted that Cooper’s sexual orientation was no real secret, she was most upset about an article by Baptist minister and Huffington Post Religious Editor Paul Brandeis Raushenbush’s reflecting on Cooper’s statement that “the ability to love another person is one of God's greatest gifts, and I thank God every day for enabling me to give and share love with the people in my life.”

After spending time quoting from Raushenbush’s column, she warned that greater acceptance of “neo-pagan” homosexuality will ultimately lead to the de-stigmatization of pedophilia and a return to the sexual mores of Ancient Rome, cautioning that “Jerry Sandusky thirty years from now may be a normal thing.” “You already have pedophiles who are trying to be normalized at the American Psychological Association, I think that’s the name of it, they’ve succeeded in having homosexuality removed from the playbook as some sort of disorder,” Mefferd said, “and now they’re working on pedophilia and I’m sure they’ll be successful because that’s where it is all headed.”

She concluded by telling Cooper that he “did receive from God an ability to love, but not that kind of love,” which she claims is a “a lie from the pit” of Hell:

I don’t know about you, when your kids are sick like mine sometimes are and they’ll come down in the middle of the night, ‘mommy I have a stomach ache,’ I always give them the same words of advice, ‘get a bucket, put a little bit of water in it and put it next to your bed and that way if that upset stomach does what it might do, you’ll be prepared.’ So in that vein I would like to give you the same advice, given what I’m about to talk about you might want to get yourself a bucket with a little water in it and that way if you feel a little sick and it manifests itself in a physical way you’ll be prepared. I wasn’t going to even talk about this but I can’t resist because this has got to be the neo-pagan story of the day. Did you know—I know this isn’t going to be a shock to you—Anderson Cooper is gay. I know, what a shock, I’m reeling from this news, I had no idea, yes I’m being sarcastic. But there is something very funny about this because Paul Brandeis Raushenbush over at the Huffington Post has a headline on his story about Anderson Cooper, the CNN anchor, announcing that he is gay and it says “Fact is.. Anderson Cooper Thanks God He’s Gay.”



If this were pagan, Ancient Rome, Jerry Sandusky wouldn’t have been in trouble at all because homosexuality and man-boy love was so common and so accepted that outrage would’ve been inconceivable. It is only the vestiges of Christianity in our culture that give people the moral framework by which you can look at a Sandusky and feel revolted. And you know what the way we are going, Jerry Sandusky thirty years from now may be a normal thing. You already have pedophiles who are trying to be normalized at the American Psychological Association, I think that’s the name of it, they’ve succeeded in having homosexuality removed from the playbook as some sort of disorder and now they’re working on pedophilia and I’m sure they’ll be successful because that’s where it is all headed.

Anderson Cooper did receive from God an ability to love, but not that kind of love. That’s not love, it’s not love. All you need to do is go back to Romans Chapter 1. This is an absolute pagan expression that has twisted love beyond recognition and turned it into something that is not God’s design at all. This is a lie from the pit, and we must oppose it. And unfortunately, we have so-called evangelicals getting on this train to nowhere.

Steve King Accuses Obama of Destroying the Constitution, Breaking his Oath of Office

Back in June, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) talked to Janet Mefferd about President Obama’s decision against deporting undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children, which naturally angered the notoriously anti-immigrant congressman. King agreed with Mefferd that the announcement was made for political purposes, arguing that Obama wants to “get a political benefit from the destruction that he is doing to the Constitution of the United States.”

He went on to claim that Obama has “really damaged” the reputation of the University of Chicago Law School, where he served as a professor, and also insisted that Obama is breaking his presidential oath of office. “This oath means nothing to him; the Constitution is an impediment to him,” King said, “I have hit the limit of my patience with trying to work my way towards an election and hopefully we will elect ourselves a new president.”

Days after the interview, the Supreme Court appeared to approve of the government’s ability to use “discretion in the enforcement of immigration law” in their ruling that overturned parts of Arizona’s SB 1070.

Mefferd: Now he’s doing it as a re-election strategy, do you think that that is the motivation for this?

King: I think it is and the timing of it would suggest that. The president is scheduled to give a speech today before the Hispanic leaders that are gathered together at the national level, the same group that Mitt Romney spoke to here a couple days ago. It seems to me that the timing of this is to be ahead of that speech so that he can get a political benefit from the destruction that he is doing to the Constitution of the United States. You know, this president taught constitutional law as an adjunct professor at the University of Chicago, one of the top five most respected law schools in the country year after year after year, and he has really damaged their reputation.



King: It’s almost as if there is a team there in the White House that keeps track of everything the president says and whatever he gives his word on they have to set about breaking his word. The president has broken his own word so many times that it is hardly even a subject anymore. But it isn’t just the president’s word, this is his oath of office, ‘I do solemnly swear to the best of my ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States so help me God.’ That’s what he said. And in the Constitution, just shortly behind that oath, is the requirement that he, meaning the president, ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ and he is doing the exact opposite. This oath means nothing to him; the Constitution is an impediment to him. I have hit the limit of my patience with trying to work my way towards an election and hopefully we will elect ourselves a new president and get a new executive branch of government, this is a place where we have to draw a bright line.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious