Sandy Rios

Frank Gaffney today made the case on Sandy Rios in the Morning that the increase in the sexual assault rate in the Armed Forces is President Obama’ fault because of his efforts to encourage women and gay people to serve.

After arguing that Obama has “savaged” the military with “vigor and lethality,” he linked Obama’s “sexual experimentation” and “social warfare against the military” to cases of sexual violence: “We’re hearing a lot about sexual assaults in the military and the like, it’s not to defend that by any means but it is to say if anybody is surprised that by putting more women and for that matter homosexuals into the military you are not going to get as a result that kind of unacceptable behavior is fatuous, it’s irresponsible, it’s malfeasance.”

The President came to office pledging fundamentally to transform the United States of America and I believe he has gone after every institution of our country, perhaps none with the vigor and lethality of the United States military. He has savaged the resources that it has relied upon to do the job we asked it to do to keep us safe, he has reduced both its numbers and its power projection capability and perhaps as troubling as anything I think he has done much to reduce its stature as a one of the most revered institutions in this country. We’re hearing a lot about sexual assaults in the military and the like, it’s not to defend that by any means but it is to say if anybody is surprised that by putting more women and for that matter homosexuals into the military you are not going to get as a result that kind of unacceptable behavior is fatuous, it’s irresponsible, it’s malfeasance, is what it’s amounts to. I’m afraid that the consequences of all of these steps, whether it’s the social experimentation or social warfare against the military or whether it’s hallowing it out through the budget and other means, the effect is we’re breaking the only military we have at a time when unfortunately we’re going to likely need them more than ever.

On Monday, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios hosted Linda Harvey of Mission America to criticize the Day of Silence, the anti-bullying event which Harvey has previously described as dangerous and blasphemous.

Rios, who once said that test scores are dropping as a result of schools “teaching” homosexuality, kicked off the program by arguing that public schools no longer instruct students in subjects like “reading, writing, cursive, spelling, grammar [and] punctuation,” but are instead completely dedicated to “cramming, twisting, perverting all academic subjects to the way of supporting homosexuality.”

Rios: That’s an advertisement for this Friday’s Day of Silence in American public schools. You know there was a day when American public schools actually taught reading, writing, cursive, spelling, grammar, punctuation, English literature, British literature, American civilization, but no more. For the last twenty-five years the National Education Association has been cramming, twisting, perverting all academic subjects to the way of supporting homosexuality. Now in an activist move to really further intimidate anyone who would object to it they incorporated a few years ago what’s called the Day of Silence.

The two also latched onto conspiracy theories that common core standards will lead to the “promotion of homosexuality” and criticized schools and publishing houses for offering “pro-homosexual novels.”

Rios: Common Core, do you know anything about what they’re doing to promote homosexuality? Do they have any stated goals with this?

Harvey: I don’t know the details, I do know that everyone believes that will be part of it as they get into the more social science areas, I think they are just in English language arts and math at this point, isn’t that the case? Even English language arts, oh my goodness, the choices for reading pro-homosexuals novels out there are vast; the publishing industry is going crazy. I have found many, many school districts recommend these on a selected and chosen school reading list and so you really have to watch for that.

Rios: If no other way, and it isn’t the only way, I guarantee you if you got kids in the public school this isn’t the only way but the reading lists, the suggested reading lists are enough to make your ears just smoke.

Harvey said that conservatives should “be rolling our eyes” at claims that LGBT youth face bullying and claimed that parents should not allow their children to “witness” the Day of Silence.

Harvey: Students pledge to be silent all day because they feel that as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered [sic] students or allies, that’s other kids, that they have been silenced over the years; many of us will be rolling our eyes at that one with the loud homosexual militancy in our culture right now. But that’s what they’re claiming and they’re saying that the issue of bullying is so rampant and it is traditional values that is causing all of these kids to be bullied, it’s causing hatred and that they need to engage in a silent protest against that. And of course we’re all going: what? You can prevent bullying and stand against bulling without endorsing homosexuality but our kids are being manipulated into thinking that this is a social justice issue and that they can just make this into a protest day and it’s this Friday in many schools, April 19.

…

Harvey: What we are saying is find out about your school’s position on this, call your schools and say, ‘are you going to allow students to be silent to recognize this Day of Silence, this pro-homosexual day, Friday April 19 or any other day that they designation…are you going to allow to remain silent to protest the Day of Silence,’ and if so keep your kids home. We suggest that you not let your children have to sit there in class and witness teachers condoning this, other students being allowed to be silent in class. This is political propaganda and it’s manipulating an issue of kids. Everybody is concerned about bullying and it is manipulating kids’ compassion but it is all for supporting homosexuality. So we’re suggesting to people, if that’s the situation, keep your kids at home.

Rios: How do you think this issue has progressed in public schools? I wouldn’t of thought it could get much worse but what are we seeing now about the propaganda in our public schools?

Not only should parents pull their kids out of school on the Day of Silence, but according to Harvey, they should remove their children from the public school system altogether as the influence of gay “propaganda” in schools is now “beyond belief.”

Rios: How do you think this issue has progressed in public schools, I wouldn’t of thought it could get much worse, but what are we seeing now about the propaganda in our public schools?

Harvey: It’s beyond belief. I am very discouraged and I would urge any parent out there…if you are a parent and you have any ability at all to move your children to another schooling situation, Christian schooling, homeschooling, please to do so. You do not know all your children are being exposed to, this propaganda is throughout. Our kids are being told in so many ways, if it’s not direct instructional time it’s through their peers at school, that homosexuality is like race, it’s a social justice issue, which we know is not true, people do not have to be involved in homosexual behavior. This undermines the word of God, at the very bottom line your Christian kids; everything around them is undermining the clear instructions of the word of God.

…

Rios: Even if your kids are in so-called safe areas: conservative districts, conservative areas of the country; in their textbooks, the influence of their teachers who are part of the National Education Association, it’s really a very dangerous situation, I’m with you on that. There was a time when I used to think it was pretty outrageous to insist that Christian parents remove their kids from public schools, that seemed very extreme to me, but I have come a long way, I really am at this point where I would be frightened really to have my kids in public school.

Today on her radio program, Sandy Rios of the American Family Association hosted right-wing author and WND reporter Jerome Corsi to talk about his new book, The Bad Samaritans: The ACLU’s Relentless Campaign to Erase Faith from the Public Square. Corsi, who has written top conservative books such as Unfit for Command and Where’s the Birth Certificate?, told Rios that the ACLU is trying to “eliminate God and attack the family” in order to “make the United States a socialist country” that ultimately “takes away our freedoms.”

I think we are at risk of having a group like the ACLU remove God from America. This war on God, the ACLU’s roots—and I trace it in ‘Bad Samaritans’ back to its communist and very leftist roots in the 1920s—the ACLU since its founding has had an agenda to remove God. You cannot make the United States a socialist country unless you first eliminate God and attack the family. Marx said that religion was the opiate of the people and so therefore we who believe in Jesus Christ and take religion seriously are viewed as stupid or uneducated. The fundamental perspective of our founding fathers, which is what I believe, is that unless we have God at the core of the United States we lose our freedom because Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence declared our freedoms are unalienable, they’re given to us by God. If you eliminate God then it’s the state that gives and takes away our freedoms.

Rios, who earlier asserted that secular Jews often “turn out to be the worst enemies of the country,” asked Corsi about the “powerful Jewish forces behind the ACLU.” Corsi said that such forces are trying to make America “abandon the Judeo-Christian tradition” and therefore abandoning “values that are fundamental lynchpins of our freedom.”

Rios: I know that there are powerful Jewish forces behind the ACLU; can you just say a word about that very briefly, what’s that all about?

Corsi: There has been a real union between Jews in America and the Democratic Party ever since President Truman agreed with the partition of Palestine and created the state of Israel in 1948 at the UN. But my book is arguing for a Judeo-Christian faith, which is the heart of America. We cannot abandon the Judeo-Christian tradition. If we do we are abandoning our whole values that are fundamental lynchpins of our freedom.

After a discussion of the ACLU’s involvement in the Scopes Monkey Trial, Corsi said that the group is using evolution “to destroy America and eliminate our freedoms.” He said that the ACLU wants to make it so “we can’t have God in our hearts and our schools and our prayers and our public square” and that people don’t hear the “good scientific arguments” for Creationism.

He later maintained that the organization’s support for marriage equality and reproductive rights are part of “the destruction of the family and the attack on God,” which the ACLU hopes will prepare America “to embrace radical socialism.”

The ACLU is trying to say that science is evolution and anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is just completely uneducated and stupid. That argument just doesn’t make any sense at all. I think there’s good scientific arguments for Intelligent Design, for Creationism of various kinds and theories. I mean look at the scientists nowadays coming with the Big Bang theory; the Big Bang theory sounds an awful lot to me like Genesis, and then God created light, that’s the beginning. So I think the idea that because we’re now so educated and so sophisticated we can’t have God in our hearts and our schools and our prayers and our public square, this is again something that is going to destroy America and eliminate our freedoms if we allow it to continue to happen.

…

The attack has been not only on God but on the family. Now we have the ACLU promoting same-sex marriage, promoting a whole sexual agenda and abortion, fighting since the beginning in the 1920s for Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. The destruction of the family and the attack on God, taking God out of the public schools and out of the public square, this is not just by accident. It is part of the ACLU’s plan to move America in a godless direction, preparing it to embrace radical socialism, which is really just scientific materialism.

The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios claimed on her radio program yesterday that the gay rights movement is encouraging the “sexualization of our children in public schools” and “softening children up with sexual information way before they’re ready for it in order to prepare them for sexual activity, for predators.”

And even closer to home, Bobby, I think the case could be made, though I’m not sure I’ve made it on this program, that the sexualization of our children in public schools through the radical homosexual movement is really just a cousin to softening children up with sexual information way before they’re ready for it in order to prepare them for sexual activity, for predators. That’s what I think is happening in our public schools.

Rios offered her theory after a conversation with Robert Lopez, a bisexual anti-gay activist, who recalled his recent trip to France to participate in anti-marriage equality protests. Marriage equality, Lopez lamented, is “a dictatorship that is being imposed on the world.”

Those of us in the United States who are very concerned about the same-sex parenting and where that’s going are not alone. I think that there are countries all over Europe and all over the world where people feel increasingly that this is a dictatorship that is being imposed on the world. And I use the word ‘dictatorship’ very consciously because, you know, they tear-gassed children and they tear-gassed politicians who were elected officials behind me while I was at the march in Paris, and it was shameful.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel spoke to Sandy Rios earlier today and warned that the Supreme Court “will become an illegitimate arbitrator of the rule of law” if “the court goes the wrong way” on the marriage equality cases.

After complaining that the Bush administration sabotaged efforts to pass a federal marriage amendment, Staver insisted that gay rights advocates seek to “tear down the family and put the homosexual agenda, particularly led by same-sex marriage, on a collision course with the free exercise of religion.”

Staver concluded that “the church and people of faith and values need to rise up” if the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage as “we just simply cannot allow this to become the law of the land.”

Staver: When it came into 2005 his mandate was marriage and he didn’t do anything about it, that’s when we had the momentum to go forward with a national constitutional marriage amendment and both he and Karl Rove throttled back and went down a different path. But now we’re today and it’s the big day for Proposition 8 and DOMA and these are not conservative arguments that Ted Olson is going to make, these are judicial activism arguments, these are deconstructive arguments, these are arguments that will actually tear down the family and put the homosexual agenda, particularly led by same-sex marriage, on a collision course with the free exercise of religion.

…

Staver: This is a monumental point in American history. God forbid if the court goes the wrong way. If it does, the court will become an illegitimate arbitrator of the rule of law and become simply a political institution and it will ultimately hurt the value and the respect of the United States Supreme Court.

Rios: Well I totally agree with you, I think we really are on the precipice and it’s pretty scary. I’m seeing all kinds of prognostications of what’s going to happen and I think back to the hearing on Obamacare where almost everyone thought we knew which way the court was going to go and then we were shocked by Justice Roberts’ decision and we might be in for the same thing on this.

Staver: I pray that we are not. If we are, if worst case scenario the last week of June we come down with a bad decision, the church and people of faith and values need to rise up. We just simply cannot allow this to become the law of the land, it will fundamentally change who we are, it will fundamentally weaken the family and religious freedom will be in the crosshairs.

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association on Friday said that she isn’t surprised that a large majority of young people support marriage equality because “our children, for the most part, have heard nothing but positive things about homosexuality and its effects.” She blamed TV shows like TLC’s “Say Yes to the Dress” for making homosexuality seem “kind of fun,” saying they’ve “only painted [it] with a positive brush.”

However, Rios claimed that “those of us that have been involved in issues related to this know that there’s a very dark side” to the gay community and understand that homosexuality is a “destructive force.”

She maintained that gay rights advocates are “forcing little children to be educated, they call it educated, I’d say sexually abused by information their little ears are not ready to hear,” and once again warned that “homosexual advocacy” brings about “the raping of the innocence of our children.”

We hear so much first of all about young people being in favor of gay marriage and I believe that’s true, I believe those stats are probably for the most part true and I believe it makes sense because our children, for the most part, have heard nothing but positive things about homosexuality and its effects; it’s kind of fun. We see “Say Yes to the Dress,” which by the way I love, and we see the gay characters on that and the one in Atlanta and the one in New York and those guys are really, I really, it has nothing to do with ‘like,’ but it is the face of the homosexual community that is only pained with a positive brush when those of us that have been involved in issues related to this know that there’s a very dark side, that this is not a good thing for people ultimately in their lives and it is a destructive force. It’s a destructive force especially — my concern, more than that for the gay community which I am very concerned about — is for the raping of the innocence of our children, forcing it in public schools, forcing little children to be educated, they call it educated, I’d say sexually abused by information their little ears are not ready to hear. In states where homosexual advocacy is strong this is exactly what’s happening, it’s happening to some degree all over the country in all school rooms, but it’s worse in states like Massachusetts.

Later, she mocked media coverage of her latest statements where she speculated about Hillary Clinton’s sexual orientation by facetiously asking why people were offended by her remarks since schools now teach that homosexuality is “wonderful.”

Rios even said that we are telling children to “engage in experimental sex with their friends, you know encouraged to act out sexually with their girlfriends if they are girls and their boyfriends if they are boys,” and that Bill Clinton “loves all things sexual in general I think, homosexual or heterosexual.”

She must be bi, she’s got a child, if she is a lesbian she would have to be bi so what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that okay? Isn’t that wonderful, in fact? Aren’t we telling our children in public schools, aren’t we giving them books about it, aren’t we reading stories about it, aren’t we seeing this on television all the time and movie themes, isn’t this cool? Aren’t we having our kids sort of engage in experimental sex with their friends, you know encouraged to act out sexually with their girlfriends if they are girls and their boyfriends if they are boys? Doesn’t Bravo feature things like this all the time? I just watched one this week when I was working out in the gym. What’s the problem?

…

I mean her husband is supporting gay marriage, he loves all things sexual in general I think, homosexual or heterosexual, it could be argued. I’m not talking about his behavior, I’m talking about just that he seems to embrace all kinds of sex, doesn’t seem to mind it, and certainly he is denigrating the Defense of Marriage Act, which he signed in 1996. I really honestly don’t see what the big deal is on this.

The topic of discussion on Sandy Rios’ American Family Radio program Wednesday was diversity among federal judicial nominees. The Washington Post published a story over the weekend detailing President Obama’s largely successful effort to appoint more women, people of color and openly LGBT people to federal judgeships. The voice of dissent in the article was that of the Committee for Justice’s Curt Levey, who told the Post that the White House was “lowering their standards” in nominating nonwhite judges. So naturally, Rios invited Levey on as a guest and explained to him why she disapproves of President Obama’s diverse judicial nominations.

In particular, Rios disapproves of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, respectively the third and fourth women ever to sit on the high court. Sotomayor and Kagan, Rios says, have been forgetting their place and behaving “rudely,” “interrupting” and “speaking inappropriately” to, of all people, Justice Antonin Scalia.

While Levey correctly notes that “Scalia can give it out as well as take it,” he agrees with Rios that Sotomayor, the Supreme Court’s first Latina justice, “has occasionally, at least, stepped over the line.” In particular, he says Sotomayor – who he once accused of supporting “violent Puerto Rican terrorists” --  “sort of lost it” during arguments on the Voting Rights Act, when she contradicted Scalia’s stunning assertion that the law represents a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

In fact, while Scalia’s bombast provoked audible gasps in the hearing room, Sotomayor waited several minutes before calmly asking the attorney challenging the Voting Rights Act, “Do you think that the right to vote is a racial entitlement in Section 5?"

Later, Rios, with an impressive lack of self-awareness, marvels that progressive groups criticized Scalia for his remarks. “Groups on the left,” Levey responds, “shall we say, like to personalize things.”

Rios: I read an article that Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, at least this article was intimating that they are behaving in a – these are my words – sort of rudely on the bench, to Scalia and to others, interrupting, speaking inappropriately. Have you observed that? Do you know what I’m talking about and is that true?

Levey: Um, yeah. I mean, you know, Scalia can give it out as well as take it, but yeah, Sotomayor has gone over the line a number of times. Most recently in the Voting Rights Act case, which was just last week, where, you know, Scalia had the nerve to speak the truth and refer to the Voting Rights Act as “racial preferences,” which of course is what it’s become by guaranteeing that there be minority districts formed, minority congressional districts. And, you know, Sotomayor sort of lost it when Obama [sic] said that, interrupted and you know, basically made fun of Scalia’s comment. So yeah, I think they have the right to be aggressive up there, but Sotomayor has occasionally, at least, stepped over the line.

Rios: And on the Voting Rights Act and Scalia’s comments, you know, there were demonstrators at the Court last week, hundreds of them, demonstrating against Antonin Scalia. I don’t remember that happening. I don’t remember a Supreme Court justice – doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened – but I don’t remember it being a subject of public demonstrations.

Levey: No. Typically they will, you know, they’ll, protestors at the Supreme Court will focus on issues, not justices. But you know, that changed of late. There’s been in the last two years a lot of, you know, progressive groups have gone personally after Scalia and especially Thomas and his wife. But you know, we see that in so much of politics, that groups on the left like to, shall we say, personalize things.

Rios: Yeah, as like in Alinsky, yes, personalize and target, yeah, so we are seeing some very new things and actually pretty dangerous I think.

Earlier in the program, Rios and Levey lamented the fact that President Obama has had more openly LGBT people confirmed to the federal bench than all of his predecessors combined. Echoing right-wing arguments made against Romney advisor Richard Grennell, who was forced to resign last year after less than a month on the job, Rios claimed she didn’t mind that the president was appointing gay people to federal judgeships, but that they are “activists who are trying to change the law.”

Levey: You know, I don’t have any problem with him nominating gay and lesbian nominees. The problem is that they should be gay and lesbian nominees who respect the Constitution. You know, there are…

Rios: I don’t disagree, Curt, just for the record, I don’t disagree with that. It’s the activists, activists who are trying to change the law that I will have trouble sitting on the bench.

Levey: Exactly. He’s not appointing, you know, conservative or even moderate, you know, gay Americans, he’s appointing very radical gay Americans. And, you know, again, it’s not so much any individual nominee as it is the pattern here. Of the 35 or so nominees who are pending now, only six are straight white males, even though about half the legal profession is straight white males. So, do straight white males have some, you know, right to a certain number of seats? Of course not. But if you were doing it in a balanced way without any preference for minorities of various types, then you’d probably wind up with about 17 or 18 of those 35 being straight white males. The fact that there’s only six tells us that there’s a system of preferences going on.

On her radio program today, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios read listener responses to her recent interview with anti-gay activist Brian Camenker, who claims that bullying-prevention programs and LGBT-inclusive curricula are ruining American education.

Rios praised one email from “Margaret,” who wrote that “basic skills” like reading and writing are being “pushed aside in favor of teaching moral choices and left-wing agenda. It is no wonder American students have fallen so far behind other nations.” Margaret lamented that schools “rob the innocence of children through forced instruction of alternate lifestyles,” adding: “When two percent of America’s population seeks to dictate to the rest of us how our children should be educated, we have truly sunk into a pit of moral decay.”

Rios concurred and claimed that schools are “teaching radical environmentalism or homosexuality” now “instead of math and science,” which she explained is “the reason our test scores are so shockingly low compared with the world.”

It’s sad; it’s just amazing how they are throwing—whether they are teaching radical environmentalism or homosexuality. Can you imagine that they are teaching this instead of math and science? And they are. And Margaret’s right, that’s the reason our test scores are so shockingly low compared with the world.

According to Rios, it all goes back to a plan of Bill Ayers to “radicalize” teachers and the National Education Association’s goal of “promoting homosexuality in every discipline in public schools.”

The radicals of the ’60s, the college radicals of the ’60s, they were rebelling in the streets against everything, really. Some of them were ‘make love not war’ marijuana drones but some were really smart radicals. Because they did not win the battle in the ’60s they focused their sights on education. Look at Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, that is what they all did, they went into education and they populate our universities, they saturate them and they train teachers. Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground is one of the leading educators in the country, he’s a terrorist, it’s just amazing that he writes books and people read them, and that’s how the educators have become radicalized.

The National Education Association was led by a gay man for over twenty years who was not out until he stepped down and they started promoting, radically promoting, homosexuality. This started a long, long time ago, they started with a film called ‘It’s Elementary,’ I remember when that came out; it was a total propaganda piece for homosexuality. Gradually the National Education Association made this one of their largest concerns, was promoting homosexuality in every discipline in public schools, so that’s how it started.

Glenn Beck isn’t the only one promoting an unhinged conspiracy theory about John Brennan, President Obama’s pick to lead the CIA. A number of Religious Right and anti-Muslim activists are also wondering if Brennan is a secret agent of the Saudi government.

The source of the smear against Brennan is former FBI agent John Guandolo, who has made a career out of warning about the alleged implementation of Sharia law in the U.S. and asserting that Muslims “do not have a First Amendment right to do anything.” For Guandolo, making completely unsubstantiated accusations is nothing new:

In 2011, he asserted that a Muslim college professor in Ohio was working with terrorists even though the same professor played a key role in counterterrorism efforts and the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and other members of the intelligence community all called Guandolo’s claim unfounded.

But his accusation about Brennan has been quickly picked up by former congressman Fred Grandy of the Center for Security Policy and Sandy Rios of the American Family Association, who seemed to accept it with little scrutiny. Grandy and Rios also were some of the first people to allege that Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin — among other U.S. government officials — are Muslim Brotherhood agents.

Grandy: The influence of Islam as a religion among top intelligence authorities in this country is not limited to John Brennan. Whether or not that influenced his political determinations probably has more to do not so much with Islam but to what degree has been cooped by Saudi authorities. It seems to me that you can practice Islam but still be an American citizen and loyal to the Constitution if you’re an officer in the CIA, but what we don’t know whether or not that conversion might have been instigated by Saudi authorities who then used it to perhaps remold his thinking vis-à-vis the Saudis, the Qataris and others who are allies of the United States but the principal funders and underwriters of terrorism around the world.

Rios: Well I think the proof is in the pudding. When he redefines jihad to mean something that it doesn’t mean, to water it down; when he rewrites the training manuals for our law enforcement, for those that would protect the United States; it’s all very, very frightening and suspicious to me. And wasn’t it John Brennan who calls Jerusalem, ‘Quds’?

Grandy: He has referred to Jerusalem as Al-Quds which of course is the Muslim name for it.

AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer also floated Guandolo’s accusation against Brennan.

Fischer: How in the world can this guy [Obama] be up nine points in national defense? He wants a guy to be the director of the CIA who may be a Muslim covert. There’s a highly-placed source, I can’t verify this because it’s only come from one source but John Brennan who President Obama wants to be his CIA director, there’s a well-placed source that says everybody understands in the intelligence community that he converted to Islam when he was on an overseas assignment. He’s allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate his administration.

So, is Guandolo a reliable source of information?

If you believe Guandolo’s story, the former agent was pushed out of the FBI as part of a Muslim Brotherhood plot and is now informing Americans about how the group has successfully infiltrated the U.S. government.

But the news reports beg to differ, reporting that Guandolo stepped down after it was discovered that he had a sexual relationship with the star witness in the corruption case against former Rep. William Jefferson.

Guandolo, “who is married and who unsuccessfully solicited a $75,000 donation for an anti-terrorism group from a wealthy witness in the Jefferson case with whom he was having an affair,” resigned from the FBI in 2008 “after superiors found a list he wrote of his sexual conquests with agents and a confidential source.”

But a total lack of credibility has never stopped someone from being treated as an “expert” in right-wing circles, and Guandolo’s influence is further proof that conservatives will believe just about anything to advance their anti-Muslim and anti-Obama paranoia.