Justin's Political Corner

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

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

h/t: RWW

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

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

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

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

Incensed that she was not invited back to CPAC, the annual gathering of conservative activists, Pamela Geller took to The Janet Mefferd Show to once again claim that she is a victim of Sharia law. She accused CPAC of “enforcing the Sharia” and “blasphemy laws” as a result of “the influence of what can only be described as Muslim Brotherhood facilitators or operatives like Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist.”

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

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

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

Of course, Mefferd and LaBarbera both support the criminalization of LGBT status, which only exacerbates the spread of HIV. 

H/T: Brian Tashman at RWW

Todd Akin’s campaign continues to sponsor The Janet Mefferd Show, as Mefferd has hosted Akin surrogates like Janet Huckabee and Linda Becker of “Women Standing with Todd Akin.” Finally, the embattled Senate candidate himself appeared on the far-right talk show, where he said that Missourians know that people who “believe in traditional marriage” and “believe in freedom” are able to “understand the threat that Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama pose to our country,” which is why he believes he will in in November.

Akin went on to suggest that Obama is raising taxes on people who simply turn on their lights or purchase a wheelchair.

You remember how Barack Obama specifically promised nobody making less than $250,000 is going to be taxed, well that’s absolutely ridiculous, he’s taxed them with dozens of taxes on people that make less than $250,000. His energy policy, anybody who flips a light switch is going to get taxed. He’s got taxes—these people tax some of the weirdest things. Would you ever even in a wild moment would you ever consider taxing a wheelchair? I mean these people are bizarre.

Of course, there is no wheelchair tax or a “light switch tax,” but as we already know Akin has never had a problem with making stuff up.

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

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

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

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

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

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

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

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

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.

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

Recently, singer Carrie Underwood revealed her support for marriage equality, while Dick and Lynne Cheney publicly supported the marriage of their gay daughter Mary to her partner and even former anti-gay marriage activist David Blankenhorn announced that he had changed his views.

But Janet Mefferd is not impressed, mainly because none of these people have any “reasons” for their views and are unable to provide any “arguments” in favor of them.  

The seven patently false arguments that Mefferd made against Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage:

1. Both agendas operate as anti-child cultures of death. Abortion kills children. Homosexual behavior can’t create them.

2. Both agendas falsely play on people’s unnecessary fear and guilt by focusing on the micro personal story, rather than the macro moral issue. For abortion activists, the question often was framed thusly: “What if your daughter found herself in a crisis pregnancy? Shouldn’t she have the right to choose?” The LGBT activist subtly alters his question to this: “What if your daughter announced she’s gay? Shouldn’t she have the right to choose whom to love?” And, of course, if your answer focuses on deeper questions about the effect on society of embracing abortion on demand or so-called homosexual marriage, rather than personal love for your own flesh and blood, then you look like a jerk. This is why the questions are put the way they are. “This isn’t about society. It’s about your daughter. Don’t you love your daughter?” LGBT activists have gained many a quasi-conservative convert just because that person had a gay daughter, son or friend and couldn’t look beyond the love lines. Emphasizing the personal is a very effective tactic, and both lobbies have used it successfully. The abortion lobby did it by making men scared to offend women. The LGBT lobby does it by making heterosexuals scared to offend homosexuals. Same tactic, different objective.

3. Both agendas rely heavily on Orwellian Newspeak. For the abortion activists, the terminology is “a woman’s right to choose,” “reproductive health decision” or “termination of pregnancy.” No mention of babies. For the LGBT activists, the terminology is “equality,” “civil rights” and “love.” No mention of sodomy.

4. Both agendas count on the media to frame the agenda for the general public, reporting only stories that make the agenda look good and its opposition look bad.From Planned Parenthood to women who have had abortions to abortionists themselves, the media dutifully paints the pro-abortion zealots as selfless heroes who just care about women. One-sided stories are vital to the cause, which is why you’ll rarely see more than a token quote from a pro-lifer in any major news report on abortion. And if you’re waiting to see an expose on Planned Parenthood or actual pictures of dismembered babies on a nightly TV newscast, keep on waiting.

The LGBT activists enjoy the same treatment. To the media, homosexuals are an honorable and severely oppressed victim class, and they’re all born gay — no exceptions. Consequently, you’ll only see media portrayals of Awesome Homosexuals. They’re sensitive, good-looking and saintly; they’re wonderful friends with brilliant minds, sharp wits and caring personal advice at the ready. And they’re everywhere: on TV, in the movies, on the news, in the White House (except the non-Awesome ones who recently got caught flipping off portraits of President Reagan). Which brings up a periodic problem the media has when the storyline doesn’t go as planned: you know, like when actress Cynthia Nixon declared that for her, being gay is a choice. Or when singer Melissa Etheridge’s partner, Julie Cypher, left her, with this exit line: “I’m not gay.” But when Jerry Sandusky or Catholic priests sexually abuse little boys, you won’t see any media outlet raise the slightest question about the accused’s sexual preferences. Not relevant, homophobe. End of debate.

5. Both agendas have succeeded by obfuscating the physical death, pain or injury that comes from embracing their agenda. When, again, was the last time you saw a major network broadcast photos of dismembered preborn children? Oh, yes, we already covered that. Never. Similarly, why don’t we ever see a major news analysis on the health risks of homosexuality, as reported on the website of the Centers for Disease Control?http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

I guess we are all to believe that the moment America’s First Gay President repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” all the health risks of homosexuality magically went away. Not relevant, homophobe. End of debate.

6. Both agendas have thrived by relying on the Saul Alinsky-esque tactics of targeting, freezing, personalizing and polarizing their opponents. There are no reasonable, honest and fair debates with the Abortion Lobby or the LGBT Lobby. It’s not how they get stuff done. It’s all about making the opposition look bad, in order to skirt the real issue of whether or not their agenda is moral or good for society. So in the agenda-pushing scheme of things, those who support abortion are reasonable, freedom-loving people with a sense of fairness, and those who don’t are judgmental, religious zealots. Those who support so-called homosexual marriage also are reasonable, freedom-loving people with a sense of fairness. And those who don’t are judgmental, religious zealots. See how easy that was?

7. Both agendas seek “religious cover.” It’s why you see stories like the recent news report on the Washington, D.C.-based “Christian” obstetrician, who changed his mind on abortion and decided to start killing preborn children out of his great “compassion” for women. Or why the senior religion editor at The Huffington Post breathlessly reported a story over the weekend about religious people “celebrating” LGBT Pride. Again, religious people who embrace abortion or homosexuality — even if they’re violating the very tenets of their own religion by doing so — are good. But religious people who oppose those practices are evil, bigoted, homophobic and — let’s face it — probably hiding a secret abortion or same-sex affair.

h/t: Kyle Mantyla at RWW

Washington Times columnist and Edmund Burke Institute president Jeffrey Kuhner appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday where he said that members of the LGBT community “are even worse than the radical Islamists” and more terrifying than the dictators he often writes about, calling them “the most fanatical, hate-filled…and intolerant people I’ve ever met.”

Kuhner: As a journalist I write on a wide range of issues, I write on the Communist Chinese, I write on Putin’s regime, I write on brutal dictatorships over the world, the gay, lesbian, transgender community, the LGBT community, is the most intolerant than I have ever witnessed, they are even worse than the radical Islamists. I get death threats, my family is threatened, they call on me to be fired, they want to destroy my career. I have never seen people as intolerant, as malicious, as so desperate to engage in smear and slander and libel as people and activists in the LGBT community, it is really despicable. So for them to run around and say over and over again, all we want is tolerance, all we want is respect for diversity, all we want is respect for civil rights, it is a complete lie. They don’t practice what they preach, they are some of the most fanatical, hate-filled, and I’m choosing my words very carefully, and intolerant people I’ve ever met. I believe that Middle America does not understand the full threat posed by the homosexual agenda and the homosexual lobby.

Kuhner warned that the sitcom “Will and Grace” and romantic comedies that include “the loveable, fuzzy gay person,” which he claimed are “a form of cultural Marxism,” give “us very much a false picture” of the “vulgarity” that is “at the heart of the homosexual lifestyle”.

Kuhner went on to attack judges who overturned laws banning same-sex marriage as “fascists in black robes” and said the left is imposing a “soft totalitarianism.” “It’s an assault upon freedom, it’s an assault upon liberty, it’s an assault upon our democracy,” Kuhner said of the gay rights movement, “this is about defending our fundamental, basic democracy.”

Kuhner: The moment the people have spoken, you see these secular, progressive liberals go right away to the courts, and three, five or seven judges, almost fascists in black robes, are now able to overturn and thumb their nose at the will of the people. They are becoming increasingly tyrannical, they’re becoming increasingly anti-democratic, and I believe you’re now seeing a soft totalitarianism begin to emerge among the hard left.

From the 05.17.2012 edition of Salem Communications’ The Janet Mefferd Show:

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW