Connect with us

Pat Robertson Fires Top Attorney After Gay Relationships Accusations

Published

on

Pat Robertson‘s American Center for Law And Justice (ACLJ) has reportedly fired a senior attorney after several blogs reported the married father of eight was engaged in romantic relationships with several young men.

“The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) confirmed in a statement provided to Metro Weekly that James Henderson, a senior counsel with the group who focused on federal civil rights and constitutional law, had been fired from the group Sept. 25, one day after a report surfaced on a blog that he may be gay,” MetroWeekly’s Justin Snow reported:

“He is no longer affiliated with any ACLJ entity,” said Ronn Torossian of 5W Public Relations in an email to Metro Weekly. “ACLJ will not comment further on this personnel matter.”

ACLJ’s confirmation comes after two blogs — Exposed Politics and The Patriot-Ombudsman — published troves of information about Henderson and his relationship with two younger men. Henderson is married and has eight children.

Although there has been speculation as to the age of the two men, it is unclear if they were under the age of consent in the state of Virginia where Henderson lives.

According to the two bloggers, Henderson used a Facebook account to communicate with the two men. Conversations obtained and published by the two websites indicate that Henderson may have provided the younger men, who appear to be possibly younger than 21, with alcohol and marijuana. The Facebook account cited by the bloggers has since been deleted.

Neither blogger has indicated how they obtained the mountain of information published last week. The editor of Exposed Politics, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, told Metro Weekly he received an anonymous tip alerting him to the story.

Exposed Politics, one of the two websites that first reported the allegations, last month reported:

Could one of our nation’s top Conservative, First Amendment lawyers have a problem he can’t talk his way out of? James M. Henderson is considered one of the most prominent 1st amendment constitutional lawyers in the country, and depending on your interpretation of the evidence, he may have a fondness for young boys and pot.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is a law firm located at 205 Third Street, SE Washington, DC 20003. James M. Henderson, Sr. is Senior Counsel of the ACLJ in the Washington, D.C. office and has been counsel of record on many cases, including amicus briefs to the Supreme Court regarding  “The Child Pornography Prevention Act” and “The Child Online Protection Act.”  ACLJ states in its Mission Statement that it is a God driven law firm: ACLJ “is dependent upon God and the resources He provides through the time, talent, and gifts of people who share our concerns and desire to protect our religious and constitutional freedoms.”

Pat Robertson, who openly condemns gay people on a frequent basis, last month in a religious diatribe called the Democratic Party the “party of gays, godlessness, and whatever else,” and claimed they are now “going after God.” In August, Robertson, speaking in defense of Chick-Fil-A, said gay people should “shut their mouth” until they can produce a child from their rectums. In May, Robertson said, “the union of two men doesn’t bring forth anything except disease, apparently, and suffering, and the same thing with the union of two women.” And in March, Robertson said homosexuality is an “obsession,” and “a compulsion,” and added, “I think it is somehow related to demonic possession.”

Earlier this year, The New Civil Rights Movement reported that Colby May, director of the office of governmental affairs at Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, where Henderson worked, teamed up with the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and other groups to examine the new media platforms censorship, and claimed that Christian broadcasters are being censored “on the issue of the gay rights agenda.”

Robertson’s American Center for Law And Justice on its website urges followers to “pray” against same-sex marriage:

Pray for our nation, pray for our leaders, pray for those who wish to undermine marriage in our culture, and pray for the Church that it would be able set an example of what marriage should be. 2 Chronicles 7:14 outlines what God asks of His people: “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

But worse, Robertson’s American Center for Law And Justice filed an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case that rendered sodomy laws unconstitutional and thus, made unconstitutional laws barring same-sex sex.

In that brief, Robertson’s ACLJ wrote:

The ACLJ is committed to the defense of marriage and the traditional family. This case poses a threat to both. First, none of the petitioners’ arguments challenging the distinction in legal treatment of extramarital heterosexual acts and homosexual acts would not also be an argument against the distinction in legal treatment of marital heterosexual unions and homosexual unions. Thus, petitioners strike at the institution of marriage itself. Second, petitioners argue for substantive due process protection of extramarital sexual acts. To recognize extramarital sex acts as “fundamental rights” would jeopardize the wide array of state laws governing even consensual, adult sexual activity, further pushing this nation toward sexual libertinism. The Constitution, however, neither does nor ought to enshrine the Sexual Revolution.

The ACLJ also filed an amicus brief in the Prop 8 case, stating:

There is a basic difference between a heterosexual marriage and any other kind of sexual union. Only a man and a woman have the inherent, categorical capacity (even if disabled in particular cases) to engage in genital intercourse of the type that can procreate. A union of man and man, or of woman and woman, by contrast, lacking sexual complementarity, is inherently, categorically incapable of consummating a marriage and generating children.

It is not irrational for a state to notice this categorical difference.

Nor is it irrational for a state to act upon it by formally recognizing man- woman unions, but not others, as the kind of union which can constitute a marriage. In constitutional terms, treating dissimilar things differently is not a denial of equal protection. “The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.” Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 799 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Likewise, declining to jettison the concept of marriage, in order to assign the label “marriage” to something inherently, categorically different, is not a denial of due process. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 711 (1997) (rejecting due process challenge to ban on assisted suicide where ban reflected “enduring themes of our philosophical, legal, and cultural heritages”).

Lastly, the ACLJ in 2006 wrote a letter to the American Bar Association on the topic of revising the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, and advocating they remove the term “sexual orientation” as a protected category. The ACLJ lamented that the term “sexual orientation” … “as a category” which protected against “bias, prejudice, or harassment,” “is notoriously fluid, having once meant heterosexual or homosexual, then expanded to include bisexual, now expanding to include transgender, and in principle open to further expansion to include the universe of possible sexual proclivities. Hence, use of this term creates a vagueness problem.”

In addition, given the traditional, historic criminalization of deviant sexual practices, and given the sharp and deeply felt division of the public over whether sexual proclivities, or any particular subset thereof, should be singled out for special protection, on the one hand, as opposed to condemnation (or at least nonapproval), on the other, the ABA’s use of this term entails the imposition by the ABA of a highly controversial and historically revolutionary moral and political position upon the judiciary.

Finally, given the ambiguity and breadth of the term “sexual orientation,” there is a problem of unintended consequences. What in this rule prevents its use in contexts where even the ABA’s Joint Commission would presumably have qualms, such as orientation toward pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.? Such concerns cannot be cavalierly dismissed as red herrings unless something of substance in the Model Code provides a basis for such dismissal. Ideas have logical consequences, and the unadorned term “sexual orientation” contains no inherent limiting principle.

For these reasons, I recommend that the Joint Commission delete all references to “sexual orientation”. 

Yes, equating homosexuality to pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality is the business the ACLJ is in.

Anyone supporting this kind of bigotry and ugliness is beyond the pale.

Related:

GOP Congressman: Obama Giving Muslims Waivers To Bypass TSA Regulations

 

Image from American Center for Law and Justice’s Facebook Page 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

4 mins ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

News

‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Published

2 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

19 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.