Connect with us

Pat Robertson Fires Top Attorney After Gay Relationships Accusations



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.


GOP Congressman: Obama Giving Muslims Waivers To Bypass TSA Regulations


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

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.


‘Height of Irresponsibility’: Top LGBTQ Civil Rights Group Slams House Republicans Over Shutdown and ‘Politics of Hate’



The nation’s largest LGBTQ civil rights organization on Monday released a 30-second TV ad attacking House Republicans for their “politics of hate” and for bring the federal government to the edge of a shutdown. The government will shut down unless the House can pass legislation to keep it open, legislation the Senate would have to vote on and pass, and President Joe Biden would have to sign, all before midnight on September 30.

“You sent your representative to Washington to work on behalf of everyday Americans, like you. But House Republicans spent the summer trying to divide us and failing to pass essential spending bills,” says the voiceover on the Human Rights Campaign‘s ad, expected to air nationwide according to The Hill.

“Instead, they’re trying to limit the health care you and your family can access, ban books and flags and block enforcement of civil rights laws, all while risking the government grinding to a halt.”

“Tell Congress to reject the politics of hate and get back to work,” the video adds.

READ MORE: ‘Careening’ Toward ‘Risk of Political Violence’: Experts Sound Alarm After Trump Floats Executing His Former General

“In addition to attaching numerous anti-LGBTQ+ provisions to their draft spending bills,” HRC adds in a press release, “the legislative attacks from Republicans in the House of Representatives also include stand-alone bills such as H.R. 734 — a nationwide ban on transgender students playing sports — as well as larger legislative packages like H.R. 5, which included book bans and provisions stigmatizing transgender students. The new ad from HRC, which will air nationwide, calls on voters to contact members and tell them to stand with the American people, reject the extremism of those like Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and others, and take action to prevent a shutdown.”

“A shutdown is the height of irresponsibility and would interrupt critical government services, hurt working families, and endanger our national security,” said Kelley Robinson, President of the Human Rights Campaign. “This outcome was entirely avoidable, but House Republicans have instead hijacked the appropriations process to attack LGBTQ+ communities rather than doing their jobs. It’s past time for them to stop pushing an extremist agenda that’s a danger to us all.”

Watch the video below or at this link.



Continue Reading


‘Careening’ Toward ‘Risk of Political Violence’: Experts Sound Alarm After Trump Floats Executing His Former General



Political experts are sounding alarms after Donald Trump‘s weekend of attacks on the military and the media, with some cautioning America is “not just careening toward a significant risk of political violence around the 2024 presidential election. It’s also mostly oblivious to where it’s headed.”

Friday evening the ex-president said General Mark Milley, the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whom he appointed to that role, “in times gone by” would have been executed for treason.

Trump wrote, “if the Fake News reporting is correct,” General Milley “was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States. This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH! A war between China and the United States could have been the result of this treasonous act.”

READ MORE: Gaetz Praises GOP Congressman Who Echoes His Call for Change ‘Through Force’

Foreign policy, national security, and political affairs analyst David Rothkopf Sunday night warned, “Trump this weekend indicated military leaders who opposed his policies should be put to death and media that presented views he did not like are traitors and will be prosecuted. He is a monster, an aspiring dictator, the greatest threat America faces.”

Sunday evening Trump had also attacked NBC News and MSNBC, along with their parent company, Comcast, all by name. He wrote in part: “I say up front, openly, and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States, they and others of the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events.”

“Why should NBC, or any other of the corrupt & dishonest media companies, be entitled to use the very valuable Airwaves of the USA, FREE? They are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country!” Trump said on his social media platform.

Professor of global politics and political scientist Brian Klass at The Atlantic wrote on Monday that General Milley’s phone call to China “was, in fact, explicitly authorized by Trump-administration officials.”

READ MORE: ‘Corruption of the Highest Order’: Experts ‘Sickened’ at ‘Definitely Bought’ Clarence Thomas and His ‘Pay to Play’ Lifestyle

“And yet,” Klass noted, “none of the nation’s front pages blared ‘Trump Suggests That Top General Deserves Execution’ or ‘Former President Accuses General of Treason.’ Instead, the post barely made the news. Most Americans who don’t follow Trump on social media probably don’t even know it happened.”

Klass is also warning that America has become “numb” to these attacks.

“Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous, not just because it is the exact sort that incites violence against public officials but also because it shows just how numb the country has grown toward threats more typical of broken, authoritarian regimes. The United States is not just careening toward a significant risk of political violence around the 2024 presidential election. It’s also mostly oblivious to where it’s headed.”

Juliette Kayyem, a lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a CNN national security analyst Monday morning observed: “To view each of Trump’s calls to violence in isolation — ‘he attacked Milley,’ or ‘he attacked NBC,’ or ‘he attacked the jury, the prosecutor, the judge ‘ — is to miss his overall plan to ‘introduce() violence as a natural extension of our democratic disagreement.'”

Kayyem, a former Asst. Secretary at the Dept. of Homeland Security and a terrorism expert, pointed to her own piece at The Atlantic from July.

“The language” Trump and his allies “are using is filled with words of war, elevating concerns among terrorism experts and security planners that Trump’s supporters pose the same threat of violence that they did before the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol,” Kayyem wrote.

READ MORE: ‘Vulgar and Lewd’: Trump Judge Cites Extremist Group to Allow Drag Show Ban

Klass again sounded the alarm on complacency:

“Bombarded by a constant stream of deranged authoritarian extremism from a man who might soon return to the presidency, we’ve lost all sense of scale and perspective. But neither the American press nor the public can afford to be lulled. The man who, as president, incited a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol in order to overturn an election is again openly fomenting political violence while explicitly endorsing authoritarian strategies should he return to power. That is the story of the 2024 election. Everything else is just window dressing.”

Continue Reading


‘It Won’t Fare Well’: Legal Expert Trashes Trump’s Hopes for ‘Hail Mary’ Appeal This Week



The fate of the $250 million Manhattan fraud trial brought against Donald Trump and his Trump Organization by New York Attorney General Letitia James could be determined in two separate court rulings this week with one legal insider claiming Trump shouldn’t get his hopes up.

What is at stake is an expected Tuesday ruling from Judge Arthur F. Engoron on what charges he will accept against the former president for massively overstating the value of his properties, and a “Hail Mary” bid to the appeals court to delay the trial or dismiss it altogether with a deciosn expected on Thursday.

According to a report from the New York Times, Engoron is set to make his ruling after a contentious hearing last Friday where he repeatedly chastised the former president’s legal team and abruptly cut them off.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

That led former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner to suggest on Sunday that the future of the fraud case does not look good for Trump’s legal team.

Kirschner told MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart, “He [Engoron] called those arguments ‘borderline frivolous.’ He was considering sanctions against Donald Trump’s attorney,” and later added, “I don’t think that hearing went all that well for Trump.”

As for the appeals court, the Times is reporting, “Mr. Trump’s lawsuit — and in turn the fate of Ms. James’s case against him — hinges on a passage in the June appeals court ruling that has become a legal Rorschach test of sorts, in which each side sees what they want. Mr. Trump’s lawyers are convinced that the June ruling effectively tossed out the claims against him, while Ms. James’s team has argued that it had little effect on the accusation at the heart of her case — that Mr. Trump overstated his net worth by billions of dollars in his annual financial statements.”

After noting that, should the appeals court side with Trump, it would likely delay or “defang the case before the trial even begins,” the Times is reporting that some legal experts aren’t expecting Trump’s legal team to come out on top.

According to David B. Saxe, who previously served nearly on the same appeals court, “I think it won’t fare well.”

You can read more here.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.