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

Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report

Published

3 hours ago

on

July 2, 2025

By

President Donald Trump reportedly appeared to be unaware that the Republican budget legislation, formerly his “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” cuts approximately $1 trillion from Medicaid. In a meeting at the White House on Wednesday, Trump told moderate Republicans not to cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security.

“Trump still doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp about what his signature legislative achievement does,” NOTUS reports. “According to three sources with direct knowledge of the comments, the president told Republicans at this meeting that there are three things Congress shouldn’t touch if they want to win elections: Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.”

The legislation not only cuts $1 trillion from Medicaid, it effectively forces cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, and takes a large chunk—also possibly hundreds of billions—out of SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The President has repeatedly vowed he will not touch Medicaid.

And as recently as Tuesday, Trump wrote: “Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security Benefits are not being cut, but are being STRENGTHENED and PROTECTED from the Radical and Destructive Democrats by eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse from those Programs.”

READ MORE: ‘Every Reason to Be Scared’: Strategist Worried Trump Could Try to Rig or Cancel Midterms

“As the President has said numerous times, there will be no cuts to Medicaid,” a June 29 White House memo claimed. “The One Big Beautiful Bill protects and strengthens Medicaid for those who rely on it—pregnant women, children, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families—while eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.”

That memo also claimed, “Medicare has not been touched in this bill— absolutely nothing in the bill reduces spending on Medicare benefits.”

At least 17 million people will lose health care coverage due to the bill’s cuts, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids

Critics blasted the President.

“No matter how far into physical or mental decline he was, there was never a single moment in Biden’s presidency that he appeared to be as checked out about what his administration was doing as Trump appears to be about this bill,” wrote Yahoo Finance reporter Jordan Weissmann.

“Imagine for a moment if Joe Biden did not know at a basic level of generality what the signature piece of legislation he was attempting to pass contained. The media outrage would be measured on the Richter scale but oddly, Trump is not held to this standard,” added another social media user.

And Bloomberg columnist Matthew Yglesias made this request: “Can a reporter ask Trump to explain what Medicaid is? Does he know?”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Every Reason to Be Scared’: Strategist Worried Trump Could Try to Rig or Cancel Midterms

Published

4 hours ago

on

July 2, 2025

By

In a stark warning, a top, veteran Democratic strategist says he believes President Donald Trump could try to rig or cancel the 2026 midterm elections, to retain control of Congress.

“I don’t put anything past him, nothing,” James Carville told former CNN reporter Jim Acosta, as The Daily Beast reported on Wednesday. “To try to call the election off, to do anything he can. He can think of things like that that we can’t because we’re not accustomed to thinking like that.”

The Beast noted that “Carville is so convinced that Trump will rig the midterm elections that he’s already started sounding the alarm.”

“You know people come up to me all the time and say, ‘James. I’m really scared,’” Carville told Acosta on “The Jim Acosta Show” (video below).

READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids

“I said, ‘you should be, you have every reason to be scared. Don’t kid yourself,’” Carville added.

“This is scary s—!” Acosta replied.

“Yeah, it’s really scary,” responded Carville. “Really scary.”

The conversation was sparked by a viewer’s question.

“They want to know,” Acosta said, “Do you worry about vote tampering in the midterms?”

“Do you worry,” the host continued, “about Donald Trump and Stephen Miller and some of these types monkeying around with the midterms and the way we do elections in this country?”

READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’

“In the short word, yes, in the longer word, very,” Carville said.

He went on to suggest that Democrats will do well in the governors’ races in Virginia and New Jersey, which will be held this November.

“I think what may happen is he’ll see the writing on the wall in Virginia,” Carville continued. “This is what I think is gonna happen. In New Jersey, also. He’s going to see retirements and people are going to start coming in and saying, ‘you know we’re getting ready to lose. I got to change, and I got to get some distance,’ and he’s going to see all that coming and I don’t put anything past him.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘This Is Fascism’: Trump Sparks Fury After Calling to Deport U.S. Citizens

Continue Reading

News

‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids

Published

7 hours ago

on

July 2, 2025

By

U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), the Ranking Member of the powerful House Rules Committee, blasted his Republican colleagues for their support of President Donald Trump’s budget bill that will cut $1 trillion from Medicaid, hundreds of billions from Medicare, and greatly reduce the food program known as SNAP—also by hundreds of billions—while giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

As the House began voting on the legislation on Wednesday, giving members just one hour for debate in a rush to meet the President’s July 4 deadline, Rep. McGovern took to the floor.

The Massachusetts Democrat denounced Republicans’ “attack” on SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. “You can live without a lot of things, but you can’t live without food,” he reminded his GOP colleagues.

Speaking to “those Republicans who think that it’s okay to give [billionaire] Jeff Bezos a tax cut, and at the same time, cut food benefits for struggling families,” McGovern declared, “we don’t share the same values.”

READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’

“Unloading billions of dollars in new costs on states, money they do not have, will force them to cut benefits and throw needy people off of SNAP. It is a rotten thing to do,” he added.

“And I believe there’s a special place in hell for people who take food away from veterans, from seniors, from children, from foster youth, and from hungry families. This is sick. This is disgusting.”

He called the rushed floor vote “legislative malpractice.”

READ MORE: ‘This Is Fascism’: Trump Sparks Fury After Calling to Deport U.S. Citizens

“We are not on a deadline,” he reminded House members. “No looming crisis.”

“We’re here because Donald Trump wants a Fourth of July party to celebrate this garbage bill. He wants fireworks and flags and cameras, not for this country, but for himself. So he says, ‘Close your ears, close your eyes, and vote for this bill.’ Honestly, sounds more like a cult than a Congress to me.”

After listening to a Republican—who was standing next to a big poster of President Donald Trump and fireworks—call for members to support the bill, McGovern declared, “Cult much?”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Surrounded by Sharks’: After Touring ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Trump Vows to Renovate Original

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.