Cardinal Dolan Cancels Archbishop Sheen’s Canonization — Will serve as Grand Marshall in Gay Parade

Hope all is well on this 5th day of September – marking our 9th and final day of our 9-day Novena and the “17th Anniversary of the Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta’s Death”. What more can one say about this blessed little nun from Albania, who gave her entire mind, body and soul to work for The Kingdom by ministering to the poorest of the poor in the poverty-stricken streets of Calcutta, India. And, boy, did she fight against the atrocities of abortion and everything that attacked the Holy Catholic Church. If she could only come back to earth for just one day and see what is going on in New York City today, she would probably say: “What a poverty it is that those church leaders in New York City have totally turned their backs on what the Holy Bible teaches”…

And, this wonderful and Holy saint-to-be would be referring to “My good buddy”, Cardinal Dolan, the disgraced archbishop of New York City. Yes, we go back to January 20th, 2012, when the H.H.S. Mandate hit the Holy Catholic Church & the boastful cardinal made a bold statement: “You picked the fight. We are not going to back down.” Friends: This is old news.

PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS OUT OF CONTEXT UNLESS YOU KNOW OUR HISTORY! DO NOT MAKE JUDGMENTS, AND JUST ALLOW ME TO EXPLAIN WHY I RESPECT & HONOR THE  POSITION OF CARDINAL AND ARCHBISHOP IN ANY CITY OR COUNTRY – BUT WHY I CANNOT RESPECT CARDINAL DOLAN FOR ONE SECOND FOR THE WAY HE HAS BETRAYED THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH … AND CONTINUES TO FLAUNT IT.

As you all well know, the main mission of our non-profit ministry, Christian on a Mission is to “Protect the Integrity of the Holy Catholic Church – at all cost”.

When we have church leaders like Cardinal Dolan running an archdiocese as large and populated as New York City and allow him to run this ever-energetic town as liberal as he has for the past several years; when we allow him to hang out and snuggle up to Pro-abortion city leaders like Governor Cuomo & Mayor Bill de Blasio and spend time with former mayor, Michael Bloomberg, whose claim to fame was fighting for 3 years to get the city to stop selling 16 ounce sodas; when we allow him to be the Grand Marshall for the St. Patrick’s Day Gay Parade – what can one expect when this vibrant city has turned into a 21st century Sodom & Gomorrah?

And, while Cardinal Dolan flirts with disaster and hangs out with these Pro-abortion degenerates, the abortion rate continues to climb, same sex marriages continue to rise while our beloved “snowbirds” from our local parishes who call New York City their “former” homes, would prefer to stay in South Florida a few months longer than to have to put up with this sickening environment they used to refer to as “The Big Apple”. Just like Common Core – it has become “The Rotten Apple”. We no longer see those popular bumper stickers that read “I Love New York”…Now, they read “I Pray for New York”…

And, this degenerate downfall of New York City I believe, can be attributed to the liberal ways that this cardinal who runs the archdiocese, as Cardinal Dolan (and I am referring to him as Cardinal Dolan rather than just Dolan – only because I respect the position of the cardinal and I have been “mildly scolded” when I just call him Dolan) – continues to worry more about being a “media darling” and a politician that a Holy Man of GOD. He lives for the cameras – not for GOD.

When former secretary of the H.H.S., Kathleen Sebelius, challenged Cardinal Dolan over two and half years ago – the cardinal talked a great game for two weeks – then backed out of that fight like a beat up Cocker Spaniel with his tail between his legs. And, mind you, the cardinal was the President of the Almighty USCCB at the time. The entire country saw that cowardly act and it pretty much set the precedence for what was to come – Obamacare; Common Core. Cardinal Dolan dropped the ball big time, went on  every national TV News station as if he were a Rock Star, rubbed elbows with Obama at the Alfred B. Smith Annual Dinner, continued to hang out with the degenerate New York City politicians…and that is why I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THIS MAN WHILE HE TRIES TO REPRESENT OUR HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH! CARDINAL DOLAN IS A DISGRACE FOR THE DEVOUT CATHOLICS WHO FOLLOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHINGS AND SHOULD CLEARLY BE REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION AS ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK CITY!

For the majority of you that remember my articles back then, remember that is when my conflict with Cardinal Dolan, Sister Mary Ann Walsh (Communications Director for the USCCB) and Joseph Zwilling (Communications Director for the Archdiocese of New York City), began – and, I refuse to back down. They picked the fight. They picked to dishonor our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ – and as long as I am alive – I will protect our beloved Holy Catholic Church with my entire being at all cost!

So, there you have it, friends. Please do me a favor and read the two articles below.

From betraying our beloved Archbishop Fulton Sheen and his long-awaited canonization to being the Grand Marshall of the St. Patrick’s Day Gay Parade in New York City – you have to agree with me that Cardinal Timothy B. Dolan has fallen from grace big time. And, he loves every single minute of it as he lives for the cameras – not for our Lord. If you refuse to see this blatant betrayal of our beloved Catholic Faith – if you even want to argue with me – I think you really need to do your homework on this radical cardinal as so many of his peers and colleagues know that he has truly stepped out of bounds one too many times. Don’t get mad at me – I am only the messenger – a tiny instrument – bringing you these facts.

Like always, my job is to evangelize – to speak the Truth – and to bring the Good News to all our readers. It is very difficult to be inspired and get motivated for our beloved Faith when we have a disrespectful impostor as a cardinal and archbishop in the city that is looked upon as the “most vibrant and important city in the world” – as Cardinal Dolan is more caught up in being in the limelight of the world rather than preparing souls for the Eternal World…

GOD HAVE MERCY ON CARDINAL DOLAN!!

Traditional Roman Catholic Thoughts

URGENT: Cardinal Dolan Cancels Archbishop Sheen’s Canonization

September 3, 2014

Fulton_J._Sheen_NYWTS

Archbishop Fulton Sheen

I was just made aware with utter shock and horror that Cardinal Dolan has cancelled Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s canonization process.

This was released by the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois in a news release today. You can read the entire thing here.

With the attempted closing of Holy Innocents Parish in Manhattan and Cardinal Dolan’s adement support for homosexuals, it is clear that this Prince of the Church is not a fan of the actual teachings of the Church which he is supposed to defend. Cardinal Dolan will be the Grand Marshall of next year’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade, a parade that is well known for its support of homosexuals.

StPatrickParade

Cardinal Dolan is all laughs as he allows New York City to fall like Sodom & Gomorrah.

UPDATE:

On February 9, 2011, the Archdiocese of New York wrote a letter to Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s cause expressing their “satisfaction and joy over the current announcement”. Even though then-Archbishop Dolan was visiting then-Pope Benedict XVI he wanted to “express his congratulations and gratitude for the good news to Bishop Daniel Jenky”.

Read this on Cardinal Dolan’s Blog.

Gays to march in NYC Parade, with Cardinal Dolan as 2015 Grand Marshal

gay group of employees from NBC will march in next year’s New York City St. Patrick’s Day Parade behind  their  own banner, a source with knowledge of the ongoing parade controversy has told the Irish Voice. On Wednesday, September 3, at a reception at the New York Athletic Club, Cardinal Timothy Dolan will be named as the grand marshal of the 254th St. Patrick’s Day parade, set to step off on Tuesday, March 17.

In a historic move aimed at defusing the storm that erupted this year over the exclusion of gay banners in the march, the addition of a banner identifying gay NBC staffers is a compromise forged at the insistence of several New York City St. Patrick’s Day Parade Committee members, including Dr. John Lahey, president of Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, and Francis X. Comerford, chief revenue officer for NBC-owned TV stations. NBC, the long-time broadcast home of the St. Patrick’s Day parade, was prepared to drop its coverage unless a compromise that resulted in the inclusion of a gay group was brokered.

The withdrawal of parade sponsorship last year by Guinness was also a huge factor in bringing about the change, according to a former grand marshal.

“Once an iconic company like Guinness showed it was standing up pretty much everyone else had to follow,” said the source, who revealed that Guinness had met with parade figures on several occasions since to help seek a compromise.

The NBC network has a large and visible presence on Fifth Avenue for the event, and a majority of committee officials and trustees are on board with the inclusion of gay NBC staffers in the line of march. It is unknown whether this development will lead to a more widespread gay presence next March 17 – for example, if the NBC marchers will be accompanied by other participants who would also like to identify as gay.

Read more: Timeline of the NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade’s LGBT controversy (PHOTO & VIDEO)

This year’s parade was marred by sponsor withdrawals and politicians who refused to take part due to the ongoing exclusion of gay groups marching with their own banners.

Though the parade committee has for years steadfastly maintained the policy, it was freshly highlighted in  February by new Mayor Bill de Blasio, who said he would not take part in the event unless gay groups could also march. He was the first mayor to boycott the parade since David Dinkins, who also protested  the exclusion of gay groups and worked to broker a solution that ultimately never arrived.

De Blasio was quickly followed by a succession of New York politicians also opting out of the march, including  City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, who called for a council-wide boycott of the event and was more or less granted her wish as only a handful of the 51 council members took part.

More damaging for the parade itself was the withdrawal of long-term sponsors Heineken and Guinness.

“Guinness has a strong history of supporting diversity and being an advocate for equality for all. We were hopeful that the policy of exclusion would be reversed for this year’s parade. As this has not come to pass, Guinness has withdrawn its participation. We will continue to work with community leaders to ensure that future parades have an inclusionary policy,” a Guinness statement at the time said.

Though some establishments also chose to institute their own Heineken/Guinness boycotts in support of the parade’s policy against gay banners, a concerted effort has been in place behind the scenes since March 18 to broker a compromise acceptable to all interests in advance of next year’s march.

The consensus, according to several Irish Voice sources, was clear – a repeat of this year’s sponsor withdrawals and attendant negative publicity was unacceptable and clearly damaging to the well-being of the march from many standpoints, including financial, political and public relations-wise. It is also believed that another long-time parade sponsor, the Ford Motor Company, was prepared to end its financial support unless a compromise was put in place.

CBC: The Clueless Black Caucus

On the very day that Michael Brown, the slain teenager from Ferguson, Mo., was buried, the Congressional Black Caucus made a major announcement. They sent a letter complaining to President Obama. Yep, you heard correctly. They took the bold move of asking the president to investigate issues of racism and discrimination within local law enforcement nationally by setting up a police czar.

Now that you have finished laughing, let’s discuss this a little further.

It took plodding through the CBC’s meandering letter, to see that they made a few strong recommendations to the president. They first want Obama to appoint the “Department of Justice (DOJ) to train every police department in the country on the issue of racial bias.” It’s amazing that members of congress need to be reminded that policing is a local issue, not a federal one. The federal government has its hands full trying to eradicate racism from its own ranks. So I have a recommendation for the CBC: Let the states and municipal governments deal with the issue on the local level.

The second recommendation concerned accountability. According to the CBC’s letter, “Police departments should not be solely responsible for investigating themselves.” Oh really? These same members of congress seem to have no problem when it comes to congress investigating itself. If another member of congress or the public files a complaint against a member of congress, Congress refuses to bring in an independent investigator.

The third recommendation deals with the issue of diversity. “Police department personnel should be representative of the communities they serve…DOJ must set, implement, and monitor diversity hiring and retention guidelines for local police departments,” according to the letter. Again, this is a local issue and DOJ has no authority to engage in such an activity. Why won’t Congress agree to be subjected to this same standard? Besides, Congress conveniently exempts itself from some of the law it passes.

The fourth recommendation revolved around engagement. “Too often law enforcement personnel hold stereotypes about black and brown youth and vice versa. Lack of familiarity breeds lack of understanding and increased opportunities for conflict…” These same members of Congress perpetuate stereotypes that Republicans hate Blacks; and don’t care about the poor. Democrats rarely engage with Republicans on any issues; and people wonder why no legislation gets passed in D.C.

The fifth recommendation: “…The Administration must quickly establish a national commission to review existing police policies and practices and identify the best policies and practices that can prevent more Fergusons and vastly improve policing in communities across the nation.” Is anyone listening? This is a local issue.

The final recommendation called for more bureaucracy. “The Administration must appoint a federal Czar, housed in the U.S. Department of Justice, who is specifically tasked with promoting the professionalization of local law enforcement, monitoring egregious law enforcement activities, and adjudicating suspicious actions of local law enforcement agencies that receive federal funding.”

In essence, the CBC wants to nationalize all local and municipal police departments. This is yet another example of why no one takes the CBC seriously. They constantly advocate positions that have no chance of passing Congress; and in this case, are not even legal.

Did the CBC really just realize that racial disparities on the Ferguson police force existed? I was born and raised in St. Louis and these disparities have existed for decades in Ferguson and throughout the region. The federal government has absolutely no role in insuring diversity on a local police force. That is the responsibility of the locally elected leadership.

Local police should answer to the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect, not to Eric Holder or the CBC.

The CBC conveniently ignore that Blacks are 67 percent of the population of Ferguson; but they rarely participate in elections in any meaningful way. Are the Blacks in Ferguson just realizing that there were only three Blacks out of 53 on the police force?

Maybe Blacks are fine with the composition of the police force and the rest of their elected officials. If they were dissatisfied, they could have quickly changed that by voting.

We cannot continue to blame others for our apathetic behaviors; and we can’t continue to run to big government to do for us what we are not willing to do for ourselves. We must be what we are looking for.

The CBC has chosen to put the blame and responsibility for Ferguson on everyone but the citizens of Ferguson. Whose fault is it that Blacks don’t vote in Ferguson? They have the power to vote, but they don’t have the will to vote. They hold the key to their own future.

Is a Gay Football Player News?

Michael Sam, the first openly gay athlete drafted into the National Football League, did not make the cut with the St. Louis Rams after it trimmed its roster ahead of the start of the 2014 season.

Sam has been signed for the practice squad of the Dallas Cowboys, but given their dismal record of late we are not likely to hear much other than their losing scores. The only reason I would watch the Cowboys on TV is their cheerleaders!

Now we will be able to enjoy the season without a story every day about what Michael Sam did or said. We will not have to endure television interviews of him and his boyfriend telling us how wonderful it is to be gay in America.

If I never see a photo of those two kissing one another, I will be happy knowing that neither will a generation of young boys who want to grow up to be football players.

If you think about it, since homosexuals are about two percent of the U.S. population, it should hardly be newsworthy that a particular athlete is gay. We accept that there’s a fair percentage of gays in the arts and other fields, but gay athletes are deemed—at least by the media—to be in some special category.

When it comes to sports, most of us only want to know if an athlete has won or lost. Writing for NBC Sports, Michael David Smith probably got the Michael Sam story right. He reported that Eric Wood, a Bill’s defensive lineman, believes that “teams are avoiding Sam because they don’t want the ESPN hype that would come with having Sam.”

The plain fact of Sam’s fate was that he was not as good as the others on the preseason team. Prior to the news he was not signed, Vinnie Iyer, a Huffington Post sports writer, noted, “Robert Quinn and Chris Long are the Ram’s elite starters at defensive end. Veterans William Hayes and Eugene Sims are the projected backups. Sam’s chief competition, undrafted fellow rookie Ethan Westbrooks, was better than Sam throughout the preseason.”

To show his support, Sam’s boyfriend, Vito Cammisano, tweeted a photo of the couple together, wearing shirts from the University of Missouri, where they both attended college. In May, ESPN had aired a celebratory kiss between the two men. “You know, I can play in this league,” said Sam. Just barely.

If you think the media devotes altogether too much “news” about gays, I would be inclined to agree. There is, however, a massive propaganda campaign conducted by gay organizations to ensure that their issues are always in the news. They hardly merit such coverage. Why should their sexual orientation be the subject of so much coverage? The answer most likely is the intense liberal orientation of the news media these days.

Nor has the U.S. ever had such a gay-oriented President as Obama in its history. On July 21, Obama signed an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating “on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”  Obama said, “I firmly believe that it’s time to address this injustice for every American.” The EO amended a previous one issued by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Everything that can be done to undermine the moral values of the nation has been underway for several decades. In December, a judge appointed by Obama, Robert J. Shelby, issued an opinion declaring that a right to same-sex marriage is “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. When he was confirmed to the federal bench on September 21, 2012, no senator objected. CNN reporter, Terence P. Jeffrey, said “His opinion could fundamentally alter American law and culture.”

There is not a bit of U.S. history or a word in the Constitution to justify Judge Shelby’s decision.

The media, according to a June 2013 study released by the Pew Research Center, found that articles with “statements supporting same-sex marriage outweighed those with statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1.” The study was of nearly 500 stories from March 18 through May 12 “primarily focused on support for the measure…”

As children return to schools, K-12, this year, their curriculums will include support for homosexuality when many older Americans recall that this subject was never a part of what was taught when they attended school.

Ensuring special treatment for gays is now part of many aspects of life in America and if that isn’t inherently unfair, unequal, and totally out of proportion to the other 98% of the population, than it is impossible not to conclude it is part of the government’s and media’s agenda these days.

None of this bodes well for America.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLE: Jerry Jones: Michael Sam ‘Is Not Ready To Go At All’

Obama’s Trojan Horses, Glenn Beck and Christian Love

Insidiously, Obama is using beautiful needy illegal alien kids as perfect Trojan Horses to continue his fundamental transformation of America for decades. A Hudson Institute study shows that illegals granted amnesty by Obama are far less inclined to assimilate; embrace English, the concept of American Exceptionalism and respect our Constitution.

The study also shows that illegals granted a “get in America free” pass from Obama do not view America as being better than other countries. Thus, putting these future Democrat voters on the same page as Obama and the MSM.

Obama using kids as time-released sleeper cell Trojan Horses for his transformation of our country is brilliantly evil. His exploitation of these kids includes using them as human shields, providing cover for his hidden-in-plain-sight criminal illegal alien invasion of America. This arrogant evil man is skillfully exploiting the compassion, generosity and goodness of the American people.

Even the hearts of Glenn Beck and George Will have been touched and deceived by the faces and plight of the children invading our country daily.

Both Beck and Will have joined the chorus of those calling conservatives mean for not rolling out the red carpet to those invading our homeland. Illegals disrespect our laws, contribute to the dismal state of our economy, exhaust our resources and wave their country’s flag while calling us insensitive when we celebrate or wear the stars and stripes – in our own country. Frankly, it is breathtakingly rude to come into our home and make demands.

Rewarding those invading our southern border is misguided compassion. It sends the world a message to come break our immigration laws and risk the extremely dangerous trek in which children are routinely abused, raped and murdered. The odds of rape are so high during the journey to America, Coyotes load up illegal alien girls with birth control. Is it truly compassionate to encourage foreign parents to risk the lives of their children by illegally sending them to America?

I wish to address the manipulative flawed narrative that says true Christian love means never calling out evil doers or pushing back against those who aggressively impose their will on us. Does true Christianity require us to sheepishly allow the Left’s “anything goes” philosophy to overtake our land?

I asked the wisest man I know, my 86 year old dad who is still the pastor of four churches after 50 years in ministry. Dad chucked and said, “I let the Word of God do the work. When I say something is an abomination to God, it is not me offering my opinion. I am simply quoting the Word of God.”

While the Left is typically repulsed by Christianity and the Holy Bible, they love to throw scripture in our face when they think it serves their purpose.

or example: When arguing against the death penalty for murders, the Left is quick to talk about the biblical mandate to forgive. And yet, these same people are outraged when anyone attempts to talk a woman out of aborting her innocent unborn child.

Psalm 127:3 says: “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.”

I have about had it with Christians scolding our side for being angry and aggressively pushing back against Obama’s unprecedented lawlessness, tyranny, and iron fist assaults on our freedom and liberty. Handled responsibly, some anger is justified and even righteous. God does want us to fight back!

Paraphrasing a Bible story, King David and his army returned home after a battle greeted by the smell of smoke. The camp had been invaded and burned, their women and children were kidnapped, their possessions were taken. David’s men were so heartbroken and angry that they threatened to kill him. David prayed to God for guidance. God instructed David and his men to go get their stuff. They attacked their enemy and recovered their families and possessions.

1 Samuel 30: 8 — “And David inquired at the Lord, saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? Shall I overtake them? And He answered him, Pursue: for thou shalt surely overtake them, and without fail recover all.”

It is not God’s Will for Christians to allow evil to go unchallenged.

The metro-sexual weak-kneed spineless passive Christianity encouraged by the Left is simply a tactic to nullify opposition to their super aggressive repeals of our freedoms as they implement their socialist/progressive agenda; Obama’s fundamental transformation of America.

Upon his arrival on the national scene, Obama was seen as a messiah in the eyes of many; an articulate orator able to control the sea levels and create world peace. The Bible speaks of such false prophets.

Romans 16:18 — “For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people.”

2 Timothy 3:6-9 — “These are the kind of people who smooth-talk themselves into the home of unstable and needy women and take advantage of them; women who, depressed by their sinfulness, take up with every new religious fad that calls itself “truth”. They get exploited every time and never really learn. These men are like those old Egyptian frauds Jannes and Jambres, who challenged Moses. They were rejected from the faith, twisted in their thinking, defying truth itself. But nothing will come of these latest impostors. Everyone will see through them, just as people saw through that Egyptian hoax.”

Real Christian love is making responsible, wise and character-driven decisions with the best interest of others at heart; not embracing lawlessness or surrendering to evil.

It is God’s Will that we take back America. Like King David and his men, lets go get our stuff!

Former CIA Station Chief Gary Berntsen’s analysis of ISIS videos

berntsen_gary

Gary Berntsen, former CIA Station Chief.

This exclusive extended interview with former CIA Station Chief Gary Berntsen looks at the strategy behind the recent release of videos showing the beheading of two Americans, the most recent of Miami, FL journalist Steven J. Sotloff.

Isabel Kershner from the New York Times reports, “The beheading of Steven J. Sotloff, the American journalist from Miami who had been held hostage by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, suddenly loomed larger for many Israelis on Wednesday when it emerged that he held Israeli citizenship and had lived and studied in the country for a few years.”

On three separate occasions, Gary led the CIA’s most important counter-terrorism deployments including the United States’ response to the East Africa Embassy bombings and the 9/11 attacks and the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Gary is one of the CIA’s most decorated agents receiving awarded the Distinguished Intelligence Medal in 2000 and in 2004 the prestigious Intelligence Star (only a few dozen CIA officers have received this award-most posthumously).

Watch Gary give his professional analysis of the message ISIS wants to send President Obama:

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Muslim who tried to join Islamic State: “I would not classify myself as a radical”
Obama official: “If there’s a counter-terrorism threat, we’ll take direct action against that threat”
Kerry: Scripture commands USA to protect Muslim countries against global warming
Video: Robert Spencer and Michael Coren on Sun TV on the beheading of Steven Sotloff

Exposed: Do you know the real John B. Morgan, Charlie Crist’s alter ego?

morgan and obama

John Morgan with Barack Obama.

Many people do not know the real John B. Morgan, head of Morgan & Morgan legal firm in Orlando, FL. John B. Morgan is Charlie Crist’s boss and the power behind the Crist campaign. Charlie runs the Tampa office of Morgan & Morgan.

John Morgan and Charlie Crist are inextricably linked. Morgan supported Crist when he was a Republican governor, when he ran for the U.S. Senate as an Independent and now that he is running for governor as a Democrat.

So let’s take a quick look at the real John Morgan, the man behind the Florida marijuana legalization Amendment 2.

charlie-crist-john-morgan-in-florida-trend

Charlie Crist and John Morgan of Morgan & Morgan.

John Morgan – DUI and Police Battery:

In 1997, Morgan Was Arrested For Battery On A Police Officer. “Until his arrest last week in Casselberry for battery on a police officer, 1997 had been a very good year for Orlando attorney John B. Morgan.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,” Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)

  • Morgan Was Pulled Over And Cited For A DUI. “But at about 3 a.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 10, Morgan and his red Cadillac were pulled over on S.R. 436 after pulling out of a Denny’s parking lot. Police say he swerved across lanes without signaling and stopped abruptly in the intersection with S.R. 17/92, after having traveled five feet past the white line marking a safe-stopping location. After the light changed, Morgan drove on, nearly clipping the curb, before using all three lanes to negotiate a curve, according to reports by Casselberry police. He was pulled over at Brewer Street and, after reportedly failing field sobriety tests, cited for driving under the influence.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,” Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)
  • During The Arrest, Morgan Became “Enraged,” Hitting And Headbutting The Officer And Calling The Officer A “Fat Fucker” And “Baldy.” “But, according to the arresting officer, Morgan became enraged upon arriving at the Seminole County Jail, called the officer a “fat fucker” and “baldy,” twice headbutted him, and hit him in the face with his left hand.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,”Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)
  • Morgan Was Charged With DUI, Failure To Provide Insurance, Two Other Traffic Violations, And Battery On A Police Officer. “So, in addition to charges of DUI, failure to provide insurance and two other minor traffic offenses, Morgan was charged with battery on a police officer, a third-degree felony calling for up to five years in prison.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,” Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)
  • Morgan Pled Guilty To Drunken-Driving, Receiving A Year Probation, $500 Fine, And Having His License Suspended For Six Months, And Prosecutors Dropped The Battery Charge. “John Morgan, a personal injury attorney, has agreed to a plea deal in his drunken-driving case. Attorneys said Wednesday that Morgan would be sentenced to a year’s probation, fined $500 and give up his drivers license for six months. In return, prosecutors reduced the charge from a felony to misdemeanor and dropped a battery charge.” (“Lawyer Morgan Agrees To Plea Deal In DUI Case,” Orlando Sentinel, 1/29/98)

This Was Not Morgan’s First DUI Charge, Which Came In September 1993, When Morgan Pled Guilty To A Reduced Charge. “Then on Sept. 10, 1993, Morgan accepted a plea bargain reducing his charge to reckless driving. He paid a f $500 fine and agreed to serve 100 hours of community service or pay another $1,000. Perhaps more importantly, Morgan that time had escaped the public embarrassment of being convicted of DUI.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,” Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)

  • In 1993, Morgan’s Attorney Filed 10 Motions And Attempted To Argue Alcohol Had Nothing To Do With The Two Car Accident, After Morgan Registered A 0.134 On A Breathalyzer. “In 1993, Hyman filed more than 10 motions contesting Morgan’s arrest for DUI after a minor two-car accident in Altamonte Springs. Morgan said he was ‘distracted by his car phone,’ according to the report. But after failing field tests, he registered 0.134 on the Breathalyzer.” (Lawrence Budd, “Attorney’s Arrest Has Batter Included,” Orlando Weekly, 12/18/97)
morganmugshot

John Morgan mug shot. For a larger view click on the image.

Related Links:

John Morgan’s Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous
The Morgans Host President Obama
John Morgan Mug Shot
Florida Democrat Candidate Raising Money from Trashy Talk Show Host, Cop Beater and Extreme Liberals

Massachusetts: Pastor Scott Lively makes ballot for Governor — A Powerful voice on pro-family issues

Pastor Scott Lively officially makes ballot for Governor of Massachusetts! Speaking out on pro-family issues other candidates won’t touch. Submits over 12,500 valid signatures from 250 towns across the state! Supports Fisher in GOP primary.

Pastor Scott Lively, the internationally renowned pro-family activist, author, and spiritual leader of the Springfield, Massachusetts based Abiding Truth Ministries, has officially made the ballot for Governor of Massachusetts, as an Independent. He is joined on the ballot by his Lt. Governor running mate, Shelly Saunders.

Scott Lively’s candidacy has caught on around the state. Here’s one of their flyers. Here’s their website.

In Massachusetts 10,000 valid signatures are needed to get on the ballot for Governor. In the days leading up to the July 29 deadline Dr. Lively’s statewide team of signature gatherers turned in approximately 16,000 signatures. Over 12,500 have now been validated by the local town clerks, well over the amount needed, from over 250 Massachusetts cities and towns.

Scott Lively and his running mate Shelly Saunders were hitting the streets campaigning early. Here they are in the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade back in March. Needless to say, they got a great reception that day!

Lively speaks out on issues that others don’t want to touch!

Since he announced his candidacy earlier this year, Dr. Lively has been a wonderful breath of fresh air at gubernatorial candidate forums on pro-family issues, especially the ones involving Democratic and Independent candidates together. In particular, he has been completely unafraid to take on the radical homosexual agenda, which is a subject that other candidates either tend to support, or stay away from. But he’s also articulated a Biblical approach to a range of other issues, such as health care and tax reform. Needless to say, voters in Massachusetts are not used to seeing this!

As we reported back in March, Scott Lively was outstanding in a candidates’ forum for “LGBT issues” sponsored by WGBH and the homosexual lobby group MassEquality. He was the only one actually willing to tell the truth among a sea of politicians shamelessly pandering to that lobby!

Lively was outstanding at this “LGBT issues” forum. Watch it here.

Recently at a candidates’ health care forum in Roxbury on Aug. 20, Lively outlined the Biblical-oriented approach to health insurance that he uses for himself, as opposed to RomneyCare (now ObamaCare) which is standard in Massachusetts. It’s very interesting. The other candidates were not too pleased, to say the least. Watch that forum HERE.

At the health care forum Lively outlined a Biblical-oriented approach that he uses himself!

To supporters: Vote for Mark Fisher in Sept. 9 Republican primary

Independent candidates for Governor do not go through a primary, but are directly on the ballot for the Nov. 4 General Election. Thus, the real “action “coming up is the Sept. 9 primary. There are three Democrat candidates for Governor and two Republican candidates for Governor in that primary. (There are also two other Independent candidates besides Lively who made the ballot for Governor.)

The Republican primary race features establishment RINO Charlie Baker against conservative Tea Party candidate businessman Mark Fisher. Fisher is good on all the issues. Because of his unabashed conservatism, the politically “moderate” State Massachusetts GOP has taken extraordinarily underhanded actions to destroy Fisher’s candidacy. Baker is leading in the polls but Fisher, with a big Tea Party and pro-family effort, is making a strong surge for conservative voters to go to the polls on Sept. 9.

Thus, Lively has released the following statement encouraging his supporters to vote for Mark Fisher in the Republican primary on Sept. 9:

I am asking my supporters to vote for Mark Fisher, a genuine conservative, in the Republican Primary on September 9th.  If Mark can win the primary, I have promised to defer to his candidacy and bow out of the race should he make a strong showing approaching the general election.  I will not be the reason an authentic conservative Republican would lose the governor’s seat.

Should Fisher lose, Lively’s campaign will go forward at full speed and he will definitely be a presence. The Boston mainstream media has a history of including the independent candidates in their televised gubernatorial debates. This may be because the independents have traditionally been hardcore liberals. And except for Lively, that’s the case this year.

In addition to campaign . . . cutting edge activism!

In addition to the formal campaign, Dr. Lively has continued his cutting-edge activism and religious pursuits as head of Abiding Truth Ministries, taking on many of the larger issues of the culture war. For example:

  • “Not Just Another Sin.” In response to what he (and others) see as a “tidal wave of gay theology” coming to Christian churches, he has published a pamphlet for pastors and others titled “Not Just Another Sin. ” It has already been highly acclaimed and he and others are preparing to distribute it across the country!  Read & download it HERE.
  • Debating Vicky Beeching. Lively did an excellent interview on British television debating Christian performer Vicky Beeching who recently “came out” as a lesbian and was celebrated in the mainstream media. Watch the video HERE (Scott Lively appears at 7 min 40 sec).
  • Anti-genocide organization. Dr. Lively is in the process of forming an organization in Springfield called “Christian Genocide Rescue” to address the horrors of the mass murders of Christians happening in Muslim countries right now. He recently held a “Rally Against Christian Genocide” that included a march through Springfield, MA.

However, he has curtailed much of his international traveling because of the campaign for Governor and other constraints. This month he had been scheduled to be in England for two weeks, and he recently canceled a trip to Russia scheduled for October.

And then there’s the international lawsuit against Lively . . .

As we’ve been reporting, back in March 2012, a radical Soros-funded organization based in New York began a high-profile lawsuit against Pastor Lively, filed in federal court in Springfield.  They are making the absurd and ridiculous accusation that Lively is guilty of international “crimes against humanity,” based on a few pro-family speeches he made in Uganda several years ago. This bizarre lawsuit is largely meant to intimidate Lively and anyone else from speaking out internationally on the homosexual issue.

Homosexual activists hold rally outside courthouse at Scott Lively’s initial hearing in 2012.

Quite a bit has happened in that case this year, and we have a full update coming up.

Currently, the case is in the midst of the “discovery” process. Dr. Lively has been required to find and submit over 4000 documents to the court and to the Soros-funded group, and he is still in the process of submitting more. His lawyers have also submitted lists of documents for the plaintiffs to submit.

The preliminary activities in the case will continue for several months. The trial itself would probably not start until early 2016 -– if it’s allowed by the judge to continue.

Lively is standing up boldly in this. The belief is still that the judge -– as left-wing as he is –- will eventually be forced to conclude that this lawsuit has no legal basis and dismiss it before it goes to trial. But in this insane world, anything is possible. We will keep you informed.

The New York Times Censors anti-ISIS ad

The New York Times will publish the most awful Abu Ghraib photos but will not publish a picture of an ISIS terrorist holding a knife standing alongside an American.

Rabbi Shmuley

Rabbi Shmuel “Shmuley” Boteach, “America’s rabbi.”

This World – The Values Network founder Rabbi Shmuley in an email states:

‘America reinforces its values and thus its security by being transparent about even the worst abuses of those values, not by hiding the evidence deep in a file drawer.”

This sentence is from a New York Times editorial of August 30, 2014. The editorial was written in response to a decision by Federal district court Judge Alvin Hellerstein forcing the Obama administration to justify why it will not release approximately 2,000 photos that allegedly document abuse by the American military and investigators in Iraq and Afghanistan, which begs the question of why The New York Times forced us to remove a photograph of a hooded ISIS executioner holding a knife while standing by American journalist James Foley. We were forced to remove the photograph and replace it with one without a knife in order to have the ad appear this Tuesday in the Times.

Why did the Times condemn the American government for trying to suppress images of alleged abuse on the part of the American military, while it seeks to suppress the horrors of the world’s most monstrous terrorist organization, which decapitates Americans? But even that was a lot better than The Los Angeles Times that demanded the removal also of a second image which depicted Hamas terrorists standing alongside hooded “collaborators” which they were about to execute. The Telegraph in London demanded the same in order for the ad to be published.

Even The Wall Street Journal demanded the picture with the knife be replaced.

Here is the ad that the New York Times refused to publish:

SHMU-ISIS-NYT

For a larger view click on the image.

ABOUT RABBI SHMUEL “SHMULEY” BOTEACH

Rabbi Shmuel “Shmuley” Boteach, “America’s rabbi,” whom The Washington Post calls “the most famous rabbi in America,” is the founder of This World: The Values Network, the world’s leading organization promoting universal Jewish values in politics, culture and the media. The international best-selling author of 30 books, he has recently published Kosher Lust: Love is Not the Answer. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

Dear Rick and Pam — as in Scott and Bondi

SSPX0187

AG Bondi and Governor Scott in Sarasota, FL.

Let me publicly reiterate my private conversations with each of you at your campaign rally on Labor Day. I am a laborer, a small business owner who works at least 60 hours a week six days per week and barely pays our family’s bills. I am also a strong advocate of elders and of children; thus, I vociferously support your combined efforts to cleanse Florida of pill mills and to “stop the pot” machine steamrolling over the Sunshine State, about to become the “Stoned State.”

Both of these issues are inextricably interwoven with each other and with another urgent elder issue – guardianship abuse. How so? The mentality that pushes pills to adults also pushes pot to our youth, in particular, and exploits our elders, by filling them with prescription drugs while in guardianship as Wards of the State of Florida. We call it chemical restraint. If there is one State Ward in Florida who is not under the influence of chemical restraints – anti-depressants and other psychotropics – it would be extraordinarily rare.

Typically, the State of Florida forcibly administers to each of its tens of thousands of Wards some or all of the following prescription drugs, commonly against the will of both the Wards and their families: Zoloft, Lorazepam, Clonidin, Lexapro, Seroquel, Ativan, Xanax, Risperdal, Haldol, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, … ad infinitum. If the names sound familiar, it is because these same drugs are part and parcel of the pill mills Florida has evicted from our borders. Why then are our beloved parents and grandparents victimized by court-authorized pill mills via guardianships?

SSPX0004

Beverly Newman speaking to Governor Scott.

At least equally hideous to the abusive use of chemical restraints on the elderly is the forcible immobilization of them through physical restraints, tethering frail elderly women and men to beds and chairs, such that they cannot move their bodies or limbs. On September 21, 2009, I personally witnessed both the chemical and physical restraint of my 89-year-old Father, Al Katz, at Manatee Memorial Hospital, against his will and mine.

From September 21 through September 24, with an emergency room diagnosis of cardiac and respiratory distress, my Father, a Ward of the State of Florida, was repeatedly drugged with Haldol, a narcotic that caused him to suffer vivid flashbacks to the tortures he endured as a slave laborer for seven years in the Holocaust. With each dosage of Haldol, Dad was infused with fear, which invariably led to what is known as four-point physical restraints on his wrists and ankles, tying him to the bed so that he could not move at all. Despite my pleas to cease the pill mill administration of Haldol to my Dad and to loosen the rigid physical restraints on him, which were causing him untold cardiac and respiratory stress, the Hospital staff did not relent.

Unknown to me at the time, Manatee Memorial Hospital had previously used the same chemical restraint, Haldol, and physical restraints on a patient whom it consequently buried due to cardiac arrest. During his Hospital stay for alcohol withdrawal in August 2007, Daniel Joseph Jordan, age 41. He entered the Hospital robust and left dead, a victim of torment; yet, two years later, the Hospital employed exactly the same measures on my Dad, a Ward of Florida, who miraculously survived after weeks of doctor-ordered chemical restraints, physical restraints, and isolation after his transfer to Manatee Memorial’s dark, deep basement.

The links between marijuana peddling, prescription pill mills, and guardianship abuse are based upon profit motives and a drug-culture mentality. We citizens of Florida call upon our Governor and our chief legal officer to cut the ties that bind these destructive forces in our State, which splinter our families and end human lives in immeasurable misery.

The Ethics of Fighting with Terrorists

The United States is supporting, funding, and arming “terrorists.” Not through back channels, middlemen, Swiss bank accounts or CIA covert operations, but openly and publicly. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) was designated as a foreign terrorist organization on October 8, 1997 by the U.S. Department of State after thirteen years of insurgency, including bombing attacks and kidnappings, against Turkish military personnel and citizens. Aside from its use of terrorist tactics, the PKK found itself on the wrong side of the strategically crucial alliance between the United States and Turkey. Now, however, the United States is actively supporting the PKK rebels in their fight against the Islamic State (IS). Additionally, the United States is arming the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) to combat IS; these two political parties were classified as “Tier III” terrorist organizations for their role in the armed uprising against Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, although Senator John McCain introduced a Senate amendment last November to have these groups removed from the terror list.

For months now, news headlines have updated the world on the Islamic State’s terrifyingly swift march through Iraq, as militants captured the major cities of Tikrit and Mosul and approached Baghdad and Erbil, where the United States retains military bases. Thousands, most notably the Christians of Mosul and the Yazidis trapped on the Sinjar Mountains, have been slaughtered or forced to flee their homes by IS militants. The Iraqi army failed to stop the onslaught of the Islamic State, even after the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters joined forces with them. But now, IS’s conquests have temporarily stalled in Iraq, due largely to the guerrilla fighters of the PKK, who have allied with the Peshmerga, their long-time rivals, to take back the Mosul dam with the aid of U.S. air strikes. This is good news for the embattled Iraqis and for the United States, which has suffered a loss of international respect for failing to intervene in the civil war and protect persecuted religious minorities sooner. However, these new Kurdish allies may create a legal problem for the United States concerning its terrorism laws.

A Troubled History

The U.S. government has a history of arming controversial rebel groups, beginning with its global mission to prevent the spread of communist ideology in the aftermath of World War II and continuing in the late 20th and early 21st centuries with groups fighting against Islamic extremists and dictators. Major operations include those in Honduras, Chile, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and now Iraq.

Some of the most infamous rebel groups to receive U.S. support were the Contras, groups of guerrilla fighters working to overthrow the communist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. In 1981, the Reagan Administration began financing and arming the rebels. This policy became controversial, not only because of the entanglement in the Iran-Contra Affair, but also because the Contras allegedly engaged in serious and frequent human rights abuses, including attacking and murdering non-combatant civilians, according to Human Rights Watch. Unsurprisingly, the Contras were never listed as a terrorist organization by the United States, but under current U.S. law, the group likely warranted the designation; 18 U.S. Code § 2331 defines “international terrorism” as:

violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Around the same time, on the other side of the world, the United States was arming another group of rebel fighters—the mujahideen of Afghanistan. Beginning in 1979 and continuing through the 1980s until the collapse of the Soviet Union, mujahideen fighters received weapons and training from the CIA to push back Soviet forces and topple the communist government in Kabul. Unlike the U.S.-backed Contras, the mujahideen successfully drove out the Soviets, and liberated Afghanistan from communism. The ideology that succeeded this regime was even worse.

Dealing with the Consequences

From the U.S.-trained and -armed mujahideen sprung Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, responsible for the 9/11 attacks and deaths of more than 2,200 American soldiers and an estimated 20,000 Afghan civilians in the ground war in Afghanistan. A similarly dangerous and potentially more deadly situation is now unfolding with the Islamic State. Stalling in Iraq, IS has turned its attention to a renewed offensive in northern Syria, using U.S. Humvees captured from the faltering Iraqi army to transport militants and weapons across the border. Armed with American weapons, IS has increased its fighting capabilities and emboldened its fighters, which has added the brutal and tragic beheading of American journalist James Foley to its death toll.

While airstrikes in Iraq have been instrumental in the pushback against IS, President Obama has yet to authorize additional strikes in Syria; for now, America’s solution to the carnage wrought by IS is largely to fight terrorists with other terrorists. It goes without saying that IS must be stopped as quickly and effectively as possible. With an estimated 20,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria, the PKK are by far the most experienced and well-trained group to lead a counter-ground attack against IS in northern Iraq and Syria, especially with American air support. After three decades of insurgency with Turkey, PKK rebels are battle-tested and well organized, whereas the Peshmerga and other Kurdish fighters have far less experience and have proven unable to take IS head on. The PKK’s support of besieged minorities and civilians against IS has spurred a lobbying effort in the United States to have the group taken off the State Department’s terrorist organization list. Since a cease-fire agreement with Turkey in March of 2013, the PKK has largely aborted the use of terrorist tactics; however, the group has launched several attacks against Turkish security forces in recent weeks, which could undermine peace negotiations and the recent attempt to declassify it as a terrorist organization.

Fighting in the Grey

It is difficult to determine whether the Contras should have been designated as a terrorist group or whether the United States should have been more cautious about arming the Afghan mujahideen; even hindsight isn’t 20/20. Supporting the PKK may well turn out to be a brilliant strategic move if it leads to the destruction of IS. Nonetheless, in this moment, the PKK is a terrorist organization, and that may put the United States government in a legally grey area. 18 U.S. Code § 2339B states, “Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

This section of the law would seemingly prohibit the United States from supporting the PKK, but a later section of the same law states, “No person may be prosecuted under this section in connection with the term ‘personnel’, ‘training’, or ‘expert advice or assistance’ if the provision of that material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization was approved by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Attorney General. The Secretary of State may not approve the provision of any material support that may be used to carry out terrorist activity.” This is the exception. As long as the “material support” provided by the United States is not used in a terrorist act, the U.S. government, with approval from both the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, can support foreign terrorist groups. Currently, the PKK is working to defeat IS; killing armed combatants is a legitimate act of war, not terrorism, so it seems that the United States is not acting illegally. However, there is a possibility that arms provided indirectly to the PKK through the Iraqi army and other Kurdish groups could eventually be turned against Turkish security forces and civilians, the latter of which would be an act of terror against a U.S. ally.

A Country Without a Moral Conscious?

What do these situations and potential scenarios mean for U.S. terrorism laws? The point is not whether the United States might entangle itself in grey areas of the laws concerning terrorism; it likely already has. The real question is, do these laws hold any weight? Do they have anything meaningful to contribute to the country’s foreign policy principles and decisions? The United States has chosen not to label groups as terrorist organizations if it is politically inconvenient or would get in the way of a greater policy objective; it provides funding and arms to rebel groups it cannot control, and who have often turned against the United States at a later date; most recently, it is using terrorists to fight other terrorists. If not illegal, this part of American history at least presents a moral predicament, one that we are actively dealing with in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and Iraq. Laws are fundamentally impositions of morality on society, but if the laws we write do not create a guiding moral framework, and instead allow us to do what is most convenient, expedient, or politically popular in the moment without serious regard to a higher set of common ethical principles, then where does a secular society based on the rule of law derive its morality from?

Last year, President Obama, now infamously, said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria constituted a moral red line that, once crossed, would result in severe consequences for the Assad regime. This ended up being an empty threat when proposed airstrikes against Syrian military targets failed to gain support on either side of the aisle in Congress. The decisions that need to be made regarding policy in Middle East are complicated, and they are rarely black or white. But that is the entire point of having a strong set of moral principles—you stick to them even when the choices are difficult or unpopular, or when cutting corners might be easier. The question is, what set of moral principles does the United States have, and do its leaders have the backbone to uphold them?

EDITORS NOTE: Featured image source: ntvmsnbc.com.

Massachusetts: How the GOP tried to destroy Mark Fisher, conservative candidate for Governor

But as Sept. 5 primary nears, Tea Party activists are fighting back! How MassResistance made the difference . . .

Most people assume that the major threat to getting conservatives elected to high office is the liberal Democratic machine. In recent years there’s been another major front in that war: The Republican Party establishment –both state and national. This is fueled by millions of dollars from “progressive Republican” businessmen. And, sadly, it includes many sellout pro-family groups and politicians. [All photos by MassResistance except where noted.]

Fisher at the GOP convention:”I am a full-platform no-excuses-necessary loyal and proud conservative Republican … [Around the country] conservative solutions are the cure for liberal failures … The time has come to tear down that big liberal tent.”

This kind of talk drives the GOP establishment crazy!

But we’ve never seen anything like the Massachusetts Republican Party’s outrageous (and we believe, criminal) efforts to subvert pro-family/Tea Party candidate Mark Fisher’s campaign for governor, which we’ve detailed below.

During Fisher’s speech, former Mass. Governor Bill Weld (sitting, at right), a RINO who voted for Barack Obama, looks up at Mark Fisher and you can tell he’s not happy!

A disturbing national trend explodes in Massachusetts

Ever since the days of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, there’s been a tension between the GOP establishment — who felt they could avoid the Left’s hostile attacke by appeasing them on most “hot-button” issues — and the conservative base who vote on principle. In recent years, this has led to many high-profile battles with Tea Party backed candidates in Republican primaries, which has angered the establishment considerably.

So now we’re seeing the next step: The aggressive purging of conservative candidates for high office before they can get a foothold.

Here in Massachusetts this has turned the State Republican Party into an overtly hostile anti-family institution devoid of political principles that long-time activists no longer recognize. This year Party elites were particularly determined to avoid a primary battle for Governor that could endanger their annointed “moderate” candidate, Charlie Baker.

Fisher’s candidacy for Governor attracts a torrent of GOP hostility

The appearance of Mark Fisher in the Massachusetts governor’s race stymied the Republican establishment. He is not only a fairly solid conservative and wealthy enough to get his campaign off the ground, but he is bright and articulate and can hold his own in any debate. For example, in several head-to-head debates with GOP rival, Charlie Baker, does a much better job in our opinion.

Mark Fisher and Charlie Baker debate at Boston Globe office, which is unquestionably hostile to Fisher.See article and VIDEO of debate here.[Boston Globephoto]

From the very beginning of his campaign, Fisher became Public Enemy #1 to the Republican State Committee and their allies. Their goal was to keep him from being able to run in the primary. And they almost succeeded.

Below is a list of the efforts by the GOP and “pro-family” establishment in Massachusetts over the last year to keep conservative Mark Fisher from being able to run for Governor against the RINO Charlie Baker in the Republican primary. Even most Republicans aren’t aware what’s been going on. That’s why we’re publishing this.

Don’t be surprised if you see these things happen in other states:

A. Prior to the State convention . . .

1. Hostility at his candidacy by “pro-family” Republicans. Late last year when Fisher announced his candidacy, and it became known that he was a pro-family conservative with the means to carry on a serious candidacy, the establishment (including so-called “pro-family” people) began hounding him not to run so Baker would not have a “conservative” challenger. According to newspaper reports this included Karyn Polito (currently running for Lt. Governor), State Rep. Ryan Fattman, and GOP National Committeewoman Chanel Prunier, who also leads the Coalition for Marriage and Family. We know of many other prominent GOP politicians and pro-family “leaders” who also approached Fisher.

2. Turned down by GOP sign company. According to reports, in February Fisher was turned down by a company that regularly makes campaign signs for the GOP because the company was warned  not to do business with Fisher or risk losing other GOP sign business.

B. At the March 22 GOP State Convention . . .

The Mass. GOP state convention filled Agganis Arena at Boston University.

To get on the state ballot, a candidate needed 15% of the delegates to vote for him at the state GOP convention on March 22, 2014. The Mass. GOP made an enormous effort to keep Fisher from getting that amount.

3. Outrageous fee to speak at GOP convention. In order to speak at the GOP State Convention, the Mass GOP raised the “entry fee” for gubernatorial candidates to $25,000, to deter Fisher. Candidates for other statewide offices were charged a fraction of that to speak. Fisher paid it.

4. State Committee emails telling delegates to vote for Baker. The day before the Convention, delegates received “official” looking emails from their state committee representatives telling them that to vote for Charlie Baker – and thus not have a primary by keeping Fisher off the ballot — would be the best thing for the Party.

This “official” email to delegates from their state committeewoman started off with “official” info, but then told them that voting for Baker would be best for the Party.Read it here.

5. The waiting room from hell. State-wide candidates were given nice rooms to prepare for their convention speeches. Mark and his team were given a smelly locker room with benches surrounded by toilets and shower stalls.

Going into the convention Fisher people expected to get 30%. Given that GOP activists who become delegates and actually go to the convention are generally fairly conservative, and seeing who they were on the day of the convention, it was generally believed that Fisher would get at least 30% of the vote. But no one was prepared for the high-pressure campaign that took place that day.

6. Huge pressure on delegates to vote for Baker. Throughout the day, a small army of State Party officials, State Committeemen, GOP State Reps, Town Party Chairmen, GOP candidates for office, and others put on a coordinated effort to strong-arm and harangue delegates not to vote for Fisher –- to either vote for Baker or vote “blank.” We heard about all kinds of interesting threats, mostly involving loss of GOP financial support and/or access to GOP facilities.

On the giant screen GOP national committeewoman Chanel Prunier exhorts the delegates to vote for Charlie Baker.
This delegate told us that during the convention he was pressured by his state committeeman, state committeewoman, State Rep. and even a state pro-family activist to vote for Baker.But he held out and voted for Fisher!

7. GOP won’t release video of Fisher’s convention speech. When his turn came at the convention, Fisher gave a very good speech. The GOP had set up a sophisticated video recording system in the auditorium. But later when Fisher asked for a copy of his speech, the Mass GOP refused to give it to him. Luckily, MassResistance also made a video of his speech, which we’ve allowed his website to use.


VIDEO: Fisher’s convention speech was one of the best we’ve ever seen. The GOP wouldn’t release their video of it, so we let him have OURS!

8. Delegations’ votes are publicly announced, but result is ignored.The vote tally was very public. A GOP official at the podium called out to each of the 40 delegations for their results. Each delegation, using a portable microphone from their area in the auditorium, announced their totals for Baker, Fisher, and “blanks” from their tally sheets which had the names of the delegates and how they voted. The whole thing took about 20 minutes. But at the end, the grand totals were not announced.

9. Convention halts while “re-counting” takes place. The convention immediately stopped and a group of party officials huddled around some tables in front of the stage. At first was not clear what they were doing. Finally, we were told that a “re-counting” of sorts was taking place. This went on for at least half an hour or more.

Right after the public vote. Party officials gathered around a table at the front of the hall for a “re-count.”

10. Baker is declared winner, but actual vote totals still not announced. A few minutes later, Baker was declared the “winner. ” And with a rain of balloons and confetti, and he came up and gave a speech. But what percentage did Baker get? What percentage did Fisher get? It was not announced – only that Baker won.

Even though no vote totals were announced, Charlie Baker was hailed as the “winner” with a sea of confetti. Here Baker (center) is being congratulated by Bill Weld (right).

11. “Re-counting” continues, and “results” finally announced. After Baker’s speech, party officials moved to tables in a back room area and continued their mysterious “re-counting.” After about another two hours, it was announced that Fisher had only received 14.765% of the votes, just missing the 15% requirement. Fisher’s people were not allowed to examine the tally sheets for themselves, however.

The “re-count” group then convened to a back room out of sight. Long after the convention had been gaveled to a close, people continued waiting for the results of the “re-count.”

C. After the convention . . .

12. Mass GOP announces Fisher will not be the ballot. The day after the convention, the Mass GOP announced to the press that Mark Fisher had not received the 15% requirement, and therefore would not be on the ballot. The GOP stood by its “re-count.”

13. Tally sheets still kept hidden.  The Mass GOP continued to refuse to let anyone see the individual delegate vote tally sheets, which apparently added up to the GOP’s new official vote count. Several delegates expressed concern that their votes had been tampered with, miscounted, or that they were “assigned” votes when they hadn’t voted at all.

14. MassResistance video of public vote during convention shows Fisher got his 15%! During the convention, while the delegation votes were being publicly announced, no one had thought to write them down and add them up. But MassResistance videoed the entire process.When we played the video and counted the votes that were announced, we found that Mark Fisher GOT just over 15%, even if you include blank votes. We posted the video and allowed the Fisher campaign to use it, and it was reported in the Boston media. This brought up an additional question: Why were “blank” votes counted in the total, when it was apparently against the rules?


VIDEO: MassResistance video of the roll call vote at the GOP convention revealed that Fisher GOT his 15%! Thus, Fisher’s campaign got new life.

15 Fisher takes the Mass GOP to court.  Why did the public vote count show that Fisher got his 15% but the mysterious “recount” by the GOP showed he didn’t? Why the difference? Obviously, an examination of the tally sheets –- which should have had every delegate’s name and how he voted — would reveal that. But the Mass GOP refused to release them, and they would not give a reason. So the Fisher campaign filed a lawsuitagainst theMass GOP in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston to examine the tally sheets and get on the ballot.

16. Mass GOP caves in and allows Fisher on the ballot. After about three months of preliminary court hearings, the Mass GOP decided to let Fisher on the ballot. But they still refused to release the tally sheets – even to State Committee members – for examination.

17. Court case temporarily crippled Fisher candidacy. Although Fisher won the case, it left his campaign in terrible shape. It cost Fisher’s campaign approximately $100,000 in legal fees. But also, during that 3-month period he was considered “not on the ballot,” so he could not easily raise money, nor could he attract enough volunteers to help get his required 10,000 signatures which were also needed to get on the ballot, so he had to pay professional signature gatherers. And during that time he wasn’t included in candidate forums, etc. so he lost a lot of public visibility. It was a devastating blow that almost sunk him.

18. Fisher campaign not allowed to use Mass GOP campaign resources. The Mass GOP has set up an expensive and elaborate “MassVictory” operation with offices, phone banks, etc. around the state. All GOP candidates are allowed to use those facilities -– except Fisher. They won’t let his campaign use them. It’s outrageous.

19. Fisher not listed on Mass GOP website. The State Party website currently has names and photos of all the statewide candidates on the ballot – except Fisher. The sheer hatred of Fisher by the party establishment takes them to these absurd lengths.

20. Sleazy GOP State Committee votes to keep tally sheets secret.Even after the court case subsided, the Mass GOP executives had even refused to let the 80-member elected State Committee see the tally sheets! So in July, a group of conservative State Committee members petitioned the Chairman to call a meeting so the Committee could vote to release them. The Chairman called the meeting, but it was closed to the public and held in secret. In the closed meeting, the majority of the State Committee voted not to release the tally sheets to anyone, not even to themselves! (What possible reason would there be to keep them secret . . . unless there was some criminal wrongdoing that took place?)

21. Mass GOP lavishly funding Baker, Fisher gets nothing. The Mass GOP is using its resources to raise enormous funds for the Baker campaign, but nothing for the Fisher campaign. This includes, according to the Boston Globe, paying a consulting firm to fundraise for Baker. In fact, we have been told that Republican donors are being told NOT to donate to the Fisher campaign. This has had a disastrous effect on Fisher’s fundraising capabilities.

22. Alleged threats to media by Mass GOP. A radio talk show host told us that members of the media have been threatened by GOP officials if they cover Mark Fisher to any extent, they will be persona non grata by the rest of the GOP during this election cycle.

By far the most troubling aspect of this was how easily virtually every “pro-family” GOP politician sold his soul and fell into line for Baker and against Fisher when pressured by the establishment.

We don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the Mass GOP has become a dishonest, unprincipled cesspool that good people should stay away from — and only donate money to individual candidates.

And then there’s the Frank Addivinola episode

Mark Fisher wasn’t the only pro-family candidate squashed at the convention. Frank Addivinola, a businessman and college professor, was a U.S. Senate candidate. But like Mark Fisher, he was an unabashed pro-family advocate.

Although his campaign had a booth at the convention, through a still unresolved series of events he was not given a chance to speak.

U.S. Senate Candidate Frank Dddivinola (left) at his table at the Mass. GOP convention.

But Addivinola was VERY popular among conservatives across the state and would have easily gotten his 15%. So the Mass GOP didn’t take any chances. When it came time for the nomination of candidates, the Chairman allowed the establishment candidate, Brian Herr, to be nominated, then immediately closed the nominations! So no one could even nominate Addivinola.

Even though Addivinola’s banner (for which he paid them plenty!) was right next to the podium, they pretended that his candidacy didn’t exist.

It was still possible for Addivinola to get on the ballot via signatures, since he was running for a federal office. But once the Party officially considered him a non-candidate and denied him all support, his campaign never recovered from that. Thus, Herr is now unopposed in the primary.

Tea Party groups & others rallying statewide for Fisher as Sept. 9 primary nears

Fisher’s campaign is making a surge!

None of the above adversities have stopped the Fisher campaign or its supporters statewide. Fisher continues to appear everywhere, every day, and has impressed people wherever he goes. This has only ignited Fisher’s people even more.

In mid-August a group of Tea Parties, conservative leaders, and non-establishment pro-family groups, began a furious grassroots push to energize the GOP conservative base of voters to go to the polls on Sept. 5 and vote for Fisher. Will this become another David Brat over Eric Cantor? No one knows. But the energy is there!

This is the flyer that Tea Parties across the state are handing out. You can download a copy here.

This is a favorable primary race because Democrats and independents will be drawn to the highly contested Democratic primary, and many mainstream Republican voters will likely think Baker is a shoo-in and not bother to go to the polls. Even Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe’s (relatively) conservative columnist, who’s a registered Independent, said he’s voting in the Democratic primary — because that’s “where the action is.”

This is a great opportunity for a possble pro-family upset – in a RINO state! If you are a registered voter in Massachusetts, you know what to do on Sept. 9.We’ll see if Massachusetts can do it!

GOP, Are You Ready To Reach Out to Blacks Yet?

Because I am a black conservative, someone wrote asking me this great question.

“What is it that compels some black men and women to cling to, and follow people like Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, Obama, Spike Lee, Black Panthers, Holder, etc.?”

I have pondered the same question. Some black folks embrace victim status because it provides cover for their laziness and irresponsible lifestyles. Black Judases preach a false evil gospel of victimhood-ism for profit. Some blacks are racist, pure and simple.

I believe a majority of black Americans simply have not been exposed to unfiltered Conservatism; blacks articulating how blessed they are to be born in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet.

Ironically, all of the blacks who are given big microphones to tout the horrors of being black in America are wealthy. The MSM and Democratic Party viciously and relentlessly block any and all patriotic black voices from the main stage touting achieving success and wealth the old fashion way via education, hard work and morally right choices. And of course, we know the reason for their attempts to silence such voices is because the MSM and Democratic Party’s mission is not to empower blacks, but further their big government socialist/progressive agenda.

Now that America is burning in the flames of racial tension and polarization, it is crucial that Republicans/Conservatives finally reach-out to black America. I am not suggesting that they offer blacks a Democrat-lite, America sucks and is somewhat racist — so we will lower standards and give you free stuff message. Heaven forbid.

I am talking about taking a pedal-to-the-metal conservative message to black America, boldly articulating its virtues and why it is the best for all Americans; the most direct route to success.

While I have no problem with packaging our message to better connect with diverse audiences, our rock solid conservative principles must remain in tack. Republicans must reject using the Democrats’ insidious tactic of dividing Americans into victimized voting blocs (blacks, women, Hispanics and so on). After convincing various groups of Americans that they are victims, the Dems request their votes to use as protection money to keep their white racist sexist Republican/conservative enemies at bay. It is disgusting and evil.

A young black college student worked on the Tea Party candidate Joe Carr’s U.S. Senate campaign for college credit. The black youth told me that he realized he is conservative. That’s what I am talking about; giving blacks an opportunity to hear our inspiring be-all-you-can-be feel good message. Ronald Reagan’s speeches always made me feel good about myself and my country.

Several years ago, I produced many of the Volusia County Florida Republican Executive Committee annual Lincoln dinners. I was one of two blacks on the committee. I was always thinking of ways to invite and involve more blacks. A few outspoken voices said, “Why bother? They are going to vote for the Democrats no matter what we do.” I have experienced that same defeatist mindset in the national GOP leadership.

Using my background from working in the Creative Services Dept of a major TV station, I designed a campaign to reach out to blacks titled, “Reach Your Dreams”. My campaign included touring the black community; music and conservative minority speakers telling their stories of how they achieved their American dreams. GOP officers consistently shot my idea down. “Why bother?” They thought it would not produce enough votes to make it a wise financial investment. I argued that it was not totally about producing votes. It was the moral and right thing to do.

Well, the GOP’s chickens have come home to roost for allowing the Democrat’s lie that America and Republicans/Conservatives are racists to go unchallenged. Oh my gosh, did I just quote that evil man, Rev Jeremiah Wright?

To spread Christianity, Romans 10:14 says:

“And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?”

I wish to apply this same wisdom to spreading our gospel of Conservatism. Blacks can not embrace the liberation of Conservatism without hearing about it.

My dad has been a Christian preacher for over 50 years. Little did I know that God was preparing me for such a time as this; appointed to spread the gospel of Conservatism to those suffering, lost and enslaved by Liberalism.

Bottom line, we conservatives must find a way to bring our good news to black Americans. It is the moral and right thing to do for America.

Why doesn’t America want to be sovereign?

There is an urgent need for the U.S. to recover its lost sovereignty, especially in terms of borders and immigration but also in more subtle ways such as freeing ourselves from UN Agenda 21 or Common Core in education. Part of our problem is the distorted idea of what sovereignty really is.

Some think national sovereignty is a possible encroachment on state and personal sovereignty. Some say that sovereignty was a term avoided by the Founders because they were conditioned to think it referred to sovereign kings and queens of Europe. These concerns raise the question of what sovereignty really is, and I hope herein to add a few grains to our understanding. There are several levels of sovereignty, which are, from lower to higher, essentially as follows:

  1. Popular sovereignty,
  2. State sovereignty,
  3. National sovereignty.

The founders did not eschew the notion of sovereignty, as some have worried. In fact, it is central to their founding idea as pointed out here. Nor does national sovereignty imply a loss of state sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment is dedicated to protecting state sovereignty. When I mentioned sovereignty above, I was referring to national sovereignty. National sovereignty is the concept that the national government is not beholden to any other outside country or entity and has the full right to decide its path and destiny.

But in the case of our political class, it is clear that they are following leadership that does not come from We the people. Mind you, it does not necessarily come from the UN or from any particular country. But there are bits and pieces of supranational ,and what could be called ‘foreign’ leadership in Washington.

Recent presidents have all had cabinet members who were members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or the Trilateral Commission. According to Carroll Quigley, a liberal professor who taught at Georgetown, wrote in his book “Tragedy and Hope”:

“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England… (and) believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960’s to examine its papers and secret records…. I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

Richard Haas, as president of the CFR, once wrote that it is time to “rethink” sovereignty. Only a person who does not want countries to be sovereign would think that way. Now you might say, “what’s wrong with that? The CFR is not part of our government, and even if the organization came from England, it is not making the US subservient to England.” All very true.

However, any organization, whether domestic or foreign, that seeks to weaken our national sovereignty, as Quigley describes above, is intentionally undermining the US as a sovereign nation, taking it closer to becoming part of a supranational entity, similar, for example, to the Soviet Union or the EU, whose member states were barred from making independent decisions (the people of EU nations are starting to push back against this authoritarian top-down rule). Yet all presidential cabinets have prominent members from this clearly subversive organization. This does not bode well for our national security or our freedom to shape our own destiny.

There are two aspects of sovereignty that are being undermined routinely by our national government, and they are: borders and immigration. Just as no household can survive for long if the owner leaves the doors wide open 24-7 and hangs a sign on the door “All welcome to enter any time. Help yourselves to furnishings and fridge contents,” no nation can claim sovereignty if it has no control over its borders or invites all and sundry to enter and stay, with or without ID and without any background checks. Spain, under Prime Minister Zapatero, of which Obama seems to be a reasonable facsimile, kept Spain’s borders notoriously wide open, giving rise to a concept dubbed the “call effect”, an unspoken invitation to illegal immigration, a phenomenon that, in our case has birthed the “children’s invasion” from Central America.

I did not mean to give short shrift to state sovereignty. State sovereignty has been unduly undermined, particularly since Lincoln and needs to be restored to its rightful place. For example, state authorities must annul federal laws that encroach on their sovereignty, as in the case of the Bundy ranch.

As for popular sovereignty, it was a concept held in high esteem by our Founders: Sadly, this concept has been so badly distorted in today’s America that there are groups of people who think they are free to drive cars with no plates or drivers licenses, citing the Constitution’s mention of free travel. Others insist that the Constitution gives them the right to buy, sell and take drugs. It also leads some to side with criminals who are shot by police in self-defense. Many “sovereign citizens” openly defy the law, declaring themselves sovereign when confronted by law enforcement. They have gotten the cart before the horse. You don’t acquire freedom simply by declaring yourself to be sovereign. The authorities do not give people special rights based on their ability to quote the Founders. I have known some who wound up behind bars and were forced to find a new hobby.

This warped concept of “sovereignty” has detracted from the overall concept of national sovereignty and is one reason why our national sovereignty has taken a back seat. 

Many fail to apprehend that no one is truly free in a nation that is not sovereign. If people can be deluded into believing that they are each a king or queen, then national sovereignty and winning back our lost national rights to exist are no longer a relevant issue for them. But the reality of the situation is that we are losing jobs and inviting dangerous criminals to our shores in ways that will not be sustainable for too much longer — in ways that will affect even “sovereign citizens.”

So far no national political party has arisen to make this issue of national sovereignty a central part of its platform. Both of the main ones are rushing to open our borders even further, using false mantras and excuses, such as pretending that building a border fence would lead us to become another Soviet Union, with its famous Iron Curtain, or suggesting that because Americans are all descended from foreigners, we should welcome foreigners without background checks or ID. Yet none of these bleeding heart idealists would think of requiring other nations to do likewise.

Americans across the political spectrum would say “we must respect the sovereignty of all nations.”What they mean is, all nations is the U.S.

Fox News – and CNN, ESPN, CBS & NBC – Sponsor and Recruit at Biased ‘Gay Journalists’ Convention

AFTAH exclusive: FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS, ESPN fund conference where mainstream journalists heard highly partisan, pro-”gay” presentations by Peter LaBarbera

CHICAGO–As it has year after year, Fox News Channel served as a major sponsor of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalist Association (NLGJA), providing a $10,000 grant for its 2014 annual convention, which recently concluded here (August 21-24). The conservative-leaning network also recruited at the homosexual journalists event.

Fox signed on as a “Feature Sponsor” for the convention–which included several one-sided presentations in favor of homosexual and transgender activist goals, and zero speakers advocating against LGBT goals such as the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” I attended a day and a half of the three-day conference, which was held at the swank Palmer House Hilton hotel in the downtown Loop. As in the past, NLGJA organizers allowed me (a critic, and not a homosexual journalist) to attend, but only after paying a “non-member” registration fee ($330/day).

Other media and corporate sponsors of the event included: CNN; CBS; ESPN; Comcast-NBC; Bloomberg; Gannett; Coca-Cola (the largest sponsor at $25,000); JetBlue airlines; Eli Lilly & Co.; Toyota; Nissan and the homosexual lobby organization Human Rights Campaign.

A natural bias?

Proud 'Gay' Christianity? Openly homosexual Lutheran (ELCA) Bishop Rev. Dr. Guy Erwin (far left) and former Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson (second from right) pose for photo following their presentation at the NLGJA convention. Robinson, who gained international fame as the first openly homosexual bishop of a major Christian denomination, criticized Christians who do not wish to participate in homosexual "weddings." Robinson said there is something "profane and sacrilegious" about "religious people arguing for the right to discriminate." No opposing orthodox Christian viewpoint was included on the panel.

What I found at the Chicago conference is what I have observed at every other NLGJA convention I have attended in the last two decades: the natural bias that one would expect from an organization whose members view homosexuality personally and mainly through a “civil rights” prism.

The prevailing viewpoint at the conference–surely shared by most secular media professionals these days–is that “gay, lesbian and transgender” journalists are a legitimate sexual (or gender) “minority,” not unlike racial and ethnic minorities, deserving solicitous attention in newsrooms. That would include allowing LGBT journalists to guide coverage on homosexual-bisexual-transgender stories in culture and politics.

Even the NLGJA panel on religion and “gay rights” was bereft of a traditionalist perspective, while the two openly homosexual speakers—former Episcopal Church bishop V. [Vicky] Gene Robinson and new Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA) Bishop Rev. Doctor Guy Erwin—were heralded in the program as leaders of “this next wave of the civil rights movement.”

Both Revs. Robinson and Erwin compared opposition to homosexuality and Christian businessmen’s principled refusal to participate in “gay weddings” to racist bigotry (see below).

Perhaps it is asking too much of “mainstream” journalists who consider homosexuality part of their intrinsic identity (“who they are”) to cover LGBT-related issues impartially. Nevertheless, intellectual diversity and ‘opposing’ viewpoint inclusion—the watchwords of this conference and pro-LGBT advocacy in general—were in short supply at the NLGJA convention. That is a peculiar and glaring deficit for a profession that ideally is supposed to cover “both sides” of controversial issues.

To quote the famous Fox News’ slogan: the NLGJA religious panel was hardly “Fair and Balanced” regarding the controversial question of (pro-) “gay Christianity”: who could argue that openly homosexual bishops advocating for rights based on homosexuality is not a divisive issue?

Note that as opposed to the attendees working in “mainstream” (non-LGBT) media corporations like NPR and CBC, many NLGJA members work in LGBT media, like the Windy City Times for Chicago-area homosexuals–from whom is expected a lower standard of objectivity.

[To read more on the NLGJA’s record of advocacy, FOX News’ financing of the NLGJA and the network’s escalating pro-homosexual coverage, see the PDF of my 2013 in-depth report for America’s Survival, Inc: “Unfair, Unbalanced & Afraid: Fox News’ Growing Pro-Homosexual Bias & the NLGJA.”]

The NLGJA convention also included professional workshops that were unrelated to the homosexual debate—e.g., a panel on the economy and the 2014 election led by even-keeled NPR business editor Marilyn Geewax—and others geared to improving participants’ journalism skills.

NLGJA program lists major sponsors for the conference. Click to enlarge.

As you can see, Fox News was hardly alone as a major media sponsor of the NLGJA and its “Breaking Barriers” convention. The following are media corporate sponsors and their donations to the NLGJA [see the group’s sponsorship levels HERE]:

  • Fox News Channel – $10,000
  • CNN – $10,000
  • ESPN – $10,000
  • CBS News – $5,000
  • Comcast -NBC Universal – $5,000
  • Gannett – $5,000
  • Bloomberg – $5,000
  • Crain Communications Inc. – $5,000
  • Cox Media Group – $2,500
  • The McClatchy Co. – $2,500

The following were the non-media corporate sponsors of the NLGJA convention:

  • Coca-Cola Company – $25,000
  • JetBlue – $20,000 
  • Eli Lilly and Company – $15,000
  • Nissan – $15,000
  • Prudential – $15,000
  • Toyota – $15,000
  • Stolichnaya – $15,000
  • Chevrolet – $10,000
  • Human Rights Campaign (world’s leading homosexual activist organization) – $5,000
  • Astellas – $5,000
  • SAG [Screen Actors Guild] -AFTRA – $5,000

Lastly, the following Journalism schools and foundations were listed as NLGJA sponsors:

  • Knight Foundation – $10,000
  • McCormick Foundation Journalism Program – $5,000

AFTAH will delve more deeply into the NLGJA conference, but the following are some examples of pro-homosexual advocacy and anti-Christian/anti-conservative bias at the event and demonstrated by its presenters:

Religious panel – no attempt at balance:

CNN Kicks in $10,000: Like Fox News Channel, CNN gave $10,000 to the “gay” journalists group. This is an ad in the NLGJA convention program. It reads: “CNN Proudly Supports the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.” Click to enlarge.

The following is the NLGJA convention brochure’s tendentious, pro-LGBT description of the Saturday panel on religion and “gay rights”:

“The church and other religious groups were an essential organizing force when it came to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, yet they have not been as helpful when it has come to LGBT civil rights efforts. Now, as LGBT equality has become more accepted by the mainstream, more churches and synagogues are on board. While there are still strong hold-outs when it comes to equality and inclusiveness, more religious groups are helping to shape this next wave of a civil rights movement.”

On the panel, Rev. Robinson, who gained international fame a decade ago as the first openly homosexual bishop of a major Christian denomination (Episcopalians), criticized Christian small businessmen who refuse to participate in homosexual “weddings” on the basis of their religious liberty. He said there is something “profane and sacrilegious” about “religious people arguing for the right to discriminate.”

Robinson compared discrimination based on homosexuality and “gay marriage”–e.g., Christian wedding cake bakers refusing to bake a wedding cake for homosexuals–to past racism: “This is a very slippery slope and we’ve been there before.” He said such religious-based refusals constitute an “overblown understanding of religious liberty” and are an extension of invidious discrimination against black Americans, like saying, “I don’t want to serve you at a lunch counter because you’re African-American.”

Rev. Doctor Guy Erwin, bishop of the Southwest California Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, echoed Robinson’s concerns, saying with regard to Christian non-participation in homosexual “weddings”: “I see this as an assault on pluralism.” He said it “goes against the law of Christianity,” as a manifestation of not loving one’s neighbor as commanded by Jesus Christ in Scripture.

What might have been a lively debate between the Christian Left and a more orthodox perspective on religious liberty and the outworking of Christian faith in the culture did not occur, as there was no forceful defender of the latter worldview on the panel. Moreover, none of the assembled journalists pressed Robinson or Erwin on their comments, which took a very dim view of Christian citizens asserting their freedom under the First Amendment not to participate in homosexual “weddings,” based on their belief that homosexual behavior is sinful and that marriage as ordained by God is an institution solely between one man and one woman.

[To read more on the NLGJA’s record of advocacy, FOX News’ financing of the NLGJA and the network’s escalating pro-homosexual coverage, see the PDF of my 2013 in-depth report for America’s Survival, Inc: “Unfair, Unbalanced & Afraid: Fox News’ Growing Pro-Homosexual Bias & the NLGJA.”]

NEXT ARTICLE: More examples of “advocacy” journalism and anti-social-conservative bias at the NLGJA convention.

Witnessing a Failed Presidency

When we elect someone—anyone—to the office of President, it is only natural that we attribute great political skills, intellect, and judgment to that man. We want to believe we have selected someone with the ability to do what must be done in a dangerous and very complex world.

This may explain why Presidents who have presided in times of war are more highly regarded than those that have not. Washington brought the nation into being by patiently pursuing a war with Great Britain, Lincoln saw the Civil War to a successful conclusion, preserving the Union

The last century offered two world wars and several lesser ones, Korea and Vietnam. Voters put Franklin D. Roosevelt in office in 1933 and then kept him there until his death in 1945 just before the conclusion of World War Two. They had no wish to disrupt his conduct of the war with anyone else. It fell to Harry Truman to wrap up World War Two and to pursue the Korean War to repulse communist North Korea’s invasion.

The Vietnam War had its genesis in the JFK years, but it was Lyndon Johnson who committed to it with a massive influx of infantry and massive bombing, neither of which was able to deter the North Vietnamese from uniting the nation. Having lied the nation into the war LBJ concluded at the end of his first term which he had won in a landslide that he should not run again given the vast level of unhappiness with the conflict.

The failure to respond in a strong way to the Iranians who took U.S. diplomats hostage left Jimmy Carter with a single failed term in office. Neither domestically, nor in the area of foreign affairs did he demonstrate strength or much understanding.

After 9/11 George W. Bush used U.S. military strength to send a message to the world in general and al Qaeda in particular. By the end of his second term, a completely unknown young Democrat emerged as the Democratic Party candidate for President by campaigning on a promise to get out of Iraq and offering “hope and change.”

AA - Going from bad to worseBarack Hussein Obama captured the imagination of the voters. He was black and many Americans wanted to demonstrate that an African-American could be elected President. He was relatively young, regarded as eloquent, and seemed to project a cool, self-composed approach throughout his campaign.

The only problem was that he lacked a resume beyond having been a “community organizer.” He had graduated from Harvard Law School, but all of his academic and other public records had been put under seal so they could not be examined. Twice he ran against relatively lackluster, older men who did not possess much charisma, if any.

In his first term, his “stimulus” to lift the economy out of recession was a trillion-dollar failure. By his second term, however, the singular first term “achievement” was the passage of the Affordable Patient Care Act—Obamacare. When finally ready to enroll people it instantly demonstrated technical and policy problems. Obama began to unilaterally make changes to the law even though he lacked the legal power to do so.

The war in Iraq whose conclusion he had ridden to victory in 2008 and 2012 came unraveled and the Syrian civil war in which he had resisted any involvement metastasized into a barbaric Islamic State that seized parts of Iraq and northern Syria.

Halfway through his second term, it was increasingly evident that Obama did not want to fulfill the role of the Presidency to provide leadership in times of foreign and domestic crisis.

On August 28 Gallup reported “Americans are more than twice as likely to say they “strongly disapprove” (39%) of President Barack Obama’s job performance as they are to say they “strongly approve” (17%). The percentage of Americans who strongly disapprove of Obama has increased over time, while the percentage who strongly approve has dropped by almost half.”

His passion for golf became noticeable in ways that went beyond just a bit of vacation time. The time he spent fund raising seemed to be more of a priority than dealing with Congress. Not only did he fail to develop strong political working relations with members of his own party, his churlish talk about the Republican Party began to grate on everyone.

Though no President cares much for the demands of the press, they play an essential role in a democracy. His administration went to extremes to close off access to its members and by striking out at the press in ways that turned it from one that had gone out of its way to support him in the first term to one that actively, if not openly, disliked him in the second.

One characteristic about Obama had become glaringly obvious. He lies all the time. He lies in obvious and casual ways. In politics where one’s word must be one’s bond, this is a lethal personality trait. He dismissed the many scandals of his administration as “phony.”

Given the vast implications of what is occurring in the Middle East, in Ukraine, and elsewhere around the world his response was to interrupt his golf game to give a short speech and then return to the greens. In a recent press conference he said he has “no strategy” to address the threat that ISIS represents.

What Americans have discovered is that they have twice either voted for (or against) someone with fewer skills and even less desire to do the job for which he campaigned. This lazyness combined with his radical liberal politics have finally become obvious even to his former supporters.

His statement that he had no strategy to deal with the threat of the Islamic State and that it was perhaps too soon to expect one to have been formulated has led to the conclusion that he was far less intellectually equipped to be President than many had thought.

Now he must be endured and survived.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image was taken by the AP on May 12, 2014 of President Obama speaking during a press availability in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington.