Blog

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. is an African American Christian preacher and Pentecostal bishop who is the senior pastor at Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland.  Bishop Jackson is also a right-wing conservative, founder and chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition composed of ministers who oppose same-sex and abortion.  What is astonishing to me, however, is that Bishop Jackson claims to be a Democrat but appears to be against many of the policies advocated by Democrats including health care reform labeling it reverse classism.  For example, at a recent speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Jackson stated: “If I’m going to have to lessen the care of some folks and people who are worthy of service, worthy of care don’t get served, we have a real problem. In other words, my life is not worth less because I’m worth more financially…There’s a reverse classism in this whole issue.”  Of course, Bishop Jackson did not mention the estimated 47 million Americans without health insurance.  “We hope that everything that has to do with this health care program grinds to a slow halt,” he declared.”

In order to gain traction for his right-wing conservative views, Bishop Jackson has continued to exploit his status as a registered Democrat just to create the appearance of nonpartisanship and independence.  He was a strong supporter of John McCain during the 2008 elections urging him to take a firm stand against marriage equality in order to win right-wing votes by demonstrating fealty to “our cause.”  It’s not surprising that Jackson supported McCain since he has voted Republican since the Bush presidency.

Right-Wing Watch recently reported that Bishop Jackson said: “I voted for President Bush, but here in Maryland—a primarily Democratic state—in order to vote in the primaries that affect the election; you need to be a Democrat. That’s where I started. Over time, however, I’ve found that I have very little in common with the Democratic Party in terms of national moral values issues. Still, being able to say I’m a registered Democrat disarms many of the people who want to write me off as an “Oreo” or an “Uncle Tom.”  It appears to me that Bishop Jackson is a “pretend Democrat” who uses his political platform to further his right-wing radical agenda and the members of his congregation should take notice.

Bishop Jackson’s views are closely aligned with those of right-wing Evangelical Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, even co-authoring publications with him.  However, in 2010, under Perkins’ leadership, the Family Research Council was classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as the result of a political attack by a “liberal organization” and “the left’s smear campaign of conservatives“.  However, in 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Woody Jenkins against Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Klan chief David Duke. The campaign was also fined $3,000, reduced from $82,500, after Perkins and Jenkins filed false disclosure forms in a bid to hide their link to Duke.

On May 17, 2001, Perkins gave a speech to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.” Perkins claimed not to know the group’s ideology at the time, but it had been widely publicized in Louisiana and the nation. Moreover, in 1999, two years before Perkins’ speech to the CCC, then Republican House Speaker Trent Lott had been embroiled in a national scandal over his ties to this group. GOP former chairman Jim Nicholson then urged Republicans to avoid the CCC because of its “racist views.” The Duke incident surfaced again in the local press in 2002, when Perkins ran for the Republican nomination for the Senate, dooming his campaign to a fourth-place finish in the primaries.

Bishop Jackson has said that same-sex marriage is “an assault” from “the enemy.” He said it’s a “seed” that “corrupts, perverts, and pollutes.”  It seems to me that Bishop Jackson is very interested in legislating marital equality and denying Gay Americans the same rights as other Americans, but is apparently mute on marital infidelity since he was a strong defender of former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain during Cain’s sexual harassment scandals.

While every American has the right to express their opinions about issues that are passionate to them, it is difficult for me to understand why a Christian Bishop who presides over a 3,000 member congregation many of whom are probably African American, can pretend to espouse democratic values on the one hand yet aligns himself with contrary policies and views more consistent with the right-wing conservative radical agenda.  I believe Bishop Jackson owes his congregation an explanation of his views and policies including his stance as a democrat, but that’s just my take.

 GET YOUR FREE CUSTOM WEBSITE

BEST FOR ANTI AGING

BEST BUY HEALTH PRODUCTS

BEST RATED DIET PRODUCTS

MY KIDS’ STORE

ROB’S BLOG

Today, President Obama announced that he is for same-sex marriage and therefore, I decided to reissue this article on this subject.  Ever since Gay Americans began to publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation including marriage, verbal and physical attacks on members of the Gay and Lesbian community have been unprecedented. When President Obama eliminated the Don’t Ask, Don ‘t Tellrule thus permitting gay and lesbians to serve openly in the Military, the right-wing Christian conservatives including Republican presidential candidates went berserk.  The most extreme former Republican presidential candidate is Rick Santorum and his statements about homosexuality and the right to privacy. In an interview with the Associated Press published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states’ ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual. Right-wing radical rhetoric concerning Gay Americans has been so deliberate and passionate that it has spread to schools where bullying has been responsible for too many young people taking their own life.

In 2008, 52% of the California electorate approved Proposition 8. This proposition called the “California Marriage Protection Act”, added a new provision to the California Constitution which provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court’s ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was “an essential institution of society,” that leaving the constitution unchanged would “result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay,” and that “gays … do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.” The success of Proposition 8 in 2008 was heavily influenced by Evangelicals and other Christian Conservatives who dumped a ton of money to get it approved. Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort,” Judge Reinhardt wrote.

Mitt Romney condemned the decision saying, “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.” We all know that Willard Mitt Romney strongly opposes same-sex marriage even though his Mormon faith is inconsistent with Christian values.

Former Presidential Candidate Newt “Moon Colony” Gingrich said, “With today’s decision on marriage by the Ninth Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.”  Gingrich added, “The Constitution of the United States begins with “We the People”; it does not begin with ‘We the Judges’. Federal judges need to take heed of that fact. Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage.”

It’s interesting to note how Romney and Gingrich use the Constitution to justify their opposition to the court’s decision on marriage; however, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage. It does not say that straight couples are the only ones who can marry, nor does it say that homosexuals can’t get married. The Constitution does say that everyone has the right to personal liberty, privacy, and equality under the law. Laws that ban consenting adults from marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution. Thus, the judges made the right call but both Romney and Gingrich promises to appoint judges who will consistently misinterpret the Constitution. Basically, laws against same-sex marriage are similar to laws that once banned interracial marriages in the South which were subsequently declared UN-Constitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court.

Same-sex marriage has become a major religious and Republican conservative issue in several states. The New Jersey State Senate recently voted to legalize same-sex marriage which, if passed by the State Assembly, will be vetoed by Governor Christie.  Conservatives and members of the religious community are railing against the Maryland General Assembly currently considering same-sex legislation. It astonishes me why the religious community would enthrall itself on the wrong side of a constitutionally protected issue.  In addition, last night, an overwhelming North Carolina majority approved a constitutional amendment not only to band same-sex marriage even though that law was already on the books, but to revoke legal recognition of civil unions and possibly domestic partnerships.

The 14th amendment of the Constitution says that all citizens are to be equal under the law. Gays are citizens too, and have the same ‘civil rights as other Americans, including the right to marry. Marriage is one defined by religion and also defined by government. For most churches, marriage is between a man and a woman even though their doctrine may be differ. Government, for the most part, view marriage as a legal economic partnership in similar to a business partnership. Government allows partners to have joint bank accounts, own property jointly and authorized to make certain decisions for one another. Consequently, there is no reason why this Civil right should be enjoyed by some and not others!

Same-sex marriage is not about marriage or sex, but about choice. I chose to become a Christian and as such, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.  However, God did not give me, any Christian, any right-wing religious radical, or anyone else the right to impose our beliefs or choices on someone else.  In spite of what Santorum and others imply, God also loves Gays and Lesbians.  Here is what the Bible says in two of many verses about Eunuchs, who were Gay:  “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Matthew 19:12.)  “Thus says the Lord: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.” (Isaiah 56:1-12).

Even the Declaration of Independence gives each of us the unconditional right to make choices because it declares that, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” 

Some pursue happiness by becoming liars, adulterers, gay bashers or hate-mongers, while others choose to become pious and honorable. Some become Republicans; others become Democrats. Some marry the opposite sex; others marry the same sex. It’s all about civil rights. Sometimes it’s best to honor the unwritten “eleventh” Commandment – Thou shalt mind thine own business, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE FOR THE EASIEST REAL ESTATE GUIDE ON THE INTERNET

CLICK HERE TO LEARN HOW TO CATCH A CHEATING SPOUSE

During this 2012 campaign season, Republican presidential candidate, Willard Mitt Romney and other right-wing conservatives persist in portraying President Obama as being “weak” on national security issues.  Romney was both for and against the removal of Qaddafi, the former Libyan dictator, and he was both for and against setting a timetable to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.  Romney also attacked President Obama on his recent open-microphone slip during which he was overheard telling Russia’s President, Dimitri A. Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to deal with Russian concerns over the American missile defense system after the election in November.  An asinine comment by Romney knowing that not much foreign policy takes place during an election year.  Romney also likes to say that President Obama apologizes overseas for the United States a distortion that has been debunked.

May 1, 2012 represents the first anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  During an interview in 2007, Romney said that the country would be safer by only “a small percentage” and would see “a very insignificant increase in safety” if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” But since President Obama’s strategy succeeded, Romney’s campaign has become outraged and now says that it’s wrong for the Obama campaign to point out that Romney initially opposed it:  “The killing of Osama bin Laden was a momentous day for all Americans and the world, and Governor Romney congratulated the military, our intelligence agencies, and the President.”  “It’s now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters’ attention from the failures of his administration.”  If it was okay for Willard Mitt Romney to say getting bin Laden wasn’t important and it was okay for him to attack President Obama’s strategy, why wouldn’t it be okay for the Obama campaign to show how Romney was wrong and Obama was right?  That does not divide America but rather solidifies the strength of President Obama’s National Security policies as well as his courage as President.  Here is the bin Laden story:

Shortly after taking office, President Obama directed former CIA Director, Leon Panetta, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of the war against al Qaeda.  In August, 2010, the President was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden and it took many months to validate this information.  President Obama ran many secret meetings with top advisers to go over a plan.  They discussed many options, including an assault from the air, but there was not unanimity about the plan that was executed.  National Security Advisor, John Brennan said, “The president had to look at all the different scenarios, all the different contingencies that are out there,” he said. “What would have been the downsides if, in fact, it wasn’t bin Laden? What would have happened if a helicopter went down?”

In late April 2011, the President determined that there was enough credible intelligence to act and he authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden.  On Friday morning, April 29, 2011, at 8:20 a.m., before he boarded a plane for Alabama to view tornado damage, President Obama gave the go-ahead for the Sunday, May 1st raid.  That night, the President attended the White House Correspondence Association annual dinner and gave no hint of what was happening behind the scenes.

After playing nine holes of golf on Sunday morning, May 1st, President Obama joined his senior aides in the White House Situation Room at 1PM to go over final preparations for the secret raid on the bin Laden complex.  The SEALS knew how the complex was laid out and even where bin Laden and his family likely could be found on the second and third floors of the largest building on site.  According to the National Journal, they had been practicing at a mock complex, a replica of bin Laden’s home, built at a secret base in nearby Afghanistan.

“You can imagine that for something as important as this, and something as risky as this, every effort would be made to do the practice runs, understand the complexities and the layout of the compound,” Brennan said. “There were multiple opportunities to do that in terms of going through the exercises to prepare for it.”  But the SEALs could not know for sure what would happen once they dropped in to the complex. They didn’t know whether they could get in and out before the Pakistani government — which had not been informed about the raid before it was launched — would be able to scramble fighter jets and get them to the scene to respond to this “Pakistan threat” from a mysterious source.  There were “a lot of people holding their breath,” Brennan said. It went like clockwork — almost.

Brennan said U.S. forces were prepared to take bin Laden alive but knew he would probably not go down easy.  It was unclear the following Monday whether he “got off any rounds,” Brennan said, but he reached for a weapon as a firefight broke out, and the SEALs shot him in the head.  Two Bin Laden couriers were killed along with one of Bin Laden’s sons and a woman reportedly used as a shield by one of the men.  Other women and children were in the compound, according to Pakistani officials, but were not harmed. U.S. officials said that Bin Laden fired his weapon during the fight and that he was asked to surrender but did not.

One of the U.S. helicopters, a CH47 Chinook, was damaged but not destroyed during the operation, and U.S. forces destroyed it with explosives. The operation took 40 minutes; much of it spent searching the residence for intelligence information. The Americans took Bin Laden’s body into custody after the firefight, taking it back to Afghanistan by helicopter, and confirmed his identity.  A U.S. official said he was buried at sea in accordance with Islamic practice.  Pakistani officials said that the operation was a joint U.S.-Pakistani operation, but U.S. officials said only U.S. personnel were involved in the raid.

Bin Laden was killed not by a drone strike, but up close during a firefight with U.S. troops.  He was living in a million-dollar mansion with twelve-foot walls less than 100 miles from the Pakistani capital.  The U.S. had been monitoring the compound for months after receiving a tip that Bin Laden might lodging there.  The house had no phone or television and the residents burned their trash.  The house had high windows and few points of access, and U.S. officials concluded it had been built to hide someone.

Taking out Osama bin Laden was an extremely difficult, sensitive and dangerous mission that could have failed costing the lives of the Navy SEALS.  Even though his credibility as President and Commander-in-Chief was at stake and how Republicans would exploit any failure possibly damaging any reelection hopes, President Obama made the call.  In 2009, President Obama issued an order to use force against pirates holding American Captain Richard Phillips hostage and as a result, Navy snipers shot and killed three of the pirates simultaneously when a pirate was spotted pointing an AK-47 rifle at Captain Phillips.  President Obama has been nothing less than a confident Commander-in-Chief.  While Willard Mitt Romney and right-wing Republican conservatives attempt to portray him as weak on National Security issues, President Obama continues to prove them wrong.  Given his often wrong and inconsistent national security positions over the years, a President Willard Mitt Romney would be a disaster for this country, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

 CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK HERE FOR COLOR BROCHURE ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK TO SIGN-UP IN LAMININE FREE