On August 10, 2013 Alvin Mcewen posted an article on AlterNet.org titled:
“Get over yourself, Donnie McClurkin. Your homophobia reaped what it sowed”
The article was a brief reply to the report about the Mayor of Washington DC, the Arts Commission on human rights of DC, and a small group of homosexual activists’ uninviting Pastor Donnie McClurkin, a Black minister, from his scheduled headline performance at their cities Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial 50th anniversary of the March on Washington celebration themed, “Reflection on Peace From Ghandi to King”.
But it seems that homosexuals are not required to keep the peace, they are free to disrupt any event they chose to in order to prevent someone with a different perspective about homosexuality from taking part in an event slated to bring unity in the community.
The Alvin Mcewen article opened with this comment:
“I ask you, does it make sense to honor the 50th anniversary of a march whose coordinator was shoved in the background due to homophobia by inviting someone as a headliner who is committing the same offense against gays in the present? Absolutely not.”
This is classical misrepresentation since Pastor McClurkin can hardly be accused of shoving anyone to the background. It is interesting that the writer did not bother to clarify his point but left it as was to give the impression that he was accurately describing Pastor Donnie. This is a common tactic of homosexual activists.
The author referenced his source as the lovebscott.com blog.
“There is going to be a controversy regarding Saturday night’s concert in Washington, DC regarding the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. From the blog of B.Scott:
Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who back in 2002 declared God delivered him from “the curse homosexuality,” did not appear in a Saturday evening concert celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, after several gay activists objected to his participation in the event.”
And this is the real issue, his stand on homosexuality, his right to attend and perform at a MLK celebration as a Black man was denied because of his convictions about homosexuality. This has to be explained. I think this is a good opportunity for us to explore the homosexual activist’s high jacking of the Civil Rights movement principles to defend their sexual habits.
Mcewen continues his spin by stating:
“McClurkin was scheduled to perform at the D.C. government-sponsored concert with other singers at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial during the “Reflections on Peace From Ghandi to King” event. But at the request of Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D), who fielded concerns from the activists Friday, the Grammy-winning singer decided not to perform. “The commission on human rights and Donnie McClurkin’s management decided that it would be best for him to withdraw because the purpose of the event is to bring people together,” said Gray’s spokeswoman, Doxie McCoy. “Mayor Gray said the purpose of the event is to promote peace and harmony. That is what King was all about.”
This is an interesting spin on the actual issue; did Ghondi or King discuss homosexuality as an issue in their campaign for freedom and Civil Rights? Was King a homosexual? Was the March on Washington event a homosexual event? If the answer to these questions are no, then how does the DC Mayor justify his request that a Black man not sing at a Martin Luther King event?
The March on Washington was predominantly a Black Civil Rights event with Blacks and other ethnicities standing up against Civil Rights injustices against Blacks in America. Nothing of that event addressed homosexuality, so how is it that a few homosexual activists can yell and scream and protest against a Black man performing at an event commemorating the March on Washington because of his views about homosexuality and those who practice it, and the Black Mayor bows to their objection and tells the Black man, a Pastor, that he is not welcome to sing at an event that honors a Black Civil Rights Icon?
What justification does a Black Mayor have to bar a Black man from an event honoring a Black Civil Rights leader? Absolutely none! So why did he do it? Because of money and political support, he wants the homosexual money and support and he is not willing to chance not receiving it by standing up for a Black man’s right to sing at an event that honors and Black man. The message seems clear, homosexual money and political power are more important to Mayor Vincent C. Gray than a Black man’s right to sing at an event honoring a Black Civil Rights leader.
You will not here this on CNN, MSNBC, FOX news or any other main stream media. Blacks have once again been marginalized by money and politics, and few in the media have the guts to speak the truth about it.
Pastor Donnie was not appearing or singing as an ex-homosexual at a homosexual event, he was singing as a Black man and member of the clergy at an event honoring a Black Civil Rights leader, so why is it that homosexuals are allowed to get away with twisting the issues to overrule the rights of others in order to polarize their interests? Where do we draw the line between their personal interest and the rights of non-homosexual American citizens?
As I have often argued, some of you have allowed the homosexual activist community to bamboozle you into believing that there is a connection between homosexual sex preferences and Civil Rights. You have been had, but you don’t seem to mind since accepting that view seems to give you favor with Hollywood, Sports organizations, corporate America, Government, Politicians and the homosexual community, whether it is correct, does not seem to be important to you.
It has never occurred to you that their seemingly wide acceptance has been accomplished by strategic manipulation of organizations and institutions from within, the paying of key people over the past ten years, and the carefully coined sound bites and use of twisted word meanings of “homophobia”, “bigot”, “hate” and “intolerance” that few seem to notice or even care about.
I have also argued that because many of these homosexuals are driven by demonic spirits, (something that even most Christian leaders have been silenced into not mentioning), they will not stop until they have control of our society and vocal objectors are outcast and silenced.
Such spirits have already manifested themselves in violent attacks on Christians but the homosexual- controlled media refuses to report these events accept on very rare occasions when it has become so well known that they must make mention of them, and even then they are reported so as to minimize harm to the reputation of the homosexual community. Yet, violence towards homosexuals, even non-physical verbal attacks are polarized by the media, and few seem to notice or care about the bias reporting that aids the idea that homosexuals are only victims and never victimizers.
Our failure to put them in check whenever they over stepped their boundaries of truth and ventured into rhetoric and propaganda in order to deceive the public into sympathizing with their sexual preference; has contributed to their current arrogance in the matter of Civil Rights.
Notice how boldly the writer trivializes Pastor McClurklin’s view of the events:
“However, in a statement released on video, McClurkin took issue with how the situation was portrayed. He said the mayor “uninvited me from a concert that I was supposed to headline.” He said “I was asked not to attend.”
………Of course McClurkin makes out like he was the victim in this situation.”
Mcewen clearly refuses to see the difference between a Black minister’s right to sing at an event honoring a Black Civil Rights leader and an ex-homosexual’s right to sing at a homosexual event which it was not.
The writer further misrepresents Pastor Donnie McClurkin’s video message explaining what actually happened by leaving out key comments that expressed his concerns and his view on being uninvited by the Mayor due to a few homosexual’s protest rally. While he included a link to the actual video for his readers to view, he no doubt did not think that viewing it would make any difference to those reading his article. But if they could view the video message and not see a major difference between it and what the writer had written, there is a serious problem.
Note what the writer says about Pastor McClurklin’s video message and compare it with the video, and tell me if you can detect misrepresentation.
The writer states:
“In a comment on his video, McClurkin says the following:
CIVIL RIGHTS ARE FOR EVERYONE…gay, straight, religious, secular, male, female, all cultures and colors. Let’s not mistake that everyone who lives here in [a]merica…everyone should have equal rights..whether we believe them to be right or wrong. They’re just BASIC rights for ALL~! My spiritual stance is right…but cannot infringe on anyone’s choice to do as they choose as long as it a basic right. [e]veryone will not follow our christian principles..so what do we do with those who don’t…don’t give them the right to live civilly? This isn’t a theocracy…so even if I, you or we don’t agree…everyone has to be able to live a full life.”
I am not sure if there was another video originally posted on that page that was replaced by the current video that is now viewable on the “socialcam” page which indicated an August 9th post date, one day before the article I am reviewing here was posted. If not, then the writer, for some yet unknown reason has referenced a different video from what was posted. If indeed the video was changed on August 9th, the writer still had time to reference the current video in which Pastor McClurkin gave his view of the conflict, but he did not do so. The question to ask is, why?
In the video linked to the writer’s article, Pastor McClurklin says none of the thing the writers quotes him as saying, but rather the Pastor makes it clear that he was uninvited at the last minute while he was on his way to the airport, by DC Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s office, due to the protest of around fifty homosexual protestors.
He expressed his disappointment as a Black man being uninvited to a Civil Rights event that was depicting love, unity peace and tolerance. And he described it as bullying, discrimination and intolerance.
He also informed us that many Pastors of DC contacted the Mayor’s office and offered to pay for the event so that the city would not have to foot the bill to allow Pastor McClurklin to sing and the Mayor refused to accept their request.
Pastor McCurkin called it a Civil Rights infringement, simply because of stances he took never-ever being or intending to be taken as demeaning or derogatory addressing any lifestyle.
He made it clear that the press releases stating that he mutually agreed to withdraw from the concert were false, and that he never agreed to withdraw. He revealed that a representative from the Mayor’s office, Chris Murphy, during a phone conversation, acknowledged the wrongness of his being uninvited by them, but also attempted to persuade him that it would be in his best interest not to come, to avoid his being attacked by the media and having his past brought up, which Pastor McClurkin perceived as a threat and made it clear that he was not concerned about any such attacks because he has had that battle already and did not fear it.
Pastor Donnie also made it clear that it was not the promoters of the even, (whom he referred to as having integrity), nor was it the Pastors in the DC community who objected to his appearance, (he said many of their calls to the DC Mayor’s office were ignored), but the un-invite was due to the few homosexual protestors, the Mayor’s office and the Arts Commission of DC.
He apologized to the many DC residences and guests who were looking forward to hearing him sing.
Why none of this was pointed out by Alvin Mcewen in his article should be clear, his goal was not to present the truth but to justify the apparent minority rejection of Pastor McClurkin and to convince the readers that Pastor McClurkin was a hostile “homophobe” who did not care about homosexuals. But nothing could be further from the truth. Pastor McClurkin has always been careful to speak about homosexuality in the context of love and concern and to my knowledge has never promoted hate for homosexuals.
Mcewen, then makes the following comments further misrepresenting Pastor McClurkin:
But Mr. McClurkin, what about those children you maligned in 2009 at the COGIC youth conference? In 2009, McClurkin said the following about lgbt children at the conference:
"I see feminine men, feminine boys, everywhere I go … No, don’t applaud ‘cuz it ain’t funny. It’s because we failed. I see them everywhere.”
Mcewen here, is quite selective in his use of the quote, what Pastor McClurkin actually said was:
“No do not applaud LIKE ITS A BASH, IT’S BECAUSE WE FAILED, IT’S NOT OUR CHILDRENS FAULT, IT’S BECAUSE WE FAILED. WE DIDN’T FATHER OUR CHILDREN, WE DIDN’T COVER OUR CHILDREN, WE DIDN’T DISERN THE SEED AND DIDN’T UPROOT IT. WE FAILED OUR BOY AND WE FAILED OUR GIRLS…”
In the video clip I viewed, he did not say “cuz it ain’t funny” nor did I hear anyone laughing.
He also told about his rape by his uncle when he was eight years old. Why did the writer not mention that? You see, truth is not his goal, but propaganda.
Mcewen went on to say:
In that same post I linked to (from Rod McCollum – Rod2.0 Beta), McClurkin said the following about lesbians:
“These young girls are just as bad as the boys in homosexuality, you don’t see it. They can hide … but there are some evil young hard butch girls.”
There is nothing untrue about that comment and anyone who has lived around such females know this to be true. So what is his point? Also, I think Mcewen may have again added a word to the quote that was not in the original comment by Pastor McClurkin. My copy of the statement does not have the words “EVIL YOUNG HARD BUTCH GIRLS”. If someone does have that video footage of the message, please contact me and let me have a copy. Until then I must assume that Mcewen is using the common pro-homosexual tactic of “the means justifies the lies.”
In 2008 while in Barbados, he compared gays to drug dealers and prostitutes:
“The lifestyle began to grow. The girls did not want a broken man . . . . In homosexuality, there’s always someone to abuse you. My lust for man and lust for God was pulling me one way and tearing me apart.” .. “He said Donnie, go and talk to others. I don’t condemn it, so don’t condemn them. God does not hate the homosexual, he hates the sin,” said McClurkin, adding he is now a sincere, compassionate man, who keeps his masculinity, is ready for a wife and who is “transformed by the blood of Jesus”.”
Again, I see nothing wrong with these comments. Only an unrepentant homosexual or pro-homosexual could find fault with this.
Homosexual activists are intolerant of ex-homosexuals because their very existence is evidence that the claim that homosexuals are “born that way” and “cannot change” is a lie, yet homosexual activists have relied on these lies for many years to trick the public into sympathy for the homosexual community on that basis and to gain political support for their movement.
The intolerance that homosexual activists have shown towards ex-homosexuals has revealed a nasty secret that homosexual activists have striven to keep from the public for quite some time, and it has been a key part of their campaign to remove the stigmatization of homosexuality from the public.
There are a number of organizations that have worked heroically to inform the public about the sly tactics used by homosexual activists to trick the public into greater sympathy for their chosen sexual preference and the serious dangers that accompanies that “orientation”.
Americans for Truth, The American Family Association, The Family Research Institute, Mission America, PFOX, Worldview Weekend and many other organizations have been mostly ignored by the media, many Black leaders, the government, corporate America and Hollywood, and as a result, the public has been misinformed about many of the issues involving homosexuality.
Dr. Robert Gagnon, Paul Cameron, Peter LaBarbera, Linda Harvey, Jerry Johnson, Brannon Howse, Dr. James White, Dr. Michael Brown, Scott Lively and ex-homosexuals such as Pastor Charlene Cothren, Janet Boynes and many others have been challenging the public to stop allowing homosexual activists to spin the truth and deceive you about what is really going on with the homosexual movement, It’s time that you listened and started tapping these and other reliable sources to get your information about homosexual activism.
If we don’t stand up to homosexual activists when they violate our rights, we give them power that they should not have, power that they have and will continue to abuse.
I commend Pastor Donnie McClurkin for publicly standing up to this kind of bullying from the homosexual community, and I hope that the Pastors of DC will not allow this injustice to go unanswered.