The arrests were made at night on the streets of Towson, Maryland. A University of Maryland-Baltimore County student who witnessed the arrests decided to record them using his cell phone. The student, 21-year-old Sergio Gutierrez, was soon approached by officers who objected — wrongly — to his actions.

Gutierrez repeatedly told the officers that he knew he had the right to film them, but the cops were prepared to use any excuse to shut him down. First they told him that he was hampering their investigation, even though he was standing well enough away while the arrests were being made.

Luis Rodriguez died earlier this month after a confrontation with police outside the theater in Moore.

Police say the 44-year-old Rodriguez became uncooperative when officers questioned him about a possible domestic disturbance. Police handcuffed the man.

Rodriguez’s wife and daughter say police then started beating him. Autopsy results are pending.

In the scheme, vehicles were impounded and towed, and when the car owners couldn’t pay the fees, the vehicles were sold or given away for free to some officers, Monterey County District Attorney Dean Flippo said Tuesday.

Four King City officers – including the recently retired police chief and the acting chief – have been arrested in the scheme, and two others were also arrested Tuesday on unrelated charges, Flippo said. The officers have been placed on paid administrative leave, KSBW-TV reported.

“There has been a significant breakdown in the internal leadership of the King City Police Department,” Flippo said. “It also appears to me that some officers have dishonored their badge.

The source of Reed’s troubles: gold-plated pensions that guarantee retired city workers as much as 90 percent of their former salaries. Retirement costs are eating up nearly a quarter of the city’s budget, forcing Reed (D) to skimp on everything else.

“This is one of the dichotomies of California: I am cutting services to my low- and moderate-income people .?.?. to pay really generous benefits for public employees who make a good living and have an even better retirement,” he said in an interview in his office overlooking downtown.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said Wednesday she has vetoed a bill that would have allowed businesses, such as wedding photographers and wedding cake bakers, to assert their religious beliefs in rejecting participation in same-sex wedding events.

Homosexual activists and religious freedom advocates both ramped up pressure on Brewer after the state’s Republican-led legislature approved the bill last week.

Brewer said she made the decision she knew was right for her state.

“I call them as I see them, despite the cheers or the boos from the crowd,” she said, calling the bill “broadly worded” and saying it could have unintended consequences.

Brewer said she’d weighed the arguments on both sides.

“To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes,” she said. “However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want.

“Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value, so is non-discrimination.”

Officials with the Alliance Defending Freedom, who just hours before had reported that an Arizona business owner and her children were threatened with death for supporting the legislation, said they will plan to pursue court fights over Arizonans who face discrimination because of the failure of the bill.

Senior counsel Doug Napier said, “Freedom loses when fear overwhelms facts and a good bill is vetoed. Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona. Even though the battle has become more difficult, Alliance Defending Freedom stands ready to defend any Arizonan who suffers the indignity of religious discrimination.”

The bill would have clarified the state’s 1999 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, bringing it into conformity with federal law.

The ADF earlier had released a copy of a letter addressed to Brewer from a long list of top law professors, encouraging her to sign the bill.

The professors said, “The bill has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics. We write because we believe that you should make your decision on the basis of accurate information.”

The professors, who describe themselves in the letter as Republican, Democrat, religious, not religious, supporters of same-sex marriage and opponents of same, noted that nine of their number believe the bill should be signed while two were unsure.

“But all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona bill are deeply misleading,” they wrote.

Signers include Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School, Michael W. McConnell of Stanford, Helen M. Alvare of George Mason, Thomas C. Berg of the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minnesota, Carl H. Esbeck of the University of Missouri, Richard W. Garnett of Notre Dame, Christopher C. Lund of Wayne State, Mark S. Scarberry of Pepperdine, Gregor C. Sisk of the University of St. Thomas and Robin Fretwell Wilson, of the University of Illinois.

They pointed out that the U.S. government and 18 states already have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, and another dozen states interpret their state constitutions to provide those protections.

“They say that before the government can burden a person’s religious exercise, the government has to show a compelling justification,” the letter explained. “That standard makes sense. We should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have a very good reason.”

Arizona’s law is 15 years old, the national law is more than 20, and “there have been relatively few cases.”

“If you knew little about the Arizona RFRA until the current controversy, that is because it has had no disruptive effect Arizona.”

The current legislation, SB 1062, would have provided that people are covered by a defense when their state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand they violate their religion, the letter explains.

“But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden … And the government, or the person … could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest,” the professors wrote.

“Arizona’s RFRA, like all RFRAs, leaves resolution of these issues to the courts … First, it is impossible for legislatures to foresee all the potential conflicts between the diverse religious practices of the many faiths practiced in Arizona … and when passions are aroused on all sides, as they have been in this case, it becomes extraordinarily difficult for legislatures to make principled decisions about whether to make exceptions for unpopular religious practices.”

They continued, “So to be clear: SB 1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. It says that business people can assert a claim or defense under RFRA, in any kind of case … that they have the burden of proving a substantial burden on a sincere religious practice, that the government or the person suing them has the burden of proof on compelling government interest, and that the state courts in Arizona make the final decision.”

One of the intents of the bill was to head off legal conflicts such as have happened in other states, where business owners are fined, threatened, discriminated against or even put out of business because of their faith.

Specifically, in Washington and Colorado, bakeries have been sued for refusing to use their artistry to promote same-sex marriage. A photographer in New Mexico was put in the bull’s-eye by homosexual activists for the same reason.

WND has reported the most recent fight to develop over religious rights was in Colorado, where a state appointee overruled a business owner’s religious faith and ordered him to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex duo.

The state’s constitution doesn’t recognize “same-sex marriage,” but officials with the Alliance Defending Freedom said it simply was the government imposing “a new belief system upon [bakery owner] Jack [Phillips], one that is fundamentally at odds with his conscience and his liberty.”

The complaint to the state’s Civil Rights Division was filed by two homosexuals who wanted Phillips to provide them with a wedding cake.

Phillips offered to provide other products but, citing his own Christian beliefs, declined to produce a message on a wedding cake that conflicted with his faith.

Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer, however, ordered Phillips, on pain of fines or even jail time, to violate his faith and provide the wedding cake to homosexuals Charlie Craig and David Mullins.

Now ADF has asked the state to correct the “erroneous” ruling, filing a notice of appeal and petition for review to the commission.

Spencer was wrong, ADF contends, because “the ALJ’s recommendation that respondents ‘[c]ease and desist from discriminating against complainants and other same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any other product respondents would provide to heterosexual couples’ is overbroad and exceeds the scope of relief authorized [under state law.].”

ADF said the issue in the case cuts to the basics of freedom in America.

“America was founded on the fundamental freedom of all citizens to live and work without fear of government punishment,” said Nicolle Martin, lead counsel in the case.

Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., cited conflicting religious beliefs when he declined in July 2012 to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding reception. Photo/Denver Post

Phillips explained to WND there are cakes for other circumstances he also would refuse to make.

“If a couple were to come in and ask me to do an erotic cake for a wedding, I would refuse to do that as well,” he said. “These are my personal standards taken from Jesus Christ and the Bible.”

Spencer’s ruling said Phillips’ constitutional rights are secondary, because otherwise the “cost to society” isn’t considered. He granted homosexuals a special standard.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Republican congressional pressure to expose an alleged Obama administration cover-up in the Department of Justice investigation of the IRS discrimination against conservative organizations ratcheted up a notch yesterday.

Legal experts testifying to a House subcommittee suggested IRS officials may have committed criminal violations and called for a special prosecutor to be appointed.

George J. Terwilliger III, former deputy attorney general under Attorney General Edwin Meese and a partner in the Washington office of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, began the hearings with a prepared statement calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the controversy.

“I am no fan of the now-expired independent counsel statute,” Terwilliger said in his prepared statement. “But existing law permits the attorney general to appoint a special or independent counsel from within the Justice Department or from outside it. Such counsel can be given all the authority and have the final word on what should be investigated or prosecuted.”

At the hearing, five expert legal witnesses testified about what subcommittee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, characterized as the Obama administration’s apparent unwillingness to conduct a “serious and unbiased” investigation into allegations the IRS was discriminating against conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

Terwilliger explained that his call for Attorney General Holder to appoint such as special counsel was needed “to provide assurances of the integrity of the investigation that the public deserves and that respect for venerable Justice Department practice requires.”

Agreeing with Terwilliger that a special prosecutor was needed in the IRS investigation, Richard Painter, professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota Law School, suggested criminal charges involving Hatch Act violations might be appropriate if it can be proved IRS officials denied conservative groups tax-exempt status in order to influence the outcome of elections in favor of the Democratic Party.

The Hatch Act of 1939 was designed to prohibit employees of the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, the vice-president and a select list of additional executive branch employees, from engaging in partisan political activities in the administration of their federal government duties.

“I am frustrated at not knowing the purpose and scope of the DOJ investigation, Painter testified.

Painter suggested the Office of Special Counsel should be involved because the OSC is specifically charged with violations of the Hatch Act.

“Which specific criminal statutes are potentially involved in the investigation, and what evidence is there to date of violations of such provisions and by whom?” Painter asked. “If there is evidence of criminal activity the DOJ should investigate thoroughly and swiftly, but if not the DOJ should stand down and allow other government officials, including the Inspector General and Congressional oversight committees, to do their job of investigating alleged misconduct that falls short of criminal violations.”

Painter noted the OSC may determine that it is appropriate to rely on an inspector general investigation rather than conduct its own investigation, provided the inspector general investigation addresses the Hatch Act issues.

“The OSC, however, should not remain silent,” Painter continued. “I am not claiming that there necessarily were Hatch Act violations at the IRS – I don’t know. However, the American people are entitled to a definitive answer to this question, and the OSC has a responsibility to play a central role in finding it.”

‘Not even a smidgen’

The hearing held Wednesday afternoon by the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation, and Regulatory Affairs centered on the question, “Is the Obama Administration Conducting a Serious Investigation of IRS Targeting?” It took on heightened drama after Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, announced on Wednesday morning that Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the IRS targeting controversy, had been recalled to testify under oath on March 5.

The subtext of the subcommittee’s hearing were the statement President Obama made in a televised interview with the Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS handling of organizations applying for tax-exempt status.

“The president’s statement was most unfortunate,” Terwilliger insisted. “Can you imagine if Ronald Reagan had come out in the middle of the Iran-Contra controversy and said there is nothing really to see here? When you have the president of the United States to come out and declare there was no corruption before the DOJ investigation was complete undermines public confidence in the integrity of the investigation.”

Eileen J. O’Connor, former assistant attorney general of the tax division for the Department of Justice and a partner in the Washington office of the Pillsbury law firm, agreed.

“The president’s statements carry a lot of weight,” O’Connor noted. “Markets can rise and fall on a president’s statement. Back in 2010, President Obama began bashing conservative critics of the administration and various administration officials as a consequence began investigating conservatives in a completely inappropriate manner.”

Under questioning by Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., all five legal experts testified they could not tell if a serious and unbiased investigation of IRS targeting was being undertaken by the Obama administration DOJ.

“We had a president who said ‘I am not a crook,’ and we all know how that turned out,” DesJarlais noted, referring to President Richard Nixon.

The congressman suggested Obama should be impeached if it turns out he took steps to ensure that the DOJ investigation ended up in a whitewash of the IRS targeting scandal.

Subcommittee chairman Jordan, in his attempt to demonstrate the Obama administration Justice Department was now engaged in a cover-up of partisan activity by IRS officials, got into a heated exchange with ranking member Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Pa., with Barbara Bosserman, a trial attorney in the Department of Justice with a history of political contributions to President Obama’s election campaigns and the Democratic National Committee since 2004.

Jordan insisted Jay Sekulow, the chief council of the American Center for Law and Justice, had identified Bosserman as lead DOJ attorney assigned to conduct the IRS. Bosserman, meanwhile, rejected Sekulow’s opinion as definitive, given that Sekulow has claimed the DOJ investigation has called for testimony from none of 41 clients the ACLJ claims suffered IRS discrimination.

“Ms. Bosserman should be removed because her involvement raises questions about the integrity of the Department of Justice,” insisted Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, under combative questioning by Democratic members of the subcommittee.

“Specifically, she gave a large number of political contributions to the Obama administration that is under investigation in the IRS probe.”

Nor was von Spakovsky convinced the Justice Department was conducting a genuine, unbiased investigation of the allegations against the Obama administration IRS.

“I find that simply incredible – that nine months after Attorney General Holder announced he was opening an investigation, neither the FBI nor the Justice Department has conducted basic interviews with the victims to gather information about their dealings with the IRS officials and employees who may have been involved in wrongdoing,” von Spakovsky said.

“The ratio of liberal groups caught in the IRS targeting filters was somewhat like 100-to-2,” O’Connor added, maintaining that the IRS targeted conservative groups in a discriminatory fashion.

O’Connor joined in the criticism of Bosserman.

“DOJ officials have selected a career attorney in the Civil Rights Division to conduct the investigation into the allegations of misconduct by IRS personnel,” O’Connor stressed.

“Some have criticized that selection as inappropriate because the attorney contributed to the president’s campaign and to other causes of his political party. But when does support for the sitting president and his party make one an imprudent choice for an assignment? Not usually. But perhaps it does when the assignment is to investigate the administration’s alleged mistreatment of its political adversaries. Here is why: Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.”

Among the five legal experts testifying, the only one defending President Obama in the IRS investigation was Glenn F. Ivey, partner in the Washington office of Leftwich & Ludaway.

Under questioning by Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N. C., Ivey admitted he had donated funds not only to the Obama re-election campaign but also to the Democratic opponent running against Meadows for the House of Representatives in North Carolina.

Coded communications?

Before the hearing adjourned, questioning turned to the criminal indictment of filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, who is facing two felony counts with a maximum of seven years in prison for alleged violations of campaign-finance laws.

O’Connor took up the issue, developing the theme that Obama’s public statements criticizing conservative opponents were designed as coded communications to Democratic Party operatives placed within the federal government administration bureaucracy to discriminate against or otherwise disadvantage conservatives whenever possible.

O’Conner said it was “in 2010, after Obama made public statements in radio addresses bashing conservative donors for making contributions to conservative tax-exempt organizations, that the IRS for the first time started investigating donor contributions to tax-exempt organizations.”

He suggested Obama’s criticism of conservative donors was designed to “tip off” the IRS that investigating conservative donors to tax-exempt organizations was the order of the day.

In addition to the selective enforcement of IRS rules and regulations to deny applications by conservative groups for tax-exempt status, various Republican members of the subcommittee suggested another offense. They said the Obama Justice Department was engaging in selective prosecution by indicting for criminal violations of campaign finance laws vocal administration critics such as D’Souza, whose anti-Obama documentary “2016” was the second-highest revenue grossing political documentary of all time.

“The accusation against Dinesh D’Souza was for a ‘conduit contribution,’” O’Connor pointed out. “That could only be discovered if the Federal Election Committee had been tipped off that D’Souza reimbursed others for making contributions, because a typical examination of campaign contributions only reveals who made a particular contribution. It would take inside information to reveal D’Souza reimbursed others for contributing to a candidate of his choice.”

WASHNGTON – The Jabhat al-Nusra Front, which is al-Qaida’s designated attack squad in Syria and now Lebanon, says the Lebanese army will be fair game for attacks because of what it perceives as the military’s cooperation in allowing Hezbollah to move supplies and fighters into Syria.

The al-Qaida affiliate also is warning Lebanon’s Sunnis to stay out of the way when its fighters engage Hezbollah, a Shiite group affiliated with Iran, inside Lebanon.

Hezbollah made the decision last year to send fighters into Syria to help keep the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power.

Assad, a Shiite Alawite, is allied with Iran and plays a role in part of what is referred to as the Shiite Crescent, stretching across Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Iran represents Shiite Muslims who are fighting a proxy war with Sunni Saudi Arabia. Along with the Saudi kingdom, the Gulf Arab countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates form the Sunni Crescent.

For three years, the Saudis have been pumping money into the fight on behalf of the Sunni foreign fighters, but the Assad regime remains in power.

The effort has been headed by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi intelligence chief and head of the Saudi National Security Council.

Bandar has had his differences with the United States over what factions of the Syrian opposition to support.

Now, the Saudis have decided to replace him with another prince more acceptable to the U.S. He is Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. Along with Nayef, Prince Miteb bin Abdullah, the son of Saudi King Abdullah and head of the Saudi National Guard, will take on more responsibilities in the kingdom’s policy toward Syria.

Saudi Arabia has been financing and providing foreign fighters to join Islamic militant groups, such as al-Nusra, the newly created Islamic Front and a myriad of other Islamic groups to topple the Assad government. The fact that militants aligned with al-Qaida have joined the opposition has raised concerns in the U.S. and in the Saudi kingdom itself, sources say.

The change from Bandar signals a more diplomatic approach and will add pressure on Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, who are the main backers of Assad.

Meantime, al-Nusra in Lebanon in a Twitter feed said that “any rational human being is aware of the injustice inflicted by Iran’s party on all the Lebanese and Syrian regions, especially in (the Syrian border towns of Qusair and Qalamoun.”

“This wouldn’t have happened without Hezbollah men and equipment passing into Syria through the Lebanese border crossings under the eyes of the government and the Lebanese army which it controls,” the Twitter feed said.

“Hezbollah is replacing its fighters daily in Syria through the army crossings. It has also tasked the Lebanese army with protecting its quarters so that it can devote itself to battling the Sunni-Syrian people, thus putting the Lebanese army at the forefront to pay the price of its crimes in Syria,” said the statement.

Al-Nusra and a companion group, Abdullah Assam Brigade, have taken responsibility for a series of suicide car bombs since last July in the Hezbollah strongholds of the Bekaa Valley and south Beirut.

As recently as last week, al-Nusra claimed responsibility for a suicide car bomb at an army checkpoint in Hermel.

“We consider all the quarters of Hezbollah a legitimate target for us, so leave the two of us alone in the battlefield because we have a big score to settle with Hezbollah,” the Twitter feed said. “To the national people in Lebanon we say, ‘Keep your sons away from our battle against Wilayat al-Faqih and don’t help to the persecutor against the oppressed.’”

Wilayat al-Faqih, or Guardianship of the Jurist, is a theory in Shia Islam that gives a faqih, or Islamic jurist, custodianship over people.

The theory today forms the basis for the leadership in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Iranian constitution calls for a faqih to serve as the supreme leader of the government.

The late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader following the 1979 Iranian revolution, had written about the idea. Today the supreme leader is Sayyed Ali Khamenei.

Just as al-Nusra looks upon the Lebanese army as a target along with Hezbollah, it suggests that the Islamic group no longer will distinguish between fighting to oust Assad in Syria and engaging the lawful Lebanese army.

This view has been reinforced by what Middle East analysts say is the heavy trafficking of arms across the border and the flow of Hezbollah fighters back and forth.

The sentiment toward the army as expressed by al-Nusra apparently isn’t harbored just by the Islamic militants.

Reports say that Lebanon’s Sunni community is blaming the army for ongoing shelling of militant strongholds, stoking further sectarian tensions which experts are concerned could escalate into sectarian fighting inside Lebanon as well.

Sunnis have been particularly incensed over a number of recent episodes in which the army either took Sunnis to task or sided with Hezbollah.

Sources say the opposition to the army is less sympathy for extremists than a perception the army is punishing Sunnis for backing the rebels while Hezbollah is allowed to continue aiding al-Assad.

Last June, for example, Lebanese soldiers clashed with followers of outspoken Sunni cleric Ahmad al-Assir, who opposes Hezbollah, and many of those members fought alongside the army.

Sources say that a large percentage of the Lebanese army is Shiite with officers being mostly Shiite and Christians, many of whom are allied with the Shiites.

Lebanon went through a civil war from 1975 to 1990, and the Lebanese are very reluctant to see history repeating itself. The country even now continues to rebuild the devastation resulting from that 15-year civil war.

President Obama is “arrogant” and his agenda regarding religious liberty and freedom of speech constitutes “cultural imperialism,” charges a senior fellow at a think tank for Concerned Women for America, the largest public policy women’s organization in the nation.

“In our system of government, it is not the prerogative of the president to declare what the law is or which laws will be enforced,” said Janice Shaw Crouse, senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute of the Concerned Women for America.

She is a recognized authority on domestic issues, the United Nations and cultural and women’s concerns and served as a U.S. delegate to the United Nationals Children’s Summit in 2002. She later was given a presidential appointment to the 2003 United Nations Commission on the Status of Woman, and she was a speech writer during the first Bush administration.

“I am not the only cultural commentator to have observed that this president has overstepped his authority in this area. In addition, it is not the president’s prerogative to say that his interpretation of human rights trumps religious liberty or freedom of speech. Further, it is not his prerogative to say that his interpretation of human rights trumps the centuries old cultural and religious traditions of other nations.”

Her comments, posted on the Concerned Women website, followed Obama’s statement that “homosexuality is a human right” in the context of Uganda’s new law criminalizing such behaviors.

She said she had an exchange with a reporter over the issue.

“My remarks were simply that the president of the United States has the responsibility to represent the entire nation. When he states his personal beliefs and values and presents those as representative of the United States of America, the full force of his office is behind those statements. …. Claiming that homosexuality is a ‘human right’ is an affront, even a mockery, of those Judeo-Christian values that have been the foundation of virtually all Western civilizations across time and cultures.”

Besides condemning Uganda’s internal political decisions, Obama has openly promoted homosexuality, first contributing to a decision by the Justice Department to undermine the federal Defense of Marriage Act. More recently, he told attorneys general of various states they should not feel obligated to defend their states’ traditional marriage laws if they believe they discriminate.

“The basic principles of religious liberty and freedom of speech are the context in which I criticized Mr. Obama,” Crouse wrote. “In this respect, Mr. Obama has been ‘arrogant,’ and his actions have constituted ‘cultural imperialism.’”

Lisa Fritsch and family

WASHINGTON – Lisa Fritsch became a conservative in the second grade and a Republican in college.

The tea-party mother of two and GOP gubernatorial candidate in Texas vividly remembers the day she asked her divorced mother to stop working a third job. Her mother had taken that job so her daughter could have tap shoes and piano lessons.

But the girl was embarrassed by her mother working at the Piggly Wiggly, and a friend told her they qualified for public assistance, which, she learned, would also mean better snacks and more toys.

When she asked her mother to quit and go on the dole, her mother abruptly stopped the car and defiantly declared,”I’d rather starve than go down the path of victimization where you might never have dignity in your life again.”

“That moment really transformed me,” Fritsch told WND.

Fritsch's mother, Debra Delley

So did that moment at the University of Texas when she realized she wasn’t just a woman of traditional values, she was a Republican.

Fritsch wanted to fit in when she arrived on the liberal campus, but she happened to have a Republican roommate who kept getting the best of her in their late-night political debates, so she decided to go to a Young Republicans meeting.

“I nervously sneaked into the back of the meeting, but it was hard to hide. As a six-foot-tall African-American woman, I kind of stood out,” she said it felt like the whole room turned and asked, ‘Who’s that?’”

But, Fritsch recalled, as they kept talking, “A light bulb went off, and I said, ‘Oh my goodness, these people sound like my mother.”

And, to her astonishment, she discovered, “I am a Republican!”

Fritsch said that’s when it all clicked and she began reading Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams and Larry Elder.

“I wanted to be part of the black conservative movement. I wanted to change, inspire and edify the black community, and show how policies of the left were really breaking down our value systems,” she said.

That led her to become a writer, then a talk-radio host and, eventually, a candidate for governor in Texas.

Fritsch is a seventh-generation Texan who lives with her two children and husband, Mike, in Austin.

Mike and Lisa Fritsch

She is striking in more ways than her height and looks. Fritsch speaks intelligently, passionately and eloquently about conservatism. She has an earnestness and charisma that some might find reminiscent of Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. It is obvious she cares greatly about conservative principles, American ideals and the fate of the nation. The Texan is strong-willed and a persuasive speaker, but also friendly and gracious.

Fritsch authored the book, “Obama, Tea Parties and God: What it means to be a an American, a Conservative and a Christian,” in which she described her experience with the tea party and her mixed feelings over the election of an African-American president whose views are so at odds with her own.

Liberals have often characterized tea-partiers as racist, so WND asked Fritsch about her own experiences with the movement.

“The tea party has been very kind to me,” she said. “They’ve invited me to speak. I’ve attended rallies, and they were kind, God-fearing, and weren’t angry, contrary to how they’re portrayed. It’s not an angry mob.”

She said they’re accused of racism just because most of them happen to be white. And, she noted, it’s not racism to have more than 100 people in the room talking about the Constitution and gun rights.

Fritsch said the tea-party meetings were much more educational than political, informing members about the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and “our founding principles and who we are and where we’ve come from.”

And, she observed, conservatives and Republicans have always been on the right side of history, from emancipating the slaves to the civil rights movement.

Fritsch campaigning

As a virtual unknown, her campaign for governor began as the longest of long shots. Shortly after Fritsch declared her candidacy, she barely registered a blip in the polls. Her own polling now shows her at 22.7 percent and GOP establishment candidate Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott at 56 percent.

If she can get Abbott below 50 percent by the March 4 primary, she can force a runoff and have a real chance at pulling off a major upset. It’s the same strategy that propelled then-underdog Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to victory in 2012 when he was an unknown and under-funded outsider taking on a GOP establishment candidate who had a double-digit lead in the polls. The runoff gave Cruz time to raise his profile, raise funds and attract key endorsements.

It’s also the same strategy that has fellow-conservative Texan and long-shot Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, on the verge of forcing a runoff with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the second-most powerful Republican in the Senate.

Fristsch and supporters

“We definitely think a runoff is possible,” said Fritsch. “Our ground campaign is out in force, building coalitions and running ads. Once people hear about us, they have been overwhelmingly choosing us. We really are depending on a core, grassroots-effort to turn-out voters who want change. Fifty percent of voters are still undecided, so we find that very encouraging.”

Fritsch is making her mark. Even while endorsing Abbott as the presumptive nominee, the Dallas Morning News warned him to “listen carefully to one primary opponent, Lisa Fritsch, who speaks with precision and passion about recasting the GOP as a true opportunity party built from conservative values.”

The Texas gubernatorial race will be a big national news story in November because the likely Democratic nominee will be State Sen. Wendy Davis, who became famous for her 11-hour pro-abortion filibuster in the state Senate last June. Davis is the leading figure in a huge push by Democrats called “Battleground Texas” to turn the Lone Star state from a “red” state into a “blue” one.

Fritsch told WND it’s not an accident that Wendy Davis became a national sensation in the way she did, noting that she had also done a filibuster on an education bill without making news.

“It wasn’t until she did a filibuster on that pro-life bill that she rose to national stardom,” Fritsch said. “This shows you that this is a spiritual battle.”

And the chance to fight the spiritual battle is why Fritsch got into politics.

“I really want to speak to the life issue, because that’s why God compelled me to run,” she said.

Fritsch supporters in prayer

For Fritsch, it is all a matter of faith. She said her political career is really a spiritual calling.

“I believe we are all created equally,” she said. “I believe we are created by God. I believe that in that creation He destined and purposed individual persons toward a unique and meaningful role to play on Earth. And every life is valuable and has meaning. And I believe we should never give up hope that a person can be better, can choose better and can live better.”

She noted that the founding tenets of the republic acknowledge the belief that all men are created equal, and that is expressed in the Bible’s Golden Rule.

“We really need to get back to loving our neighbors as ourselves,” she said. “It’s very simple. It’s not political. Desiring the best for every person. All of these issues are one issue.”

That’s why she said she believes so wholeheartedly that this is a spiritual fight.

“When I asked God, you know, ‘Why me? I’m not a politician. I don’t even know where to start,’ He said, ‘That’s exactly why I’m calling you. It’s a spiritual battle. It’s not about politics.’

“And what I need to get done, a regular politician cannot do that. And so, with every policy I have put in place, every person I’ve reached out to, or talked to, every organization, it’s all been spirit-led, it’s all been led by Him.”

As an example, she cites the pro-life mission. To win that battle, she said, conservatives must stop speaking in legalese about esoteric Supreme Court cases and start taking their case to the streets.

“Go into these urban communities and tout life as a miracle, invest in these young women, invest in their futures, and let them know that we believe their lives have meaning and purpose, and their bodies are a miracle and teach not just what it means to have an abortion. Teach life. Teach purpose,” she urged.

“That is the path to victory for the Republican Party in the 21st century.”

But, she warned, the GOP has a branding problem and the party needs an overhaul.

“We do things that play into the left’s hands all the time,” Fritsch said. “A recent example is the ‘war on women,’ which we know doesn’t exist. This is a fabrication.” She said the real problem is one of message, because, “The public needs to be able to trust that this party gets it.”

How would she suggest the GOP draw more minorities into the party?

“It’s not enough for us in this party anymore to criticize the left for giving all the fish away – we’ve got to step up and be the party that teaches people how to fish.”

And the party can’t just wait for minorities to come to them, based on the appeal of the conservative message. Fritsch said conservatives have to go out and make contacts, make the pitch for the conservative philosophy, make connections and establish ties and common interests in urban communities.

The GOP has to show minorities “we do believe in growth and opportunity” and “these values can work.” Republicans must show minorities how the conservative philosophy can translate into tangible benefits and that providing economic opportunities is more than just talk. The GOP has to prove conservatism has real benefits.

“I wouldn’t do this if I didn’t believe conservative values have the power to transform and uplift communities out of poverty and break the cycle of victimization and dependency,” she said. “That’s the only reason for me to be doing this, and I feel we are losing the ability to articulate that.”

Why did Fritsch decide to run for governor?

“First of all, because Wendy Davis is running and because of the candidates we had,” she replied. “We didn’t have the leadership we needed to recognize that the battle ahead, in Texas and across the nation, frankly, is a spiritual battle and not a political battle.”

She said the GOP leadership doesn’t understand Republicans have been losing to candidates they should be beating. And, for Fritsch, it always returns to a matter of spirituality.

“We are in a fight for the hearts and minds of people in this nation,” she said. “And until we recognize that it’s about winning over those hearts and minds, we will not win elections. That’s why I am running.”

The mother of two said she is very concerned that Texas is in trouble with this particular race and that the Republican Party is also in trouble.

“I think the status quo has really underestimated the force of ‘Battleground Texas,’ the get-out-the-vote effort, their organization, their finances, and they’ve taken it for granted that Texas is a conservative, red state,” Fritsch said.

She also thought the Republican Party needed a “more exciting candidate, a solution-oriented candidate, not a career politician, who would fight back spiritually and make this office about the people again, in order to counteract ‘Battleground Texas’ and Wendy Davis.”

Fritsch said she believes it’s not just about 2014; it’s about the Republican Party being relevant into the 21st century.

The party needs leaders who can “reach out beyond the base to demographics who share our values but who have been rejecting us,” she explained. “We are not going to be able to do it the way candidates are campaigning right now and the way we are nominating candidates, which is having people take turns and pass the baton down, for offices. It’s bad for the party. It’s not the right way to lead in Texas. And, frankly, people are getting fed-up with that kind of system.”

And what is the difference between her and the frontrunner, Abbott?

She believes Texas needs leadership that is “not beholden to special interests and certain friendships.”

“I am accountable only to the people of Texas,” Fritsch said. “To people who say I have little experience, I see that as an advantage, in this case. We need an actual conservative.”

She pointed out that in Texas, despite having a GOP-controlled House and Senate and a Republican governor, spending rose 26 percent higher than the rate of population increase. And the government even grew, as the number of state agencies increased.

“Career politicians are having trouble staying true to conservatism because they are part of the system. I am not part of the system,” she explained.

“I compare it to the way Ted Cruz was able to go to Washington based on advocating just for the people. A lot of people asked why John Cornyn hasn’t sided more with Cruz, and that’s probably because he’s in the system. I am not criticizing Cornyn; I am just saying when you are not a career politician, you are in a better position to answer to the people. When you’ve been a career politician for 20 years, you don’t know anymore, frankly, what it is like to be a citizen. You’re just disconnected, I think, from everyday life.”

Her priorities in Texas begin with reducing a poverty rate of 18.5 percent, which Fritsch finds too high for a “state that is the eight-largest economy (in the world). That’s a very poor number. We need an economic policy that champions both growth and opportunity.”

She also wants to reform immigration by securing the border first, then offering illegal-immigrant workers some kind of documented worker status that doesn’t lead to citizenship.

“I also want to build a wall around the welfare state, not just the border. What I mean is, in order to receive benefits, you have to be a legal resident. That cuts off the underground economy and allows people to pay taxes and play by the rules. If you don’t come up with some workable solution, we have a de facto amnesty.”

Who does Fritsch admire, and who influenced her?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher is the first name she mentioned. Her admiration for the late British prime minister was abundant and appeared to see a kindred spirit in the strong-willed leader.

“She stepped into a system that was not ready for her, as the shopkeeper’s daughter. She fought the good fight. She saw that Great Britain had to stand firm, and she was much more interested in being courageous than in being comfortable. Of course, she paid a price for that.”

Fritsch also revered her great-grandparents, who had five girls born between 1928 and 1932, and put all of them through college. Noting that it all happened during the Depression and before the civil-rights era, “I think that’s quite impressive, considering all they’ve been through.”

And, of course, the Texan was greatly influenced by her strong mother, “who soldiered on despite being mocked for the hard line she took.”

“I was the first person to go to college on her side of the family,” Fritsch said. “Once I went to college, she went back and put herself through school, and got her master’s degree.”

And what is it like to run for the governor of Texas?

Davy Crockett

“The thing people say the most that, frankly, irritates me a bit is, ‘Gosh, this must be so hard.’ My answer is that I don’t think about the struggle. I think about the fruits we’d be able to bear if we were able to win this hard-fought victory. If more people would stop worrying about things being so hard, our country would be in a much better place.”

She mentioned how hard it must have been for our forefathers to come here with nothing, not even knowing whether they would survive.

“Think of how hard it was for Davy Crockett to defend the Alamo or Rosa Parks to make her stand,” she said. “If I don’t answer the call to do what’s right, at the right time, we won’t give history a chance to show how much better things could be.

“So many people have paved the way for me, it is a privilege and an honor to be running for this office and championing values I believe in. And, at the end of the day, I want my children and grandchildren knowing I didn’t just go on the radio and complain, ‘Why didn’t somebody do something?’ and say, ‘We need a candidate.’

“So, I stepped up to be that person.”

Follow Garth Kant on Twitter @DCgarth

"Duck Dynasty" star Willie Robertson at 22nd Annual Movieguide Awards

Watching celebrities stroll the red carpet in all their glitz and glamor may be fun, but it sure isn’t family friendly these days.

This year, the Grammy Awards featured America’s top musicians but also included an overtly sexual performance by Beyonce and a mass, same-sex wedding. The Academy Awards, meanwhile, are scheduled to honor some of America’s best motion pictures but will also heap praise on sex- and obscenity-laden films like “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “American Hustle.”

There is, however, an alternative: A David of an awards show taking on the Goliaths of Hollywood in an effort to transform both the entertainment industry and the culture for the better.

On Saturday, March 1, nearly 70 million American households will be able to watch the 22nd Annual Movieguide Awards Gala, exclusively on the REELZChannel.

The program airs at 2 p.m. Eastern/11 a.m. Pacific and features all the red carpet glamor, but none of the bawdy performances of the Grammys, Oscars and other awards shows. And instead of golden statues given to films that corrupt America’s character, the Movieguide Awards will grant a crystal “Teddy” – named after Movieguide founder Ted Baehr – to films and television programs that affirm faith and values and tell the kind of positive, redemptive stories America’s movie audiences predominately prefer.

Discover Dr. Ted Baehr’s fascinating guide to the filmmaking industry, “How to Succeed in Hollywood (Without Losing Your Soul)” – autographed – at the WND SuperStore!

“This year’s star-studded Gala is hosted by actor-comedian Bill Engvall,” Baehr told WND, “with appearances by, among others, ‘Duck Dynasty’ stars Korie and Willie Robertson, ‘The Bible’s’ Roma Downey and Mark Burnett and emotional performances by Billy Ray Cyrus and Joni Eareckson Tada, who exclusively performs for us the Oscar-nominated yet disqualified song, ‘Alone Yet Not Alone.’”

One look at the lists of nominees reveals the stark contrast between films that win an Oscar and those that win a “Teddy.” Among the nine nominees for the top Oscar are six R-rated films, including “American Hustle,” “Her” and “The Wolf of Wall Street,” which may have set a record for foul language with at least 506 F-bombs and over 100 other obscenities in its 180 minutes.

The Movieguide Awards, meanwhile, includes among its nominees movies like “Frozen,” “Black Nativity,” “Grace Unplugged” and “42″ instead (to be fair, the films “Gravity” and “Captain Phillips” made both the Oscars and the Movieguide lists), while also honoring television programs like “The Bible,” “Duck Dynasty” and “Christmas in Conway.”

Earlier this month WND attended the Movieguide Awards ceremony in Universal City, Calif., and spoke to the red carpet crowd about what else makes the Movieguide awards different from the Oscars.

“It’s an award ceremony that celebrates the experience of making films that are trying to make a cultural difference,” said actor Corbin Bernsen of “L.A. Law” and “Psych” fame, one of the presenters at the ceremony. “I simply hope that I can be a part of a community that says, ‘There is a flipside of humanity that we don’t see every day. There’s pain and sorrow and suffering, and there’s wrong and there’s darkness, but at the same time there is light and there is hope and there is love and there is compassion.’”

A.J. Michalka at Movieguide Awards

The award-winning actress, singer and star of “Grace Unplugged,” A.J. Michalka, said that whether they know it or not, “audiences are yearning for something that is deeper than just entertainment in that moment and then leaving the theater and not really feeling anything when they leave.”

“I think people yearn for something that is going to teach them and help them grow in life – not just entertainment, but something that makes them think afterward, maybe start up a conversation that they might not have had,” she said. “And that’s what movies like ‘Grace Unplugged’ are doing.”

Roma Downey, the actress who played the angel Monica on “Touched by an Angel” and co-produced the blockbuster TV miniseries “The Bible,” told WND she was honored to be nominated for Movieguide’s Grace Award, given to the actor who delivered “the best, most inspiring performance expressing God’s grace and love toward us as human beings” – for her role as Mary, the mother of Christ, in “The Bible.”

“I just love the name of [the Grace Award],” Downey said. “I have tried to channel grace in my life, and I have been fortunate to be a messenger on ‘Touched by an Angel’ for 10 years, playing an angel and delivering a message of God’s love; and it was that same message we wanted to communicate in ‘The Bible’ series and now with our feature film, ‘Son of God.’”

And unlike the Academy Awards, which shockingly yanked its nomination of the faith-themed song “Alone Yet Not Alone” after furious complaints from Hollywood, the Movieguide Awards gave the powerful hymn top billing with a live performance by Joni Eareckson Tada.

Organizers said while “Oscar” may not want the song, viewers of the upcoming telecast of the Movieguide Awards will see the original artist performing it.

Joni Eareckson Tada at Movieguide Awards

Eareckson Tada told WND she’s seen the hand of God work within the controversy, and like the story of Joseph in the book of Genesis, what could have been meant for evil may really be turned to good.

“The song was never meant to win awards, but to communicate a message of God’s faithfulness and love,” she told WND at the Movieguide Awards. “And now because of the decision, more people have heard about ‘Alone Yet Not Alone’ than may have heard otherwise, so the message is reaching out to more and more people.”

Watch Eareckson Tada’s performance, as well as performances by A.J. Michalka, Billy Ray Cyrus, Jacob Latimore, Richie Sambora and more during the Movieguide Awards on Saturday, March 1, at 2 p.m. Eastern/11 a.m. Pacific, exclusively on the REELZChannel.