John McCann admits to The Record that he’s pro-abortion/anti-gun rights.

From our very first interview with congressional candidate John McCann, we found him to be a very different kind of Republican candidate.  Here are some curious FACTS about McCann:

John McCann was recruited from a Democrat office to run in the Republican primary for Congress.  That’s right, McCann was a $151,000 a year (plus benefits) Bergen County patronage employee – working for a Democrat office holder in a Democrat-controlled county – when he was plucked from obscurity to challenge long time conservative Steve Lonegan. 

McCann, an attorney, had a deal with his Democrat employers that was so good that they allowed him to collect $498,000 in “fees” in one year – that’s in addition to his full-time salary (with benefits).  That’s right, he owed the Democrats a lot.

John McCann is the hand-picked candidate of a party boss who was convicted on public corruption charges and sent to prison.  Read more on that here:

John McCann’s political consultant is a Democrat who ran the campaigns of some of the most far-left candidates in his state’s history.  McCann’s campaign chair is a liberal pro-abortion acolyte of former Governor Christie Whitman.  McCann’s campaign manager holds contracts from Democrat politicians

Now comes the latest…

Since his campaign began, John McCann has flipped back and forth on where he stands on abortion and guns.  A long time pro-choicer on abortion and advocate for gun-control, McCann started his campaign embracing those positions in order to give his candidacy clear blue water between him and Lonegan.  He even argued that a Pro-Lifer/ Pro-Gun guy like Lonegan couldn’t win.

Then they did a poll…  McCann’s team sat their candidate down and told him to lie.  To his credit, he showed some reluctance in public… but his campaign communications and especially his campaign mail hasn’t.  It’s been a full on lie and a remarkably disciplined lie so far as the campaign is concerned.

But then you have the candidate.  He gets caught in these interviews, where he reverts to form – to the positions on Life and the Second Amendment that McCann has held all his life and that are dear to him.  A case in point, was Friday’s Bergen Record.  Here, read it for yourself…

Lonegan is staunchly pro-life, and recently told an audience at the Knights of Columbus in Fair Lawn that he'd support every anti-abortion bill that came before him. He's tried to tag McCann as being pro-choice, but McCann says the label doesn't fit.  

"I believe that life begins at conception," McCann said.

But when asked whether he would support any future bill to further limit abortion, McCann indicated he would not. 

"The law is what is," he said. 

Hey, that’s NOT Pro-Life.  That is pro-status quo, which equals, pro-abortion.

Now on guns:

Both candidates wrap themselves in the Second Amendment right to bear arms. McCann favors requiring universal background checks on perspective [sic] gun buyers but Lonegan opposes them they would  just "add another layer of bureaucracy."

Ditto on the Second Amendment.

Here read the whole article for yourselves:

Too bad the New Jersey Family Policy Council chose the day after this Bergen Record article hit to do an attack on Steve Lonegan and an endorsement of John McCann as a pro-lifer that clearly fell outside the group’s non-profit guidelines.  It looks like John McCann, the candidate, couldn’t help himself and ended up screwing the reputation of the NJFPC and its leadership.  Who ever sweet-talked the NJFPC into doing this has a lot to answer for.

John McCann’s financial disclosure leaves unanswered questions

Congressional candidate John McCann finally got around to filing his required personal financial disclosure statement with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives after his failure to do so on time was brought to the public’s attention by the New Jersey media. True to the halting and uncertain style of his campaign, McCann filed his twice… on the same day.

Of interest is the odd way in which he reported his own income.  First, McCann confused his reporting requirements with those of his spouse – and filed as if she were the candidate:


Later that same day, he filed his already late disclosure statement, only this time he included his income:


Hey Republicans!  Look how much John McCann made working for the Democrat Sheriff of Bergen County.  Doesn’t it make you a little queasy?

And what does “fees” mean?  How do you earn $498,545 in “fees” while working full-time on the Bergen County payroll?  Is this going to be one of those deals where this guy bills for more hours than there are in a day?

Under the source of income, McCann simply writes “Practice”.  What does that mean?  And is he even following the law?  The law and the instructions that accompany the financial statement are very clear on how to report income:


So what’s the deal?  Why has John McCann failed to fully disclose the source of nearly $700,000 in income?

And if “practice” refers to McCann’s law practice, why is it that earlier in the disclosure statement he reports its value as so little?


And why does he report that his law practice had no income?

None of it makes any sense, which is kind of the norm with John McCann.

The madness continues…

Did McCann pay for an endorsement? Aide says, "yes".

John McCann's campaign did themselves a mischief again. 

This time by shopping around a story to the Washington Examiner about McCann's recent fundraiser with Sebastian Gorka, a former foreign policy advisor at the White House who was fired by the Trump administration after a few months on the job.  The Examiner story leads with the following headline: 

"Sebastian Gorka wades into New Jersey primary for another $5,000."

The article ends with:

"Before supporting McCann in New Jersey, (Gorka) looked west, endorsed Republican Danny Tarkanian in Nevada — then a candidate for Senate — and collected another $5,000 in “speaking fees.” Asked in February whether he sold his endorsement to Tarkanian, Gorka said it was an “honorarium” and added that an endorsement sale “would be illegal.” 

When reached for comment for this story, Gorka answered: “Get a life you hack. You’re not a journalist so I have nothing to say to you and I’m blocking this email.”

Brutal stuff... which led to this morning's Politico story in which McCann claims to deny everything his campaign told the Examiner:

MCCANCEL PAYMENT -  The Washington Examiner, a conservative publication,  reports  via an anonymous campaign aide that 5th District Congressional candidate John McCann paid former Trump adviser Rick Gorka, who endorsed him and raised money for him, $5,000. McCann denies this on Twitter. "This not true. FEC filings will show my campaign did not pay Gorka a penny. The statement by my aide is simply not true." I've been waiting for McCann's FEC report because Gorka has a history of being paid not for his endorsement but, ahem,  a "speaking fee."  Of course, McCann or Gorka could have headed off that Washington Examiner story that McCann says is false if either had answered my question about whether Gorka was being paid when I asked it two weeks ago.

The conduct of the McCann campaign has raised eyebrows before.  Some key consultants on the campaign have bragged to some very reputable people about what they were being paid by McCann -- and yet their names never appeared on the McCann campaign's disclosures to the Federal Election Commission (FEC).  Now we have this Gorka affair.

Well, they don't call him "Stumbling John" McCann for nothing.  Shambolic. 

McCann gets support from weird sources outside NJ

Candidate John McCann is endorsed by an Arizona politician who opposed religious freedom .  In 2014, Jan Brewer became notorious for her flip flop on religious freedom -- opposing legislation (SB-1062) that gave individuals and legal entities an exemption from state law if it substantially burdened their exercise of religion. 

McCann's supporter allowed government to force people to do things that run counter to their religious beliefs and placed commerce above spirituality.  Despite these efforts, SB-1062 was passed by a large majority in both houses of the Arizona legislature. 

Another indication of where the McCann campaign is heading is his embrace of Dr. Darrell Scott.

John McCann's campaign released a statement that reads:  "Dr. Darrell Scott endorses John McCann for Congress."

Who is Darrell Scott? 

His Wikipedia page states:  "As a minor, Scott aspired to be a drug dealer and pimp; Scott sold drugs, used cocaine, stole automobiles and took his father's 9mm pistol to school at age 16 and was expelled for it.  While in his 20's, Scott became a born again Christian after being inspired by his wife who was born again months earlier, after a neighbor had urged her to attend church. 

Scott is the founder and pastor of New Spirit Revival Center, in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.  Scott's non-denominational church operates out of a former Jewish Synagogue built in 1924, a 115k square foot facility, that has a daycare, banquet hall and radio station, with 3,500 members as of 2005.  The radio station broadcasts under call sign WCCD (1000 AM) – branded Radio 1000. WCCD."

In the 2016 presidential election, Darrell Scott became a prominent African-American supporter of Donald Trump.  Speaking of Darrell Scott, candidate John McCann said: "Dr. Scott is an inspirational leader fighting for change in Washington.  I look forward to going to Washington to work with our President and Dr. Scott to revitalize our communities and win for every American."

What does this mean?

Well, in March of last year, Darrell Scott suggested to the President of the United States that he was in contact with the "top gang thugs" in Chicago and that they would agree to "lower the body count" if the Trump administration would agree to "come and do some social programs."

Yeah, no kidding.

There was a huge and damaging (to Trump) outcry over these comments and Darrell Scott had to walk them back.  His excuse was that he was tired when he made the comments.

Here is a video and story from Fox News in Chicago:

But what we're interested in is where that title "Doctor" comes from.  As Darrell Scott is a pastor, we are quite content to honor him with the title "Reverend," but "Doctor" indicates that he holds a "Doctorate" in some subject and Wikipedia doesn't list any institution of higher education that he attended. 

So we looked into it a bit, and we discovered that Darrell Scott's "doctorate" is an honorary one, from an unaccredited institution.  Out of respect for Darrell Scott, we will not go into the details, but we suggest to the McCann campaign that they update their statement to read "Rev. Darrell Scott" and leave "Dr." for those who have earned that title.