We've detailed how WorldNetDaily has been a faithful supporter of Tom Tancredo, even publishing a book by him and urging him to run for president. WND editor Joseph Farah has sycophantically written about him: "He's a maverick. He marches to the beat of his own drummer. He's not afraid to criticize members of his own party – including his president. And that's what I love about him."
It bills itself as a "civil rights" organization. It would be more appropriate to say it disguises itself as such. It camouflages itself as such. It hides its real purpose and true intents as such – with the willing and skillful assistance of many of my media colleagues.
In reality, La Raza is a racist hate group – a band of "Hispanic supremacists," if you will, though it is seldom characterized that way.
It is no more a civil rights group than the Ku Klux Klan is a group promoting the civil rights of white people. It is no more a civil rights group than the neo-Nazi scum who marched a generation ago at Skokie, Ill., with the legal protection of the American Civil Liberties Union, another misnamed organization. It is no more a civil rights group than the Aryan skinheads who victimize Jews and others they detest in trying to lift themselves up from the gutter.
La Raza is part of the movement in this country to destroy it from within by dividing and "reconquering."
Its members and leadership are linked directly to those who believe the Southwestern U.S. was unjustly seized from Mexico in the 19th century. It should, they believe, by any means necessary, be reconstituted either as part of that thoroughly corrupt, socialist regime fled by tens of millions of refugees or as an independent, autonomous, Spanish-speaking socialist state – like the mythical land of Aztlan.
The only real differences between La Raza and the neo-Nazis and the KKK are its wealth, power and level of sophistication.
Farah also marches in lockstep with his right-wing fellow travelers by taking Sonia Sotomayor's words out of context in asserting that she said that "Latina women judges are better than white men judges." Farah shows no evidence of having read the entirety of Sotomayor's 2001 speech in which she made that remark, because if he had, he would know that Sotomayor was specifically referring to the importance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases.
Farah similarly regurgitates right-wing talking points by takes Sotomayor's statement that the federal court of appeals "is where policy is made" out of context to claim that Sotomayor "has no respect for the rule of law and the constitutional limits on the judiciary branch of government. In short, she believes it is perfectly appropriate for judges to make policy, legislate from the bench, create new law where none has previously existed." It appears that Farah hasn't read that speech either; in fact, Sotoamyor was explaining the difference between district courts and appeals courts, and even the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States acknowledges that federal appellate courts do in fact have a "policy making" role.