WND Whitewashes Racism of The Afrikaners It Quotes Topic: WorldNetDaily
A June 15 WorldNetDaily article by Alex Newman (who normally writes for the New American, the magazine published by the far-right John Birch Society, which tells you the standards WND is hiring writers by these days) worries about "the future of increasingly marginalized European-descent South Africans." But the people Newman quotes in support of that view tend to be right-wing extremists.
Hundreds of thousands of economically excluded Afrikaners now live in squalid squatter camps throughout South Africa without so much as running water or electricity.
Hundreds of thousands more have fled to Western nations seeking a better life.
“The advent of black rule has been devastating for whole groups of whites, even highly educated ones,” Dan Roodt of the Pro-Afrikaans Action Group, PRAAG, told WND.
To provide a clue as to where Roodt's racial views lie, he wrote a 2012 article for the white nationalist website American Renaissancein which he approvingly quotes AmRen leader Jared Taylor asking that "the Republican Party be loyal to its electorate and become the unabashed champion of white interests" and writes, "We need to form a global network to keep America from falling into the hands of anti-white zealots. ... If the United States goes the way of South Africa, whites everywhere will be in danger."
Roodt was also a fellow traveler of Eugene Terreblanche, a white supremacist (and favorite of WND columnist Ilana Mercer) who headed the militant Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB) until he was killed by two black farmhands.
Newman also writes:
For an increasingly significant segment of the population, it is becoming clearer that today’s South Africa is simply not sustainable in the long term.
“South Africa is a colonial construct, currently an incompatible, unsustainable mix,” International Afrikaner Society President Hannes Louw told WND.
Louw is reportedly a speaker at this weekend's national conference of the League of the South, the neo-Confederate fringe group that advocates for a second Southern secession and a society dominated by “European Americans.”
Newman also touts how Genocide Watch "raised its alert level on South Africa to stage 6 out of 8 – the planning and preparation phase of the extermination process" without mentioning that the group lowered the level to stage 5 due to developments within the country.
Finally, Newman seems to want to play down the offensive parts of apartheid, describing its end in 1994 as "when the Western establishment and Soviet powers finally succeeded in forcing the anti-communist, white-dominated government to relinquish power."
Newsmax Columnist: TSA's Groping Softened Us Up for NSA's Snooping Topic: Newsmax
Here’s a question I asked myself yesterday: Would I rather have my phone records collected and readied for possible inspection by the National Security Agency, or have my genitalia scrutinized by the Transportation Security Administration?
One answer, of course, is, why choose? In today’s America you can have both.
But my preference is the latter, and not only because the TSA Genitalia-Inspection Service has been doing its business on me (and you, too!) for years now and I’ve grown used to it in the way that Americans too readily accept indignities foisted on them by large institutions, including, but not limited to, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Homeland Security, and Facebook.
Here’s my reasoning: It is better, I think, to suffer the stick-’em-up humiliation of the TSA’s naked body scan machines, because while they can see through our clothes, at least they can’t see inside our heads. Not yet, anyway.
Obama’s goal is stomping out all opposition. That’s his end game – and he has been and continues to use every component of the federal government to achieve it.
What Obama most fears is that people will recognize his objectives – and they are beginning to do just that.
When he tells you to “reject those voices,” he’s like the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. He doesn’t want his constituency to see reality. He doesn’t want you to recognize that tyranny is indeed lurking around the corner – or even closer than that. He especially doesn’t want to people to recognize that he is the face of that tyranny.
In its impact on both our international and our domestic security and welfare, Obama’s abusive occupation of the White House casts a grim shadow over the prospects for the survival of America’s constitutional liberty. In what has been dubbed the system of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution, impeachment is the ultimate check, intended to impede or stop dangerous abuses before they have gathered such force, in terms of inimical foreign and domestic powers, that they can be resisted by no means short of civil war. By failing to carry out their responsibility to deploy this constitutionally strategic resource, the GOP is allowing an ever deepening cloud of distrust, suspicion, anger and fear to spread throughout the body politic. To be sure, every new revelation of abuse rouses the people’s concern and anger. But the other edge of the sword is the chilling effect it may have on people more inclined to fear than to resist what they perceive as a growing and unchallenged reality of power.
So there is no media pressure to bring the matter to court, and no political pressure either. A state of such fear and funk now subsists in the United States that no one will touch the birth certificate issue.
And that is a shame, because the in-your-face forged “birth certificate” is arguably the biggest news story of our generation. In defiance of your Constitution, the current occupant of the White House clings to office even though his endorsement of the bogus document creates serious doubt about whether he is entitled to hold that office, and still more serious doubt about his fitness to hold it even if he were constitutionally entitled.
Presuming ignorance of Obama’s Marxism, we still have common-sense deductions, such as: If the administration were genuinely concerned about national security, it stands to reason that it would have refrained from enacting innumerable policies which dramatically compromised our national security. The president might not have projected weak foreign policy, facilitated jihadists abroad, tolerated them domestically and insinuated Muslim Brotherhood operatives in high-level government positions. How, with all of their expertise and technology, was the government unable to stop two kids with bombs in their backpacks – of whom the FBI were already aware – from detonating them in Boston on the 15th of April?
The Obama faction is now openly engaged in a campaign to use the power of the U.S. government to overthrow the U.S. Constitution. Because they have not or will not let themselves be tutored by America’s founders, the GOP majority in the House of Representatives is showing itself to be incompetent to deal with it. Obama’s disciples of Marx and Saul Alinsky every day parade abuses infuriating to a solid majority of the American people. But instead of a strategic response that rallies this aggrieved majority in defense of America’s liberty, the so-called leaders of the party that claims to stand in opposition to Obama’s push for totalitarian socialism offer a ragged, piecemeal response.
This isn’t a left or right issue. This is about freedom. This is about the rule of law. Barack Obama has exposed himself as an enemy of the Constitution, an enemy of the American people – all of the American people – whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican.
Liberals, let’s agree to disagree where we disagree. Likewise, let’s agree to agree where we agree.
Let’s come together and do something about America’s Barack Obama problem.
CNS Finds Even More 'Wasteful' Spending on LGBT Issues Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's specialgaydar for finding supposedly wasteful federal spending on LGBT issues has kicked in again:
A June 14 article by Melanie Hunter states that "The State Department through its Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) is planning to spend $450,000 in taxpayer dollars 'to support programs that increase protection of transgender persons who face acute forms of violence and harassment.'"
A June 17 article by Ryan Kierman states: "The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has authorized a three-year study to find out why some HIV-positive homosexual men in Kenya do not seek the free treatment that American taxpayers already are funding."
Of the 27 articles currently on CNS' Waste Watch page, six involve LGBT issues. This doesn't include two early "Waste Watch" entries involving health issues of lesbians. CNS doesn't explain why these programs -- or any of the others on its list -- are considered "waste."
Earlier this week, I filed two class actions lawsuits over the NSA’s PRISM scheme. Here is how one of my press releases described the cases and the large stakes involved.
“Having already filed a $3 billion class action with regard to the alleged government privacy abuse by the Obama administration and Verizon, Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, and a former Justice Department prosecutor, filed a new $20 billion dollar companion class action suit in D.C. federal court today. Like the prior class action suit concerning Verizon, this new case names President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, the heads of the NSA and the 12 other companies who have collaborated with the government in violating the privacy and other constitutional rights of American citizens. The companies named in the suit which are tied to the government’s PRISM-NSA scheme are: Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Skype, YouTube, Apple, PalTalk, AOL, and Yahoo. The users and subscribers of these companies comprise, combined with the Verizon class plaintiffs, a majority of the entire U.S. citizenry and thus these complementary class action suits pit the American people against their government and corporate enablers.”
“This and the Verizon class action will serve to unify all political and social persuasions in our great nation to wage a second American revolution, one that is peaceful and legal – but pursued with great resolve and force. Government dishonesty and tyranny against the people have reached historic proportions during the last three administrations in particular, and the time has come for We the People to rise up and reclaim control of our nation. If not, the government will control us, and this will mark the end of individual liberties. The American people can thus use these class actions to ‘man the barricades of freedom’ against the establishment government despots and their corporate enablers who seek to enslave them through coercive abuses their privacy. This Orwellian power grab can only be intended to blackmail the masses into submission in order that these modern day greedy tyrants achieve their corrupt ends.” [See www.freedomwatchusa.org.]
Has Klayman turned into the new Andy Martin in terms of deluded self-regard and legal incompetence? It appears so.
NewsBusters' Double Standard on Conflicts of Interest Topic: NewsBusters
A June 15 NewsBusters post by John Williams complains that "NPR’s rising young celebrity-like star Ari Shapiro, White House Correspondent," has been allowed to stay in that position despite the fact that his spouse, Michael Gottlieb, works in the Obama White House Counsel’s office. "Despite this, NPR has kept Shapiro in the same position as White House Correspondent and has never disclosed on-air or on its website this significant conflict of interest," Williams adds.
Williams' complaint might be taken more seriously if he and his fellow NewsBusters weren't ignoring media conflicts of interest on their own side of the aisle.
In a NewsBusters item posted just a few hours before Williams' item, Randy Hall touts how Fox News host Greta Van Susteren is "delighted" to have Sarah Palin back at Fox as a contributor because "it will drive her critics crazy! They are obsessed with her!”
Unmentioned by Hall or anyone else at NewsBusters: Van Susteren's husband, John Coale, has served as an adviser to Palin, starting both her political action committee, SarahPAC, and her legal defense fund. Coale also rode along with Palin on parts of her 2011 bus tour.
That seems like a conflict of interest that should be disclosed, but NewsBusters is apparently giving Van Susteren a pass because she works for a right-wing-friendly channel.
A June 13 WorldNetDaily article used the hook of a (Hebrew-only) profile of Aaron Klein in an Israeli newspaper to push the dubious claim that Klein is "quickly becoming somewhat of a media sensation – in Israel." The article features this interesting tidbit:
Klein told the paper why he thinks covering the U.S. while living in Tel Aviv is advantageous.
“I have a major advantage being in Israel,” Klein told the Post. “For example when a child is raised in a dysfunctional household, sometimes he doesn’t realize the reality of the situation until he leaves and takes a look at things from the outside. Being here in Israel I have the advantage of exploring U.S. politics with a proper perspective, where I can see things far more clearly.”
What have WND readers gotten from Klein's "proper persective" of covering the U.S. while living halfway across the world?
CNS Repeats Bogus Claim About Obama Administration Salaries Topic: CNSNews.com
At CNSNews.com, a good lie about President Obama is always worth repeating.
In a June 10 CNS blog post, Joe Schoffstall wrote that "The White House is calling for the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, citing that women earn just 77 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts," but "the Obama Administration doesn't seem to live up to its own words; as men are paid 13 percent more than women in the administration."
As we pointed out when CNS' Fred Lucas made the same exact claim earlier this year that Schoffstall regurgitates, PolitiFact detailed how the simple salary division by gender is that it doesn't take into account the types of jobs being done and the much more important question of whether women are making the same as men for the same job. In most of the White House job categories held by more than one person, most show no difference between pay for men and women, eight categories showed a man slightly outearning a woman, and six categories showed a woman outearning a man.
But apparently, as long as the misleading statistics bash Obama, that's whaty Schoffstall and CNS will run with.
WND Columnist Promotes 'Pork-Infused' Ammo Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jeff Knox writes in his June 13 WorldNetDaily column:
So how do you deal with religious extremists who believe that dying for their faith is an Express Ticket to Paradise? Killing them seems to just give them what they think they want. Only wounding them, as in this recent case, leaves the messy business of a public trial, and in a “civilized” country like England, where they have abolished the death penalty, it means that these young men will probably live out their lives as wards of the government, living martyrs for their cause and teachers for future generations of young Muslim hooligans who will sit at their feet in taxpayer-funded, prison “Islamic study centers.”
A company in northern Idaho has come up with a culturally sensitive approach. Jihawg Ammo has developed a proprietary system for infusing ballistic paint with pork. The special pork-infused paint is then applied to the bullets of loaded ammunition. The inclusion of pork in the paint makes the bullets haraam, or unclean. Under Islamic law, anyone who comes in contact with any haraam item is then unclean and must engage in a cleansing ritual. No unclean person can be admitted into Paradise. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 72 virgins.
Knox then laughably adds:
The objective of Jihawg Ammo is not to insult Muslims, nor even to send a terrorist to Hell. The objective is to serve as a deterrent – to place the promise of instant passage to Paradise into doubt. Without the promise of Paradise, how many Muslim literalists would be willing to lay their lives – and eternal souls – on the line to engage in acts of terrorism?
Does anyone think even Knox believes that? We doubt it, because he thinks that his readers can be "thought-leaders" on this:
Readers of this column are in the unique position of being among the first to learn of this new, pork-painted ammunition, and as such have the opportunity to be thought-leaders on the social merits of the product. As a broader audience begins to learn about Jihawg Ammo, there will undoubtedly be much debate of the "cultural insensitivity" of the product and its makers. In anticipation of that debate, the folks at Jihawg ask how culturally insensitive it is to slaughter innocents in the name of one's religion?
This time, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson is the one who has committed the offense of failing to be unquestioningly loyal to his fellow conservatives, and once again it's the Media Research Center's Tim Graham at the head of the Heather patrol:
Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson – President George W. Bush’s top speechwriter from 2001 to 2006 – was hired by the Post in 2007 because he would be “a different kind of conservative” and "an independent voice." Translation: he would slash other people on the right as dishonest, dishonorable, unpatriotic people. He has not attacked talk-show hosts on MSNBC or other leftists this way.
In his Friday column, Gerson whacked Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin with these harsh attacks.
Not only did Graham solicit a response from Levin -- who predictably whined that "Gerson is a big-government quasi-Republican who twisted what I said" -- Graham then shifts into Heather overdrive:
Dear Mr. Gerson: you are certainly aware that liberals routinely crossed the line and referred to a Bush "regime" after the "tick-tight" 2000 election. It wasn't just a sixties-seventies thing. (Former Postie Daniel Froomkin loved the term "Bush regime" when he worked there.)
So Gerson has the audacity to suggest that Limbaugh, Levin, and Paul are guilty of the “poisoning of patriotism,” and are “noxious...dishonest...dishonorable.”
One might suspect a bad case of David Brooks-itis, defined as more affiliated with your liberal newspaper masters than with conservatives. So Gerson began his column at the Post on May 16, 2007. From that date through Obama’s first Inauguration, let’s try some Nexis searching.
Did Gerson attack or even mention Keith Olbermann? No. Chris Matthews? No. Rachel Maddow in her Air America-to-MSNBC phase? No. Even MSNBC in general? No. Could that be because his Post masters had a content-sharing “strategic alliance” with MSNBC? Hmmmmm.
What about other Bush haters in the liberal media, people who called President Bush a dictator? Did Gerson call out CNN’s Jack Cafferty? No. Eleanor Clift? No. Jonathan Alter? No. Bill Maher? No. Michael Moore? No.
Perhaps Gerson is simply allergic to attacking the liberal media in general, because that’s where he sits now. Perhaps attacking Limbaugh and Levin make his case for subbing in for pseudo-conservative David Brooks on the Friday roundtable at the PBS NewsHour, and attacks on liberal journalists would not. He hasn’t attacked PBS, either. His outrage is laced with opportunism.
And Graham's outrage isn't? He's simply trying to boost his (and his employer's) conservative cred for bashing a fellow consevative who had the temerity to slip of out lockstep with the right-wing agenda. That's not media criticism -- you know, Graham's supposed job -- but being an ideological whip.
And we're pretty sure the MRC's nonprofit status isn't supposed to be funding that sort of thing.
The Dishonorable Patrick Brady Spews More Hate Topic: WorldNetDaily
Dishonorable liar Patrick Brady is at it again, spewing more anti-gay and anti-Obama hate in a June 13 WorldNetDaily column:
Our Army has been housed in communities of like-minded patriots separate and independent from the communities of America. The functions of those communities – schools, commissaries PXs, churches, theaters and clubs – all reflect our unique military discipline and values.
Enter Mr. Obama, a progressive moralist, who introduced homosexual conduct into barracks, military communities and foxholes, and transformed our military from heterosexual to quad-sexual (homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender). As if that weren’t enough, he is now putting females in foxholes much to the delight of our future battlefield enemies. With these changes will come a change in standards: physical for women and moral for Christians.
We are already seeing attacks on Christians and conservatives in the military. How can a military chaplain, Christian or Muslim, not teach the truths of the Bible on sodomy? Mr. Obama and his military sycophants must silence them. And it has begun. The Boy Scouts have been a kind of mini-military, and they face the same moral dilemma. How can they be morally straight when their leadership (essentially to protect their salaries) introduces fornication, by definition, into their ranks?
Unless America wakes up and stops this insanity, we will be celebrating the Army’s 239th birthday on Army posts, camps and stations peopled by same-sex couples in gay, lesbian and bisexual clubs where fraternization and adultery are indefinable – as is discipline. Homosexual health, deployment and blood issues will enter battle planning. Soldiers will see their chain of command dancing and romancing other men – or women, or both. I wonder if Mr. Obama believes that the sight of him dancing with other men at state functions would be inconsequential. The military will become a sexual and moral morass with readiness in shambles.
Is such contemptible hatred really the best behavior one should expect from a Medal of Honor winner such as Brady?
CNS' Starr Falsely Claims Sanford Resigned After Affair Was Discovered Topic: CNSNews.com
Writing about Rep. Mark Sanford's claim that government overspending is a "moral issue," Penny Starr stated in a June 14 CNSNews.com article that "Sanford resigned as governor of South Carolina in 2009 after he revealed that he was having an extra-marital affair."
That's false. Sanford did not resign, and he finished out his term in January 2011. He was censured by the South Carolina legislature after impeachment efforts failed.
UPDATE: The entire paragraph containing Starr's false claim has since been removed, which now means that the article no longer contains a reference to Sanford's extramarital affair beyond Sanford's only vague references to "failures." CNS also failed to alert its readers that the article was altered from its original publication or formally issue a correction or apology.
It happens in China routinely. It frequently happened in the old Soviet Union. Undoubtedly in North Korea, although generally there’s no one around to witness it. But in the United States? It happens here, too, apparently.
A lawsuit has been filed by officials with the Rutherford Institute on behalf of a Marine who was jailed and held for the comments he made on Facebook – comments that expressed a dissatisfaction with the present direction of the U.S. government.
According to officials at Rutherford, the civil rights action names as defendants members of law enforcement and the government who were involved in last year’s episode where Marine veteran Brandon Raub, 27, was arrested by a swarm of FBI and Secret Service and forcibly detained in a psychiatric ward for a week.
His crime was posting controversial song lyrics and political views on Facebook, the institute reported.
But the article fails to mention, as the Associated Press did, that one of those "controversial song lyrics" was the line "Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads." That's a line from the obscure Canadian hip-hop group Swollen Members. The rest of the song, "Bring Me Down," also contains lyrics that could be construed as disturbing:
They'll say I'm a killer I feel I'm as high as I can be And now they gon' die as high as me I can't be no realer Y'all ain't gon' bring me down [3X] I can't be no realer; y'all ain't gon' bring me down
WND also fails to mention that Raub has expressed truther beliefs on his website -- that the U.S. government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. According to the AP, one of Raub's Facebook posts pictured the gaping hole in the Pentagon and asked "where's the plane?"
WND selectively quoted from a Raub posting in which he wrote that “The United States was meant to lead the charge against injustice, but through our example not our force. People do not respond to having liberty and freedom forced on them," but made no mention that it's part of a larger rant in which he rails against the Federal Reserve and the income tax and states:
You elected an aristocracy. They are beholden to special interests. They were brainwashed through the Council on Foreign Relations. Your leaders are planning to merge the United States into a one world banking system. They want to put computer chips in you.
These men have evil hearts. They have tricked you into supporting corporate fascism. We gave them the keys to our country. We were not vigilant with our republic.
There is hope. BUT WE MUST TAKE OUR REPUBLIC BACK.
Jerome Corsi performs a similar whitewashing job in a June 11 WND article, claiming that Raub merely made Facebook comments "expressing dissatisfaction with the present direction of the U.S. government." Corsi makes no effort to tell readers what Raub actually said.
Instead, Corsi tries to extrapolate into a larger, unproven claim by Raub's attorney that "The NSA is systematically monitoring the Internet posts and telephone conversations of U.S. military returning from Afghanistan."
Given Raub's disturbing postings, it's easy to see why they raised red flags. Instead, WND would rather protect someone who says such things. But then, they have promoted child abusers and stalkers, so why wouldn't they?
MRC Thinks Transgenders Are Just 'Pretending' Topic: Media Research Center
In the midst of a rant about whether a transgender high school student should use the bathroom that's the opposite of their biological sex, Lauren Enk writes in a June 12 NewsBusters post:
Let’s get this straight (no pun intended). The person in question is not a girl. He is a boy. Despite [New Republic writer Adam] Winkler’s insistence on using “she” and “her” to refer to Nicole Maines, the fact is that “Nicole” is a boy who “identifies as” – read, pretends to be – a girl. No matter how you slice it, the truth remains that he is a boy.
But Winkler wants him to be able to legally indulge his delusion and use the girls’ bathroom.
As the American Psychological Association notes, "Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else." They are not "pretending" to be the opposite sex; it is who they think they are, regardless of their biological orientation.
And it seems that trained professionals are in a much better position to determine whether a given person's identifying as the opposite sex is a "delusion" than a writer for a right-wing organization with an anti-gay agenda.
WND Doesn't Know What Amnesty Means Topic: WorldNetDaily
A June 9 WorldNetDaily article by John Bennett begins:
“Each person’s God-given dignity” requires amnesty for illegal aliens.
So says a new radio advertisement by an organization called Evangelical Immigration Table.
The pro-amnesty radio ad can be heard online, and will be airing in 13 key states.
In fact, the ad calls for "immigration solutions that respect each person's God-given dignity, respect the rule of law, protect family unity, guarantee secure borders, ensure fairness to taxpayers, and establish a path toward citizenship." None of this is "amnesty" by the traditional definition of the word, which implies no preconditions. Bennett offers no evidence that the EIT's approach to immigration reform lacks preconditions.
Still, Bennett went on to huff:
If current illegal aliens must be granted citizenship because of their “God-given dignity,” then later illegal aliens must also be granted citizenship for the same reason. The EIT ads did not state or imply that there was any limitation on the role of “God-given dignity” in creating an entitlement to citizenship.
But the ad does not cite "God-given dignity" as the only criteria for an "entitlement to citizenship" -- it advocates a comprehensive approach, which, again, is not "amnesty."
Bennett makes no effort to explain how any of this could be defined as "amnesty" -- he's simply baselessly declaring that any immigration reform is "amnesty."