C4

Rios: Mandela Was A Criminal & 'Criminals Are Placed In Solitary Confinement'

On Friday, American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios lashed out at Nelson Mandela, who was imprisoned for 27 years, and said that he deserved to be in jail because he was a violent criminal:

Nelson Mandela was placed in prison because of the violence that he did in the country of South Africa. Now you can argue, I guess, you can say it was worth it because we overthrew apartheid, I don’t know, is that really the way a victory should be won? Is this really a righteous cause? Is he really a saint for doing this? They talk about him being in solitary confinement, well, criminals are placed in solitary confinement, if you murder other people you lose your rights.

Rios later wondered if race relations in South Africa have improved since the end of the apartheid system.

“I don’t think the picture of South Africa as it stands now is what the narrative is, certainly to be a white person in South Africa is not a very fun thing right now,” Rios said. “I think that they have now obtained suppressing the white population with the black population holding the superior vantage point.”

Tancredo: 'Street Hustler' Obama Trying To Compare Himself To Mandela

Tom Tancredo, the former Republican congressman and possible 2014 Colorado gubernatorial candidate, is angry that President Obama wants to compare himself to Nelson Mandela, even though Obama hasn’t done that. Tancredo writes in a WorldNetDaily column, “Mandela and Obama: Hero vs. Street Hustler,” that “our reigning narcissist” sees himself like the late South African leader.

“Obama does remind me of Winnie Mandela, the scandalous, self-serving, demagogic second wife whom Nelson Mandela divorced because she was such an embarrassment,” Tancredo adds. “We can only wish that America could divorce Obama as easily as Mandela divorced his agitator-wife, but Obama’s crimes are more insidious and his support network more forgiving than Winnie Mandela’s.”

Curiously, Tancredo’s column hailing Mandela as South Africa’s George Washington ran in WorldNetDaily, whose editor Joseph Farah explicitly condemned Obama for likening Mandela to George Washington.

This week the world lost a rare, genuine hero of national reconciliation and racial progress, Nelson Mandela. A leader of Mandela’s character, courage and nobility comes along maybe once in a century; the 21st century has yet to see one.

Comparisons of Mandela and Obama are probably inevitable, especially when promoted by our reigning narcissist, Obama himself.

Yes, Barack Obama can be compared to Nelson Mandela – the same way a midget is compared to a giant, a zircon to a diamond, or a street-corner hustler to an astronaut. No matter how hard the mainstream media try to paint a different picture, Obama will forever remain a little speck lost in Mandela’s long shadow.

On the other hand, in one way Obama does remind me of Mandela, but not the Mandela whose legacy will be celebrated universally. Obama does remind me of Winnie Mandela, the scandalous, self-serving, demagogic second wife whom Nelson Mandela divorced because she was such an embarrassment.

We can only wish that America could divorce Obama as easily as Mandela divorced his agitator-wife, but Obama’s crimes are more insidious and his support network more forgiving than Winnie Mandela’s. She and her bodyguards were convicted of kidnapping and assault, and her tenure in the South African Parliament was marked by controversy and arrests for financial manipulations.



Mandela was not corrupted by the trappings of power, by the love of popular adulation or the lure of riches. His nation needed a George Washington, not an Adolf Hitler, and he filled the role beautifully. Mandela served only one five-year term as president of South Africa before turning over leadership to a new generation.



The United States’ constitutional traditions used to provide a model for emerging nations to follow in contrast to dictatorships and military dynasties. As Barack Obama heads off to Nelson Mandela’s funeral, we can only hope South Africa’s leaders look to America’s past achievements for guidance and inspiration, and not our present condition as a nation spiraling downward into the despotism our ancestors fought so nobly to avoid.

WND Remembers Nelson Mandela By Calling Him A Con Man

WorldNetDaily’s magazine, WND Weekly, will dedicate its latest issue to smearing Nelson Mandela:

WND Weekly is run by Elizabeth Farah, the wife of WND editor Joseph Farah, who has denounced Mandela as a terrorist bent on anti-white genocide.

The day after Mandela’s death, the group polled its readers about their perceptions of his “life and work.” Most answered that he should have been kept in jail.

Top Christian Publisher: Driscoll Plagiarized

Despite Mark Driscoll’s efforts to suppress information about his unfurling plagiarism scandal, one Christian publisher has gone public with claims that the right-wing megachurch pastor plagiarized a passage in one of his books. This is far from the only charge of plagiarism Driscoll has faced in recent days, but his allies seem intent on burying the issue.

InterVarsity Press, which bills itself as “the leading publisher of thoughtful Christian books dedicated to serving the university, the church and the world,” released a statement this morning to Christianity Today alleging that Driscoll had plagiarized entire paragraphs from a book that it published:

Several paragraphs from the New Bible Commentary edited by G. J. Wenham, J. A. Motyer, D. A. Carson and R. T. France published by InterVarsity Press appear in Mark Driscoll's now out of print book Trial: 8 Witnesses From 1 & 2 Peter. These improperly appeared without quotation or attribution. With proper citation the material would have been a case of fair use.

InterVarsity Press believes all writers should use great care as they do research and prepare texts for any use to make sure that proper acknowledgement is given to source material.

“We are grateful this was brought to our attention, and we have removed that document from our website to correct the mistake,” Driscoll’s church said in response to InterVarsity’s statement. “Additionally, we are examining all of our similar content as a precautionary measure.”

Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd uncovered several examples of plagiarism by Driscoll and confronted him about the matter on her radio show last week. Soon afterwards, Mefferd’s supporting material and her interview with Driscoll disappeared from her website, and she apologized for making the claims public.

In case you need another clue as to why Mefferd apologized and is trying to remove all evidence of the matter, the Christian Post reports that Driscoll’s publisher, Tyndale House, has a partnership with Mefferd’s employer, the Salem Radio Network. Salem’s “Testimonials” page features an excerpt from a Tyndale spokesperson:

Salem Radio Network is one of Tyndale’s most valued and respected media partners. They have always provided us with custom advertising campaigns that deliver outstanding results. Their professionalism and expertise has brought us back year after year. We couldn’t be happier with the quality of service we’ve received from SRN.

Tyndale criticized Mefferd for her “belligerent tone” during the interview in which she confronted Driscoll with plagiarism charges. One pastor close to Driscoll even called for a boycott of Mefferd’s show.

Ingrid Schlueter resigned as a producer from Mefferd’s show shortly after Mefferd apologized to Driscoll, strongly suggesting that she faced pressure from “the machine”:

I was a part-time, topic producer for Janet Mefferd until yesterday when I resigned over this situation. All I can share is that there is an evangelical celebrity machine that is more powerful than anyone realizes. You may not go up against the machine. That is all. Mark Driscoll clearly plagiarized and those who could have underscored the seriousness of it and demanded accountability did not. That is the reality of the evangelical industrial complex.



I’ve read much speculation online, which is understandable given the confusing situation, most of it dead wrong. Being limited in what I can share, let me just say that truth tellers face multiple pressure sources these days. I hosted a radio show for 23 years and know from experience how Big Publishing protects its celebrities. Anything but fawning adulation for those who come on your show (a gift of free air time for the author/publisher by the way) is not taken well. Like Dr. Carl Trueman so aptly asked yesterday in his column at Reformation 21, does honest journalism have any role to play in evangelicalism now? (It was rhetorical.) My own take on that question is, no, it does not. The moment hard questions are asked, the negative focus goes on the questioner, not the celebrity, when there is something that needs scrutiny. Those who have the temerity to call out a celebrity have tremendous courage. The easiest thing in the world is to do fluffy interviews with fluffy guests on fluffy books. So hats off to those like Janet who have the courage to ask at all. And my own opinion on Mr. Driscoll is that despite the bravado, despite the near silence of his Reformed peers and enablers, his brand is damaged, and damaged by his own hand.

WND Investigates: Is Obama A Communist Or A Nazi?

In a bombshell investigation published yesterday, the right-wing news outlet WorldNetDaily has learned that President Obama is not a communist! But don’t be too stunned by this startling claim, as instead it turns out that the president is a Nazi.

WND’s Bob Unruh interviewed radio host Chuck Morse yesterday about the president’s alleged Nazism, which is based on the laughable claim that the Nazis were actually left-wing.

“I’m not suggesting [Obama] is an anti-Semite. I’m not suggesting he’s going to set up a Holocaust. But putting all that stuff aside, when you strip that away from historical Nazism and look at the political philosophy of Nazism, this is very much what Barack Obama is into,” Morse said.

His evidence?

Well, Obama talks about Nazi-things like “hope” and “change” and supports “left-progressivism,” which he argues “is largely to blame not only for the Nazi Holocaust but also for most of the programs of Holocaust, Genocide and Democide that have been implemented in the modern era.”

Critics of Barack Obama, horrified at his “transformation” of America and particularly his government takeovers of large parts of the U.S. economy, have gone so far as to accuse him of being a communist or neo-communist. However, those critics are mistaken, contends a conservative talk host and author whose new book “Was Hitler a Leftist?” examines the German dictator’s radical agenda in light of today’s leftist movement in the United States.

His conclusion? Obama is, at least in some ways, more akin to a “national socialist” than a communist.

“I have to be careful saying that,” said Chuck Morse, host of the IRN USA News talk show. “I’m not suggesting [Obama] is an anti-Semite. I’m not suggesting he’s going to set up a Holocaust. But putting all that stuff aside, when you strip that away from historical Nazism and look at the political philosophy of Nazism, this is very much what Barack Obama is into.”



Morse examines elements of National Socialism he sees in Obama’s administration. Those include a national welfare system, nationalization of police forces, a centralized regulation of private businesses, a centralization of power and bureaucracies imposing their own demands on a citizenry.

He also looks at the use of demonization, noting many leftists today don’t say their political opponents merely are wrong but that they want to hurt people. His book notes Hitler’s suspension of the German Constitution. Members of Congress just this week held a hearing in which experts testified Obama has systematically breached the Constitution.

That Nazism was leftist hardly can be argued, he said.



Morse said it’s a concern that the federal government has been purchasing tens of millions of hollow point ammunition, which is illegal in international use, he said. What, he asked, would it be used for?

In his book, he challenges “students of Nazism and of the Nazi Holocaust to integrate the missing link into the otherwise excellent body of work and research that has been done on Hitler and his evil regime.”



“Let’s be clear,” he writes, “Left-progressives today are not responsible for the Holocaust, nor were most well-meaning left-progressives at the time of the Holocaust responsible. Yet, and unquestionably, left-progressivism, as a political philosophy and theory, when enthroned and when holding the reins of absolute power, is largely to blame not only for the Nazi Holocaust but also for most of the programs of Holocaust, Genocide and Democide that have been implemented in the modern era.”



He also noted that among Hitler’s themes were the now-familiar “hope” and “change.”

Religious Right Activists Laud Congressman's Campaign Against Gay Republicans

Anti-gay leaders are cheering on Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) in his effort to block funding and support for two openly gay Republican congressional candidates. Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s Peter LaBarbera praised Forbes for trying to preserve the GOP’s hard line against gay equality:

"The Republican party platform is opposed for the most part to homosexual activism, especially gay so-called marriage," says LaBarbera. "So Forbes understands that the Republican Party should not be in the business of promoting candidates that are going to promote sexual immorality."

LaBarbera says he is disappointed that many other prominent Republicans don't have a problem with "gay" GOP candidates.

"It's disappointing to see House Speaker Boehner and other prominent Republicans backing openly homosexual candidates because these candidates are not going to serve the interest of the Republican Party if the party still claims to be pro-family," the family advocate tells OneNewsNow.

Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values, meanwhile, criticized House Speaker John Boehner for distancing himself from Forbes’ initiative.

In fact, Burress thinks “it is time for Boehner to be replaced as speaker” for caving to “self-proclaimed homosexuals” and “the homosexual agenda.”

"Sometimes I think he's been in Washington too long," Phil Burress, chairman of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values Action Political Action Committee, says of House Speaker John Boehner.



"If you're going to elect people who are self-proclaimed homosexuals, then you're totally ignoring what the Republican Party stands for in its national platform, marriage between one man and one woman," Burress tells OneNewsNow.

Burress observes he has never seen a homosexual in the Republican Party "who does not promote the homosexual agenda," which he says includes same-sex marriage and abortion.

One problem plaguing the GOP is the so-called big tent approach.

"The Democrats have two non-negotiable issues, same-sex marriage and abortion rights," Burress claims. "The Republican Party never talks about their non-negotiable issues because I don't think they have any."

Burress also says it is time for Boehner to be replaced as speaker.

UPDATE: Family Research Council president Tony Perkins also favors Forbes’ push against gay candidates:

While Forbes has been blasted for his comments, he knows -- as well as we do -- that this debate is about a lot more than someone's sexual preference. While we reject the false dichotomy of private and public morality, I -- like most Americans -- would rather not know about a person's bedroom habits. That's not the issue for Rep. Forbes. What he cares about --and what the GOP should too -- is whether these candidates will abide by the party's platform. When Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was asked if his party could support an openly homosexual candidate, he replied, "I do." But the real question isn't whether the GOP would support an openly homosexual candidate, but whether it would support an openly homosexual activist who has sought to redefine marriage and undermine religious freedom. At the end of the day, conservatives and homosexual activists cannot coexist in a movement predicated on virtues that pre-date positive law. If there is a litmus test, it should be on ideology.

Instead, the NRCC and Republican Establishment are so desperate to beat the opposition that they'll sacrifice core principles to try. And here's the irony: that weak-kneed approach is what turns voters off. "Our decisions on the Republican nominees we support will not be based on race, gender, or sexual orientation," said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the NRCC, "but will be based on the strength of their candidacy and their ability to defeat Democrats." Translation: the GOP will throw its support behind any candidate they believe can win, even it means throwing the party's stated principles overboard.

McConnell to Participate in Recess Appointments Case

The Roberts Court will let the GOP leader participate in oral arguments in a constitutional case that his party's obstruction engendered.
PFAW

Klayman: Fight To Overthrow Obama Like Mandela's Fight Against Apartheid

Channeling Rick Santorum, Freedom Watch’s Larry Klayman wrote in a column this weekend that Tea Party activists fighting President Obama are the true heirs to Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr.

Klayman, who is calling for the overthrow of the Obama administration, wrote in WorldNetDaily that he will soon establish a Third Continental Congress and a “government in waiting” since his tiny White House rally failed to convince the president to resign.

“[L]et us take Mandela’s achievement in liberating South Africa from bondage as a further example of what we can accomplish in freeing our own nation from the choking despotic governmental slavery of Obama and his pliant Democratic and Republican minions in Congress and the judiciary,” Klayman wrote.

“We will soon be announcing the date to convene the Third Continental Congress in Philadelphia early next year where, taking a page from the Founding Fathers, we will meet to plan the next steps of our Second American Revolution, with delegates from all 50 states.”

The parallels to the even direr situation the United States now finds itself in today are striking. We are ruled by someone who is in effect the pharaoh and at the least a Muslim at heart who disdains the Judeo-Christian heritage and foundations upon which our nation was forged and who has rung up extreme national debt and loathes capitalism, instead seeing it his “duty” to redistribute wealth to “his” people for years of their slavery. President Barack Hussein Obama and his compromised if not corrupt enablers in Congress and in the judiciary, like a time warp, have thrust We the People back to 1776 and provoked our Second American Revolution. And, the current revolutionary climate is even more severe, since unlike the colonies, contemporary America is on the steep decline. Our resources, wealth, ethics, spirituality and liberties are being stifled by a socialistic choke hold on our economy and lives, where our “Muslim” president and the government, not God, is to be worshiped and obeyed – else authoritarian henchmen and thugs at the NSA and IRS will destroy you.

To seek redress for our grievances, as our forefathers attempted leading up to independence day on July 4, 1776, the Reclaim America Now Coalition gave notice in front of the White House on Nov.19 of this year that if the people’s freedoms were not restored by the day after Thanksgiving, the Second American Revolution would begin in earnest. True to the predictions of anyone living in our times, our grievances went unanswered by our illegitimate government usurpers, and now we must make good on our threats of non-violent, civil disobedience to attempt redress.

In this regard, as we mourn the death this week of Nelson Mandela, a great man who, like his American counterpart Martin Luther King, used civil disobedience successfully to bring freedom to his people and by definition all people (who are created equal with certain unalienable rights, as Jefferson put it), let us take Mandela’s achievement in liberating South Africa from bondage as a further example of what we can accomplish in freeing our own nation from the choking despotic governmental slavery of Obama and his pliant Democratic and Republican minions in Congress and the judiciary.

We will soon be announcing the date to convene the Third Continental Congress in Philadelphia early next year where, taking a page from the Founding Fathers, we will meet to plan the next steps of our Second American Revolution, with delegates from all 50 states.

We will also use the occasion to appoint committees to coordinate the revolution and to elect a government in waiting to take over on the day when our current corrupt leaders are forced by the citizenry to leave their thrones and freedom is restored to our shores.

Like our Founding Fathers in 1776, the time is now to risk all we have to save the nation from government tyrants before all is lost.

Sandy Rios On The War On Christmas: 'This Is Exactly What Hitler Did In Nazi Germany'

American Family Association head Tim Wildmon joined AFA radio host Sandy Rios today to discuss a USA Today article about how “Not all Christians believe there is a ‘War on Christmas.’” Wildmon spent most of the interview complaining that any Christian would dare criticize the AFA, which is a leading voice in movement to expose the “War on Christmas.” He told Rios that he resented Christian leaders who mock the idea of the War on Christmas or note that the AFA’s campaign actually emphasizes the material aspect of the holiday by focusing on how many stores tell customers “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays.”

Wildmon accused one pastor, who told USA Today that Christians needed to come to grips with the religious diversity in the US, of wanting Christians to partake in “a dangerous retreat into isolating ourselves from the larger culture.”

“This is exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany,” Rios said. She went on to compare the supposed War on Christmas to religious oppression in the Soviet Union and North Korea.

“I don’t think this pastor understands and I don’t think people understand what is going on in the world,” she said. “They don’t have a large enough world. Their world is too small and so they don’t understand the dangers.”

Sorry Sarah Palin, But Thomas Jefferson Led The War On Christmas

Sarah Palin seems to be under the impression that Thomas Jefferson would stand with her and the folks at Fox News and Liberty University in protesting the non-existent “War on Christmas” and set straight “those who would want to try to abort Christ from Christianity.”

But Palin might want to read The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, or The Jefferson Bible, from which the nation’s founder actually removed passages from the Bible, including the virgin birth and angelic visitations detailed in Matthew and Luke, at the center of Christian teaching on Christ’s birth:

1: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

2: (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3: And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5: To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6: And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7: And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8: And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS.

9: And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

South Carolina Senate Candidate Itching To Refight The Civil War

Yesterday, we took a look at South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s top-polling Tea Party primary challenger, state Sen. Lee Bright, who thinks the income tax is something out of Nazi Germany and is concerned about women with nice nails and pocketbooks getting food assistance.

It turns out that Bright doesn’t just want to eliminate a host of core federal programs…he’s also itching to refight the Civil War.

In a series of speeches to Republican and Tea Party gatherings this year, Bright has riled up crowds with the states-rights rallying cry, “If the Tenth Amendment won’t protect the Second, we might have to use the Second to protect the Tenth.”

Bright is a proponent of nullification, the unconstitutional idea that states can “nullify” federal laws that they don’t like. This year, he sponsored a bill in the state senate to nullify the Affordable Care Act.

At a gun-rights rally in front of the South Carolina statehouse in January, Bright stood before two confederate flags to offer his view that while he finds slavery “morally reprehensible,” President Lincoln’s Revenue Act of 1862 – which introduced a progressive income tax in order to fund the Union Army – “was when government started becoming God and taking over this country.”

Later in the speech, Bright declared he was ready to “lay down my life” fighting the federal government: “We don’t want to have to use the Second Amendment, we’re a peaceful people. But we will not be the generation that lost our liberty. People ask me all the time, ‘I don’t know what I’ll tell my children, I don’t know what I’ll tell my grandchildren.’ Well, I’m not going to have that problem, because I’m not going to be here. I want to lay down my life for my liberty just like my forefathers did.”

At a February “Day of Resistance Rally” in Greenville, Bright warned that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor might even want to dissolve the states, and expanded on his view of 19th century American history…adding that it is Americans today who are in fact under “the chains of slavery.”

“I went to public school,” he said, “and I was taught about the Civil War, and then I learned it was the War Between the States, and then I learned it was the War of Nullification, and then finally I learned out it was Lincoln’s War.”

He then accused President Obama of wanting to be a “king.” “I’ll say what my forefathers said,” he added. “No king but Jesus.”

“We have got to be organized, we have got to participate in these elections,” he said. “Because I’ve got to tell you, if we don’t, we might have to use the Second Amendment to defend the Tenth. And let me tell you, I want peace. Listen, peace is sweet, but it’s not so sweet for the chains of slavery.”
 

In another speech in February, Bright went after President Obama, claiming, “The man has never had a challenge, everything has been handed to him. We don’t know how his education was paid for, but it looks like it was handed to him, and we can’t even find out.”

He then offered his standard threat of violent revolution, speculating that in the hypothetical conflict President Obama wouldn’t send troops to South Carolina because armed forces from the state would turn against him.

“We want to use the Tenth Amendment to protect the Bill of Rights, but if we have to, we will use the Second Amendment to protect them. We want to be a peaceful people, but we can’t sacrifice liberty for peace,” he said.

“I’ve talked to plenty of soldiers, and these soldiers don’t much like what’s going on with Obama. I mean, these are our troops, these are our family members, and I just don’t think he’ll have federal troops coming down here. to South Carolina.”

One audience remember responded to the criticism of Obama by shouting “Vote him out!” Another can be heard responding, “Vote with guns!”
 

 

New Twist In Mark Driscoll Plagiarism Scandal: 'You May Not Go Up Against The Machine'

Conservative radio host Janet Mefferd has decided to pull her report on plagiarism by Christian Right megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll, but not for the reasons you might think. The evidence is quite clear that Driscoll repeatedly engaged in plagiarism, but Mefferd has decided to pull incriminating documents, and even copies of her initial interview with the pastor, in what appears to be a reaction to criticism from Driscoll’s allies.

On the Wednesday edition of her radio show, Mefferd even apologized to Driscoll: “The interview should not have occurred at all, I should have contacted Tyndale House [Driscoll’s publisher] directly to alert them to the plagiarism issue and I never should have brought it to the attention of listeners publicly. I would like to apologize to all of you and to Mark Driscoll for how I behaved, I am sorry.”

Reflecting on the matter, Carl Trueman of the Westminster Theological Seminary wondered: “Is journalism no longer considered a legitimate Christian calling? Or is the task of the Christian journalist simply to strengthen the hand of the vested interests?” Blogger Dee Parsons noted that Driscoll may have been especially offended that the charges of plagiarism came from a woman.

Indeed, it seems that Mefferd faced tremendous pressure and criticism from Tyndale House Publishers and Driscoll’s allies, one of whom called for an interview boycott of her show.

One of Mefferd’s producers, Ingrid Schlueter, even resigned in reaction to the criticism.

Schleuter used to work for VCY America’s Crosstalk (whose host is her father, Vic Eliason). But she left in 2011, warning that “the mafia crime families have nothing on ‘Christian ministry.’”

Warren Throckmorton grabbed Schleuter’s posts about the Driscoll plagiarism scandal before they were removed from an online forum:

I was a part-time, topic producer for Janet Mefferd until yesterday when I resigned over this situation. All I can share is that there is an evangelical celebrity machine that is more powerful than anyone realizes. You may not go up against the machine. That is all. Mark Driscoll clearly plagiarized and those who could have underscored the seriousness of it and demanded accountability did not. That is the reality of the evangelical industrial complex.



I’ve read much speculation online, which is understandable given the confusing situation, most of it dead wrong. Being limited in what I can share, let me just say that truth tellers face multiple pressure sources these days. I hosted a radio show for 23 years and know from experience how Big Publishing protects its celebrities. Anything but fawning adulation for those who come on your show (a gift of free air time for the author/publisher by the way) is not taken well. Like Dr. Carl Trueman so aptly asked yesterday in his column at Reformation 21, does honest journalism have any role to play in evangelicalism now? (It was rhetorical.) My own take on that question is, no, it does not. The moment hard questions are asked, the negative focus goes on the questioner, not the celebrity, when there is something that needs scrutiny. Those who have the temerity to call out a celebrity have tremendous courage. The easiest thing in the world is to do fluffy interviews with fluffy guests on fluffy books. So hats off to those like Janet who have the courage to ask at all. And my own opinion on Mr. Driscoll is that despite the bravado, despite the near silence of his Reformed peers and enablers, his brand is damaged, and damaged by his own hand. (emphasis ours)

UPDATE: Jonathan Merritt reports that Mefferd refuses to comment on the cae:

It seems likely that, at the very least, Schlueter’s did in fact resign. I say this because I called and spoke with Mefferd moments ago. I asked her to confirm whether Ingrid Schlueter did, in fact, resign. She responded, “No comment.” I asked a round of six follow-up questions about Schlueter and whether Mefferd still believes the allegations she made were true. Each time, she responded with “no comment.”

Emails to Bobby Belt, another producer with the Janet Mefferd Show, have not been returned.

Paranoia-Rama: This Week In Right-Wing Lunacy - 12/6/13

RWW's Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

Did you know that gay people seek to use the government to steal the children of conservative parents and kill Christians? Or that a commonsense, bipartisan bill to ban undetectable guns first signed into law by Ronald Reagan is actually a plot by President Obama to threaten all gun owners? Well, we didn’t! But thanks to the totally reasonable and coherent arguments from right-wing figures, we do now:

5. The Gay-Liberal Adoption Plot Exposed

Stan Solomon, who you might remember from such conspiracy theories as ‘Obama is forming a black paramilitary’ and ‘Obamacare will force people into electro-shock therapy,’ now warns that liberals will take the children of conservative parents and put them into the homes of abusive gay couples. Of course, Phyllis Schlafly thinks Solomon is onto something:

4. Limbaugh Senses Conspiracy Behind Retraction Of Erroneous Report

The World Health Organization corrected a report that mistakenly claimed there was a rise in “self-inflicted” HIV infections in Greece as a way to collect welfare benefits , saying the report was unfounded and a result of an editing error: “There is no evidence suggesting that deliberate self-infection with H.I.V. goes beyond a few anecdotal cases.” But it didn't matter to Rush Limbaugh, who insisted that, in fact, the original, erroneous WHO declaration was true:

So what do you think really happened here? Do you think they goofed up? I don’t, either. I think they’re trying to walk back what they inadvertently admitted yesterday. And being leftists, I’m sure they didn't think that they would get the kind of reaction they got. I’m sure they were expecting to get reactions rooted in sympathy and compassion, and instead they got reactions that were based and rooted in outrage. They were not prepared for that, so now it's, dare we say, CYA time here at the World Health Organization.

3. Obama Trying To Close Vatican Embassy

Even though the words “relocate” and “close” are different words that mean different things, Republicans pounced on the news that the US Embassy to the Holy See, or the Vatican, will be relocated to charge that Obama is trying to close the embassy as part of his anti-Catholic agenda.

Jeb Bush suggested it was the result of “retribution for Catholic organizations opposing Obamacare;” the National Republican Senatorial Committee called it “a slap in the face to Catholic-Americans;” one Washington Times columnist billed the move as an attempt to “snub the Pope” and “pick a fight with Catholics” and a Breitbart blogger said it was the result of “the Regime’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stance.”

“Neither Obama, nor the State Department, are planning on permanently closing the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See – also known as the Vatican,” CNN reports. “What is happening, however, is the building the embassy is currently using is being moved to a property closer to Vatican City.”

The Washington Post points out that the government report “which urged moving the embassy for both cost and security reasons — as well as practicality” was issued during the Bush administration in 2008, or before Obama even took office.

2. Ban On Undetectable Guns Threatens All Gun Owners

Gun Owners of America is deeply concerned that the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill to “extend a ban on manufacturing plastic firearms that are not detectable by security-screening devices.” The right-wing group’s spokesman Erich Pratt claims that the bill will open “the door for greater mischief much later,” will inevitably be “twisted by President Obama,” and represents “an unconstitutional infringement of our liberties that is not only ineffective, but could eventually be expanded by an anti-gun administration to ban even more guns.”

The National Association for Gun Rights put out a similar petition demanding the House “oppose any and all gun control legislation” unless they too want to be labeled as “gun-grabbers” and “anti-gunners.” NAGR calls the bill “a ticking time bomb” that “could spell disaster for gun owners.”

How far out are GOA and NAGR for opposing a bill prohibiting the manufacture of undetectable plastic guns? Not only does the GOP leadership support an extension of the 1988 law (that’s right, signed into law by Ronald Reagan), but even the National Rifle Association refused to oppose the bill.

1. Gay Marriage Will Kill Christians

We probably shouldn’t be surprised that a commentator for Renew America believes that the gay rights movement is a Satanic plot to murder Christians.

“The Godless communists (or fascists, if you prefer) are using the homosexual agenda to work toward eradicating Christian opposition to their plans, which are Satan’s plans,” Gina Miller writes. “If you know your Bible, then you know that Christianity is destined to be outlawed. We are moving steadily toward a time when Christians here in America will be in danger of state-sanctioned murder for their beliefs.”

We really couldn’t make this stuff up if we tried:

Geller: Evil Liberals Who Condemn Rohingya Persecution Support 'Jihad In Burma'

Pamela Geller is once again calling for Congress to reject a resolution condemning the persecution of Burma’s Rohingya minority. As we noted on Wednesday, the Rohingya minority in Burma is facing a campaign of persecution that many human rights groups describe as ethnic cleansing. But since they are Muslim, they have little sympathy from Geller.

In a blog post today, she claims that the Rohingya are waging “jihad in Burma,” but the “goosestepping thugs” of “Jihad agitators and their leftist shills” are covering it up and unfairly criticizing her. “Pure evil. The Left always does this,” she writes.

Geller must then consider Jim DeMint’s Heritage Foundation as a leftist, jihadist group, as the conservative organization denounced the “ethnic cleansing” and “atrocities” committed against the Rohingya. We’re sure she also has words for the Republican congressmen who are co-sponsoring the resolution.

Opposition to the jihad in Burma is fast becoming the third rail. The bogus myth of Muslim victimhood has become the rallying cry for Islamic supremacists organizations (CAIR, the OIC, et al) and their leftwing operatives across the nation and the world. And I dared touch that third rail when I called for Atlas readers, twitter followers and FB friends to contact their congressmen and vote NO on resolution 418 (more here). Jihad agitators and their leftist shills were none too pleased.

It is clear that jihad terrorists are converging on Burma from Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan -- a jihad group from the Caucasus announced that back in July. Still, media coverage and reportage on the violence in Burma is notoriously pro-jihad (is there any country that opposes jihad that the media likes?). Much is made of the Buddhists' reponse [sic] to Muslim violence against Buddhists in Burma. But Aung San Suu Kyi, Burmese nobel peace prize winner and Myanmar's democracy and human rights icon, has spoken uneqivocally [sic] in support of the Buddhists, much to the media's crushing dismay. She had been, up until that point, a media darling.



Now their goosestepping thugs, the illegal uber-left network of hacktivists and anarchist entities, "Anonymous," has taken up the jihad in Burma as their latest cause -- so of course they would target me on twitter. The FBI has dismantled the leaders of Anonymous and arrested the group's core members, but anonymous trolls abound.

This is left's idea od [sic] intellectual sparring. Pure evil. The Left always does this. They try to demean the character of their enemies by engaging in mockery and ridicule, which only makes more glaring their total inability and unwillingness to engage on the level of ideas.

WND: Anti-Federalists Were Right, Constitution Destroyed Freedom

Although we keep hearing from far-right activists that the Constitution is a Bible-based document that belongs solely to the Tea Party, today WorldNetDaily tells us that the nation’s founders were wrong to replace the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789) with the Constitution. WND columnist Ilana Mercer writes that the anti-Federalists were prophetic and right after all, thanks to Obama.

“Having prophesied that Philadelphia was the beginning of the end of the freedoms won in the American Revolution, our Anti-Federalist philosophical fathers fought to forestall the inevitable,” Mercer laments. “They failed.”

This isn’t the first time a WND columnist has attacked the Constitution: In 2011, WND’s Robert Ringer maintained that the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution is to blame for Obama’s “communist dictatorship.”

Should the federal constitution be ratified, there would be “no checks, no real balances,” thundered Patrick Henry. Instead, the country would live under a “powerful and mighty empire.” Writing under the assumed name “Agrippa,” yet another Anti-Federalist scoffed at the idea of an enormous “uncompounded republic,” “containing 6 million white inhabitants,” all “reduced to the same standard of morals or habits and of laws.” This “in itself is an absurdity,” mocked “Agrippa.”

The tower of Babel that is 21st century America is home not to 6 but 317 million alienated, antagonistic individuals, diverse to the point of distrust. These modern-day Americans, some of whose ancestors were brought together by a “profound intellectual and emotional attachment to individual liberty,” possess little by way of “social capital” to unify them. Surveys say Americans today avoid one another, hunkering down unhappily in front of the TV, instead. This would have hardly surprised “Agrippa.”



The Commerce Clause has given us the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. ACA, or Obamacare, forces 21st-century Americans to purchase the federal government’s version of health insurance, or risk punishment. The Clause was the focus of scathing Anti-Federalist critique. “What is meant by ‘the power to regulate’?” they demanded to know. “What, precisely, is ‘commerce’?” The new Constitution, argued the prescient Anti-Federalists, is mum on these matters, providing little by way of precision in definition.

Brilliant too was “Brutus” in his prediction that, if instituted, the “new system of government” would see the federal judiciary “swallow up the State courts.” Back then, “Brutus” saw Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution as vesting the judicial branch with the kind of power that would bring about “the entire subversion of the legislative, executive, and judiciary power of the individual states.”

As the saying goes, “A prophet is not without honor save in his own country.”

To observe Obama (and predecessor) in action is to realize that Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry and New York Anti-Federalist “Cato” were prophets who deserve a lot more honor in their own country. Both forewarned of an imperial presidency in the making. “‘The president,’ wrote ‘Cato,’ has so much power that his office ‘differs very immaterially from the establishment of monarchy in Great Britain.’”

Indeed, President Barack Obama habitually “uses executive orders to circumvent federal legislation.” He exempts his “friends or political cronies” from oppressive laws his subjects must obey. And he orders the suspension of “duly enacted [immigration] law” – even “barring enforcement” – because he does not like the law.

A propagandized population has a hard time choosing worthy heroes. It is high time Americans celebrate the Anti-Federalists, for they were correct in predicting the fate of freedom after Philadelphia.

To deny that the Anti-Federalists were right is to deny reality.

Having prophesied that Philadelphia was the beginning of the end of the freedoms won in the American Revolution, our Anti-Federalist philosophical fathers fought to forestall the inevitable. They failed.

Bradlee Dean: Obama, Like Hitler & Mao, Is Trying To 'Stupefy' America

In a WorldNetDaily column today, Religious Right activist Bradlee Dean warns that President Obama is committed to creating a government system of mass dependency in order to “to destroy what America is.” Dean alleges that Obama wants to “stupefy” young people and keep them illiterate, jobless and on entitlement programs.

“He needed dependents; therefore, he created dependents. Those dependents were sure to keep him in office, and keep him in office they did,” Dean writes. “What would you say if I told you that over 700,000 of the up-and-coming generation graduating from public schools in America each year cannot even read there [sic] own high school diplomas?”

But most Americans are ignorant of Obama’s sinister plot because they just aren’t as smart as Dean: “Oh, how little the American people know about the history of tyrants and dictators like Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, etc.”

Let me say this plainly: This president is not failing; he is succeeding! He knows exactly what demographic he should go to; the older generation has not yet figured out this method. He is going to the younger generation where the real battle is being waged, and that is where America must go if we are to win the future.

A recent poll out from the Washington Examiner stated that President Barack Hussein Obama is seen as America’s biggest “failure” among modern presidents.

A failure?

Oh, how little the American people know about the history of tyrants and dictators like Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, etc.

The American people look at this president as if he does not know what he and his criminal administration are doing. Friends, he knows exactly what he is attempting to do! Barack Hussein Obama has already stated that he was out to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” If he is out to destroy what America is, then he is in fact not a failure, but rather a success.

For example: It was not too long ago that I heard many in the older age demographic saying they believed that this president made a huge mistake because he had so many people on government entitlement programs. Little did they realize that this was not a failure on the behalf of this president and his criminal administration, it was a total success.

He needed dependents; therefore, he created dependents. Those dependents were sure to keep him in office, and keep him in office they did. Was this a failure on his behalf, or a success? Who are a good majority of the dependents? I’ll tell you who they are: the up-and-coming generation.

What would you say if I told you that over 700,000 of the up-and-coming generation graduating from public schools in America each year cannot even read there own [sic] high school diplomas? This, in fact, is true. They cannot.

Is this a failure or a success on the behalf of those who wish to stupefy the next generation (Hosea 4:6)? Of course … a success!

WND's Farah: Nelson Mandela Was A Racist Terrorist

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah writes today that the death of Nelson Mandela should not be mourned because “the system Mandela’s revolution brought about” is bent on “the deliberate, systematic elimination” of the white race in South Africa.

In an editorial entitled, “Don’t Mourn for Mandela,” the right-wing activist claims Mandela was a terrorist and “the Mandela mythology is as dangerous as the terror he and his followers perpetrated on so many innocent victims – white and black.”

Apartheid was inarguably an evil and unjustifiable system. But so is the system Mandela’s revolution brought about – one in which anti-white racism is so strong today that a prominent genocide watchdog group has labeled the current situation a “precursor” to the deliberate, systematic elimination of the race.

In other words, the world has been sold a bill of goods about Mandela. He wasn’t the saintly character portrayed by Morgan Freeman. He wasn’t someone fighting for racial equality. He was the leader of a violent, Communist revolution that has nearly succeeded in all of its grisly horror.



Today, in South Africa’s white population of 4 million, 1 million live in utter poverty.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.



You will read today many stories describing Mandela as a “political prisoner.”

In fact, he served 27 years in prison for 23 specific acts of sabotage and attempting to overthrow the government.

It was only a year ago that some of the international press began to report the truth about Mandela for the first time. Last December, the London Telegraph reported that, indeed, the records showed Mandela was not only a member of the South African Communist Party, he held a “senior rank.”

By the way, Mandela was offered his freedom while incarcerated many times. All he had to do was renounce terrorism. He wouldn’t do it.

Of course, it’s fashionable to forget about all of this today. Nelson Mandela is dead. He is being proclaimed a saint all over the world.

Nevertheless, these inconvenient truths need to be stated by someone because the Mandela mythology is as dangerous as the terror he and his followers perpetrated on so many innocent victims – white and black.

Amending the Constitution for Government Of, By, and For The People

The American public and a growing number of public officials are calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and related cases to redefine the role of corporate power in the political sphere and place the election process where it belongs – in the hands of the people.

Remembering The Religious Right's Attacks On Nelson Mandela

The news today of Nelson Mandela’s passing is also time to reflect on the complicated relationship between Mandela and his anti-apartheid African National Congress (ANC) with the US, which did not always support the anti-apartheid struggle. In fact, American conservatives lobbied the federal government in the 1980s to withhold support from the anti-apartheid movement.

President Reagan added the ANC to the US terrorism watch list, a designation not removed until 2008, and unsuccessfully vetoed sanctions against the apartheid regime. Many Republican lawmakers did break with the Reagan administration’s stance, but “all 21 [Senate] votes to sustain the veto were cast by Republicans.”

Mandela faced criticism from Republican leaders including Dick Cheney, who described Mandela’s ANC as a “terrorist organization,” and Jesse Helms, who “turned his back during Mandela’s visit to the U.S. Capitol.” Even in 1998, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly lumped Mandela together with notorious dictators.

The late Jerry Falwell urged [PDF] his supporters to write their congressmen and senators to tell them to oppose sanctions against the apartheid regime. “The liberal media has for too long suppressed the other side of the story in South Africa,” he said. “It is very important that we stay close enough to South Africa so that it does not fall prey to the clutches of Communism.”

“South Africa is torn by civil unrest, instigated primarily by Communist-sponsored people who are capitalizing on the many legitimate grievances created by apartheid, unemployment and policy confrontations,” Falwell continued.

Finally, we should, if possible, invest in South Africa, because this inevitably improves the standard of living for nonwhites there.

Now is not the time to turn our backs on South Africa. The world has witnessed the Soviets capture nation after nation. They have been particularly aggressive in Africa. South Africa must not be the next victim!

David John Marley notes in Pat Robertson: An American Life that Robertson criticized the ANC because it was “led by communists and was hostile to Israel” and “far too radical an element to ever work with,” while “his campaign literature made similar claims for the need to support the white government.”

The televangelist regularly spoke ill of Mandela’s group and his Christian Broadcasting Network ran segments critical of sanctions against the apartheid government as Congress debated sanctions.

In 1986 The 700 Club did a series of reports on South Africa and the white government’s struggle against the African National Congress. While many socially liberal religious leaders decried the apartheid regime, Robertson openly supported it because he felt that it was a bastion against communism. For Robertson, everything else was secondary to defeating what he saw as the enemies of God. Robertson sent a copy of The 700 Club program to Freedom Council’s Dick Thompson to have it forwarded to Pat Buchanan, who in turn promised to show it to the president. Reagan’s attitude toward South Africa was one of his most controversial foreign policy stands, and Robertson was one of Reagan’s few allies on the policy.

Sam Kleiner mentions that now-Sen. Jeff Flake, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff were also active in lobbying against the anti-apartheid movement:

Jack Abramoff, now a disgraced former lobbyist convicted of fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion, got much of his start from his work with South Africa. Abramoff visited the country following his term as National Chair of the College Republicans in 1983 and met with pro-apartheid student groups linked to the South Africa’s Bureau of Security Services. In 1986, he opened the International Freedom Foundation. Ostensibly a think tank, it was later revealed as a front group for the South African Army as part of “Operation Babushka” meant to undermine Nelson Mandela’s international approval. The group had over “30 young ideologues in offices on G Street in Washington, Johannesburg, London and Brussels” working on propaganda in support of the South African government.



Like Abramoff, GOP tax guru Grover Norquist became enamored with the conflict in South Africa and went there to extend his support. Norquist ran College Republicans from 1981 to 1983 and went to South Africa in 1985 for a “Youth for Freedom Conference” sponsored by South African businesses. While other college students, such as Barack Obama, had been active in anti-apartheid work, this conference was seeking to bring American and South African conservatives together to end that movement. In his speech there, Norquist said, “The left has no other issue [but apartheid] on campus. Economic issues are losers for them. There are no sexy Soviet colonies anymore.” A few months after the conference, Norquist went to Angola to work with Jonas Savimbi, the rebel leader that Abramoff valorized in his film. Norquist became a ghost-writer for Savimbi’s essay in Policy Review. When he returned to Washington, he was greeted in conservative circles as a “freedom fighter,” and he proudly placed an “I’d rather be killing commies” bumper sticker on his brief case.

A few years later and much further along in the anti-apartheid movement, a young Jeff Flake (now a senator from Arizona) became active in lobbying for South African mining interests in the late 1980s and early ’90s, after returning from his Mormon mission to South Africa. As a graduate student at Brigham Young University, he testified against an anti-apartheid resolution in the Utah State Senate and then became a lobbyist in Washington for Smoak, Shipley and Henry, a lobbying firm specializing in representing the South African mining industry. Flake went on to personally represent the Rossing Uranium plant in Namibia, which had been a major target of anti-apartheid activists for its discriminatory and unsafe practices.

Decades later, these Republican leaders would prefer not to have their adventures in South Africa mentioned. While Abramoff went down in a corruption scandal, Norquist went on to remake himself into a libertarian anti-tax activist, and Flake moved back to Arizona. The anti-communism that motivated the Republican allegiance to South Africa fizzled with the end of the Cold War, but the history of the Republican entanglement with South Africa remains one of the party’s darker episodes.

President Obama can proudly talk about how his first political act was in response to apartheid. While a few Republicans stood against apartheid, much of the Republican Party has nothing to offer about its position at the time but silence. I wouldn’t expect any reflections on apartheid from Abramoff, Flake or Norquist anytime soon.

Frank Gaffney Will Twist Any News Item In Order To Attack Obama

After the Ukrainian government’s decision to pull out of an agreement with the European Union triggered massive protests, Secretary of State John Kerry cancelled his trip to Ukraine and instead visited Moldova which, unlike Ukraine, decided to pursue closer relations with the EU.

This is how a real news source covered the story:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged the Ukrainian government on Tuesday to “listen to the voices of its people” after President Viktor Yanukovych's decision to spurn an agreement with the European Union sparked days of massive protests.

Kerry said Ukrainians had demonstrated “in unbelievable numbers” their support of the accord on closer ties with Europe, which Yanukovych rejected last week in favor of Russian incentives.

“Mr. Yanukovych has obviously made a personal decision and the people don't agree with that decision,” Kerry said after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels.

“Clearly there is a very powerful evidence of people who would like to be associated with Europe... we stand with the vast majority of the Ukrainians who want to see this future for their country,” he told a news conference.



“I personally will be going to Moldova in order to support that country's European choice,” Kerry said. “I look forward to visiting Ukraine when it too gets back on the path to European integration and economic responsibility.”

But Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy claims that Secretary Kerry’s clear stance in favor of greater European integration and support for the demonstrators actually is proof that he opposes the pro-EU protest movement, proving once again that Obama administration officials can do no right in the eyes of right-wing activists: 

There’s a new revolution underway – this time in Ukraine. Mass demonstrations are insisting that country align with the European Union, not Russia, an idea adamantly opposed by Vladimir Putin and his puppets in Kiev. America should be standing with those seeking freedom and closer ties to the West. Yet, the Obama administration is literally missing in action, with Secretary of State John Kerry just cancelling a planned trip to Ukraine. See a pattern here? Where revolutionaries are working to overthrow friends of the United States, Team Obama is all for them. Where revolutionaries oppose regimes hostile to the United States and freedom – as in Iran in 2009 or Ukraine today – President Obama offers no help, or even rhetorical support. This pattern diminishes America’s standing internationally and makes for a more dangerous world.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious