Brian Tashman's blog

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.

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.

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.
Syndicate content