Did Joseph Farah Bend the Truth About Sudan By C. E. Carlson On August 7, 2001 Joseph Farah's highly successful World Net Daily (WND) published a front-page expos� aimed at the beleaguered Sudanese Government (GOS). It was entitled "Sudan: ministry 'should expect to be bombed'" and subtitled "Khartoum charges Peter Hammond as enemy of the state." By inference and reference the story supported the idea of a vicious and vindictive government conducting a slave trade and threatening Hammond, a missionary. However, on the very next day Lou Marano of United Press International published a contradictory article, "Civilization: Slave Buybacks in Sudan" which drew nearly opposite conclusions. Mr. Marano's article was supported by what appeared to be qualified and credible eyewitnesses who, it would seem, had nothing material to gain from the positions they took and might well have something to lose. The article strongly suggested that slavery in Sudan is, and always has been, a contrivance of certain religious sounding organizations, and is conducted primarily as a fundraiser for the SPLA insurgent army (www.sudan.net/news/posted/3195.html). The question we ask is, why did World Net Daily (WND) give the uncontroverted "facts" a one-sided whitewashing? If those who do not trust the mainline media cannot trust the new right's darling, WND, who can they trust? Joseph Farah risked a little of his reputation to slam the far-off government of impoverished Sudan. He employed what can only be described as feeble logic and questionable witnesses. Simply stated, the WND story does not pass muster as anything more than an unsupported propaganda hit piece, as we shall see. Could it be that Mr. Farah, having just visited with President G.W. Bush, was saying "thanks" by buttering up one of Bush's new agenda items--continued financing of Bill Clinton's hard-to-justify war against Sudan? Or is Mr. Farah continuing his love affair with the state of Israel by bashing one of its most coveted and hated enemies, or is he doing both at the same time? History tells us a Bush without a war is like a Clinton without a date. While the President has said little about Sudan, or anything else, Mr. Bush's administration has clearly telegraphed its support for an Iraq-style war by the American people against the people of Sudan. The proof of this is that he encouraged Congress to appropriate money for the SPLA insurgent army. The pretext for this non-war is to "fix" Sudan's government. Readers should remember the war on Iraq was engineered by Bush Sr. to "fix" Saddam Hussein and supposedly free the people from his "dictatorship." Instead, the Gulf War delivered the Iraqi people into unspeakable poverty. Sudan's fate will be worse, because it is poorer and more remote than Iraq was. Mr. Farah's account of his prestigious small-group visit with the President's staff on July 30, clearly reveals one thing and one thing only: Joseph Farah is for what Israel is for. He openly criticizes President Bush repeatedly in WND for not doing enough fast enough for Israel. For instance, he criticized the Bush administration's "failure to live up to the president's campaign promise to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem." Israel is and always has been for the destruction of the Government of Sudan, though it is clever enough to keep it quiet and leave the dirty work to the USA. Bush inherited an ongoing agenda to destroy the people of Sudan from Bill Clinton. President Clinton started this campaign by sanctioning Sudan by Executive Order in December 1997. Clinton's economic war was escalated two years later with a midnight missile attack that completely destroyed what was then known to be the only pharmaceutical plant in the country. America first sanctioned Sudan and then brutally destroyed its only artificial immune system. But none of this dislodged the stubborn GOS, and now the task of destroying it has fallen into the hands of the son of the initiator of the Gulf War. It is no surprise to us that the Bush administration would follow Clinton's example, because both are substantially directed by the same Pharisaic group. For our view of Mr. Bush we urge you to read LESSER OF TWO EVILS (http://www.whtt.org/001218hu.htm). The Washington and Israeli juggernaut is headed for another terrible Iraq-style war against the Sudanese people, pushing ahead as if nothing has happened. For months the Bush administration and a cadre of "conservative," but Israel- sensitive, Republican Congressmen have been gearing up the national media propaganda mill to justify a war against one of the poorest nations on earth, beginning with an appropriation of $3 million for support for the SPLA by the US taxpayers. It takes a lot of propaganda to convince our people a war is needed against a country with a per capita income of $500.00 per year. Such an unthinkable bully engagement can only be justified by convincing a large number of Americans that Sudan's government is the meanest on the face of the earth, and that it constitutes a terrorist threat to Americans. This notion is silly and would be seen as a bad joke if allowed to be debated honestly. But this is where slavery comes in, for the American public is so sensitized to slavery that the mere mention of the word causes them to revolt against anyone accused, without asking for any facts. Americans open their purses more quickly to fight supposed slavery than for any other cause, as the Mailorder Missionaries of Sudan know. We have also written much about the willful participation of some notorious Mailorder Missionaries who have always fed in the tide pool created by the waves of media-created public opinion; there are always those willing to take advantage of the easy pickings created by the war propaganda. It is in the muck of this tide pool that Peter Hammond is immersed. All anti-GOS propaganda relies on an exaggerated interest in Sudan based on allegations of slavery. Except for the issue of slavery, few would give a fig for how brutal the GOS is to its own citizens. But for slavery we could be talking about a dozen African states with less than perfect civil rights records. There is nothing unusual about the civil war in Sudan. Angola and other states have skirmishes that have run longer and killed more people. Iraq, which the US government bombed again on Monday, is in its 12th year of war. So what makes Sudan unique? ...slavery, right? everybody knows that, just ask them. Question: Where is there slavery? Answer: "Sudan, everyone in America knows that." Fortunately for the fleeting and frail cause of peace, another leg in the tragically phony Sudan slave sham has been kicked out from under those who have lied about it in churches and on airwaves all over America. Former slave redeemer Jim Jacobson has told the truth in an August 8, 2001 UPS story by Lou Marano, in which he states that the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), and not the Government of Sudan, runs and controls the slave market. Nor is this the first time Jacobson has spoken out. Following a fact-finding trip to southern Sudan, of which Jacobson was a leader, the July 1999 Atlantic Monthly featured Jacobson in an expose, THE FALSE PREMISE OF SLAVE REDEMPTION, which exposed the slave redemption business as a function of the SPLA and not the Government of Sudan. (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jul/9907sudanslaves.htm) Mr. Jacobson, who is president of Christian Freedom International, (http://www.christianfreedom.org) should know, and, as far as we can see, has nothing to gain and much to lose by telling the truth. He told this reporter that some groups professing to be Christian treat him as a "rat" for coming clean about what he considers his early error in accepting a very few slave redemptions. In the mid-1990s, Jacobson was affiliated with Christian Solidarity International as the president of its U.S. affiliate. In this capacity he traveled to southern Sudan several times as early as 1995, entering without visa. He was one of the first people to actually witness CSI purchase slaves for release (redemption). But soon Jacobson came to object to Christian Solidarity International's "redemption" practice, and split with DSI-USA over the practice. CSI has since become the great slave wholesaler, effectively running the market under franchise granted by the SPLA. UPI writer Marano calls the SPLA "leftist insurgent." We agree, as no one seems to deny that John Garang once considered himself a communist and still acts like one. Jacobson believes that CSI practice is wrong and borders on dishonesty and said so early on. Like We Hold These Truths, Jacobson has long shouted that CSI has invented the entire sordid scheme of phony slave redemptions, and runs it as an ipso facto fundraiser for the SPLA. Jacobson stated, "The only way that U.S. currency flows into the leadership of the SPLA is through this program of slave redemption," Jacobson said. Missionary Hammond, who travels with an armed bodyguard, has disavowed slavery and stated that others use it as a fundraising tool, but he still sells his book Faith Under Fire, which on pages 70-73 promotes slavery as a reality. There he states that "tens of thousands" of Sudanese have been sold into slavery by the GOS. He also sells a videotape called The Hidden Holocaust, which promotes the same notions. Clearly, Hammond is still using slavery to whip up fervor against the Government of Sudan, while privately denying the reality of slavery and accusing others of profiting from it. It appears Joseph Farah has become an anti-Sudan propaganda spigot to the Christian right. Fortunately for the fleeting cause of truth, Farah has picked Hammond, a discredited source, as his anti-slavery hero. Hammond is the one Mailorder Missionary who is privately on record as proclaiming that: "many are abusing the issues in Sudan, especially slavery, in corrupt and disgraceful fundraising scams." Hammond seems to mean everyone but himself. And Hammond's letter to this author is not the only place he has denounced slavery as a scam. Witnesses say Hammond has repeated the statement to a recorded meeting of the Board of Directors of one of the largest and most prestigious churches in America, the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. There Hammond also proclaimed slavery to be a scam. Did WND know this; our reports are regularly sent to them. When he speaks of shameful fundraising scams, who else can Hammond be talking about if not Christian Solidarity International--the people who invented the practice and control the market? Yet WND ran a full-page website ad peddling Hammond's videotape, Sudan: the Hidden Holocaust, which contains two or more sections prominently affirming the CSI claims that the GOS trades in slaves. Hammond and Farah sell the videotape based on his book, after he has denounced the practice as a scam. Again, Hammond is selling both sides of the issue, and discredits himself as well as Mr. Farah, who does not seem to notice. Peter Hammond has not withdrawn the false and erroneous book and tape from the lucrative market. We understand that he apparently cannot resist profiting from the slave myth. This writer does not understand how WND, having been advised of this, can give Hammond so much credence as to refer to him in glowing and professional terms, doting over him as "A WORLD-RENOWNED HUMAN RIGHTS CRUSADER." A little further on in the story Farah himself personalizes the slavery issue, stating, "the national Islamic front has controlled Khartoum, the capital, since 1989. Since that time, the group has funded slave trade of the Dinkas, a cattle-herding, Christian tribe in south Sudan." Either Farah is unaware or he does not care if the issue is true or not. WND seemed to know there were serious doubts that the GOS was ever in the slavery racket. It applied a small buyer beware to its statement about CSI's slave-buying activities, describing it as "a controversial practice opposed by the United Nations' Children's Fund, or UNICEF." This is as close as it comes to presenting the other side of the issue. WND's errors and omissions did not stop here; it resorted to yellow journalism to cover up what may well be a mischaracterization of the headlined claim that "Khartoum charges Peter Hammond as enemy of the state." There is reason to question if this statement is true in the first place, since WND provides a caveat to justify its shot at Sudan. It states: "Though the inflammatory statement was actually written by an American detractor of Hammond, republication of the statement on the official website of the Sudanese government suggests Khartoum agrees with its threats." Why did not WND identify who the "detractor" is? And why not source the "official website" so others can view it and decide if it really is a "threat"? WND has not responded to our request to provide this information, and we have spent significant time searching for this official website without success. Why would WND not quote the sources of the "fact" upon with the entire story is based? One logical answer is Mr. Farah's desire to please the United Nations-created State of Israel and his new friend, President G.W. Bush, who would himself do anything (he has said) to please the state of Israel. Would WND stretch proper journalism under the theory that the Sudanese have few friends to protest? Yes; it did in this case! We are saddened to find World Net Daily catering to the powerful Pharisees who have offered up the propaganda trough to the likes of Hammond. WND describes itself as A FREE PRESS FOR A FREE PEOPLE. We Hold These Truths describes itself as a group that is engaged in EXPOSING THE TRACEABLE LINKS BETWEEN THE BEHIND-THE-SCENES POWER GROUPS AND THE CRITICAL POLITICAL EVENTS OF THE DAY. We are doing as we said, and we only ask that WND be as truthful on this issue as they claim to be. We will point out exceptions and expose these traceable links. We ask you, readers, not to wait for any elected official to act for you. Talk to your church about being cheated in the slavery scam. Ask your friends to demand (don't bother to ask) that Congress press for a full investigation of why taxpayer money is being appropriated for the same SPLA that has now been exposed as the ones who actually run the slave trade, and demand they hold up the money. Notes: Peter Hammond's recent letter to WHTT disavowed the slave redemptions are a "fund raising scam." http://www.whtt.org/010723pw.htm Hammond's Website proclaiming slavery (http://www.frontline.org.za) Copyright 2001, may be reproduced only in full. We Hold These Truths (www.whtt.org) 4839 E. Greenway Road, #151 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 480-947-3329 Our Website is back on line! Subscribe to WHTT printed Journal, Right To The Point, free to contributors. (www.whtt.org/bookstor) If you wish to help WHTT, please type "Cloudseeder" in the SUBJECT line. If you wish to be added to our mailing list type "Subscribe" in the Subject line. To withdraw, please type "Remove" in the SUBJECT line of your reply.
