Phil Robertson: Founders Didn't Want Government To Provide Louisiana Flood Aid

Phil Robertson, the “Duck Dynasty” patriarch who will be speaking alongside Donald Trump at the Values Voter Summit this weekend, offered his thoughts on natural disasters in an interview with a West Virginia radio station yesterday, explaining that the government shouldn’t be providing relief to people affected by the devastating flooding in Louisiana because everybody should just chill out, stop whining and move to higher ground.

Brian Sexton, who was hosting “ The Tom Roten Morning Show,” asked Robertson to discuss the flooding in his home state of Louisiana, which led Robertson to embark on an extended reflection on natural disasters and how everyone always gets “bent out of shape whether it doesn’t rain or if it does rain,” when the country’s founders thought you should just deal with it on your own:

Here’s my view of disasters, whether it be hurricanes, tornados, it just rains a lot. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and say—You know, I’ve noticed something. We bellyache when it doesn’t rain because we can’t grow anything and ‘It’s a drought, it’s a drought!’ We all bellyache and then cry out. Well, when it rains, starts raining and it rains too much so you have a flood, ‘It’s a flood, it’s a flood!’ and everyone gets all bent out of shape whether it doesn’t rain or if it does rain.

So everybody is saying, running around on planet earth, seemingly saying in America at least, if it just rained just right all the time we would be happy. Here’s the deal: When it rains a lot, it’s going to flood. And if it doesn’t rain too much you have a drought. Both of them are bones to be chewed.

But it’s my studied opinion, just from observing, our founders basically said, ‘When disasters come your way, it’s unfortunate, they do happen, but you can’t expect the United States government to start pouring in and coming down there.’

What everyone needs to realize is we need to love one another enough that when you or your neighbors when they flood, we call come together, we all start cooking some meals here, looking after one another. These things, it’s the way life is. I mean, we’re not going to have the perfect temperature and the perfect amount of rainfall. So my view is, when it floods here we just move all our stuff higher and higher up the hill and if it starts coming in the house, we move it up, up, up as far as we can and then if it comes right down to it, we’re going to find ourselves another hill higher than the one we were on.

After discussing how he always picks land with potential flooding in mind and so people should never have built homes near the Gulf of Mexico in the first place, Robertson concluded: “We bring a lot of this stuff on ourselves. I don’t think the government ought to be a part of it. That’s when you ought to come together as human beings, love one another, help each other out. The waters will recede and life will go on, so let’s just keep it in proper context. It’s the way life is.”

Philip Haney: The Defamation Lawsuit Against Glenn Beck 'Is An Intrusion Of Sharia Law'

Yesterday, Philip Haney, a former Department of Homeland Security analyst who has become a prominent right-wing anti-Islam activist since retiring, spoke at a conference in Washington, D.C., organized by the anti-Muslim group ACT for America.

Near the end of his remarks, Haney took questions from the audience, including one from a woman who asked his thoughts about Abdulrahman Alharbi, a student from Saudi Arabia who was injured in the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, who she said she thought "had something to do with the marathon bombing."

The questioner may have gotten this idea from Glenn Beck. Alharbi was briefly considered to be a person of interest in the early part of the investigation, but was quickly cleared by investigators, but that didn't stop Beck from repeatedly asserting on his radio and television programs that Alharbi was really an Al Qaeda "control agent" and the "money man" who financed and orchestrated the terrorist attack.

Alharbi is now suing Beck for defamation and, earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that Beck would have to reveal the identities of the confidential sources upon whom his network relied in leveling these accusations against Alharbi so that Alharbi's legal team can depose them. Beck is refusing to do so and during Haney's response to the question about the bombing, he made a somewhat cryptic remark regarding that particular issue. 

Haney accused former Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano of lying to Congress about Alharbi and decried the lawsuit against Beck, calling it an effort to impose Sharia on America.

"[Alharbi] is suing Glenn Beck right now," Haney said. "This is an intrusion of Sharia law—slander or defamation - ghiba, which is a capital offense—through the auspices of the Saudi government against an American citizen. The judge just ruled on the 10th of August that he has to disclose his confidential sources. Well, who might that be?"

After that rather revealing remark, Haney wondered why "a foreign government or a foreign national [has] any standing in America to sue an American citizen," complaining that he, Haney, was a victim of "invisible shrapnel because when Janet Napolitano lied to Congress, she set off a third bomb and she shredded the lives of a lot of people."

David Barton Removes Video Claiming He Has 'An Earned Doctorate'

Yesterday, we reported that in response to questions about his claims that he has a Ph.D., right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton released a video insisting that he does, in fact, have "an earned doctorate."

As we and others pointed out, Barton's assertion seemed a little odd since he never actually stated where or when he "earned" his supposed doctorate and the documents in the background to which he pointed were difficult to read, though one clearly came from Pensacola Christian College, from which Barton received an honorary doctorate. The other two documents appear to have come from Ecclesia College and Life Christian University, an unaccredited Christian university that has also awarded Ph.D.s in theology to televangelists like Joyce Meyers and Benny Hinn.

Despite his claims to the contrary, Barton's video did not prove that he has "an earned doctorate" and, instead, simply raised more questions than it supposedly answered. 

And perhaps that is why the video has now been removed from Barton's WallBuilders Facebook page and the video has been made private:

A New Species of Politicians: “Trumpublicans”

This piece originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

The number of Republican elected officials criticizing Donald Trump and condemning his policies while pledging to vote for him has many people understandably scratching their heads, and it’s not hard to see why: politicians calling out the GOP nominee in one breath and then working to bring him and his agenda into power in the next utterly defies logic.

I’d like to propose a name for this odd species of politicians: Trumpublicans.

Trumpublicans: /trəmˈpəbləkən/ — n., pl. 1. Republicans who’ve endorsed or pledged to vote for Trump to win support from far-right voters. 2. Republicans who claim to oppose Trump’s hateful campaign, yet work to advance his candidacy and agenda (e.g. holding a Supreme Court seat open for him to fill.)

Examples of Trumpublicans abound. Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire has tried to separate herself from Trump, refusing to endorse him and saying that she would “stand up” to him. But she also says that she’s “glad to get his endorsement” and still plans to vote for him. Huh? Senator John McCain of Arizona is trying to toe the same line, at times criticizing Trump while repeatedly stating his commitment to vote for him. Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey says that Trump’s actions “give me great pause” but has still refused to disavow him.

There’s no more egregious example than the fight over the Supreme Court vacancy to show how each of these senators are already actively working to support Trump’s extremist agenda. They may express misgivings about Trump with their words, but with their actions, they are holding open the vacant Supreme Court seat so that it can be filled by him. They are going to extraordinary lengths—ignoring their constitutionally-defined responsibilities—to let the next Supreme Court justices be picked by Donald Trump, a man who says a judge can’t do his job because of his Mexican heritage.

Senators’ comments against Trump mean nothing when their actions and votes are still with him in all the ways that count. These senators are trying to have it both ways in a straddle to appeal to both voters with common sense and decency and those who are turned on by Trump’s hate. 
Too many people have written off the Trumpublican phenomenon as being only about Trump as if he’s a one-time thing. “He’s coming out of left field,” the story goes. “He’s so out-there that he’s putting ‘moderate’ Republicans in a tough place.” But when it comes to his anti-Latino, anti-women, anti-just-about-everyone agenda, Trump’s not coming out of left field; he’s coming straight from home plate. He’s riding the sorry momentum that the Republican party has built for years.

After all, way before Trump, this is the party that has threatened to shut down the government over immigration reform and the funding of Planned Parenthood. The party of “self-deportation.” The party that wants to ban abortion. The party that now denies science and doesn’t believe in the president’s birthplace or religion. There is no question that Trump’s rhetoric is horrific, but don’t believe the myth that he is a wild aberration; in many ways, he is tapping into the very core of the Republican party that tragically for the country has become more and more extreme every year.

There’s a reason why the strong recommendations of the infamous 2012 GOP post-loss post-mortem couldn’t be heeded, and this was long before the idea of a Trump candidacy was a glimmer in any Republican eye.

This is no longer your granddaddy’s GOP. And it’s not going to be the “the party of Lincoln”—a description they love to throw around, no matter how increasingly inaccurate—again until people start to stand up to the likes of Donald Trump and to the base that so decisively elected him. It’s as simple as that. You can’t tell your children and grandchildren that you stood against a man who proposed banning all members of a religious group from the country, who smeared an entire community as rapists and criminals, who claimed a judge couldn’t do his job because of his heritage. No, Trumpublicans will have to tell them that even though they said Trump was in the wrong, they stood by him all the way.


Ohio Activists Petition To Classify Abortion As 'Aggravated Murder'

Activists in Ohio have filed a petition with Attorney General Mike DeWine seeking to put a constitutional amendment on the state’s ballot that would classify abortion as “aggravated murder.”

The proposed amendment would “prohibit abortion of all unborn human beings, without exception, and [classify] it as aggravated murder in the State of Ohio.” Its authors claim that it would not affect “genuine contraception” or “IVF procedures that respect the right to life of newly created human beings”—carefully worded qualifications that seem designed to ease public discomfort about the amendment while not actually creating exceptions.

Under Ohio law, “aggravated murder” can be punished by death or life in prison.

Cleveland.com reports that the amendment petition was submitted by Ohio activists Laura Burton, Anthony Dipane and Dustin Paulson. Although the news outlet reports that the activists are “not connected with Right to Life or other organized anti-abortion rights groups,” the language of the amendment is identical to a bill posted on the website of Abolish Abortion Ohio, a state group connected with the group Abolish Human Abortion. Dipane and Paulson are both associated with Abolish Abortion Ohio.

In a Facebook post about the proposed amendment, Paulson wrote that he and his allies were calling on legislators to ignore “the unjust rulings of an unjust Supreme Court” and “defy the higher magistrates” (i.e. the courts) on the issue:

We're calling our fellow citizens, Ohioans, Christians, to repent of their apathy and capitulation during this war on the unborn.

They've seen their neighbor left for dead and passed by on the other side.

The legislators who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the unjust rulings of an unjust Supreme Court, have helped to codify their murders.

Our message is simple and unchanging:

-Repent with us for failing to do for the least of these what we would most certainly have done for Christ.

-Call for, and only for, the uncompromising abolishment of abortion in our state and nation.

-Defy the higher magistrates who have become unquestionable kings in our nation, no matter the cost to state and country.

An Oklahoma bill seeking to classify abortion as first-degree murder this year was similarly pushed by the “abolitionist” group in the state. That bill foundered, but the Oklahoma legislature soon passed another bill seeking to make abortion a felony, which was vetoed by the state’s Republican governor.

Trump Protects Fraudulent Trump University with Racist Attacks, Possible Bribes

Donald Trump will seemingly stop at nothing to try to get what he wants at the expense of everyone else.

At this point, in the public eye, Trump University is seen for what it was: a scam university used to pad Trump’s pockets by deceiving students. The school offered no real degree, it lied to students about the caliber of its professors and it systematically targeted potential students who Trump University employees knew would have to take on debt or empty their retirement savings in order to pay for it.

But even with universal condemnation, Trump University has suffered no legal repercussions for its con. 

Now, though, Trump University is facing three lawsuits. One of these is a class action suit in California. Trump responded to the case in typical fashion: by launching racist, personal attacks. He baselessly attacked the federal judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, accusing him of not being able to preside over the case impartially simply because of his Mexican-American heritage.

It seems though that the racist attacks were only his backup plan. In at least two states, it appears that Trump acted before any charges reached the courts: Trump engaged in pay-to-play with attorneys general to get them to drop any possible actions against Trump University.

Here’s an excerpt from an interview that NPR’s Robert Siegel did with Associated Press reporter Michael Biesecker about Texas’ decision not to prosecute Trump University:

Biesecker: Well, in Texas, public records obtained by the Associated Press show that there was a very robust investigation of Trump University and that lawyers in [then-Texas Attorney General Greg] Abbott's own Consumer Affairs Division proposed suing Trump and his associates for about $5.4 million in fines and restitution back to their alleged victims. The case files show that they spent more than a year investigating Trump University, had what they considered very strong evidence that Trump University had violated numerous state laws and was operating in the state without a license.

Ultimately, people above the Consumer Affairs Division decided not to take action. Abbott denies that he knew of his agency's investigation or that he decided to drop the suit. What AP has reported is that three years later when he ran for governor of Texas, Mr. Trump put forward two checks to his campaign totaling $35,000.

SIEGEL: You can't demonstrate a quid pro quo here that either in the Texas or the Florida case somebody said, you drop the case; I give you money.

BIESECKER: We can't, but the former deputy chief of consumer protection of Texas, a man named John Owens, stepped forward and was quoted in local media there saying that he believes the case was dropped for political considerations because Mr. Trump was a donor of Republican causes.

In Florida, it looks even worse. From that same interview:

BIESECKER: Well, in 2013, Pam Bondi - the attorney general's office was quoted by the Orlando Sentinel as saying they were reviewing New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's proposed lawsuit against Trump University to determine whether Florida should join that multi-state case. Four days after that appeared in the newspaper, Bondi's campaign account notes that it received a $25,000 check from the Trump Foundation, the family foundation of Donald Trump.

It was subsequently reported that Bondi herself may have been involved in soliciting the contribution, so it should be deeply troubling (but not all that surprising) that Bondi chose not to sue. These allegations were first reported earlier this summer. If all this wasn’t bad enough, this story is finally picking up steam because not only does it seem that Trump potentially bribed Bondi, he made the suspicious donation to Bondi’s campaign from the Trump Foundation.

That’s blatantly against the law. Nonprofit foundations, which are tax exempt, cannot in any way, shape, or form contribute to political candidates! This isn’t some murky situation where the law wasn’t clear—foundations are nonprofits, and they cannot engage in political campaign work, much less make a direct contribution. But as Trump has made clear time and time again, he doesn’t care what the rules are or who he hurts along the way, as long as he gets his way.

Trump had to pay a $2,500 penalty to the IRS because of the donation. This is far from the first time Trump has found himself in deep water over campaign contributions (as just one example, in the 1990s he spent $47,050 over the campaign contribution limit in just one year). With the allegations against Bondi and Abbott, and with renewed focus on the Trump Foundation’s payment to the Bondi campaign, this story won’t go away any time soon. But if there’s one silver lining, it’s that as more and more details emerge about the pay-to-play schemes and the fraudulent university, voters can hold Trump responsible in the polls, and judges can hold Trump responsible in the courts.


FRC’s Ken Blackwell: Democrats 'Sowing Grounds To Challenge The Election' If Trump Wins

Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio secretary of state who is now a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, writes in a Christian Post column today that Democrats may be raising the specter of Russian tampering with election results in order to create “grounds to challenge the election” if Donald Trump should win.

Even if this is not the case, Blackwell insists, Democrats may be using hacking fears as a pretense to increase federal oversight of elections.

Blackwell is just the latest conservative activist to suggest that election security concerns are part of a ruse to reverse a Trump victory or justify a federal takeover of elections.


The Democrats are now playing the Russia card. As Donald Trump rises in the polls against an increasingly unpopular Hillary Clinton, Democrats are raising the specter of the nefarious Vladimir Putin. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's famous reset of relations was a bust, but we are supposed to trust her to handle Putin in the future. More important, the Democrats are sowing grounds to challenge the election, relying on their unnatural ability to squeeze, as if by magic, extra votes from the courtroom.

There may be an even more insidious objective, however, than swaying the 2016 result. Outgoing Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, never a fan of election fair play, warned of Russian tampering and called for an FBI investigation. This followed warnings by Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, of potential cyber-attacks come November. He indicated he was considering designating the election system "critical infrastructure."

This would be followed by a Washington campaign to "assist" and "protect" balloting, which inevitably would turn into control. The Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky warned that Johnson's action "may be a way for the administration to get Justice Department lawyers, the FBI, and DHS staff into polling places they would otherwise have no legal right to access, which would enable them to interfere with election administration procedures around the country." That would dramatically, and permanently, transform the constitutional balance between the national and state governments.

'The Election Will Be Rigged, There's No Question About It'

Yesterday, Alex Jones spoke with fellow conspiracy theorist Steve Pieczenik, who suggested that Hillary Clinton, despite her “history of lesbian activities,” is blackmailing President Obama with information about his “homosexual history in Chicago,” proving that she is up to no good.

Pieczenik said that a nefarious actor like Clinton wouldn’t think twice about committing other evil deeds, like rigging the election.

“The election will be rigged,” he said. “There’s no question about it. It is totally rigged.”

Jones, warning that his InfoWars network may be shut down “if these people take over,” said that the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice will try to take over the election system under the guise of preventing cyberattacks like “giants foxes guarding the henhouse from imaginary Russians.”

The claim that President Obama is secretly gay is a favorite of Pieczenik’s.

Frank Gaffney: Matt Lauer May Go Easy On Clinton To Protect Her Health

Frank Gaffney, the conservative activist who runs the Center for Security Policy, latched onto the Hillary Clinton health conspiracy theory today, alleging in an interview with Breitbart News that journalist Matt Lauer may go easy on Clinton at a candidates’ forum tonight because he knows “if she feels stressed she will begin to fall apart.”

“I think that he will almost certainly be bending over backwards to give her a hand,” Gaffney said. “You know, one of the things that is now becoming a subtext is does her health begin to impinge upon her performance in something like this, if she feels stressed will she begin to fall apart for whatever reason? And we don’t know the reason, but I think there’s a question there and I suspect if no other reason, that may contribute to Matt’s well, shall we say a lack of even-handedness.”

Gaffney and the program’s host, Alex Marlow, also discussed reports that Lauer was once listed as a Clinton Global Initiative “member,” which Lauer and other journalists on the list say is not true.

Brigitte Gabriel: Stop Refugee Resettlement Because 'More Than 20 Percent Of Muslims Are Radicals'

The anti-Muslim group ACT for America is holding its annual conference in Washington, D.C., this week, where a major priority of the activists is to convince Congress to halt funding to the refugee resettlement program. In a speech to the conference yesterday, ACT’s founder and president, Brigitte Gabriel, said that this is critical because “more than 20 percent of Muslims are radicals” so allowing any Muslims to immigrate to the country, including through refugee resettlement, is like allowing the immigration of people who have a 20 percent likelihood of carrying a disease that is “fatal on contact.”

“Most experts agree that more than 20 percent of Muslims are radicals,” she asserted. “It is practically impossible to identify this group from the 75 or 80 percent who are not radicals. Impossible!” (In fact, “most experts” do not agree with this number.)

“So I’m going to give you an example,” she said. “Let’s say 20 percent of Chinese people are infected with a disease that is fatal on contact. Fatal on contact! Would we just continue to allow Chinese to enter America rather than be called ‘Chinaphobic’ or would we take the sensible approach of holding Chinese entering the country until we can figure out some way to know who was the carrier of the disease that was fatal on contact, such as suicide bombers or terrorists when it comes to the refugee population?“

“And we would want to check also the Chinese people who are already in the country to make sure they are not carriers of the disease,” she added. “That would be the sensible thing to do to protect the country and protect Americans. That’s why Trump’s approach makes sense. He cares about protecting Americans more than being called names. Let’s start being sensible and stop this political correctness that’s going to kill us.”

She urged ACT members, who headed to Capitol Hill today to lobby their members of Congress, to speak up against funding the refugee resettlement programs and “let these supposed nonprofit organizations who are religious charities, let them fund it out of their own pocket if they are so driven to bring refugees into the country.”

Pat Robertson Promotes Debunked Hillary Health Conspiracy Theory

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson seized on a story promoted by the Drudge Report alleging that Hillary Clinton has a secret handler who guides her through health crises.

The evidence? That the man supposedly carries a Diazepam pen and once rushed to the stage during a campaign rally to help Clinton breathe.

In reality, this suspicious man is actually a Secret Service agent who went up on stage to help Clinton not because of a health crisis but because an animal rights activist protesting the event had gone over the stage barrier. The supposed Diazepam pen he was allegedly holding was actually a flashlight.

Robertson, citing the Drudge Report, wondered if “the heavy-set black gentleman” was Clinton’s “whisperer” and claimed that the man is not affiliated with the Secret Service.

“People are saying, ‘Who is this man?’” he continued. “There are some who are saying, ‘Maybe he’s a doctor who is with her and trying to help her along.’”

This isn’t the first time that Robertson has raised bogus questions about Clinton’s health.

Michael Savage: Obama's 'Murderous Gang' Tried To Assassinate Putin

On his radio program yesterday, Michael Savage said he was just asking the question: Did President Obama try to assassinate Vladimir Putin?

The conservative radio host, a fan of Putin who thinks Obama may have killed Justice Antonin Scalia, pointed to the death of one of the Russian president’s chauffeurs in a car accident in Moscow as proof that there was “an orchestrated hit on the president of Russia,” likely ordered by Obama’s “murderous gang.”

This would be a pretty lame assassination attempt, seeing that Putin was on the other side of the country in the city of Vladivostok at the time for an international summit and meetings with foreign leaders, a schedule that was announced months in advance.

True The Vote Wonders If Obama Orchestrated Hack In Order To Take Over Elections

True the Vote, a Tea Party group that’s working to organize poll-watchers to prevent a “flood of illegal voters” from stealing the 2016 election, organized a conference call last week to explain how a consent decree that the Republican National Committee signed in the 1980s “makes True the Vote the only hope for election integrity this year.”

True the Vote president Catherine Engelbrecht invited a man named Greg Phillips, who she said runs a cyber-security firm, to discuss potential threats to election security, including the recent reported hacks of elections systems in two states. Phillips dismissed the threat of cyberattacks against state elections systems, speculating that the Obama administration may have orchestrated the reported hack in order to justify taking control of elections in the states.

“What the left always does,” he said, “is they create a problem and then they solve their own problem by letting the federal government take it over … All of us in this industry know that the DOJ control of elections is what many of these presidents have wanted and certainly what the DOJ has wanted, but this lawless DOJ, whether it was under the previous attorney general or under the current attorney general, they seek to control all elections. And so they believe, I think, if they go out and they create a problem—they likely, it’s possible they even hired these hackers. They have scores of white-hat hackers that go around doing this kind of thing.”

Their goal in doing such a thing, he said, would have been “to raise enough fear” to justify a federal takeover of elections.

Engelbrecht responded that “there may in fact be a real threat [of] cyberattacks out there or we are citizens in a country whose government is trying to engineer an outcome that would spark fear enough to put elections into the hands of the federal government. It’s all pretty sinister.”

David Barton Now Insists That He Has 'An Earned Doctorate'

Last week, we noted that right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton had started insisting that he has a Ph.D. and begun referring to himself as "Dr. David Barton" in an effort to bolster his credentials as his shoddy work comes under constant criticism.

We pointed out that Barton's recent claims that he has earned a Ph.D. conflict with statements he made earlier this year and last year admitting that he doesn't have a Ph.D.

Apparently, the questions about his academic qualifications have gotten under Barton's skin, so he released a video today insisting that he does, in fact, have an "earned doctorate."

"Something I've noticed about progressive and liberals is how careless they are about throwing false claims around," Barton declared, without a hint of irony. "For instance, I was recently on a national television network where I was introduced as having a doctorate, and progressives instantly ran stories proclaiming that I don't have a doctorate."

"That false claim is amusing on so many levels," Barton smirked, saying that his educational records are "fully protected by privacy laws" as he laughably claimed that he has simply "always chosen not to talk about" his academic credentials. 

"Just for the record, I do have an earned doctorate," Barton stated, gesturing to some framed diplomas sitting on a table behind him. "Not only do I have an earned doctorate, I also have two honorary doctors of letters from other colleges."

The degrees displayed behind Barton are difficult to read, but the one to which he seemingly points when claiming that he has "an earned doctorate" is clearly from Pensacola Christian College, which, according to his own biography, is one of the places from which he received an honorary degree:

David holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts University and an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Pensacola Christian College.

To make things even more confusing, Barton then bizarrely added that "according to West Virginia University, a Doctor of Letters degree is reserved only for individuals who have the highest level of knowledge in their chosen subject matter. Hmmmm. So for all of you critics, sorry to pop your balloon, but I do have an earned doctorate."

Barton's reference to West Virginia University came directly from this Reference.com article about honorary degrees! As the WVU website makes clear, a Doctor of Letters degree is purely an honorary designation:

Honorary degrees are conferred honoris causa, a Latin term meaning “for the sake of honor.” Honorary degrees are not Ph.D.s, nor do they entitle the recipient to the same professional privileges as individuals who have earned degrees.

Rather than settling this issue, Barton has just raised more questions, such as when did he supposedly "earn" this doctorate and from where? And why didn't he provide that information in the video instead of just vaguely pointing to difficult to read documents in the background?

Last year, Barton admitted that he did not have a Ph.D. and earlier this year, he confusingly asserted that he both did and did not have a Ph.D. Now he insists that he does in fact have an "earned doctorate." So which it it? If Barton is going to take the time to film a video proving us wrong, the least he can do is provide verifiable information that actually does so.

UPDATE: Warren Throckmorton notes that the other documents featured in the background of Barton's videos appear to have come from two other Christian colleges and neither appears to support his contention that he has earned a doctorate: 

The video appears to have three degrees in the background. The first one appears to be his honorary degree from Pensacola Christian College and the third appears to be from Ecclesia College. The mystery “earned degree” appears to the one which is partially hidden in the background ... Looking closer at it, I think it is a degree from the unaccredited prosperity gospel fave school Life Christian University.

I can’t find a listing of faculty and the doctorates offered are in theology and ministry, not history and/or education. The requirements have no doubt been slipped for some of those distinguished graduates and may have been in Barton’s case. The requirements say that a student must first get a masters and DMin to go for the PhD. Did Barton do that? He has never said he had anything other than a BA from ORU. The school is not accredited by a regional accrediting body which is perhaps why he didn’t name it in his video.

Barton’s smug rebuke depends entirely on what degree he actually has. It appears his degree comes from the same school which awarded Joyce Meyers and Benny Hinn a PhD in theology. The school does not award degrees in history which Barton should have disclosed.

Conservative Megadonors & John Ashcroft Buddies Try To Elect Ashcroft’s Son And Roll Back Voting Rights In Missouri

Missouri’s state constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution, explicitly protects an individual’s right to vote.

But a group of prominent Republican donors, Christian conservative activists and friends of John Ashcroft, a former Missouri senator and governor who served as U.S. attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, have come together in an attempt to elect Ashcroft’s son Jay secretary of state of Missouri, with the hope that he will roll back that constitutional right and push through a strict voter ID law.

Jay Ashcroft has made voter ID a centerpiece of both his primary and general election campaigns. Last year, he took advantage of a Missouri law that allows citizens to propose ballot initiatives to file a proposed constitutional amendment that would roll back the state’s constitutional right to vote and allow the state to enforce a voter ID law. Ashcroft’s amendment will be on the ballot in November.

Ashcroft’s arguments center around the usual conservative voter-fraud boogeyman. “We’re talking about potential fraud that changes statewide elections,” he has argued.

Ari Berman of The Nation reported this year that “5 percent of the electorate [in Missouri]—220,000 registered voters—lack a government-issued photo ID, according to the secretary of state’s office, and [voter ID] would cost the state nearly $17 million to implement in the first three years.”

The current secretary of state, Democrat Jason Kander, is running for U.S. Senate, hoping to unseat Roy Blunt. Of the eight secretary of state races in the country this cycle, six are for offices that are currently held by Democrats.

Behind Ashcroft’s campaign to roll back the right to vote in Missouri is a confluence of big-money donors, Religious Right activists and friends of the candidate’s father. According to campaign finance reports, nearly half of the $824,788 donated to Ashcroft’s campaign has come from just four individuals, three of whom are related to each other.

David Humphreys has contributed $200,000 to Ashcroft’s campaign, while his mother Ethelmae and his sister Sarah Humphreys Atkins each donated $50,000. The Humphreys family are the owners of TAMKO, a manufacturer of building products. According to the Kansas City Star, the family has “poured $2.75 million into a political action committee that for months has been targeting Republicans who oppose a ‘right to work’ law.” David Humphreys also contributed $1,000,000 to a super PAC supporting Marco Rubio’s failed presidential campaign.

The last 990 tax form filed by the Humphreys’ family foundation shows that in 2014 the foundation contributed to a variety of organizations connected to the conservative Koch brothers, including a $500,000 contribution to Americans for Prosperity and smaller contributions to the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Mercatus Center.

Another $100,000 donated to Jay Ashcroft’s campaign came directly from the corporate treasury of the CNS Corporation, a Missouri-based holding company owned by pastor and businessman Charles Sharpe. Sharpe Holdings is one of the numerous companies that filed suit against the Obama administration’s contraceptive insurance mandate, an issue that ended up being heard by the Supreme Court as part of the Hobby Lobby case.  

Sharpe is also the founder a school called the Heartland Christian Academy that has come under scrutiny for its sometimes extreme use of corporal punishment.

Beyond these four individuals, Ashcroft has received contributions from influential members of the Christian Right, including $5,000 from Pat Robertson, chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network. John Ashcroft is a professor at Robertson’s Regent University.

Other major funders include other friends of John Ashcroft, including his business partner David Ayers, Bush administration colleague Donald Rumsfeld, former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, and the chair of Scooter Libby’s legal defense trust, Mel Sembler.

This group has joined together to fund a campaign that at its core is about rolling back the right to vote and the protection of that right in Missouri’s constitution.

Welcome To The 'United Shariah States of America'

On Friday, WorldNetDaily ran a column by Andrew Thorp King about the coming “United Shariah States of America,” which he writes will emerge in just five years and turn American citizens into slaves.

In the Sharia States, King writes, it will be hard to walk without encountering ash from the incinerators murdering all the infidels following the Islamist takeover of the U.S., a prediction he makes based on a debunked case of a Sharia court in Texas and a bogus poll organized by the Center for Security Policy.

The evil, ambitious, prescient plan that led us to where we are now, here in 2021, where ISIS has Islamized America.

Today is Thursday. The last one in September. The autumn leaves are as beautiful as they ever were this time of year, except for the light, consistent layer of soft ash that floats down on them periodically throughout the day. The ash that comes from the incinerator just down the street. Thursdays are their biggest production day. Wednesdays are drop-off days for that week’s collection activity, so Thursday is when most of the burning happens. Hence, more ash. I escaped the incinerator by pledging my life to Islam. A coward I am. Those who are brave, the collected ones – all the infidels – Christians, homosexuals, atheists and especially the Jews, they get the fire. Some days I wish I chose to be with them.

Instead, I sit and wonder what would have happened if we got wise to their 20-year plan back in 2016. Back when it was already clear they were right on track with the first five phases. Or if we paid more attention to the implications of the poll taken of Muslims living in the U.S. back in 2015 that showed that 51 percent embraced Shariah over the U.S. Constitution. Could we have hedged the remaining two phases if we knew better? I doubt it. But only God knows.

God knows the West did very little to push back the creeping of this now dominant, ubiquitous Shariah. The civilization jihadists pushed for their own sub-legal system in Texas, just like in Londonistan. And we eventually gave in. No political will. Only political correctness.

We essentially rolled over as the Muslim Brotherhood methodically infiltrated our power structures and government entities for years with an underlying intent to wage civilization jihad on us in a slow, deliberate, calculated fashion. The Western frog lying cluelessly in the hot boiling water of increasing Islamism.

So, here I sit, a slave in the United Shariah States of America. I’ve lost all integrity by submitting to the faith of my captors, and yet still I am their slave. I’ve escaped death but still lost life by turning my soul away from my own faith and devotion to my country.

I never saw this coming. The West never saw this coming. The stinging memory of Nazism did nothing to help us perceive this new, similar threat. A threat directly connected to and inspired by the ideology and strategies of Nazism. But it was all right there. All in the plan.

Once Again, Glenn Beck Has Absolutely No Idea What He Is Talking About

On Friday, the FBI released a summary of the interview the agency conducted with Hillary Clinton earlier this summer as part of its investigation into her handling of classified documents during her tenure as secretary of state.

Predictably, Glenn Beck had some thoughts about the revelations contained in this report, but those thoughts were obviously in no way informed by any knowledge of what the report actually said, as he insisted on his radio program today that Clinton told the FBI that she believed that documents marked with the letter "C", which signals that the information is "confidential," simply meant "cookie."

"In her testimony," Beck falsely asserted, "she said, 'I had a concussion and I was very forgetful and confused. I thought 'C' stood for cookie."

"'I thought the "C" stood for cookie,'" Beck insisted, as his co-hosts expressed their disbelief. "Who wants a cookie?"

When one of those co-hosts, Stu Burguiere, pointed out that there is no record of Clinton making any remark of that sort and that this is merely a falsehood being promoted by Donald Trump supporters, Beck insisted—in a very Trumpian way—that he "heard it in CNN" but couldn't remember "who I heard it from."

Clinton, of course, told the FBI nothing of the sort:

Hillary Clinton told the FBI that she thought classification markings in the paragraphs of her emails at the Department of State were to organize messages in alphabetical order, according to the FBI’s newly released report on her private email server.

“When asked what the parenthetical ‘C’ meant before a paragraph within the captioned email, [Clinton] stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order,” read the FBI’s notes from the interview.

WorldNetDaily Once Again Warns Of Obama Extending His Time In Office

WorldNetDaily columnist Mychal Massie has joined the chorus of those who believe President Obama could be preparing to stay in office beyond the expiration of his second term, writing in a column today that Obama may illegally attempt to hold onto the White House past January.

After discussing the conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton is in ill health, Massie warned that “the possibility of the election being postponed” has become “very real.”

Massie wrote that while he doesn’t believe Obama will “usurp power, institute martial law and make himself ‘lord ruler’ in perpetuity,” he does worry that the president will postpone the election, “which opens the door to Obama remaining in office during the period of time it would take for Democrats to position another nominee.” He added that it cannot “be overstated that the enemies of We the People will go to any lengths to deny us the president of our choice.”

Clinton is either incompetent or suffering from the debilitating effects of a brain injury, but she is unquestionably unfit to be president – which raises the question: What happens if she steps down before the Nov. 8 General Election?

According to Article Two of Democratic Party rules, the party defines the steps to be taken to nominate another presidential nominee. This would also include the reconvening of another national convention, which is expensive and could be quite time-consuming.

A greater concern is if the gravity of Clinton’s aberrant dissociative behavior resulted in her being forced to step down as presidential nominee because of pending criminal actions or because she was believed to be or claimed to be non compos mentis (a legal term meaning not of sound mind).

If that potentiality became a reality this late in the race, the possibility of the election being postponed becomes very real. Democrats would need time to reconvene a convention, nominate another presidential nominee and have his or her name placed on ballots nationwide.

A still greater concern is that America is mandated by the Constitution to have a president, which opens the door to Obama remaining in office during the period of time it would take for Democrats to position another nominee.

I know that there are those who are committed to the absurd belief that Obama’s plan has always been to usurp power, institute martial law and make himself “lord ruler” in perpetuity. I disagreed with that scenario when it was first floated in 2009, and I disagree with it now.

There are also the issues of Clinton’s health. It is a gross understatement to simply say Clinton is in poor, if not failing health. The Twittersphere exposed that some in the mainstream media have been using photos from as long as four years ago in a draconian attempt to conceal how sickly and horrid she looks. This happened after her Aug. 31 speech at the American Legion in Cincinnati, Ohio, an event, it should be noted, that she as unable to come close to filling.

The magnitude of the 2016 election cannot be overstated. Nor can it be overstated that the enemies of We the People will go to any lengths to deny us the president of our choice.

Senate GOP Holding Dozens Of Federal Court Seats For Trump

It’s well known that the Senate GOP has been stalling President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland for months in the hope that Donald Trump will win the presidential election and eventually fill the vacant Supreme Court seat. This dynamic is playing out in the lower federal courts as well, as Senate Republicans stall confirmation proceedings in an apparent effort to leave as many vacancies as possible for a potential President Trump to fill.

People for the American Way’s Paul Gordon has crunched the numbers and reports in a memo today that by stalling district and appeals court nominations, Senate Republicans are leaving far more lower court vacancies at the end of President Obama’s term in office than Democrats did at the end of President Bush’s.

Gordon reports that there are 87 current circuit and district vacancies in the federal courts today, more than double the number that there were at the beginning of the year. Contrast that with the number of vacancies during the final two years of Bush’s presidency:

Gordon notes that these vacancies do not exist because of a lack of nominees:

Now, in September of 2016, Republicans have an opportunity and a responsibility to fill dozens of vacancies. In addition to Merrick Garland, there are 29 circuit and district court nominees still bottled up in the Judiciary Committee. Only six of them have even had hearings, let alone a committee vote; two of the nominees (both from Pennsylvania) had their committee hearings last year, but Grassley still has not brought them up for a vote.

In addition, there are 20 circuit and district court nominees who have been vetted and approved by Judiciary Committee and who could — and should — have confirmation votes as soon as the Senate returns to Washington. More than a third of these have been pending on the floor for more than six months, including four who advanced from committee back in 2015.

The fact that the Senate GOP is deliberately slow-walking President Obama’s nominees in the final year of his term in office is an open secret. A top anti-abortion lobbyist said this summer that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have “moved with very deliberate speed on those nominations and it's safe to predict that there will be quite a number of vacant seats on the federal courts, including that Supreme Court vacancy, when the election rolls around.”

"There certainly would be a lot more Obama-nominated federal judges if the Senate had remained in Democrat hands," he added.

Trump Cozying Up To Activists Who've Supported Criminalizing Homosexuality

Donald Trump is scheduled to speak this week at the Values Voter Summit, the annual confab hosted by the Religious Right powerhouse the Family Research Council. While Trump has claimed that he will be a better “friend of LGBT Americans” than Hillary Clinton (just “ask the gays”), his appearance at VVS shows the extent to which he has cozied up with some of the country’s fiercest opponents of LGBT equality, going so far as to offer them their pick of Supreme Court justices.

Many of the summit’s organizers and speakers have a long history of anti-LGBT rhetoric and promoting anti-LGBT policies, from denigrating gay and lesbian armed service members to falsely linking homosexuality with pedophilia. In fact, a glaring number of VVS participants have defended laws criminalizing homosexuality in the U.S. and around the globe.

While the Religious Right has changed its messaging in recent years to claim that conservative Christians in the U.S. are facing persecution from LGBT rights activists, it was not long ago that many of the same groups were fighting to preserve laws that made gay people criminals—and some still support enacting these policies at home and abroad.

The Family Research Council, which is the chief organizer of the conference, is a case in point. In 2003, when the Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of Texas’ ban on “sodomy” in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas case, the FRC filed an amicus brief on behalf of the state. When the court ruled against Texas in the case, the FRC called it “a direct attack on the sanctity of marriage” and the group’s president, Tony Perkins, declared, “What’s at stake here is the very foundation of our society, not only of America but all Western civilization.”

Not only has Perkins defended state laws criminalizing same-sex relations, he once defended a notorious anti-gay bill in Uganda that at the time he discussed it proposed life in prison or even the death penalty for people who have sex with someone of the same sex. Perkins lauded this bill as an effort to “uphold moral conduct that protects others and in particular the most vulnerable,” criticizing President Obama for opposing it. The FRC even spent $25,000 to lobby Congress about a resolution denouncing the Ugandan bill—the group later claimed that it didn’t oppose the resolution, it just wanted to make its language less friendly to gay rights. In 2011, FRC asked its members to pray to give Malawi the “courage to withstand U.S. coercion” and maintain its ban on homosexuality.

Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the FRC who will have a speaking slot at this weekend’s summit, has perhaps been the most clear about the organization’s views on the subject. Asked by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in 2010 if he thinks “we should outlaw gay behavior,” Sprigg replied, “Yes.” In a 2008 television interview, Sprigg mused, “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.”

The American Family Association, another sponsor of the Values Voter Summit, likewise backed Texas in the Lawrence case, writing in the amicus brief that a law like Texas' could prevent the “injury caused to the public by same-sex sodomy” and would even protect the gay people it targeted by sparing them “illness, disease and death resulting from [their] conduct.” That same year, the AFA published an essay lamenting that the disappearance of sodomy laws showed that “Judeo-Christian views” were being abandoned in favor of “moral relativism.” In 2011, then-AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer said that homosexuality should be a “criminal offense.”

First Liberty, another sponsor of the event, likewise backed Texas in the Lawrence case (under its previous incarnation as the Liberty Legal Institute), with the group’s leader Kelly Shackelford—also a speaker at this year’s VVS—declaring that there is “no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy.”

Other figures at the Values Voter Summit have also supported criminal bans on homosexuality.

Rick Santorum, who will have a speaking slot, has boasted of his opposition to the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision. Family Watch International, which is sponsoring a booth at the event, frequently works with some of the world’s most repressive governments to keep LGBT-friendly language out of UN documents and has supported harsh anti-gay legislation in Nigeria. Liberty Counsel, which will also be sponsoring a booth in the summit’s exhibit hall, backed Texas in the Lawrence case and defended a homosexuality ban in Malawi. Radical anti-LGBT activist Matt Barber said on a Liberty Counsel radio program he co-hosts that the U.S. should adopt a ban on “homosexual activist propaganda” similar to Russia’s. Fischer, the former AFA spokesman, also advocated enacting a similar law in the U.S.

Many Religious Right leaders have rallied behind Trump because he has promised to give them their ideal Supreme Court justices and lower court judges. Very recent history shows that these groups aren’t just interested in using the courts to reverse marriage equality—which would be harmful enough on its own—but also to severely roll back years of hard-won legal protections for LGBT people. Trump says that he’d be better for the LGBT community than Hillary Clinton—but we doubt that he’ll bring that message to the Values Voter Summit.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious