David Barton

Right Wing Round-Up - 7/26/16

David Barton Falsely Claims That 'The Declaration Of Independence Had Two Clauses Condemning Slavery'

Last month, David Barton delivered a presentation at Calvary Chapel in Salt Lake City, Utah, where he falsely claimed that the Founding Fathers denounced slavery in the Declaration of Independence.

"Great Britain would not allow us to end slavery," Barton said. "A number of the states passed anti-slavery laws and King George III struck them all down, said, 'No, no, no, you're part of the British Empire, as long as you're part of the British Empire you're going to have slavery,' which is why a number of Founding Fathers got involved because they did not want slavery. That's why the Declaration of Independence had two clauses condemning slavery as a reason we were leaving Great Britain. Now, we always hear about taxation without representation, that's one clause, but twice as often in there you'll hear about slavery being an issue. We don't cover that."

Of course, anyone can read the Declaration and discover for themselves that "the final document makes no mention of slavery or African Americans."

What Barton conveniently failed to mention was that while the original draft did contain a passage on slavery, it was removed from the final version, as the Heritage Foundation explains:

Jefferson's draft constitution for the state of Virginia forbade the importation of slaves, and his draft of the Declaration of Independence — written at a time when he himself had inherited about 200 slaves — included a paragraph condemning the British king for introducing slavery into the colonies and continuing the slave trade:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of a CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

These words were especially offensive to delegates from Georgia and South Carolina, who were unwilling to acknowledge that slavery went so far as to violate the "most sacred rights of life and liberty." So, like some of Jefferson's more expressive phrases attacking the king, these lines were dropped in the editing process.

David Barton Brags That He Helped Craft 'The Most Biblically Friendly' GOP Platform He's Ever Seen

Right-wing political operative and pseudo-historian David Barton played a key role in drafting the Republican platform ahead of the GOP convention earlier this month and has been bragging that the platform committee ended up producing "the most conservative platform in modern history."

Over the weekend, Barton spoke at Cottonwood Creek Church in Allen, Texas, where he stated that his main goal in helping to draft GOP platforms is to "make sure that I get as many biblical principles in as possible" and boasted that he has been historically successful at doing so.

The current platform is "the most biblically friendly platform we've had in my lifetime," Barton stated, and that is because he has been able to convince the platform committee to adopt just about every amendment that he has ever recommended.

"They tell me that I have set the record for platform writing," Barton crowed. "Four years ago when we wrote it, I made 140 amendments to the platform — staff writes it and then we edit it — and all but one of those amendments were accepted. This year there was something like 70-something amendments and every one of them was accepted, which tells me that we have a somewhat friendly audience because I kept inserting stuff about the Constitution, the Declaration, and God and the Bible and they keep voting it up."

David Barton Hails GOP For Adopting 'The Most Conservative Platform In Modern History'

Religious Right activist David Barton, who served as a member of the GOP’s platform committee this year, joined fellow platform committee member Tony Perkins on Perkins’ radio show Saturday, where he proudly noted that the group put together a platform that has been called “the most conservative platform in modern history.”

Barton was particularly happy that conservatives repelled attempts by some delegates to insert LGBT-friendly language into the platform.

“They turned the entire platform meeting into LGBT issues, they get CNN to run the story, and they call us narrow-minded and single-issued?" he said. "My gosh, the only thing that was important to them in this thing was homosexual sex.”

“It took the focus off the things that were important,” Barton continued. “I was particularly in the subcommittee on the Constitution, and man, the declaration we have of the Constitution, the principles of the declaration, the language of the Constitution, all we did with the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth, we got a powerful platform, and you’re in the family section, what you guys did was so many – I’ve heard it called that this is the most conservative platform in modern history, and I believe that. I think that’s probably true.”

Religious Right Out-Muscles Pro-Equality Republicans

We have lost count of how many times the Religious Right has been declared spent as a political force. Those declarations have always been wrong, and this year’s Republican Party platform is the latest sign of the movement’s continued power.

Four years ago, we called the GOP platform “a far-right fever dream, a compilation of pouting, posturing, and policies to meet just about every demand from the overlapping Religious Right, Tea Party, corporate, and neo-conservative wings of the GOP.” Yet this year’s platform is even further to the right.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. In 2012, Religious Right leaders spent the entire week in Tampa bragging about how they had essentially written the platform. But pro-LGBT Republicans were remarkably confident that it would never happen again. At the time, the Log Cabin Republicans vowed that never again would the party platform be hostile to LGBT equality. Former member of Congress Jim Kolbe said the anti-gay sentiment in that year’s platform was “the last gasp of the conservatives.” The upbeat attitude had us wondering about “the fine, fuzzy line dividing optimism from delusion.”

Well, there’s nothing left to wonder about. In spite of an organized and well-funded campaign by LGBT-friendly conservatives, Religious Right activists made sure that they dominated the platform committee. During the committee’s deliberations on proposed amendments on Monday and Tuesday, every effort to moderate the language on LGBT rights was rejected, including tame language that would have acknowledged growing support within the party for marriage equality. The Log Cabin Republicans are calling this year’s document “the most anti-LGBT Platform in the Party’s 162-year history.”

Even an amendment that would have recognized the LGBT victims of ISIS terror was deemed too much. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins is bragging that he and fellow Louisiana delegate Sandy McDade, Eagle Forum’s political chairman, watered that language down so that it refers generically to all people terrorized by ISIS.

The platform includes Religious Right-approved language opposing marriage equality and endorsing legislation to give legal protection to anti-LGBT discrimination in the name of religious liberty. And it calls for eliminating the IRS provision that prevents churches, like other nonprofits, from engaging in direct electoral advocacy — one of the promises Donald Trump has made to win Religious Right support.

A seemingly last-ditch effort by LGBT-friendly delegates to require a vote on a “minority report” to replace the long platform with a short statement of principles is now being denounced by Perkins and Religious Right activist David Barton as an attempt by gays to hijack the platform process. Its odds of success seem vanishingly small.

Log Cabin Republicans President Gregory Angelo says he’s “mad as hell” about the new platform, but in the same email he tries to distance the document from Donald Trump, who Angelo praised last December as “one of the best, if not the best, pro-gay Republican candidates to ever run for the presidency.”

Not long after that, as journalist Michelangelo Signorile noted, Trump accepted the endorsement of Jerry Falwell Jr. and promised to put right-wing justices on the Supreme Court. In January he promised to make Christianity (read right-wing Christianity) more powerful. More recently, Trump reiterated his promises in a closed-door meeting with hundreds of conservative Christian leaders, where he told them, “I’m on your side.”

Trump may be willing to let Caitlin Jenner use the bathroom of her choice at his office building, but he was unwilling to lift a finger to keep the party from supporting states that pass laws preventing transgender people from using bathrooms that match their identity — or from declaring in many ways that the party remains officially opposed to legal equality for LGBT people.

The presumptive Republican nominee is all bluster and toughness when he is denouncing political correctness, but he turns meekly obliging when dealing with the Religious Right leaders he is counting on to turn out the vote.

 

 

GOP’s Super-Far-Right Platform Completed But Drama Continues

During Monday and Tuesday’s Republican platform committee deliberations, an already right-wing draft was pushed even further to the right by activists on the platform committee. But now Religious Right activist David Barton and other delegates are complaining that they were duped by pro-LGBT activists into signing a minority report that could force a floor vote on replacing the entire platform with a much shorter statement of principles.

Through endless hours of amendments — some substantive and some petty wordsmithing — attempts by libertarian-leaning delegates to introduce more moderate language on LGBT equality, the drug war and other issues were routinely voted down, even an amendment that would have acknowledged the LGBT victims of ISIS terror.

Throughout the grueling process, a few delegates repeatedly complained that the platform should be seen as a vehicle for marketing Republican Party principles, and should not be something so long and so deep in the weeds on policy disputes that nobody will bother reading it. One of those voices was Utah’s Boyd Matheson, who had proposed an alternative approach that would simply lay out a set of principles, based on the platform on which Abraham Lincoln ran for the presidency in 1860.

That could have saved everyone a lot of time, but the committee didn’t go for it. The committee wrapped up its deliberations on Tuesday evening, voting to approve the amended draft, which will get final up-or-down approval by the committee on Monday before going to the convention as a whole for approval.

But that’s not the end of the story, because 37 delegates signed a “minority report,” which The Dallas Morning News’ Lauren McGaughy describes as “a sort of petition by those who couldn't muster a majority for their proposals.”

“In this case,” McGaughy writes, “it supports doing away with the whole platform and replacing it with something shorter and simpler.” Among those who signed the petition were Matheson and Barton, the Religious Right activist who played an active role in shaping this year’s platform as well as the 2012 version.

Now, however, Matheson and Barton are among those claiming that they were “duped by a group of pro-gay rights delegates” into signing something that could be a source of division on the floor of the convention:

Boyd Matheson of Utah wrote the language in the minority report, but he said he did not support doing away with the whole platform and replacing it with his mission statement. In fact, he withdrew support of his own proposal Tuesday afternoon amid the fight.

"A minority report is a divisive issue that some people are trying to use to air their issues on the floor for the convention," Matheson said late Tuesday.

David Barton, a Texas delegate who helped him edit the language, went a step further, saying "someone hijacked the process."

He added: "It looks to us like they created a controversy." 

Matheson and Barton allege that a group of LGBT-friendly Republicans who had tried -- unsuccessfully -- to include some positive mention of the gay community in the party's platform was behind the scheme. 

The two said they would send an email to the other 35 delegates who also signed the report on Wednesday morning saying just this. Texas' other platform committee delegate, Diana Denman, also signed the minority report, and expressed her interest in removing her name.

Other delegates suggest that Barton and Matheson knew exactly what they were signing but “got cold feet afterward when they feared being associated with a gay rights push.”

Family Research Council Action, whose leader Tony Perkins was another active member of the platform committee, pushed out an alert yesterday warning that LGBT activists were attempting to “hijack” the platform.

Perkins and the Family Research Council are delighted with the far-right platform, saying the GOP’s support for “traditional family values” is “stronger than ever.”

In another message to FRC supporters yesterday, Perkins celebrated the Religious Right’s platform victories:

I am very happy to say that the final platform document overwhelmingly approved by the delegates may be the strongest statement of conservative principles by a GOP platform to date. As Gayle Rozika, a Utah delegate for whom this was the 6th platform, told me this is the most conservative platform in her experience. Her efforts, along with those of delegates like Carolyn McLarty (Okla.), Len Munsil (Ariz.), David Barton (Texas), Jim and Judy Carns (Ala.), Kris Kobach (Kan.), Sandy McDade (La.) and a host of other conservative leaders were effective in ensuring the GOP platform provides a clear and compelling understanding of the core conservative principles that those associated with the Republican party prioritize and pursue.

Our coalition of delegates -- including FRC Action and other groups like the March for Life Action, Eagle Forum, and Concerned Women for America -- proved invaluable. The platform is an important document, showing the Party of Lincoln continues to respect freedom, and the rule of law, the idea that all humans deserve respect, not because of some category, but because we have inherent dignity and are made in the image of our Creator. The platform is a useful document -- a standard for the party in local, state, and federal elections, use in town halls, and it provides standards to which we should hold our elected officials. Platform Chairman Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), led by co-chairs Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-Va.) and Governor Mary Falin (R-Okla.) all did an excellent job allowing delegates to offer amendments and debate the issues with sincerity and respect. They deserve much respect for their efforts.

 

GOP Platform Committee Member David Barton Falsely Claims His Anti-Gay Comments Were Taken Out Of Context

It seems that just about every time a Religious Right activist is asked by the press to comment on some outrageous thing that Right Wing Watch has caught them saying, they respond by simply asserting that those comments were "taken out of context" without ever explaining how our reporting supposedly misrepresented their statements or bothering to explain how understanding the real context would have in any way changed the meaning of what they said.

And this is exactly what David Barton, a member of the Republican National Convention's platform committee and a longtime Religious Right activist, did when the the Daily Beast asked him to comment on two of the many offensive statements he has made about LGBT people, both of which were first reported by Right Wing Watch:

And David Barton, a committee member from Texas, believes that God is preventing the medical profession from finding a cure for HIV/AIDS, and claimed that gay people die “decades earlier” than others and have more than 500 partners apiece in their lifetimes.

Barton told The Daily Beast that these statements did not represent his views, and this was “an example of something taken out of context and mischaracterized. I’m an advocate for faith-based conservative values, which include love, grace, and truth, focusing on traditional family values.”

Since Barton doesn't bother to clarify the "context" in which these comments were made, allow us to do so.

In the case of his claim that gay people die "decades earlier" and have hundreds of sexual partners, Barton said that on his radio program back in 2010, when he was somewhat facetiously making the case that the government should regulate gay people's sex lives.

Barton argued that since the government seeks to regulate all sorts of things that are unhealthy, it should also regulate consensual sex between members of the same gender because it is not only dangerous for those who practice it but bad for society as well:

Homosexual/bi-sexual individuals are seven times more likely to contemplate or commit suicide. Oooh, that doesn’t sound very healthy.

Homosexuals die decades earlier than heterosexuals. That doesn’t sound healthy.

Nearly one-half of practicing homosexuals admit to five hundred or more sex partners and nearly one-third admit to a thousand or more sex partners in a lifetime.

There is no mischaracterization involved in quoting his statement that "homosexuals die decades earlier" and that some gay people "admit to five hundred of more sexual partners," as that is exactly what he said.

The same goes for his comments about God preventing us from ever finding a cure for AIDS because doing so would eliminate the penalty for sin.

Barton has been saying this since 2012 and we have heard him make this claim on several occasions, asserting just last year:

I don't think they will ever find a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. And I say that based on a particular Bible verse ... Notice this, homosexuals receive in their bodies the penalty due them. The Bible says if you engage in homosexuality, your body will do things that will penalize you. So if you can have a vaccine for AIDS, then you're keeping your body from penalizing you. I don't think they'll ever find a vaccine for AIDS.

Again, there is nothing "out of context" about this remark, which he has made multiple times. 

Barton continuously makes unfounded and offensive remarks about LGBT people and has repeatedly suggested that God is punishing gay people with a deadly disease, yet the Republican Party continues to invite him to help shape their national platform — which just so happens to be extraordinarily hostile to LGBT people. Barton’s unconvincing attempts at denying his past comments shouldn't let them get away with it.

Right Wing Round-Up - 7/12/16

The Absurd Hypocrisy At The Heart Of David Barton's 'School Of Practical Government'

Right-wing pseudo-historian and GOP platform committee member David Barton closed out a presentation last week at Charis Bible College in Colorado, where he is in the process of launching a "School of Practical Government," by sharing a couple of historical quotes that perfectly expose the utterly absurd hypocrisy that lies at the heart of his latest endeavor.

After spending nearly an hour explaining how his "School of Practical Government" will prepare students to seek public office for the purpose of implementing public policy based explicitly on the Bible, Barton read quotes from the likes of Samuel Adams and Benjamin Rush, who have said that those who seek office are not to be trusted and that those who refuse to serve in office when asked are selfish.

First he cited this quote from Adams:

It bodes very ill to Government when Men are exalted to places of high trust through their own Sollicitations.  He only fills a place with Dignity, who is invited to it by his Fellow Citizens, from the Experience they have had of his adequate Abilities, & who does the Duties of it with Zeal & Fidelity ... Whoever interposes in their Elections, with his own Sollicitations for himself, it is to be feard, if he is of any Consequence, will in time become a dangerous Party Man.  He ought therefore to be despised as an obtruder.

Barton then cited a similar quote from Noah Webster:

As a general rule, it may be affirmed that the man who never intrigues for office may be most safely entrusted with office...Such a man cannot desire promotion unless he received it from the respectable part of the community, for he considers no other promotion to be honorable.

It seems rather odd that Barton would cite quotes warning voters not to trust people who seek public office while promoting a school that is designed to teach people how to run for office and even includes a class entitled "How to Run For Office."

To make matters worse, Barton then cited a quote from Rush to argue that if people approach you to ask you to run for office, "you are not allowed to say 'no' because that was being selfish ... Didn't God put you here to serve others? "

Back in 2013, Barton himself was asked by his friends like Glenn Beck to run for the U.S. Senate and refused to do so, though that has somehow not stopped him from regularly lecturing other people that they have no right to be selfish by doing exactly what he did.

Right-Wing Republican Platform Committee Affirms Opposition to LGBT Equality

We noted yesterday that Religious Right leaders had spent months making sure that the Republican platform committee would be stacked with “strong conservative voices” in order to resist an organized effort by pro-equality Republicans to replace anti-gay language in 2012’s far-right platform with something more inclusive. Yesterday’s platform committee session made it clear that the Right Wing was successful, as efforts to amend the draft platform language were repeatedly batted down.

Instead the committee affirmed the party’s support for marriage only for one man and one woman. The platform specifically rejects the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling and calls for its reversal “whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.”

A delegate from D.C., Rachel Hoff, identified herself as the first openly gay member of the platform committee and joked that as she hadn’t been raised in a Republican family, she wasn’t “born this way” and chose to be a Republican. But her colleagues were unmoved by her heartfelt plea for a more inclusive platform and rejected language that would have encouraged a “thoughtful conversation” and  recognized the growing support among Republicans for marriage equality (a 2014 Pew poll found more than 60-percent support for marriage equality among Republicans under 30).

There were a few libertarian-leaning voices on the committee, and they tended to appear younger than the average member, but they were out-gunned on LGBT issues as well as challenges to drug war orthodoxy and support for medicinal marijuana. Perhaps in deference to the twice-divorced and thrice-married Donald Trump, platform committee members did vote down an amendment condemning no-fault divorce. The committee voted to keep in language calling on government officials to encourage schools to teach the Bible as literature.

Some of the debate was spirited even if the results were ultimately one-sided. When a conservative delegate proposed inserting “traditional” before “two-parent families” in a section about what is best for children, a couple of delegates called it an extra slap in the face to LGBT people and an insult to single parents, but the amendment passed. When a New York delegate challenged language supporting the First Amendment Defense Act — a federal bill to give legal protection to anti-LGBT discrimination — a Virginia delegate accused her of calling the bill’s supporters bigots, language she had not used.

Among the members of the committee who have worked to make sure the platform keeps the party’s social conservatives happy: the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins; discredited Christian-nation “historian” David Barton; former Texas Board of Education member Cynthia Dunbar; Eagle Forum political chair Sandy McDade; right-wing attorney James Bopp; and Center for Arizona Policy founder Len Munsil.

Munsil, who now heads Arizona Christian University, gave the prayer to open today’s platform committee session, which began a little after 8 a.m. with a discussion of the platform’s economic policy section. Munsil’s prayer had echoes of the Christian-nation rhetoric of activists like Barton and David Lane; he referenced the Mayflower Compact, said God has blessed America because “we have honored You and Your word,” and prayed, “in the mighty name of Jesus,” for “an awakening among our leaders.”

David Barton Will Train Right-Wing Christians To 'Regain' Control Of Government And Implement Biblical Public Policy

Last week, David Barton spoke at Charis Bible College's "Summer Family Bible Conference" to promote the Seven Mountains based "School of Practical Government" that he is establishing at Andrew Wommack's Charis Bible College in Colorado for the purpose of training right-wing Christians how to take control of all levels of government. 

Barton, who is currently in Cleveland helping to shape the GOP platform ahead of the Republican National Convention, said that Christians must "regain this arena that God has originally given to us." To this end, the main purpose of Barton's school will be to instill in students the proper "biblical worldview" because having the correct biblical worldview is key to implementing biblical public policy. 

People who haven't read the Bible "won't have a clue about marriage, they won't have a clue about abortion, they won't have a clue about God made them male and female, end of story," Barton said, which is why these are "not the kind of people that we want to put in office."

Graduates of Barton's school, on the other hand, will know the Bible verses that set out the proper public policy for everything from the minimum wage to estate taxes.

"You'll know what God says about the capital gains tax," Barton promised, "you'll know what God says about the progressive income tax, you will know what God says about due process rights ... All of these are public policy issues and if you know the position that God has taken on public policy issues, then you get much better policy coming out."

Is Trump Letting Religious Right Leaders Have Their Way With GOP Platform?

The Republican Party’s platform committee started meeting in Cleveland this morning to hash out final language that will be presented to delegates at the Republican National Convention next week. Religious Right activists have been gearing up for months to make sure that the platform keeps the anti-gay and anti-abortion language they say will be needed to secure social conservatives’ loyalty to the GOP in November. A draft shared with members of the platform committee on Sunday night reportedly keeps the party’s anti-abortion position intact and continues the party’s opposition to marriage equality, though the draft reportedly abandons a previous call for a constitutional amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples nationwide in favor of leaving the decision on marriage to the states.

In May, right-wing Iowa Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, told Fox News that his goal was “to get as many solid, constitutional conservatives to Cleveland and onto the platform and rules committees.” That same month, The New York Times reported that Ted Cruz supporters, including former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, were out to “fill the Rules and Platform Committees with strong conservative voices.”

In 2012, platform committee deliberations were dominated by a handful of right-wing activists who stripped out or batted away any moderating language, including tepid language about treating all people equally under the law. A Religious Right stalwart, then-Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chaired the committee and made it clear that he wanted no distracting fights. The final result was the most conservative platform ever, calling for the criminalization of all abortions without exception and decrying marriage equality as “an assault on the foundations of our society.”

It looks like Trump may be following the same strategy of keeping the Religious Right happy by letting them have their way with the platform. On Sunday, the Times’ Jeremy Peters reported that Trump is keeping his distance from battles that have been brewing over the platform’s anti-gay language.

Overseeing all this is Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who has been assuring social conservatives that Trump “is not wanting to rewrite” the platform. Trump adviser Paul Manafort has sent the same message.

Social conservatives praised the May announcement that the platform committee would be led by anti-choice Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming along with co-chairs Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma. At the time of the announcement, Barrasso said “it’s going to be a conservative platform that reflects our values, freedom, liberty and limited government.”

All the co-chairs have solid right-wing records. Foxx, for example, has fought marriage equality and sought to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding; last month she told attendees at Ralph Reed’s Road to Majority conference, “If people of faith are not involved in political life, then you’re leaving it to the Philistines.” Fallin has been mentioned as a potential VP pick for Trump even though she angered some anti-abortion activists when she vetoed a patently unconstitutional bill that would have made it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion.

Some of the same activists who wrote 2012’s  far-right platform are back on this year’s committee, which consists of two delegates selected by each state party and leaders chosen by the RNC. Among the members of this year’s platform committee:

Among others identified by the New York Times:

There is Cynthia Dunbar of Virginia, who has compared the gay rights movement to Nazism. Hardy Billington, a committee member from Missouri, placed an ad in a local paper asserting that homosexuality kills people at two to three times the rate of smoking. And Mary Frances Forrester of North Carolina has claimed that the “homosexual agenda is trying to change the course of Western civilization.”

In the spring, after Perkins was elected to represent Louisiana on the platform committee, he bragged:

In 2012, my role as a delegate gave me the opportunity to play a key role in amending the marriage plank, which led to the committee approving a much stronger version than 2008’s. We also tightened language on obscenity and pornography, protected conscience rights, explained how abortion hurts women, and supported the Second Amendment in DC.

In a June fundraising letter, Perkins touted his return to the platform committee while warning that “homosexual activist groups, pro-abortion groups, and special interests are trying to transform the Republican platform” to make it more like the “anti-Christian, anti-religious, radical humanist-secularist viewpoint” he said was reflected in the Democratic platform:

Never before have we planned to exert so much influence on a political party's convention as we are regarding the Republican Convention less than 50 days from now in Cleveland…I will serve as an official member of the 112-member Platform Committee, with our entire Action team supporting me, in order to make the greatest impact possible--again, regardless of the nominee -- for faith, family, and freedom…What goes into the official Party platform could make a monumental difference in shaping public policy decisions for our nation in the next four years, and as a result it will impact our lives and the lives of our families and our churches.

Here’s how the battle has been shaping up on LGBT equality and reproductive choice:

LGBT Equality

After anti-gay Religious Right activists got what they wanted in the 2012 platform, LGBT Republicans and their allies launched an organized and well-funded campaign to get better language in the 2016 platform, an effort that conservative leaders have vocally resisted:

“Conservative forces need to understand there is a serious challenge, and they need to take it seriously,” warned Jim Bopp, a social conservative activist who was influential in designing the 2012 GOP platform.

Similarly, Eagle Forum president Ed Martin said, “We’re prepared for the fight. It’s hand-to-hand combat.”

Some pro-LGBT Republicans have seen Trump’s primary victory as an opportunity, since he does not seem to share the Religious Right’s anti-gay ideological convictions, though he has publicly supported their opposition to marriage equality and pledged to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. But Trump seems uninterested in standing up for LGBT people if it means picking a fight with his new pals in the Religious Right. For example, Trump has retracted his earlier criticism of North Carolina’s recently passed anti-LGBT law, saying that he now supports it.

Some change in the platform language will be required to deal with the changed reality caused by the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling that made marriage equality the law of the land. CBS News reported over the weekend that “moderate Republicans are drafting an amendment that would soften the GOP’s official position on gays and lesbians.” According to CBS, some conservatives may be willing to accept general “equality for all people” language that they rejected in 2012 as a way to “keep the fighting at a minimum.” David Barton told CBS that there might be “rhetorical changes in how it’s communicated, but I don’t think support for natural marriage will diminish at all.”

The new draft platform that will be debated and amended this week does include an explicit rejection of the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling, calling for "reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment."

Given the high-profile fight over North Carolina’s HB 2, and social conservatives’ efforts to create panic over the idea of transgender people using bathrooms that match their gender identity, it seems likely that the platform will include some anti-transgender language, something Cuccinelli told The New York Times that he thought delegates should do.

Access to Abortion

Many Religious Right activists are skeptical of []Trump’s commitment to the anti-abortion cause, particularly given comments he made in April that he would like to change the platform to include exceptions to its call for a ban on all abortions for cases of rape, incest or when a woman’s life is at stake. The current platform adopted in 2012 supports a constitutional amendment and legislation applying the 14th Amendment’s protections to “unborn children.”

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman and other anti-choice activists are planning to have an active presence in Cleveland in order “to ensure that the GOP platform remains strongly pro-life.”

Newman, who has a record of anti-choice extremism, has sounded the alarm:

“Once again, there is a movement within the GOP to not only gut the pro-life planks from the party platform, but silence the voices of pro-lifers who are demanding an end to abortion,” said Newman. “Softening its position on abortion would spell disaster for the Republican Party and for the future of our nation. I cannot support a party that will not defend the innocent, and I know I am not alone.”

“The eyes of the world will be focused on Cleveland, OH this summer as the GOP nominates their candidate for the President of the United States. Decisions will be made at the convention that will influence our nation for a generation. A coalition of pro-life groups and activists is forming to take advantage of this historic opportunity to collectively raise our voice for the pre-born. We demand the Republican Party continue to defend the preborn, but we are also calling our nation to repent for 43 years of unabated child killing,” said Mark Harrington, National Director of Created Equal.

The National Pro-Life Alliance has also been sending out emails warning that abortion “supporters and apologists would like to eradicate the only pro-life language in either party’s platforms.” The group has been collecting signatures for a “Hands Off the Pro-Life Plank” petition.

But anti-choice activist Austin Ruse isn’t worried. Ruse, one of the conservative Catholic leaders who took part in Trump’s June meeting with Religious Right activists, said at the end of June that while he isn’t convinced of the sincerity of Trump’s opposition to abortion, he believes Trump will “let our side do exactly what we want to do” on the issue.

Similarly, right-wing strategist Richard Viguerie told LifeSiteNews this spring that Trump “has zero chance” of changing the abortion plank in the platform.

State Previews

Some state parties had their own versions of these platform battles. In May, for example, delegates to the Illinois GOP convention “overwhelmingly voted to retain” a plank defining marriage as “between one man and one woman,” rejecting proposed language that “non-traditional families are worthy of the same respect and legal protections as traditional families.”

Some states had bigger fish to fry. At the Texas convention in May, the state platform committee initially endorsed a call for a referendum on Texas declaring independence and seceding from the United States, but that language was not embraced by the party as a whole. Still, the Texas GOP platform did call for legislation requiring people to use facilities “that correspond with their biologically determined sex” and, in the words of the Texas Tribune, “included strong disapproval of gay lifestyles and no state restrictions on ‘access to sexual orientation change efforts for self-motivated youth and adults.’”

 

Why Newt Gingrich is Christian Nationalists’ Dream Veep

Christian-nation extremist and political operative David Lane declared in TIME this week that Newt Gingrich would be Donald Trump’s “Dream Veep,” calling Gingrich “Churchillian” and “still the most feared Republican in America.”

It might seem strange that Christian Right figures would rally around Gingrich, the thrice-married former speaker of the House who abandoned that office nearly two decades ago after an ethics scandal and clear signs that his colleagues were about to drive him from the office. But here’s why: Gingrich has spent the past decade promoting the Christian Right’s revisionist history, beliefs about a divinely inspired American exceptionalism, anti-Obama conspiracy theories and diatribes about the supposed war on Christianity in the U.S.

For example, Gingrich and his current wife Callista, a former Hill staffer with whom he conducted an affair while married to his second wife, published an op-ed in The Washington Times in May ranting that the “secular left” is engaging in a “crusade against the role of faith in our society.”

Newt and Callista have, following in the footsteps of GOP operative David Barton, made a cottage industry out of pushing similar claims. It is certainly no coincidence that an updated third edition of the couple’s 2006 book, “Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation’s History and Future,” has just been published.

The preface to the new edition warns that “the secular Left’s effort to drive God out of America’s public square” has “only gotten worse” since the book’s original publication. And in another sign of Gingrich embracing the extreme views of Christian right leaders and their political allies, the book echoes right-wing leaders’ rhetorical attacks on the federal courts, which Mike Huckabee made a central theme of his candidacy:

For two generations we have passively accepted the judiciary’s assault on the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans. It is time to insist on judges who understand that throughout our history – and continuing to this day – Americans believe that their fundamental rights come from God and are therefore unalienable….

…Judicial supremacy...only survives due to the passivity of the executive and legislative branches, which have refused to use their respective powers to correct the Court…

If we are to truly secure our religious liberty in America, the people and their elected representatives will need to reject the theory of judicial supremacy and passivity as a response to Supreme Court rulings that ignore executive and legislative concerns and which seek to institute policy changes that constitutionally rest with Congress.

And just to make it clear, Gingrich believes a president who isn’t afraid to act can lead Congress in nullifying decisions, such as the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling, that he disagrees with:

A president who believes that judicial supremacy is a threat to our freedoms will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itself and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court decision he or she believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional.

For the past decade, “Rediscovering God in America” has become a major brand for Gingrich, Inc. It’s incorporated into the title of a second Newt-Callista book about the role of God from America’s colonial era through the civil war, and it’s in the title of not one but two Citizens United-produced “documentaries” based on the Gingrich books, a God TV special, and conferences featuring the likes of David Barton and dominionist “apostle” Lou Engle. In 2009, Right Wing Watch reported on one of the conferences and produced a highlight reel, which includes Engle praying that God will protect Gingrich from “the evil schemes of the enemy.”

But Gingrich has been doing more to win Religious Right loyalty than writing books and giving speeches. In 2008, he started an organization called Renewing American Leadership, which launched a project called Pray and ACT. Among the dominionist figures involved in the effort were Lou Engle and Lance Wallnau, who has been saying for months that Donald Trump is anointed by God.

Renewing American Leadership won fans among anti-gay activists when it poured $150,000 into the successful 2010 campaign to unseat Iowa Supreme Court justices who had ruled in favor of marriage equality in the state. Christian nationalist “historian” and GOP operative David Barton was a founding board member of Renewing American Leadership; anti-gay activist Jim Garlow was brought on as president after he made a national name for himself organizing California churches in favor of California’s Prop 8. Gingrich, Garlow and Barton hosted a conference call for pastors gloating about their 2010 victories. In it, Gingrich said that “taking on the judicial class” and telling judges that “we are not going to tolerate enforced secularization of our country” is “one of the most important things we can engage in.”

Gingrich has stuck with his attacks on secularism. In 2011, he spoke at John Hagee’s Cornerstone Church and declared that he was "convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

Gingrich’s personal re-branding as a conservative Christian culture warrior explains why some of the same Religious Right figures who are backing Trump are pushing Newt for VP.

When Gingrich was campaigning for the 2012 presidential nomination, Jerry Falwell Jr. was among those who rallied to the former speaker’s side when other religious conservatives questioned his appeal to evangelical voters. (Gingrich had given the 2007 commencement address at Falwell’s Liberty University.) Lane was also among those who vouched for Gingrich during that race, as did Wallnau, who “urged adherents to read an eighteen-page treatise Garlow had written outlining the reasons conservative Christians should support Gingrich,” The Nation reported. “Among them: his ‘Churchillian fortitude,’ his ‘understanding of war’ and his talent for taking ‘a verbal chain saw to the hollow trunks of the trees of radical secularism.’”

During that 2012 presidential run, Gingrich appointed dominionist Dutch Sheets a national co-chair of his Faith Leaders Coalition. In a major 2012 story on Gingrich’s appeal to the Religious Right, The Nation’s Mariah Blake reported on Gingrich’s appearances at David Lane’s events for conservative pastors, where his remarks were “an ideological hand grenade” in the context of Barton’s Christian-nation history:

Gingrich adds that he has studied the founding documents, including the Declaration, and believes they call for “a very bold restructuring of Washington, DC, on a scale that nobody in Washington in either party is prepared to talk about.”

Lane is now making a full-court press. Back in May, he declared that Trump “can be one of the top four presidents in American history” and urged him to pick Gingrich in order to “mobilize evangelical and Catholic pro-life conservatives who stayed home in the last election cycle.” And on July 4, a day before his Gingrich endorsement in TIME, Lane was quoted in a Washington Times story raving about Gingrich:

“Newt may be the only living former legislator who can walk in on Friday, Jan. 20, 2017, with the working knowledge to orchestrate and drive an agenda for limited government, deregulation of business, lower taxes and return of control to the states,” Mr. Lane said.

“Besides helping pull the wagon to get Trump elected, Newt may be the only adult in the room when it comes to governing with the institutional knowledge and grit to make the hard decisions to save America,” the Los Angeles-based Mr. Lane added.

It’s not clear what Trump sees in Gingrich, beyond his arrogance, narcissism and appeal to an important part of the Republican Party’s base that Trump is actively courting. But it might just as well be Gingrich’s reputation for cutthroat politics. During his heyday in the 1990s, Gingrich did much to encourage ugliness and bitter partisanship in American politics. A now infamous memo from his political organization GOPAC, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” urged conservatives to smear their opponents with words such as “betray,” “corrupt,” “decay,” “disgrace,” “pathetic,” “radical,” “sick,” “traitors” and many more.

Sound familiar?

More Evidence That David Barton Isn't Going To Stop Saying Something Just Because It Is False

It should be obvious by now to anyone familiar with David Barton and his particular brand of right-wing pseudo-history that he is not going to stop repeating claims just because those claims happen to be demonstrably false. 

The latest incident occurred when he appeared on "Table Talk" on Daystar TV last week where he, for the third time, falsely claimed that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion in which he stated that "we all know that all the provisions in the Bill of Rights, the due process clauses, came out of the Bible."

As we have noted the last two times that we found Barton making this assertion, his claim is utterly and demonstrably false. What Breyer actually said in his 1999 concurrence in Lilly v. Virginia was that the right to face one's accuser is mentioned in the Bible, as well as several other places (emphasis added):

The Court’s effort to tie the Clause so directly to the hearsay rule is of fairly recent vintage, compare Roberts, supra, with California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155—156 (1970), while the Confrontation Clause itself has ancient origins that predate the hearsay rule, see Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542, 548 (1926) (“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions”). The right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises. See The Bible, Acts 25:16; W. Shakespeare, Richard II, act i, sc. 1; W. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, act ii, sc. 1; 30 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure §6342, p. 227 (1997) (quoting statutes enacted under King Edward VI in 1552 and Queen Elizabeth I in 1558); cf. Case of Thomas Tong, Kelyng J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (out-of-court confession may be used against the confessor, but not against his co-conspirators); M. Hale, History of the Common Law of England 163—164 (C. Gray ed. 1971); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *373. As traditionally understood, the right was designed to prevent, for example, the kind of abuse that permitted the Crown to convict Sir Walter Raleigh of treason on the basis of the out-of-court confession of Lord Cobham, a co-conspirator. See 30 Wright & Graham, supra, §6342, at 258—269.

Barton's claim is easily debunked, but he knows that his right-wing audience will never bother to actually attempt to verify anything that he says, which allows him to continue to spread these sorts of falsehoods with impunity:

David Barton: Christians Must Accept That Trump Is 'God's Guy' In This Election

On his "WallBuilders Live" radio program today, David Barton fielded a question from a listener who will be serving as a delegate to the Republican convention but feels that he cannot support the nomination of Donald Trump. The listener asked Barton if there is anything that delegates can do to stop the nomination of Trump, to which Barton replied that Christians should simply accept that Trump is "God's guy" in this election.

Barton, who has already made clear that he will be voting for Trump despite the fact that he ran a super PAC supporting Ted Cruz, explained that since Christians were very active in the Republican primaries, they must conclude that Trump's victory was part of God's plans.

"One thing I know for sure is that in the race of primaries, we had a lot really good God guys in there," Barton said. "And we had a huge turnout of professing Christians and evangelicals and others, so there is nothing to complain about that we didn't get a voice, we didn't get a candidate. We had great candidates to choose from and this is who the people chose, and this is who the people chose with a really high turnout of evangelicals. So I kind of look back and say, 'Hmmm, I wonder where God's fingerprint is in this?' because this is not necessarily a failure of the church."

"This may not be our preferred candidate, but that doesn't mean it may not be God's candidate to do something that we don't see," he said. "We may look back in a few years and say, 'Wow, he really did some things that none of us expected.' So I am fully open to the possibility that because we did everything as Christians that we could, we can't complain about our turnout, we can't complain about our quality of candidates, and this is what the people chose; I'm a whole lot more open to the fact that God may have something going here that is much bigger than what we think or see."

David Barton Accuses Us Of Lying About What He Said ... By Lying About What We Said

Back in 2014, we wrote a post titled "Barton: Not Allowing Women To Vote Was Designed 'To Keep The Family Together'" in which we posted an audio clip of David Barton defending the Founding Fathers for denying women to right to vote when writing the Constitution on the grounds that doing so was designed to protect the institution of the family. 

Here is what we wrote:

On today's episode of "WallBuilders Live," David Barton explained that women were not given the right to vote when the Constitution was written because the Founding Fathers were trying to protect the institution of the family by giving every "family" a right to vote through the male head of the household.

Responding to a question from a listener who argued that the Founding Fathers denied women the right to vote not out of sexism but rather based on the biblical principle that a house divided against itself cannot stand, Barton said that this interpretation was exactly right because not allowing women to vote was designed "to keep the family together."

That introduction was followed by the audio of Barton's remarks and a transcript. 

Some people took Barton's comment to mean that he doesn't think that women should have the right to vote, which is not what he said, nor is it what we claimed that he said. 

But for some reason, Barton blasted us on his Facebook page last night while responding to someone on Twitter who accused him of not wanting women to vote: 

This past weekend, I saw a tweet blasting me by HGM@RightWingIdiot1 (see picture):

@DavidBartonWB I hope you wife and if you have daughters leave you and your hate for women. How dare you state women shouldn't vote.

This references a May 1, 2014 WallBuildersLive radio program in which I was answering audience questions, including one about women’s suffrage, the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution. The questioner did not believe the Founders were being sexist but rather that they voted more by households than by individuals. I affirmed that this was correct, and showed occasions of women voting as far back as the 1600s if they became the heads of the household. We also pointed out that the Constitution did not prohibit women from voting prior to that, but that the 19th Amendment was added to ensure women’s suffrage.

Nevertheless, Right Wing Watch – a far left secularist progressive group whose parent organization is funded by atheist billionaire George Soros – came out with an article wrongly claiming that I defended the inability of women to vote in early America. That false claim was picked up and repeated by others, including the tweet I saw this weekend.

Interestingly, one of my strongest critics and loudest opponents, Professor John Fea of Messiah College in California, actually defended me against this false charge. (I have been told by students of Messiah College that they actually taught a course there against me – that they use me to show the wrong view of American history in the Founding Era.) Dr. Fea acknowledged that he “just listened to the entire episode,” and then pointed out several reasons why the claim from Right Wing Watch was wrong, including:

“1. Nowhere in this episode does Barton say the 19th amendment was a bad thing or that women voting is a bad thing. Listen for yourself. Some might say he is implying this. If someone wants to make this argument, it is a stretch.”

“2. The clip I posted above [from Right Wing Watch] has been edited. The part of the discussion in which Barton and Green seem to suggest that women's suffrage is a positive development in American life has been cut out.”

Right Wing Watch omitted the part of the program that would refute their own false claim. (This is something they regularly do in their frequent charges against me.) Their false accusation that I oppose women voting continues to have life even years later because folks too often repeat what others say rather than following the example of critic John Fea, who listened to the entire episode and thus recognized the claim as false.

Furthermore, I have been on record for years stating that my goal is for 100% of all Americans to be registered to vote, and to vote – I want 100% citizen participation in voting.

Given all of this, my questions for HGM@RightWingIdiot1 would begin with:

1. Did you fail your Math and English classes in school? For years I have said that my objective is 100% of Americans voting in every election. Do you think that 100% of Americans does not include women? 100% is fully inclusive and means everybody!

2. You want my wife and daughter to leave me??? I would not wish that on anyone, even those who consider themselves my enemies. It is ironic that those who accuse others of being haters are often the ones who display the most hate.

3. You really think I hate women? I have reprinted books and appeared on numerous media programs to reintroduce female heroes from history back to the modern generation. In fact, in writing history and social studies standards for state boards of education, the official public records affirm that I have been solely responsible for including numerous women in the texts.

4. Why don’t you set an example for people from your side: check the facts for yourself rather than just parrot what someone else says – learn to think for yourself rather than be part of Right Wing Watch group think.

It’s time for the falsehood that I don’t want women to vote (and so many of the other fabrications distributed by Right Wing Watch and their allies) to come to a halt. Perhaps this post will help accomplish that.

DB

We never once claimed that Barton opposes the right of women to vote, as he repeatedly asserted. We were rather highlighting his absurd claim that the Founding Fathers were not sexist in denying women the right to vote because they did so in the name of "protecting the family." 

It is amazing that Barton is seemingly so incapable of telling the truth that he is now reduced to lying about us having supposedly lied about him. 

David Barton: 'The More Secular Something Becomes ... The Less Well It Works'

Last week, Republican operative and pseudo-historian David Barton spoke at a church in Utah where he declared that the further governmental and social institutions move away from the Bible, the more inefficient they become.

After repeating his false claim that the Constitution is filled with verses from the Bible, Barton asserted that the Founding Fathers based all of our institutions on the Bible because they knew that was the only way those institutions could survive.

"The more secular something becomes, the further the Bible moves away from it, the less well it works," Barton stated. "The more secular education becomes in America, the less well it works. The more secular government becomes in America, the less well it works. The more secular the judiciary becomes, the less well it works. The more secular economics becomes ... you see, the safety and permanence of our institutions are built on the Bible."

D'Souza Calls New Movie A 'Weapon' He'll Drop Like 'A Grenade' Into Democratic Convention

Dinesh D’Souza, who has seemingly abandoned his pretense of being a scholar to become an overt right-wing propagandist, has been pushing his latest movie, “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” for months. He bragged back in March that it is so “emotionally powerful” that it will cause Democrats to need counseling.

At last week’s Road to Majority conference, Religious Right activists were subjected to the trailer for “Hillary’s America” three times on Friday. D’Souza described the movie as “a retelling of the whole story of progressivism and the Democratic Party.” In it, he purports to expose the “soul of the Democratic Party.” The trailer features dramatic re-enactments of southern Democrats’ support for slavery, the KKK and Jim Crow.

Sound familiar? This is territory trod a full decade ago by D’Souza’s fellow conservative propagandist David Barton. At the time, PFAW called Barton’s DVD “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White,” “staggeringly misleading” and “one-sided history.” The RNC had been bankrolling Barton’s outreach to African American and Hispanic churches. In Barton’s version of the Democrats-as-the-source-of-all-evil tale, history conveniently ended with passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That allowed him to ignore the past half century, Goldwater’s opposition to civil rights legislation, the GOP’s infamous “southern strategy,” the GOP’s embrace of the segregationist “Dixiecrats,” and the modern Right Wing’s record of inflaming white racial resentment and using racial dog-whistles for political gain — as if it were a complete mystery why African Americans would ever vote for a Democratic candidate.

D’Souza seems to update Barton by portraying Democratic support for social safety net programs as a means of moving “from slavery to enslavement.” After all, what progressivism really means is “social engineering and social control.”

Of course, thanks to the success of his earlier “documentaries,” D’Souza’s film will have Hollywood-level production values, complete with sinister, pounding music to drive the point home. According to a memorable description by Michelle Goldberg, the movie’s “farcical bombast” is “aimed at those who find Michael Bay films too restrained and artful.”

Bombast is in fact D’Souza’s aim. “A movie is a weapon,” he declared at a Friday evening session at Road to Majority. “There’s a much bigger battle. There’s a political battle, but underneath that there’s a cultural battle, and…underneath that is a moral and spiritual battle.” Democrats have controlled the levers of culture, he said, and there’s a “desperate need” for conservatives to “up the ante on all fronts.”  He said his new movie “blows the lid” off the “gangsterism” of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who he said is “at the pinnacle of this whole crime syndicate.”

“What are these Democrats hiding?” he asks in the trailer. “What if the goal of the Democratic Party is to steal the most valuable thing the world has ever produced? What if their plan is to steal America?”

“Hillary’s America” is scheduled to open on July 22, between the two parties’ political conventions. The idea, he said, is to “drop this grenade in the middle of the Democratic convention.”

Of course this isn’t the first time D’Souza has tried to sway the outcome of an election. His 2012 movie, “2016: Obama’s America,” made a lot of money, but failed to prevent Obama’s re-election. D’Souza has been fuming for years that if only more voters had seen the movie, the outcome would have been different, a claim he made again on Friday night. It was part of his pitch for people to take their friends and fellow churchgoers to see his new movie on its opening weekend; he said a good opening would take it from 1500 to 2000 theaters.

“Hillary’s America” is the second of D’Souza’s films aimed at keeping Clinton out of the White House. That was also the goal of 2014’s “America: Imagine the World Without Her,” which portrayed Obama and Clinton working together to carry out Saul Alinsky’s plan to lead America down the path to national suicide and socialist tyranny. The two movies also appear to have something else in common: D’Souza complaining that he was a victim of political persecution in his conviction for violating campaign finance laws (to which he pled guilty).

Like many Road to Victory speakers, D’Souza closed by making a pitch for people to elect Donald Trump in spite of his obvious shortcomings. Like the Super Bowl, he said, elections come down to two competing teams, and the winner gets to do what it wants with America.

It is a “true and grim fact of politics,” he said, that you have to fight alongside people who don’t agree with you on all things. We are, he said in a “one of these bizarre moments in American politics,” but that is where we are and we have to choose between the actual choices before us:

And so it seems to me that here we are, and the question before us is, do we want this Obama-Hillary machine, which has been grinding us down, not just picking our wallets but in a sense stealing— my book is “Stealing America,” and by stealing America I don’t just mean our money. I mean stealing our freedom. I mean stealing our American dream. I mean stealing our aspirations, stealing our ability to be who we are and pray as we wish and speak as we believe and think as we will.

 

David Barton's Brilliant New Defense Against Criticism: I'm Rubber, You're Glue

Pseudo-historian David Barton seems to have come up with a new talking point for hitting back at those who criticize right-wing Christians: I know you are, but what am I?

On his "WallBuilders Live" radio show yesterday, Barton mistakenly claimed that Romans 2:21 says that those who condemn others are often only condemning themselves because they are guilty of the very things for which they are attacking others, which he used to attack those who criticize the Religious Right (it's actually Romans 2:1 that says this).

"Usually what they accuse you of is what they're guilty of," he said. "They yell intolerance at us when they're the intolerant ones. They yell bigotry at us, they're the bigoted ones. They yell anti-science at us, they're the anti-science. You get used to when people call you names, it's because they're very conscious and sensitive of what that looks like because they are one."

Apparently Barton was so pleased with this ingenious argument that he repeated it on today's show, declaring that when "they accuse us of being the haters or whatever; no, that's because they look in a mirror and they know how to recognize a hater when they see one because they see one every morning."

Right Wing Round-Up - 6/9/16

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious