Fighting the Right

A 'Blacklist' is in the Eye of the Beholder

Earlier this year, GLAAD, with the assistance of Jeremy Hooper, unveiled their Commentator Accountability Project which was aimed at putting "critical information about frequent anti-gay interviewees into the hands of newsrooms, editors, hosts and reporters" so that audiences could be accurately informed about their true views whenever these anti-gay activists were featured in the media.

When the list of commentators was release, those who founds themselves on it were quick to scream "McCarthysim," as if merely chronicling their publicly stated anti-gay statements for all to see was some form of blacklist.

In fact, that is exactly what Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber said:

“McCarthyism is alive and well within the ranks of the homo-fascist political lobby. Since liberals can’t win the debate, all they have left is to silence dissent,” said Barber, AFTAH board member and Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. “As we’ve seen evidenced by the recent [Sandra] Fluke flap involving Rush Limbaugh, left-wing extremists have ramped-up their Orwellian efforts to silence those who pose a threat to their radical secular-socialist agenda.

“I count it an honor to be included among such a distinguished list of pro-family warriors,” Barber said. “As Christ followers, we will never stop speaking God’s truth in love. These homosexualist hatemongers have exposed who they truly are. They will never silence us.”

Said AFTAH’s LaBarbera: “This is all about silencing, discrediting and demonizing pro-family voices. I guess GLAAD is so afraid that the truth about homosexuality will be heard that it will go to the extreme of creating a ‘blacklist’ against moral leaders — for a media already disinclined to be fair on this politically correct issue.”

So it is no small irony that both Barber and LaBarbera have signed on to an open letter to Fox News calling for Truth Wins Out's Wayne Besen to be banned from appearing on the station:

It is time that the O'Reilly Factor cease using Besen as a guest commentator. Providing Besen with a forum lends credibility to his pernicious tactics and enables Besen to exploit his appearances for fundraising purposes.

When Fox News provides a forum to a radical homosexual activist known for employing inflammatory and hateful language in the service of promoting lies, the network becomes complicit in the damage done to the victims of Wayne Besen's and the SPLC's smear campaigns.

We ask the News Corporation, Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly to find more ethical spokespersons for the liberal view of sexuality. In their infamous Washington Post ad accusing FRC of hateful values, Besen and the SPLC claim that "words have consequences." Yes, they do. And Besen's may lead to violence.

If GLAAD's project which simply collected the views of anti-gay activists was, as Barber decried it, nothng less than censorship and a blacklist and downright un-American McCarthyism, what is it when Barber and others sign onto to a letter demanding that someone else be banned from appearing on a major media outlet? 

Religious Right Groups Rally to Defend Todd Akin from 'Political Gang Rape'

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer isn’t the only one sticking up for Todd Akin. While the embattled Missouri congressman and senate nominee, who is a favorite of Religious Right activists and celebrated his primary victory by lauding God’s role in his success and appearing on Fischer’s show, has been abandoned and denounced by many Republican figures, Religious Right groups for the most part have remained firmly in his corner.

The New York Times reports that the Family Research Council hopes to make up the lost air-support from groups like American Crossroads and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which have dropped their planned advertisements:

Leaders of several conservative Christian and social-issues groups said they would step in with organizational, financial and news-media help. The Family Research Council said it now hoped to sponsor independent advertising and phone banks and solicit donations for Mr. Akin. And by Wednesday evening, those tiny donations requested by Mr. Akin’s campaign several times this week were starting to add up. Mr. Akin’s Twitter account reported that he had set a goal to raise $100,000 by midnight and had raised $88,000.

Akin also met with the secretive, right-wing Council for National Policy in Tampa, days before the city hosts the Republican National Convention:

Rep. Todd Akin was in Tampa Wednesday night meeting with top conservative groups and donors, several sources confirmed to POLITICO.

The embattled Missouri Senate candidate flew to Tampa to meet with members of the Council for National Policy, a secretive coalition of powerful conservative and evangelical leaders, activists, and donors.

A person attending the CNP gathering in Tampa confirmed Akin was there Wednesday evening, after several sources close to Akin in Missouri said he would be attending. It was unclear if Akin had been invited prior to his “legitimate rape” remarks Sunday.

Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse defended Akin as a victim of “the politics of personal destruction”:

He has been a pro-life advocate his whole career. He's been a man who has worked in crisis pregnancy centers. He's reached out to women and helped women in numerous ways in his private life. So it's very unfortunate that he's one who used words so insensitively, and he apologized for them, of course, and retracted from them.

But I think the bigger question for me is this whole business of the politics of personal destruction. We have a very, I think, appalling double-standard in this country where Republicans are held to these standards that are appropriate but somehow the Democrats get a pass. Vice President Biden, for instance, most recently and most - in the headlines talked about you're going to put those, put everybody in chains.

Gary DeMar’s American Vision even accused the GOP leadership of engaging in a “legitimate political gang rape” of Akin:

Legitimate political gang rape

We expect leftists, liberals, and other miscreants to pounce opportunistically, to lie, cheat, and twist (all the while drooling) over a phrase like “legitimate rape” when uttered by a strong conservative Christian politician. But should we expect the same from alleged conservatives?

Yet this is exactly what we’ve seen from several prominent conservatives in the wake of a media gaffe from U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin (R-MO) in regard to alleged “legitimate rape” and abortion.



There is, after all, the distinct possibility that if abortion were outlawed but with an exception for “rape,” that many of the women who buy abortions purely out of convenience today would then simply claim to have been raped in order to procure the legality.

For some reason, even to mention the possibility that a woman may lie about being raped is supposed to be politically incorrect—untouchable. It enrages leftists, and for some reason, therefore, frightens conservatives. Are a woman’s intentions never to questioned—completely off limits—when she claims to have been raped?

The answer is generally yes, but there is a least one major exception to this: When she intends to use that claim as justification to murder an innocent third party, a baby. The right to life trumps the right to privacy.

Liberals may wish us to believe that no woman would ever stoop so low as to lie about being raped. But this simply does not comport with what we Christians know about fallen human nature. We, conservatives, all agree that millions of women annually conspire to commit murder on their unborn babies. So do you expect me to feel it unacceptable to believe they would lie about why? This is political correctness run amok. Why, after all, would someone willing to kill out of convenience not also lie for various reasons out of convenience?

UPDATE: CNN reports that Tony Perkins of the FRC and Restoration Project organizer David Lane are both standing behind Akin:

“Following the pounding of Todd Akin by the GOP kings and lieutenants in the last 36 hours, I've come to the conclusion that the real issue is the soul of America,” wrote David Lane, an evangelical activist who’s influential in the Republican Party, in an e-mail to fellow activists Thursday morning.

“The swift knee-jerk reaction to throw Akin, a strong conservative pro-life, pro-family born again Christian under the bus by some in the Republican Party is shining the light on their actual agenda,” Lane continued.

“We haven't seen anything this vicious since some of the same operatives did this to (Sarah) Palin.”

...

In a note to supporters Wednesday night, conservative Family Research Council President Tony Perkins heaped criticism on the GOP for abandoning Akin.

"Todd Akin has a long and distinguished record of defending women, children, and families – and unlike the GOP establishment, I refuse to throw him under the bus over one inarticulate comment for which he has apologized,” wrote Perkins, who is in Tampa attending events leading up the convention.

“As for the GOP, it has no rational basis for deserting Akin when it has stood by moderate Republicans who've done worse,” Perkins continued. “Singling out Todd suggests a double standard, designed to drive out social conservatives.”

Bryan Fischer, The National Guard, and 'The Second War of Northern Aggression'

Yesterday Bryan Fischer took some time away from his one man crusade to defend  Todd Akin and "modern science" to discuss a decision by a Mississippi school board to end the practice of delivering prayers over the public address system before football games and other school functions after receiving a letter from the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).

Fischer was predictably outraged about the development, claiming that "these people in the South are total pansies" who refuse to stand up and fight back against FFRF, which is leading "the second Northern war of aggression against the South."

And even though this particular case never went to court, Fischer went on to claim that the school board should simply declare that it was going to ignore any ruling banning prayer and continue the practice while the governor of the state should be willing to send in the National Guard to surround the press box and arrest anyone who tries to stop them from delivering such prayers:

Fischer Calls Out Limbaugh, Hannity, & Palin for Refusing to 'Stand With Todd Akin and Modern Science'

Bryan Fischer continues his one man crusade to prove that Todd Akin was right when he claimed that that women have a biological defense against pregnancy in the case of "legitimate rape" by pointing to an article in the Daily Mail that reports that "scientists [have] found that [women] with high levels of a stress hormone stop ovulating and are therefore unable to conceive."

To Fischer, this is proof that Akin was right and so now he is calling out, by name, all those conservatives who have joined in the "mindless, freakish, frenzied forcible assault" on Akin by suggesting that he should drop out of his Senate race, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Sarah Palin for not standing with "Todd Akin and modern science" and instead siding with the "jackals" who are attacking him:

Dinesh D'Souza Says Obama is 'Weirdly Sympathetic' to Terrorists, Sees them as 'Freedom Fighters'

While promoting his new movie about President Obama on conservative radio shows, Dinesh D’Souza accused Obama of viewing the U.S. as an “evil empire” while sympathizing with anti-American terrorists.

D’Souza told Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio that Obama “subscribes to a very radical Third World ideology” and that he thinks “from Obama’s point of view we are the ‘evil empire.’”

D’Souza: We normally think we’re having a policy debate between liberals and conservatives who agree about goals but disagree about means. I think when you’re dealing with a Bill Clinton for example that is true, we all want a prosperous economy, we all want America to be a force for freedom in the world, we’d like America to stay number one as long as possible. I think Obama stands outside this consensus and he does so not because he’s a traitor but because he subscribes to a very radical Third World ideology that sees America has the rogue nation in the world. You’ll remember Reagan’s phrase ‘the evil empire’ referring to the Soviet Union, I think from Obama’s point of view we are the ‘evil empire,’ we are the one who needs to be contained.

In an interview with Janet Mefferd, D’Souza claimed that Obama “is weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis who are captured in Iraq or Afghanistan” and “views those guys in favorable terms.” D’Souza says Obama thinks America is an “evil power” and sees “the Muslims who are fighting against America” as “freedom fighters.”

Mefferd: What do you think, a lot of people have talked quite a bit about to the degree to which Obama will reach out to the Muslims, give them a pass, give them special treatment, how does that fit into the whole narrative about anti-colonialism?

D’Souza: It fits in this way Janet, because I think Obama is weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis who are captured in Iraq or Afghanistan, giving them constitutional rights, wanting to close down Guantanamo or when Obama keeps taking the Palestinian position against Israel, some people think that the reason he does this is because he must be a secret Muslim himself. I think that’s wrong. But what I do think Obama thinks is he thinks, ‘look, America is the evil power occupying these poor Third World countries, so the Muslims who are fighting against America are freedom fighters, they’re like Mandela, they’re like Gandhi, they’re like Obama’s own dad fighting to push the British out of Kenya.’ He views those guys in favorable terms and he sees America, not Iran or North Korea, but America as the rogue nation that has to be pulled back.

According to D’Souza, this is all because of Obama’s lefty mom who “wanted to marry a Third World anti-American guy” and “cultivated in Obama this sort of anti-capitalist and somewhat anti-American ideology.” D’Souza explains that Obama’s mom “rebelled against her family and her church and her country” and saw “America as a force for evil in the world,” and Obama learned from her and his leftist “surrogate fathers” a “Third World ideology.”

D’Souza: Actually the mom, Obama’s mom, whom Obama portrays as this Midwestern girl from Kansas, but really no, she became an atheist and a leftist and at times even almost a communist, she would say things like ‘what’s wrong with communism?’ and she wanted to marry a Third World anti-American guy and in succession she married two of them. She was the one that cultivated in Obama this sort of anti-capitalist and somewhat anti-American ideology and then of course Obama, once it took, throughout his life would go looking for other guys, mentors, surrogate fathers if you will, who are like his dad and like his mom and then he would study under them and learn chapter and verse of this Third World ideology.

Mefferd: So interesting his mom, a lot of people may say, why would she deliberately seek out a Third World anti-capitalist?

D’Souza: That seems so odd doesn’t it? But it happens in America sometimes, it certainly happened in the ‘60s. Obama’s mom was sort of a ‘60s girl before the ‘60s, she rebelled against her family and her church and her country. In a way, she began to see America as a force for evil in the world.

Pseudo-Historians Unite: David Barton and Scott Lively use Fake Scholarship to Disguise their Extremist Views

David Barton defends his junk history by pointing to an anonymous group of academics who apparently approve of his “scholarship” while simultaneously saying that people can trust his work because the liberal, secular, academic elite doesn’t approve of it. While Barton refuses to name anyone from his supposed gaggle of admirers in academia, he is touting the support of a fellow pseudo-historian: Scott Lively, who blames the Holocaust on the gay community.

That’s right, Barton, who has the ear of Republican politicians and is helping to write the Republican Party platform, is touting the endorsement of someone who thinks gays brought about the Holocaust.

As Kyle reported yesterday, Lively appeared on WallBuilders Live, Barton’s radio show which he co-hosts with Rick Green, to defend Barton and denounce his critics, namely Professor Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College. Throckmorton co-authored “Getting Jefferson Right,” a book that scrutinizes and debunks many of Barton’s claims in “The Jefferson Lies,” which was so inaccurate it was pulled from publication.

Even before Lively’s appearance on WallBuilders Live, Barton was promoting Lively’s attack on Throckmorton via Twitter and Facebook, arguing that Throckmorton lied about Lively’s involvement in shaping Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill and therefore shouldn’t be trusted in whatever he said about Barton. While on WallBuilders Live, Lively said it is “absolutely not true” that he promoted “forced therapy of homosexuals in Uganda”:

However, that is exactly what he told Janet Mefferd back in May, arguing that he wanted Uganda to treat homosexuals just like drunk drivers who have the choice between jail time and therapy, in this case sexual orientation conversion therapy:

This brazen dishonesty is how both Lively and Barton operate. While they like to fashion themselves as historians they are in reality simply political activists.

Similar to how Barton misrepresents the Founders as conservative evangelical Christians to advance his own conservative political agenda, Lively rewrites the history of Nazi Germany to argue that gays and lesbians are responsible for the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust in order to further his own anti-gay politics in the U.S. and abroad.

In “The Pink Swastika,” Lively asserts that “the glaring truth of history is that homosexuals bore a disproportionately large share for the responsibility for the rise of Nazism.” He claims that gays in Germany sought to restore homosexual occult religion and eliminate its Judeo-Christian detractors: “there is a spiritual element to the Holocaust that suggests that it was, in some respects, vengeance against the people whose moral laws had relegated pagan homo-occultism to obscurity and ignominy” (p. 49). According to Lively, “the rise of homosexuality in a Judeo-Christian based culture” inevitably means that “violence and depravity increase” (p. 137).

“The Pink Swastika” later shifts the conversation to the U.S. debate on gay rights, warning that “Nazi themes are common in the homosexual community” today (p. 146) and that American society is heading down the same path as pre-WWII Germany thanks to gay rights (p. 187).

No legitimate historians have given any credibility Lively’s claims that the Nazi party leadership was overwhelmingly composed of gay men. Throckmorton has posted one of the most thorough refutations of Lively’s book. In fact, homosexuals were a targeted for persecution in Nazi Germany and thousands were sent to concentration camps.

Throckmorton and countless others haven’t criticized Lively and Barton’s work out of a malicious desire to smear conservatives, as the two claim, but because it is necessary to call out those like Lively and Barton who are clearly rewriting and twisting history in order to advance their own political goals.

Paul Ryan Still Believes in Forcing Rape Victims to Give Birth to Their Rapists' Children

In an interview yesterday with Pittsburgh’s KDKA, Paul Ryan took the opportunity to stand behind his record of trying to force rape victims who get pregnant to give birth to their rapists’ children. Ryan, speaking with KDKA political editor Jon Delano, said he would follow the lead of Romney, who supports an exception for rape. But he made it clear that he doesn't personally support one.

Ryan’s record on reproductive rights is virtually identical to that of Todd “legitimate rape” Akin. Both oppose abortion in the case of rape, and the GOP platform committee yesterday reaffirmed this position on behalf of the entire party.

But still, you might have expected Ryan to back away from the issue during his first interview since Akin captured the spotlight. Nope, Ryan’s a true believer. Pregnant rape victims be damned:
 
Delano: “Should abortions to be available to women who are raped?”
 
Ryan: “Well, look, I’m proud of my pro-life record. And I stand by my pro-life record in Congress. It’s something I’m proud of. But Mitt Romney is the top of the ticket and Mitt Romney will be president and he will set the policy of the Romney administration.”
 
Delano: “Despite Ryan’s views, Romney says he will allow exceptions for rape and incest."
 
Delano: "Ryan says women won’t fall for these side issues."
 
Ryan: "And I don’t think they’re going to take the bait of all these distractions that the President is trying to throw at them."

 

David Barton and the Matter of Interpretation

As David Barton has been fighting to salvage his reputation over the last few weeks, one of the main claims that he and his supporters are making is that the disputes over the veracity of Barton's work all boil down to simple matters of interpretation.

Rick Green, for instance, claims that the attacks on Barton are nothing more than "empty rhetoric using the tiniest of semantics over one fact out of thousands to try and discredit the entire premise of the book."

In Green's view, people are just nitpicking Barton's work because they disagree with his interpretation of facts ... but, as we have repeatedly pointed out, people are questioning Barton's interpretation of facts because he has a long record of intentionally misinterpreting them in order to promote his own agenda.

And today on "WallBuilders Live," Barton offered up another perfect example of this when he discussed the controversy that surrounds Jerry Boykin:

He's actually a three-star general and he got in a lot of trouble from the secular guys because he talked about God in a church. Can you imagine him doing that? He spoke in a church and he talked about God. They beat him up and demanded that he be kicked out of the military and went to the President and said "you can't let a guy speak about God when he is in church" and he's taken abuse and a beating.

He was dis-invited from speaking up at West Point last year under the Obama administration because he is the head of a group that deals with domestic terrorism, that deals with the threat of Islamic terrorism but how it applies itself domestically and the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. So because he points out where there are threats, he as a guy who recognizes a threat when he sees it, who had Delta Force special forces, was kept from speaking at West Point by the Obama administration.

So that is Barton's "interpretation" of what happened and, you will be shocked to learn, it does not correspond very closely to reality.

In fact, Boykin got in trouble not for talking about God in church but for appearing in full uniform before a religious group to declare that Muslims hated the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian ... and the enemy is a guy named Satan" and that Boykin knew the US would win because "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

After retiring from the military due largely to the controversy he generated with this address, Boykin then turned his attention full time to anti-Islam activism, calling on Christians to “pray over mosques and go on the offensive against Islam while declaring that Islam should not be protected under the First Amendment and that America should ban the construction of mosques. And it was this long and documented history of anti-Islam activism that led Boykin to withdraw from his speaking engagement at West Point.

This perfectly demonstrates why the matter of Barton's reliability as an "interpreter" is central to the concerns about the reliability of his historical claims because, as we have said several times before, if he cannot be relied upon to accurately "interpret" information pertaining to recent events that anyone with access to Google can easily check and verify,  how can anyone trust the arcane claims he makes about complex events in early American history?

Pat Robertson Blames Drought on Americans who 'Ignore the Laws of God with Impunity'

Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson blamed this year’s severe drought on Americans who infringe on God’s law, although Robertson did not specify which laws were broken. “Somehow in this country we feel that we can ignore the laws of God with impunity, and the truth is we can’t, God always has the last say,” Robertson said, “we need to do some praying.” “The heavens have been shut up and it’s time for those folks in the Midwest to do some serious praying,” Robertson counseled. Earlier this year, Robertson maintained that tornadoes in the Midwest could have been stopped if only people had prayed them away.

Watch:

Leading Religious Right Ministry Breaks with Barton and his 'Misinformation'

BreakPoint ministry, founded by the late Chuck Colson and chaired by Timothy George, appears to be making a clean break with junk historian David Barton. While Barton and his deputy Rick Green continue to claim their only critics are left-wing, anti-Christian academic elitists, more and more conservatives are distancing themselves from Barton.

Just as Barton projects his own right-wing political views and fundamentalist version of Christianity onto the Founders, Tom Gilson writes for BreakPoint that many Christians readily accepted Barton’s version of history because it validated their own political and religious beliefs: “He gave us what we wanted.” Consequently, “Barton’s errors are not only his” as they “also belong to those of us who bought his message carelessly, unquestioningly, too eagerly, and too comfortably.”

Gilson points out that Barton’s work faced significant scrutiny long before evangelical historians began criticizing Barton’s “scholarship” as “serious questions that have surrounded Barton’s work for a long time” and the Christian publishing giant Thomas Nelson pulled “The Jefferson Lies” from publication, and yet many Barton fans agreed with his claim that any criticism is a result of the “liberal academy’s antipathy to Christianity.” “It’s not political opinion that’s stacking up against him now,” Gilson writes. “It’s well documented facts.”

David Barton was American evangelicals’ favorite historian. He taught us about the Founding Fathers’ almost uniform commitment to Christian principles, and secular historians’ attempts to bury our Christian heritage under reams of revisionist distortions. He gave us firepower in support of our mission to return America to its godly founding principles.

He gave us what we wanted. But now David Barton has been credibly charged with serious distortions of his own.

The story has been told in both the secular and the Christian press: Barton’s most recent book, The Jefferson Lies, was riddled with misinformation. Its publisher, Thomas Nelson, pulled it from distribution. Barton is standing firm in his position, but reliable historians—strongly conservative Christian scholars among them—continue to hold him in error, and not just because of this work but because of others as well.

I am no historian, so I am in no position to form an independent judgment of his veracity. Few of us are. But that doesn’t excuse our eager acceptance of his inaccuracies. With a bit of care, any of us could have known of the serious questions that have surrounded Barton’s work for a long time. These recent revelations are nothing new, except in the degree to which conservative Christian scholars are involved in calling him to account.

Nevertheless we became for him a devoted cadre of disciples. We knew our country’s founding principles were vitally important. However, so is historical accuracy. It looks as if Barton compromised one to make a case for the other.

If the signs have been there for some time, why then did we love Barton so? And is it possible that we share the blame? Barton fended off criticism by blaming it on the liberal academy’s antipathy to Christianity. That had more than a little believability to it. I am quite sure that liberal academics often hold to an ideological agenda that motivates them to discredit Christianity’s part in our nation’s history. Thus, it was easy (and it still is) to be suspicious of their criticisms in this case. But the ideology defense is no help when it’s conservative Christians making a case against Barton—especially when it’s a case as verifiable as this is proving to be. It’s not political opinion that’s stacking up against him now. It’s well documented facts.



To accept any human teacher without checking on his message with due diligence is to abandon our responsibility to the truth. David Barton’s errors are not only his. They also belong to those of us who bought his message carelessly, unquestioningly, too eagerly, and too comfortably.

Barber: Polygamy and Incest are 'Inevitable' if Gay Marriage is Legalized

On today's "Faith and Freedom" program, Matt Barber declared that gay activists don't actually want marriage equality but rather are interested in "deconstructing the Judeo-Christian notion of marriage as marriage has always been." 

In fact, Barber claimed, the institution of marriage has always been about restricting which sorts of relationships are legitimate, which is why "people can't marry children, people can't marry close relatives, people can't marry their favorite pet."  Barber then warned that if "we're going to break the institution of marriage and radically redefine it" then "polygamy is inevitable if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land and we can no longer have prohibitions on incestuous marriage":

GOP Platform Committee Disses DC

The Republican Party’s platform committee spent the day addressing amendments to sections of the platform draft that came up through subcommittees.  It seems that the DC delegation had managed to get into the draft platform some vague language supporting improved representation. It didn’t last. 

The language said that while the Party is opposed to statehood, there could be constructive alternative means of representation that should be considered.  Even that was too much.  James Bopp, delegate from Indiana, dripping contempt for DC, called for that to be hacked out, which it was. He said the District already has representation through its delegate and through the "Democrat Party," which is “of, by, and for the federal government.”

Watch Bopp's comments and his little victory celebration:

Bryan Fischer Says Todd Akin is Like a Victim of Rape

After likening the backlash to Todd Akin’s comments on “legitimate rape” to the Pharisees’ persecution of Jesus, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer is now comparing Akin to a victim of rape. After listing the growing chorus of conservative activists and media personalities who have called on Akin to quit the senate race, Fischer lamented that “everybody is gang tackling Todd Akin.” “You talk about a forcible situation, you talk about somebody being a victim of forcible assault, that would be Todd Akin,” Fischer maintained.

Watch:

Fischer Says Media Treating Akin Like Pharisees Treated Jesus

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer is continuing his full-throated defense of embattled Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin, who said this weekend that women can’t get pregnant from what he called “legitimate rape.” Speaking with AFA president Tim Wildmon on Today’s Issues, Fischer compared the media’s criticism of Akin with the Pharisees’ attacks on Jesus, saying that “the scribes and Pharisees were the first ones to play gotcha politics.”

“You know the Gospel writers say that they kept looking for some way to trap Jesus in something that he might say, just one single word they could jump on to try to discredit him and that’s what they did with Todd Akin and his comments about rape,” Fischer said.

Watch:

WallBuilders Turns to Scott Lively in an to Attempt to Salvage David Barton's Reputation

Things have now gotten so desperate for David Barton and WallBuilders that they are reduced to calling in support from none other than Scott Lively to defend Barton's work by attacking Warren Throckmorton, Barton's primary critic.

Lively, as you know, is widely seen as the inspiration behind Uganda's notorious "kill the gays" legislation and the author of the book "The Pink Swastika," which claims that "the Nazi Party was conceived, organized and controlled throughout its short history by masculine-oriented male homosexuals who hid their sexual proclivities from the public, in part by publicly persecuting one group of their political enemies: out-of-the-closet effeminate-oriented homosexuals aligned with the German Communist Party."

Throckmorton has likewise been a vocal critic of Lively's "scholarship" and so the the geniuses at WallBuilders thought it would be a good idea of have Lively come on the program and explain that what is happening to Barton is the same thing that happened to him:

I had the same kind of run-in with Mr. Throckmorton myself. I'm the author of a history book along with Jewish researcher Kevin Abrams called "The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party." Very controversial but heavily documented and Mr. Throckmorton has attempted to attack my work in the very same way.

Why WallBuilders thinks this comparison helps Barton's cause is utterly beyond our comprehension. 

Green and Lively also suggested that Throckmorton is responsible for some sort of widespread conspiracy against anti-gay Religious Right leaders because he is favorably quoted on "really nasty anti-Christian blogs" such as Box Turtle Bulletin, Joe.My.God, and Truth Wins Out and engages in interaction with us here at Right Wing Watch:

Green: I noticed in your article you said just Google his name along with these really nasty anti-Christian blogs like Box Turtle Bulletin, Truth Wins Out, Joe.My.God, I mean they got some really nasty stuff on there ...

Lively: Very nasty.

Green: And apparently he's kind of a champion of these guys. They really kind of see him as a hero. They quote him all the time.

...

Lively: There's a lot of interaction there between him and some of the other people and the group Right Wing Watch ...

Green: Oh yeah, those guys love us. They just love us. They love us so much that they watch us all the time and listen to us all the time. They're always taking stuff out of context and out of quotes ... so to all of our friends at Right Wing Watch and these other liberal blogs and whatnot listening today, we just want to say "hi, love ya, Lord bless you."

Lively: Amen. Hey, I want these people to be saved. I want them to be turned from the foolishness of their positions but I'm not simply going to sit back when they're attacking people who are standing for biblical truth.

It is interesting that Green would accuse us taking things out of context while categotically refusing to even acknowledge all of the instances we have documented of Barton spreading falsehoods, such as claiming that Constitution directly quotes the Bible "verbatim":

Todd Akin Receives Support from Phyllis Schlafly, Who Denies Existence of Marital Rape

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is joining her Religious Right allies at the Family Research Council and the American Family Association in defending Todd Akin over his “legitimate rape” claims:

Republican party leaders may be working to push Rep. Todd Akin out of the Missouri Senate race, but leading social conservatives continue to rally to his side. Fellow Missourian Phyllis Schlafly said late Monday that Akin should remain in the race and compared his treatment by party leaders to former Va. Sen. George Allen, who lost support in his 2006 race for reelection after calling a young aide to his opponent “macaca.”

“He’s not for rape. That’s ridiculous,” said Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum. “They’re making a big thing about an unfortunate remark.”

“You saw what they did to George Allen in Virginia, which I thought was a shame,” she said of party leaders urging Akin to leave his race against Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill. “I don’t think people like that should make the decision. The people of Missouri should make that decision.”

Schlafly backed Akin early on in the race and her endorsement is prominently displayed on Akin’s website, but he may consider finding other defenders since Schlafly herself refuses to recognize the existence of marital rape: “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape,” Schlafly said back in 2007. In fact, she doubled down on those remarks in an interview the year later:

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

Like Schlafly, Akin once voiced his disapproval of marital rape laws by warning that they could be used as “a legal weapon to beat up on the husband” in a divorce proceeding.

The Craziest Obama Conspiracy Theory Gets Even Crazier

Back in May we reported on an amazing conspiracy theory that seemed to bring all of the far right's fears about Obama, Islam, environmentalism and immigration together: essentially, President Obama is going to collapse the world economy, causing Muslim immigrants to flood the U.S. and give Obama the opportunity to settle them on land seized under Agenda 21 and establish Sharia law. But that was just scratching the surface.

Author Avi Lapkin has been making the rounds in churches warning audiences of the nefarious plot, and is frequently cited as a “scholar” by the American Family Association’s news division, OneNewsNow. Yesterday he appeared on Today’s Issues with the AFA’s Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders, who said that Lipkin “shines the light of truth on what’s going on in the Middle East” and “has a clear picture” of “what’s going on in the Middle East.”

So what did Lipkin tell them? After once again warning of the Obama-immigration-Agenda21-sharia plot, Lipkin said that the Muslim population in the U.S. isn’t 0.6 percent, as official estimates assert [pdf], but actually 10 percent because the government is flying millions of Muslims into the country on charter jets. Once they come in, they marry American women turn them into “baby factories for Islam.”

What you have today is close to ten percent of the population is Muslim. You have 307 million Americans, you have 9 million Shiite Iranians who fled from Iran after 1979 when the Shah fell—these were allies of the U.S. if they had not fled they would have been killed by Khomeini—7 million Arabs, about 16 million between the Shiites and the Sunnis, four million Farrakhan Nation of Islam, that’s 20 million. I can tell you with all authenticity because I’ve been collecting this information all around the country that there are charter jets bringing Muslims into this country every day for free, at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer of course, people in Washington are bribed, the floodgates are open and they’re bringing in Muslims from Somalis, Palestinians, Bosnians, Algerians, Egyptians. Nobody even has a clue to exactly how many, I predict there are between 20 to 30 million Muslims in America and this fact is not lost on the election campaign in November.



What happens after they come here is that they marry Christian women, Jewish and Christian American women and then these women become baby factories for Islam because it’s the religion of the father. So if a Muslim father marries a Christian or Jewish mother the children are going to be Muslim. Then they get passports because they married an American woman and once they get passports they bring in their families from the Middle East. So what we’ve seen happening is not one university but we’ve seen hundreds of universities doing this and that’s one of the reasons why I’m saying this is very stealth like, it’s very insidious. Nobody sees it happening but you have a process paid with oil money to bring in millions of Muslims into this country very quietly with student visas and other things but eventually its family reunification. I’ve been following this for the last thirty years and most Americans can’t believe anything I’m saying but I’m on the cutting edge of this.

He later said that an attack on Iran’s nuclear program is imminent but that nuclear disarmament and the promotion of democracy are not the real reasons for the hostility to the Iranian regime. According to Lipkin, the real reason behind the looming attack is that Obama is a Sunni Muslim who is controlled by the leaders of Saudi Arabia who want Iran’s oil wealth and are intent on stopping Iran from preventing the rise of…the one world government.

Lipkin explains that the Illuminati and the Free Masons control the world and pick America’s presidents and want to use Iran’s oil as part of their nefarious and secretive agenda to control the world.

I’m predicting that the globalist one world government insists on getting that oil and to do that you have to overthrow the regime. The problem is not the nuclear threat, the problem is the regime. Fourthly, I think Obama’s a Muslim, he’s a Sunni Muslim on orders from Saudi and the Saudis are afraid to get their heads chopped off by the Shiite Iranians, therefore the Saudis are commanding Obama to terminate the Shiite regime. All of this is in my teachings. So the four reasons for war with Iran, the nuclear threat and democracy are the least of the reasons.



I think what we’ve been seeing over the last few decades is that America has been having its leaders chosen, Democrat or Republican, chosen by the one world government, the Masons, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, whatever you want to call these people, these are people who control the world. Unfortunately, Jesus Christ is not important to them, what’s important to them is oil and money. Christianity and Judaism can be sacrificed relatively speaking as long as they have oil and the cash and the Muslims have that, but it’s the Sunnis who have it and the Shiites who are trying to bring it all down. So the Shiites and the Sunnis are working at cross-purposes and what we see here is an alliance between the Sunni Muslims, the Christians and Israel against Shiite Iran.

Raymond Raines and the Religious Right: The Myth That Will Not Die

Yesterday Kelly Shackelford of Liberty Institute and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council released a new website and joint report entitled "The Survey on Religious Hostility in America" which is billed as "collection of more than 600 cases, detailing religious bigotry throughout America."

And you can tell from the introduction just how trustworthy this report truly is:

The Obama administration no longer even speaks of freedom of religion; now it is only “freedom of worship.” This radical departure is one that threatens to make true religious liberty vulnerable, conditional, and limited. As some have said, it is a freedom “only within four walls.” That is, you are free to worship within the four walls of your home, church, or synagogue, but when you enter the public square the message is, “leave your religion at home.” President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have repeatedly echoed this same message in international forums, acknowledging only a right to the “freedom of worship.” This is no accident, and it has huge ramifications.

This claim that Obama is systematically undermining "freedom of religion" seems to be one of the Religious Right's favorite claims ... which, of course, means that it is not true at all.

The report itself consists of 100+ pages of  short descriptions of seemingly every court case along with the various urban legends that the Religious Right trots out whenever they are trying to play the victim.  In fact, this one from the Executive Summary caught my eye:

A public school official physically lifted an elementary school student from his seat and reprimanded him in front of his classmates for praying over his lunch.

That sounded a lot like the story of Raymond Raines and, sure enough, on page 74 we find this:

Elementary School Student Punished for Praying Before Meals
Joan Little, “City Schools Issue Rules About Students, Religion,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 11, 1996, at 2B

Elementary school student Raymond Raines was “caught” praying over his meal at his elementary school. He was lifted from his seat and reprimanded in front of all the other students, then taken to the principal who ordered him to cease praying in school.

As we noted just a few months ago, this myth has been around since 1994 when Newt Gingrich and various Religious Right leaders first started making Raymond's sorry tale the centerpiece of their campaign to pass a constitutional amendment protecting the right to expressions of faith ... despite the fact that it wasn't true:

The St. Louis case concerned 10-year-old Raymond Raines who, his mother said, was given detention because he sought to pray over his lunch. When lawyers for the Rutherford Institute heard about the case, they filed a lawsuit against the principal and issued a press release denouncing the school system.

"I know it sounds bizarre, but we have substantial evidence to believe it happened," said Timothy Belz, the St. Louis lawyer working with the Rutherford Institute.

On NBC-TV's "Meet the Press," Gingrich described the situation as "a real case about a real child. Should it be possible for the government to punish you if you say grace over your lunch? That's what we used to think of Russian behavior when they were the Soviet Union."

But school officials said the incident never happened. Rather, they said, Raymond was disciplined for fighting in the cafeteria.

"I can tell you he was not reprimanded for praying," said Kenneth Brostron, the school's lawyer. "Do you think it makes sense that the teachers would look around the cafeteria and target the one student who was praying quietly at his seat?"

This incident took place nearly twenty years ago and the Religious Right is still citing it today as proof that Christianity is under attack in America despite the fact that it never happened.

Fischer Brings on Guest to Explain 'It Really All Stands To Reason' That Few Women Get Pregnant from Rape

Bryan Fischer is the type of person who doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS, but rather that the disease is caused by gay men taking "poppers" in order "to make it possible to have numerous encounters on the same night."

So when Rep. Todd Akin set off a firestorm of controversy by saying that women have a biological defense against pregnancy in the case of "legitimate rape," it was no surprise that Fischer was one of Akin's earliest and most vocal defenders, declaring that Akin is "absolutely right."

In fact, Fischer dedicated much of his program yesterday to defending Akin, even bringing on Brad Mattes of Life Issues Institute to explain the various reasons why instances of women becoming pregnant via rape are extremely rare, such as women are only capable of conception for a few days every month, lots of women take contraception, lots of women and even rapists are sterile, and in many cases there is no penetration or deposition of sperm. 

On top of that, Mattes explained, there is "a great deal of anxiety and hormones being released that would prevent [a victim] from becoming pregnant," which is why fertility specialists recommend to women who are trying to get pregnant to reduce the stress in their life.

"So it really all stands to reason," Mattes claimed, before he and Fischer went on to praise Todd Akin for having always been a staunch anti-choice zealot whose ascension to the Senate would be a huge boost to the movement and lamented that Republicans are "throwing him under the bus" instead of holding him up and "helping him weather this storm and controversy":

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious