Fighting the Right

Barton, Green & Barber Agree: Not Voting for Romney is a Sin

A few months ago, David Barton and Rick Green invited early Mitt Romney supporter Jordan Sekulow onto their "WallBuilders Live" program to make the case why Religious Right votes can and should be excited about supporting Romney in the general election. 

Sekulow made the case that Romney would nominate good judges, especially to the Supreme Court , and while that certainly appealed to Barton and Green, the fact of the matter is that regardless of how unexcited they might be about a candidate like Romney, their vehement opposition to President Obama meant that they were going to do whatever they could to see Obama defeated. 

And that was more or less the argument put forth by Matt Barber last month in a column he wrote calling on Christians to support Romney primarily because Obama was so bad that no "Christian in good conscience" could ever vote for him or even consider sitting this election out.

Today, Barton and Green invited Barber on to the program to make this case to the WallBuilders listeners and the general consensus among all three was that it was a sin for any Christian not to vote for Mitt Romney:

Barber: We are admonished in Scripture to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Now the wise thing to do is to go in and support Mitt Romney because, again, the alternative is catastrophic.

Green: Absolutely. And like you said, not voting is not only a dereliction of duty, it's really anti-Biblical. It's actually being the servant, remember the parable where they gave the talents? It's being the one that buried their talent. Well that was described in the Bible as being a wicked and slothful servant. I don't want to be that one, man, I want to be one of the other guys.

Barber: Well, absolutely. Well, it's worse than that; not voting is essentially a vote for Barack Obama because it fails to cancel out a vote for Barack Obama so it's absolutely a dereliction of duty.

...

Barton: I don't care if Romney calls himself a Mormon [and] Obama calls himself a Christian. Here's my question: where are you on judges, because Isaiah 1:26 says the righteousness of a land is determined by the judges of the land. Who's more biblical on judges? Romney or Obama?

Green: No question, Romney.

Barton: Let's ask marriage, who's more biblical on marriage? Romney or Obama?

Green: Romney, no question.

Barton: Let's ask where we are on the life issue, who's more biblical? Romney or Obama?

Green: Not even close. Obama supports infanticide he's so pro-abortion. Romney has become very pro-life.

Barton: We know the free enterprise system was started out of five verses in the Bible, the whole economic system that God created we used in America. Who's more biblical on the free enterprise system, Obama or Romney?

Green: Obama's a socialist without question on free enterprise. Romney's a great example on true biblical free enterprise.

Barton: So why do we have a question here? Because he's a Mormon? Hey, we've got to get past labels. Just like Obama's Christian label means nothing, Romney's Mormon label means nothing. What matters is the fruit, which one is going to produce more biblical fruit ...

There's only two options Christians have. Christians do not have the option of sitting this one out. You do not have that option, it is not a possibility. You will stand before God and He will say "I gave you your vote, what did you do with your vote?" And we can't just say "well, I chose to sit this one out."

Green: Especially in a situation like this where so much is at stake. What's the verse, when you know what to do and you do nothing? That's sin!

Barton: James 4:17; when you know what's right to do and you don't do it, that is sin.

Boykin Wonders if Obama is a Member of the Muslim Brotherhood

Family Research Council’s new vice president Jerry Boykin has a penchant for making bizarre, conspiratorial claims about President Obama and extremist attacks on Muslims, and at a Massachusetts synagogue last week even wondered whether President Obama is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Responding to a questioner who asked if Obama is “a member of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Boykin replied, “you probably don’t know, and my answer is, I don’t know.”

He went on to allege that Jeremiah Wright brought Nation of Islam theology into the United Church of Christ, and that the NOI is based on the teachings of James Cone, a Christian theologian who was born after the founding of the NOI. Boykin denied that Obama attended a real Christian church and instead claimed Wright surreptitiously preached Cone’s crypto-Islamic theology, and so for Obama “it wouldn’t of mattered whether he was in the Nation of Islam or was in a Christian Church, he got the same theology, which was James Cone’s Marxist, liberation theology, which runs parallel to the whole doctrine of Islam.”

Watch:

Update: Wil Gafney writes in Religion Dispatches that not only did Boykin grossly misrepresent black liberation theology, but also that Wright was never a member of the Nation of Islam.

Radio Host Mason Weaver: Liberal Mindset Legitimizes Criminal Activity

During a recent appearance on Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum Live radio show, conservative radio talk show host Mason Weaver, whom Schlafly introduced as “a very articulate black” who is urging African Americans to “get a life” and “get off the plantation.”

Schlafly: Our guest today is Mason Weaver, who is a very articulate black, he is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, and he’s trying to encourage blacks to get a life, get off the plantation, make something of yourself and stop depending on Uncle Sam to give you everything from food to childcare for your kids.

He described the feminist movement as “anti-God”, and insisted that liberal social policy, (in this case referred to euphemistically as ‘the other man’) breeds dependency and thus promotes and justifies criminal activity. Schlafly’s organization recently lamented the downward trend in the white birth rate, and Schalfly herself has said wistfully that the United States “was a lot better off before 1962,” before the civil rights movement had made major gains.

Schlafly: And you realize the disaster the feminist movement has been in this country because they’re anti-men, and anti-husbands, and anti-masculine, and when they talk about liberation…

Weaver: They’re anti-God, that’s all it is.

Schlafly: Yeah.

Weaver: They’re anti-God. The feminist movement was created to have another front on the attack on masculinity. It’s an attack on the culture in the family, it’s an attack on success. They want dependency, they want failure, they want themselves to be in charge, it’s just simply agreed on their part.

Schlafly: And they want everybody, blacks and women, to believe they’re victims of society. And of course if you wake up in the morning and you think you’re a victim, how far are you going to get?

Weaver: Well think about the male ego. If you convince a 20 year old man, black or white, that another man controls his family, his health, his income, his job, why go get a job? The other man controls it. Why go out and try to earn something? He’s going to take it from you. But you also feel justified in criminal activity, in not respecting your family. If you buy the liberal mindset of yourself, as a black man, you are by definition depressed.

Schlafly: That's right.

Fischer: It Was Liberals who Opposed the Fight for Civil Rights

A few weeks ago, we posted a clip of Bryan Fischer rewriting American history in order to claim that the American Revolution was not a rebellion because, according to the Bible, rebellion against governing authorities is rebellion against God since Romans 13 says that all governing authorities have been established by God.

We see this sort of re-framing American history quite often from the Religious Right, mainly because their entire worldview depends on it.  Since, in their view, America was founded by God and established for the propagation of Christianity, then everything good that has happened has been because Christians were following the Bible while everything bad was a result of not having Christians in charge and not following the Bible.

We see this mentality at work in the way the Religious Right proclaims that it was Christians who ended slavery and in the assertion that they are the ideological descendents of civil rights champions like Martin Luther King Jr.

How a movement dominated by Southern conservative Christian fundamentalists has managed to convince itself that it is the modern-day bearer of MLK's legacy has always been something of a mystery to us.  After all, if fundamentalist Christians were the ones championing the Civil Rights struggle, then who were the ones standing in the way and turning the fire hoses on the activists?

As Fischer explained yesterday, it was the liberals:

Ladies and gentlemen, who was it that abolished the institution of slavery? It was the Republican Party, it was a Republican President, it was a conservative who abolished the institution of slavery.

Who was it that filibustered the Civil Rights Acts in the Sixties? It was liberals, it was progressives. It was conservative Republicans that voted in greater percentages that voted for the Civil Rights Act then Democrats did.

Who where the ones that were standing hosing people off with fire hoses? Those were Democrats, those were liberals that were doing that.

Don’t Forget Who John Roberts Is

Add this to the good news/bad news mix from the Supreme Court's healthcare decision: Because of the good news (Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act), we get the bad news that his standing among the nation's Democrats has significantly increased. This collective amnesia about who John Roberts is and what he has done is disturbing, especially since the direction of the Court is one of the most important issues upon which Democrats should be voting in November.

A new Gallup Poll shows wild fluctuations in Democrats and Republicans' assessment of Chief Justice John Roberts since their last poll in 2005, a change Gallup attributes to his role in upholding the Affordable Care Act. Roberts' approval rating among Republicans has plummeted 40 percentage points from 2005, falling from 67% to 27%. In contrast, his favorability among Democrats has risen from 35% to 54%. That the healthcare decision is a catalyst of this change is supported by a PEW Research Center poll last week showing that between April and July, approval of the Supreme Court dropped 18 points among Republicans and rose 12% among Democrats.

Yes, John Roberts upheld the ACA, but only as a tax. At the same time, he agreed with his four far right compatriots that it fell outside the authority granted Congress by the Commerce Clause, leaving many observers concerned that he has set traps designed to let the Court later strike down congressional legislation that should in no way be considered constitutionally suspect. He also joined the majority that restricted Congress's constitutional authority under the Spending Clause to define the contours of state programs financed with federal funds.

Just as importantly, Roberts's upholding the ACA does not erase the past seven years, during which he has repeatedly been part of thin conservative majority decisions bending the law beyond recognition in order to achieve a right wing political result. John Roberts cast the deciding vote in a number of disastrous decisions, including those that:

Oh, and then there's that little 5-4 Citizens United opinion that has upended our nation's electoral system and put our government up to sale to the highest bidder.

With a rap sheet like that – and this is hardly a complete a list – no one should be under the illusion that John Roberts is anything but a right-wing ideologue using the Supreme Court to cement his favorite right-wing policies into law.

Next term, Roberts is expected to lead the judicial front of the Republican Party's war against affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. Whether he succeeds may depend on whether it is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama who fills the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.

PFAW

Dirty Money Underwriting Pro-Romney Super PAC?

Although he voted to block the Senate from considering the DISCLOSE Act yesterday, Senator John McCain is usually a supporter of campaign finance reform. In an interview on PBS Newshour, McCain said that the astronomical contributions of Mitt Romney’s major financier, casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, are particularly problematic because those contributions amount to foreign money influencing U.S. elections:

MCCAIN: Mr. Adeleson [sic], who gave large amounts of money to the Gingrich campaign and much of Mr. Adeleson’s casino profits, that go to him, come from this casino in Macau.

WOODRUFF: Which says what?

MCCAIN: This which says that obviously, maybe in a round-about way, foreign money is coming into an American campaign, political campaigns.

Regardless of where Adelson acquired his billions, a new report by ProPublica and PBS reveals that Adelson’s business dealings may have been improper or even illegal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, complete with shady dealings with the Chinese mob and crooked politicians. As Think Progress summarizes, Adelson’s operation in Macau may have been made possible because of payments to Chinese organized crime figures:

Among the junket companies under scrutiny is a concern that records show was financed by Cheung Chi Tai, a Hong Kong businessman.

Cheung was named in a 1992 U.S. Senate report as a leader of a Chinese organized crime gang, or triad. A casino in Macau owned by Las Vegas Sands granted tens of millions of dollars in credit to a junket backed by Cheung, documents show.

Cheung did not respond to requests for comment.

Another document says that a Las Vegas Sands subsidiary did business with Charles Heung, a well-known Hong Kong film producer who was identified as an office holder in the Sun Yee On triad in the same 1992 Senate report. Heung, who has repeatedly denied any involvement in organized crime, did not return phone calls.

Because Nevada gambling authorities forbid doing any business with organized crime, Sands’s Las Vegas gambling licenses could hang in the balance. (Adelson and his company refused to comment for the PBS story.) But Adelson has other issues with his China operations.

Sheldon Adelson has pledged to give up to $100 million to unseat President Obama. But according to one of Adelson’s friends, he could spend far more than that: “We think ‘$100 million, wow!’ But it’s a meaningless amount of money to [Adelson].”

The system we have today allows for single individuals to give as much potentially money – clean or dirty – as they want to buy an election. This isn’t how democracy is supposed to work. Some sunlight is beginning to shine through on how Mitt Romney is benefitting from Sheldon Adelson’s shadowy dealings, but the extent of unaccountable money in our elections runs even deeper. Without a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the people will be unable to stop secret contributions by special interests, no matter where the money comes from.

PFAW

Perkins on Obama: 'I am Amazed that this Man is the President of the United States'

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has called President Obama the “worst president this country has ever had” and warned that America will not “have a future as a country” if Obama is re-elected because his administration “will destroy this country.” Perkins even said that Christian Obama supporters must “repent” for electing a president who “has a disdain for Christianity.” And so today it was no surprise that after Perkins and co-host Tim Wildmon, the president of American Family Association, played an out of context portion of a recent Obama speech, he said he’s “amazed that this man is the President of the United States.” Wildmon also chimed in, maintaining that Obama is “oozing with envy and jealousy” and claiming it “was so un-American what he just spouted.” In the address, Obama was referring to the importance of government investment in education, infrastructure and technology in growing the economy, but right-wing detractors have twisted his speech into an attack on businessmen.

Wildmon: That was just, he was all over the map, that’s just class warfare, he was oozing with envy and jealously, he was stirring up the crowd to be against people who have created wealth for themselves and for others.

Perkins: I am amazed that this man is the President of the United States.

Wildmon: As am I. That was so un-American what he just spouted, in keeping with our traditions. And he created a straw man there too to knock down, saying that people who are wealthy ‘think they are so smart and they work so much harder, and I’m here to tell you that they don’t and it’s time for them to pay their fair share by golly and I’m going to make it happen because I’m the President.’ Well, anyway, so much for the years of Ronald Reagan’s optimism, morning in America talks.

UPDATE: Voter ID on trial in Texas

Attorneys for both sides gave closing arguments last Friday after a weeklong trial. Experts expect the ruling, which could come before November, will hinge on whether the defendants have successfully shown that the law has a disparate impact on minorities.
PFAW Foundation

Fischer: Obama Like a 'Street Thug' who is Destroying America Just for the Pleasure of it

Last week the Department of Health and Human Services announced a relaxation of some work requirement contained in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act in an effort to give "states and localities [more] flexibility administering it so they can experiment with ways to improve the number of people making the jump from government assistance to jobs."

Today on his radio program, Bryan Fischer absolutely flipped out over the change, claiming that it was an effort by President Obama to win re-elections by getting "more people helpless, abjectly dependent upon him as if he were the slave owner of a plantation and they were working in his cotton fields."

The move, Fischer declared, was illegal and unconstitutional, demonstrating that Obama is a "lawless president" who is like a "street thug" who takes a "perverse delight" in destroying America "just like juvenile delinquents just destroy stuff just for the sheer pleasure of destruction":

We have a lawless president. This guy, he reminds me of a juvenile delinquent is really what he reminds me of. He's like a street thug where there are no laws, there are no rules that apply to him. He feels like he can do whatever he wants, he can take whatever he wants, he can ignore whatever he wants. Really, he has the mindset of a juvenile delinquent. He is destroying America, he is dismantling the structure of America, he is dismantling and destroying American values and he seems to be taking a perverse delight in doing so just like juvenile delinquents just destroy stuff just for the sheer pleasure of destruction.

Grudem: Freedom of Religion 'Doesn't Mean it's Morally Right for People' to be Non-Christians

For the last two days, James Dobson's "Family Talk" radio program has featured a discussion with Wayne Grudem, author of the book "Politics According to the Bible."

In between fretting that the United States was on the verge of permanent collapse due to the policies of President Obama and the poor moral/spiritual state of the nation in general, Grudem was asked by Ryan Dobson just what he should say to people who think that just because something is legal that makes it okay.  The question prompted Grudem to respond that just because something is legal, that doesn't make it moral ... just as our nation allows freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean it is "morally right" for people to be Muslims or Buddhists:

Ryan Dobson: When I speak around the country to all ages, I talk about the difference between legal and right; just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. And oftentimes I hear from churchgoers "well, that's what the law is, what am I supposed to do?" And at what point can a believer say just because it's legal doesn't make it right and I'm going to do what's right even if it's illegal.

Grudem: Well, there are two questions. One is does God require of us more than the civil laws demand? Sure. Our nation, for instance, allows freedom of religion so it's legal to have a Muslim mosque or a Buddhist temple but that doesn't mean it's morally right for people to seek to come to God that way because you and I believe, Ryan, that we only come to God through knowing Jesus Christ as Savior. So there are things that are allowed that are not what God wants us to do.

Jan Brewer on SB 1070: Jesus 'Got Me Here'

According to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, the aftermath of SB 1070 was hardest on… Jan Brewer. In an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Brewer defended her harsh and partly unconstitutional anti-immigration law SB 1070, and even cited Jesus. She told Brody that she felt politicians turned on her after she signed the discriminatory, racial profiling bill into law, noting that the aftermath was “tough” on her and she would sit on her patio and think “Jesus hold my hand, you got me here, now you’ve got to get me through all of this.”

Watch:

The signing of SB 1070 was a very difficult time for me personally because I knew immediately that although we monitored the bill and amended the bill in the legislature that it was going to be a lightning rod, however, I didn’t know or realize at the time just how big of a lightning rod it was going to be. But I knew that they would be out there, some of the political pundits and elected officials calling Arizona racist and bigots. And they turned on me, they really turned on me harshly and it hurts. And when you see protesters saying and doing and presenting things out there that represent things that you just absolutely know aren’t true, that was tough. Many a night I would sit on my patio and think, Jesus hold my hand, you got me here, now you’ve got to get me through all of this.

Janet Porter Swears Off Google over Gay Rights Initiative

Earlier this month, Buster Wilson of the American Family Association weighed boycotting Google because of its new “Legalizing Love” campaign “to decriminalize homosexuality and eliminate homophobia around the world.” Today, Janet Porter of Faith2Action in her radio alert said that “While it may be next to impossible to avoid all of the social media that Google owns,” the “Legalize Love” initiative “is one more good reason to have your e-mail and conduct your searches with someone else.” In fairness, Porter should alert listeners to avoid Google rivals Apple, Microsoft and Yahoo for also favoring gay rights causes.

Promoting homosexual rights around the globe.

That’s the new campaign that Google has recently launched. In a written statement, the search engine giant announced that their new “Legalize Love” initiative seeks to promote human rights and tackle discrimination in countries with “anti-gay laws on the books.”

A spokesman said “we want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office.”

They say that the campaign will not push for the legalization of same-sex marriage, but the company has actively opposed the efforts to ban it in California.

While it may be next to impossible to avoid all of the social media that Google owns, this is one more good reason to have your e-mail and conduct your searches with someone else!

Kincaid: Islam and Communism 'Are Synthesized in the Person of Barack Obama'

Cliff Kincaid has been making the rounds on right-wing radio to promote his bizarre new conference on how President Obama and George Soros are spearheading a secretive Islamic-Communist plot to destroy America. He spoke to Janet Mefferd yesterday where he detailed how his new conference will look into the ways radical Islamists and Communists are working together and “how these two movements coincide or parallel each other and actually are synthesized in the person of Barack Obama.” Indeed, Kincaid believes that George Soros is creating a new version of the Communist International and “has become the new Armand Hammer.” He also called for the reestablishment of the House Internal Security Committee, which was previously known as the House Un-American Activities Committee until it changed its name in 1969.

My group America’s Survival has held conferences over the years, some of them dealing with global Islam, some of them dealing with international Communism, and I came to the conclusion that some of the speakers and people coming to the different conferences were speaking past each other and I thought, we’ve got to get them together to look at how these two movements coincide or parallel each other and actually are synthesized in the person of Barack Obama, and that’s what we’re trying to do.



It’s incredible what we’ve developed. It gets even beyond what we know because we’re trying to pursue this to its logical conclusion: how are they working together? Look, we don’t have all the answers. One of the things that we’re trying to do is organize people at our conference and around the world, especially in the United States, to bring back the congressional committees that we used to have that investigated these things. We don’t have the House Internal Security Committee anymore, we don’t have the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security; we do have something called the Homeland Security Committee run by Peter King but he’s only looking at the Muslim part of the problem, we have to take a look at both of these international movements. Here’s where Soros comes in. There used to be something called the Communist International, the Comintern, it used to fund the Communist Party, all these Marxist and Communist and Soviet fronts, we believe and we have a report coming out that’s going to prove this that it’s really moneybags Soros that has filled the void there, it’s almost as if Soros has become the new Armand Hammer.

Fischer: Gay Biological Parents Should be Denied Custody and Only Allowed Supervised Visits

On his program yesterday, Bryan Fischer was discussing the study produced by professor Mark Regnerus purporting to show that children of same-sex parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents and the news that the University of Texas would be conducting an investigation into his study, seeing the latter as proof that "the homosexual lobby is vicious, they are venomous, [and] they are filled with hatred."

During the discussion, Fischer cited the study as evidence that children in same-sex homes are at a higher risk for sexual molestation, prompting him to declare that any parent "who goes into the homosexual lifestyle after siring children" should be denied custody and only allowed to have supervised visits with their children:

Republicans Put Big Money First, Continue to Block Transparency in Elections

Today, Senate Republicans voted to block the DISCLOSE Act, legislation designed to bring some basic but essential transparency to the electoral system in response to the Supreme Court’s flawed Citizens United decision. First proposed in 2010, the DISCLOSE Act would shed light on the secretive outside groups who aim to influence our elections. The Act would require the identification of individuals who give over $10,000 to outside groups that spend money on politics.

“The DISCLOSE Act would help the American people understand who is behind the political messages we’re bombarded with every day,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way.“Apparently, GOP senators would rather keep the public in the dark about who is bankrolling their campaigns. What do they have to hide? It’s telling that even Senators who previously supported strong disclosure laws would today let special interests buy our elections from the shadows instead of standing up for open and honest elections.

Citizens United opened up the floodgates to unaccountable, unrestricted spending by corporations and special interests to influence our elections. But even the conservative Supreme Court majority that gave us that decision acknowledged that robust disclosure is necessary to preserve the integrity of our elections.

“Today, the Senate had a chance to protect the American people’s right to know who is trying to sway their vote. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans chose to protect the anonymity of the wealthy few at the expense of the American public. Considering Mitt Romney’s refusal to release years of tax returns and his secret foreign bank accounts, it’s beginning to look like the GOP’s top priority is keeping money in the shadows. Instead, the Republican Party should embrace transparency – from personal records to political contributions – and bring greater integrity to the democratic process. ”

###

Linda Harvey Laments that 'Effeminized' Gays are Overpowering Exodus International

Alan Chambers of Exodus International has drawn the ire of a number of Religious Right activists after stating that the group will no longer officially endorse sexual orientation conversion therapy but will instead encourage people to repress their sexual orientation. Chambers also upset anti-gay leaders when he said that openly gay Christians can go to Heaven and asserted that “99.9%” of people who tried conversion therapy experienced no real change. Linda Harvey of Mission America, who last week denounced Chambers for showing “very poor judgment,” criticized Chambers not only for his apparent turnabout on ‘ex-gay’ therapy but also for dropping the youth-oriented Day of Truth, which became Focus on the Family’s Day of Dialogue, over fears that it was contributing to anti-gay bias in schools.

Harvey on her Saturday radio show insisted that Chambers showed his willingness to “pull the plug on kids and just abandon them” by ending the Day of Truth, and is conforming to “the stereotype of men who are not being men.” “Well the people running over you are the homosexuals, how ironic is this?” Harvey asked. “How ironic is this that the ones with the real guts are the ones who are the more effeminized or non-masculine males who aren’t embracing their real, God-given masculine identity.” After arguing that anti-bullying programs have “corrupted” kids, Harvey tearfully called for people to pray that Chambers will stop “embarrassing and humiliating and hurting” his own family by talking about his own same-sex attractions and “come back to the Lord and publicly repudiate all of this and be healed.”

For Exodus, as a position led by Alan Chambers and he’s not the only one in leadership there that are really misled, for them to pull the plug on kids and just abandon them, this is just the stereotype of men who are not being men, shall I just go there, because that’s what it is. Just don’t defend anything, just let people run right all over you. Well the people running over you are the homosexuals, how ironic is this? How ironic is this that the ones with the real guts are the ones who are the more effeminized or non-masculine males who aren’t embracing their real, God-given masculine identity. But the ex-homosexuals, supposedly, or the leadership there, won’t stand up. Come on, you are our best witness out there. If you won’t stand for this and you will just let kids be corrupted in this way all by buying into this phony notion that in order to have ‘no climate of hate’ in schools you can’t say anything bad about homosexuality; no, to have a ‘no climate of hate’ in schools you need to be telling kids the truth, giving them real hope. I didn’t get to the other issues I was going to cover today but this one is important enough.

I hope folks that you would pray for Exodus, stand up for those people who are disaffiliating from the current regime but maybe they’ll change. Pray that Alan Chambers and the other folks there in leadership with these false and very damaging ideas and this horrendous witness that they are giving to America and to American Christianity will change their heart and come back to the Lord and repent in their own lives, they will stop dishonoring their own families and embarrassing and humiliating and hurting them, come back to the Lord and publicly repudiate all of this and be healed.

For DISCLOSE Before They Were Against It

The DISCLOSE 2012 Act is a simple and seemingly-unobjectionable proposal that would require outside groups spending money in elections to disclose their donors and help inform the American people as to who is trying to sway their votes. Yet the proposal faces a slim (read: zero) chance of passage in the Senate this week. It even had partisan support when it was introduced first introduced in 2010 as a response to the Supreme Court’s flawed Citizens United decision, and Republican support for general campaign-related expenditures dates back many years.

Not anymore. The Huffington Post notes that there are 14 Republican senators serving since 2000 who previously voted for disclosure, but today would rather protect the anonymity of wealthy special interests and corporations than shed light on the funders of today’s endless barrage of attack ads.

These Senators have been whipped into line by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (who was undoubtedly whipped into line by wealthy special interests and corporations who write big checks to Republicans, and would prefer to continue to do so in secret). Senator McConnell himself has flip-flopped on the issue:

Sen. McConnell in 2000: “Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?”

Sen. McConnell in 2012: “[Disclosure is] a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress.”

The Sunlight Foundation has put together a video “depicting” other Republicans’ contradictory statements on the DISCLOSE Act. Watch it here:

 

PFAW

Barton Now Complains When Government Bureaucrats Stop Illegal Activity

As we noted in our earlier post about David Barton today, he has a rather serious problem with accurately presenting information, especially in situations where misrepresenting that information better suits his religious/political agenda.

Case in point, during last Friday's program, Barton went off on his new favorite topic about the ways in which know-nothing government bureaucrats are interfering with the lives and work of average Americans in cumbersome and absurd ways.  To prove his point, Barton cited a supposed situation in which the Department of Agriculture shut down shows featuring Tennessee Walking Horses solely because these government bureaucrats thought "it looks strange to us" and must be damaging the horses, even though they had no idea how to actually check a horse's hoof in the first place:

That is Barton's version of the story, which you can compare to the real version of the story involving undercover video filmed by the Humane Society showing trainers routinely beating and torturing horses in order train them to walk in this distinctive manner: 

The Humane Society of the United States released undercover video Thursday of a Tennessee Walking Horse trainer abusing the animals in order to accentuate their well-known high leg kick.

The practice, known as “soring,” involves using chemicals on the horses ankles as a way to force them, because of pain, to lift their legs higher when they walk ... Soring has been illegal under the federal Horse Protection Act since 1970. But Keith Dane, director of equine protection for the Humane Society, said it has “continued unabated for the past 42 years.”

The video, shot over seven weeks last year by an undercover humane society investigator, shows trainers at a Collierville, Tenn., farm applying the chemicals to the horses, whipping them, shocking them in the head and hitting their legs with wooden sticks. At points, horses in the video struggle to stand up.

The USDA responded by mandating that inspecting organizations levy fines on those who violate this law; a move that prompted a lawsuit from the industry.

So it was not just a bunch of DC bureaucrats shutting down a legitimate business operation because they just thought the whole thing was kind of weird but rather an order to impose fines in response to leading trainers being caught engaging in illegal practices that injured horses.

As we have said several times before, if Barton cannot be relied upon to accurately relate information pertaining to situations that anyone with access to Google can easily check and verify,  how can anyone trust the arcane claims he makes about early American history?

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious