We already know former child star Kirk Cameron is far from the best student of American history, so of course he’s decided to make a documentary, Monumental, about American history. Naturally, Cameron is turning to right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton for help:

Chris Rodda debunked Barton’s story about “Congress’s Bible,” noting that Congress simply passed a resolution on the accuracy of the edition of the Bible of printer Robert Aiken and did not purchases or print copies of the Bible, pay for the printing or print the Bible for use in schools. “The words ‘a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools’ are taken from a letter written by Aitken, not the resolution of Congress,” Rodda writes, “The only help Aitken ever got from Congress was the resolution endorsing the accuracy of his work.”

She also notes that the Aitken Bible was first called “The Bible of the Revolution” not during the American Revolution but in 1930 by people who were trying to sell copies of it, and Aitken himself “ended up losing over £3,000 on the 10,000 Bibles he printed.”

This is one of Barton’s many false tales about American history and it should come as no one’s surprise that he will be prominently featured in Cameron’s documentary about American history, even though Christian academics have emerged as some of Barton’s leading critics.

Some far-right Christian commentators are also upset with Cameron, with one claiming that he is misrepresenting America’s “pagan” history as Christian.

Earlier this week MSNBC refused to air Faithful America’s advertisement urging MSNBC to stop hosting Family Research Council president Tony Perkins over his erroneous and hateful remarks about the LGBT community. You can watch the ad here:

Yesterday on Today’s Issues with American Family Association president Tim Wildmon, Perkins called Faithful America a “loudmouth, Soros-funded group” and attacked Bishop Eugene Robinson, the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire who along with other Christian leaders delivered 20,000 signatures to MSNBC urging the network to drop Perkins, whom Perkins said “split the Episcopal Church because he’s openly gay and wanted to marry his lover or whatever you call it.” Perkins argued that Faithful America is “afraid of the truth” and wants to “silence Christians,” saying that while on MSNBC it usually has “nothing to do with homosexuality.”

Wildmon: There’s something about, I didn’t read the whole story, something about you appearing on some news show the other night and now the homosexual activist groups want you banned for life or something, I don’t know.

Perkins: Well what’s new about that? They are afraid of the truth and they are probably listening because I know they like to monitor this program and that’s what it is, they are afraid of the truth. They do not want to have open debates, they know the facts simply do not line up, and so instead of publicly showing up and debating or putting their ideas out there on the table they simply want to silence Christians, that’s what it’s about.

…

Perkins: You might remember the Episcopal Bishop Eugene Robinson who split the Episcopal Church because he’s openly gay and wanted to marry his lover or whatever you call it, and he gathered 20,000 signatures and presented them to MSNBC demanding that they keep me off of MSNBC because you know I’m on there you know talking about politics or whatever and usually it’s nothing to do with homosexuality, they just don’t want anybody who does have views that are counter to theirs.

Wildmon: I’ll tell you what, you’re in good company, the other day Kirk Cameron went on Piers Morgan on CNN, and man, Piers Morgan asked him a question about homosexuality, he said it was ‘unnatural,’ he just got torched.

Perkins: I talked to Kirk, I talked to him yesterday actually I was actually interestingly enough I was coming out of MSNBC where I was on yesterday with Martin Bashir, and I would actually encourage folks to go watch that interview that I did with him—they have it on their homepage; at least they did this morning on MSNBC—and thank them for allowing a balanced discussion. Obviously Martin did not agree with me but we had a very civil discussion on the issues and I tell you what I have to respect MSNBC for allowing debate and not buckling under the pressure of a loudmouth, Soros-funded group that is simply trying to silence the public debate over important public policy issues, so I will have to come to the defense of MSNBC for not buckling under that pressure.

Today on the 700 Club a woman asked Pat Robertson whether it was appropriate for her to serve as a bridesmaid or even attend her lesbian sister’s wedding to another woman. Robertson, a fierce opponent of gay rights, demanded the woman take no party in the ceremony. He cited Romans 1, without giving its cultural and historical context, to argue that God gave gays and lesbians up to do “evil things with their own bodies.” “If she doesn’t like it, if that breaks the union between you,” Robertson said, “that’s tough luck.”

Watch:

Meeuwsen: This is from Kathryn who says: ‘I’ve been asked to be a bridesmaid in my sister’s wedding. There is only one problem. My sister is gay and she’s marrying her partner. I don’t know what to do. If I don’t agree, our relationship will be ruined. I don’t even know if I should attend the wedding, much less be a part of it.’

Robertson: That is a very hard decision but you can’t add you’re—if you go what you’re doing is saying ‘I bless this union and I agree that what you’re doing is right.’ You know the Bible is so clear about homosexuality and when you read in what Paul said, he said, ‘Wherefore God gave them up,’ and having given them up they did evil things with their own bodies, men for men and women with women, defaming their bodies. Read Romans, read the Book of Romans, this isn’t something I came up with, read it in Romans. You say, ‘should I go to my sister’s wedding, should I participate,’ the answer is to tell your sister, ‘I love you but I cannot participate a ceremony that is contrary to God’s word, period.’ If she doesn’t like it, if that breaks the union between you, that’s tough luck.

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber has long been one of the most factually-challenged members of the Religious Right to the point of utter absurdity. Take for example Barber’s latest column where the “pro-family” activist defends Rush Limbaugh for calling Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” in his article, “Limbaugh and the, um, Lady,” and to attack Fluke and her “sexual anarchist worldview” with the same falsehoods and innuendos used by Limbaugh:

Still, liberal attempts to sidetrack aside, the cultural issues embedded within this Fluke flap are worthy of discussion. Only a dying culture lionizes a woman who publicly impugns – with pride – her own honor and virtue. Yet, to the left, she’s a hero.

It’s genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman – though very nice, I’m sure – would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.

Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango.

This is by design. Secular-“progressives” have been working to deconstruct traditional sexual morality for generations. The goal is to impose – under penalty of law – their own moral relativist, sexual anarchist worldview. (Hence, the unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate requiring that Christian groups cast aside millennia-old church doctrine, and get with the postmodern program.)

But, beyond this assault on religious freedom and the moral implications surrounding the debate, Ms. Fluke has additionally set the true women’s movement back decades. Her public groveling for free contraception and abortifacients reinforces the sexist stereotype that single women can’t survive without welfare. Women’s empowerment? More like patriarchal government dependency.

Still, like so much in its propagandist bag of tricks, the left’s entire “denied access to contraception” premise is built upon a lie. Liberals would have you believe that, for decades, women seeking birth control – already cheap and often free – have been systemically tackled in front of Walgreens by a bevy of white, Republican Catholic Priests.

Name one woman who has been “denied access” to birth control – ever. Show me one Republican politico who wants to “ban contraception.”

There are none.

Actually, if Barber ever read Fluke’s testimony, he would have found examples of women denied access to birth control:

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.

Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

As for finding a “Republican politico” who wants to ban birth control, we can list every Republican in states like Mississippi, Virginia, Alabama and elsewhere who support so-called personhood legislation, which bans common forms of birth control.

In fact, Liberty Counsel is a strong supporter of personhood legislation, so Barber can look no further than the mirror to find someone who wants to ban birth control.

One of the advantages of being president of the American Family Association and American Family Radio is that you get to host a daily radio program where you can vent your outrage about whatever pops into your head regardless of the fact that you may have no idea what you are talking about, as Tim Wildmon displayed yesterday while interviewing Rep. Trent Franks as he insisted that President Obama has never made a trip to America's southern border because he doesn't care about the issues of immigration and border security. 

In fact, Obama delivered a speech on both of those issues on May 10, 2011 at the Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso, Texas which is, as you can see, pretty much right on the border:

So we decided to grab a bit of footage from the remarks that President Obama delivered on that day and make a little video to with the aim of helping to satisfy Wildmon's concerns:

• Right Wing Watch In Focus: The Mythical Martyrdom of Jerry Boykin.
• Mark Potok @ Intelligence Report: The 'Patriot' Movement Explodes.
• Steve Benen @ Maddow Blog: What Bachmann thinks 'isn't far-fetched.'
• James Crugnale @ Mediaite: Joe The Plumber Rips CNN’s Zoraida Sambolin For ‘Gotcha’ Questions: ‘This Is TMZ, Not CNN!’
• Good As You: Today in NC: @Vote4MarriageNC rallies the 'gay men lodge cellphones in their anuses' vote.
• Cathy Young @ Reason: What really happened in the Pennsylvania "zombie Mohammed" case?
• Amanda Peterson Beadle @ Think Progress: RushLimbaugh.com Removes Offensive Attacks On Sandra Fluke From Transcript Archives.

• The Family Research Council and Gary Bauer's Campaign for Working Families are not-so-subtly urging Newt Gingrich to drop out and endorse Rick Santorum.
• Speaking of FRC, it is not every day that we see a post on their blog entitled "Liberals, you ignorant sluts."
• OneMillionMoms gives up on their effort to get JC Penney to fire Ellen DeGeneres.
• Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America declares that "[President] Obama needs to publicly dissociate himself from Priorities USA and cease all further fundraising in support of the organization, until they return [Bill] Maher’s contribution immediately.”
• Finally, in a move sure to surprise nobody, Glenn Beck is now reading bogus David Barton pieces on the air.

Reacting to an attempt to put marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the Democratic Party platform at the nominating convention in September, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told the Christian Post that not only do most Americans oppose legalizing same-sex marriage but so do the “majority” of Democrats:

Tony Perkins, who heads up the Family Research Council, meanwhile, says Democrats are only trying to distract the voters and that traditional marriage still has plenty of support, even among many moderate to conservative Democrats.

"The media will do what it can to persuade people that conservatives are losing momentum. Don't believe it," Perkins wrote in an article that he sent to The Christian Post.

"Some legislators can be bought, but the American people cannot. The majority of the country [Democrats, Republicans and Independents] are still firmly planted in the camp of man-woman marriage. As the old proverb says, 'The road to success is dotted with many tempting parking places.' Keep your foot on the accelerator and meet the perceptions with persistence."

His claim contradicts a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released this month finding that just 40 percent of Americans oppose marriage equality. Perkins’ statement also flies in the face of polls that examine differences in political parties.

A CNN poll from April of last year found that a whopping 64 percent of Democrats favor legalizing same-sex marriage, a number that has surely grown as support for marriage equality accelerates. In fact, 55 percent of independents also back marriage equality. While only a minority of Republicans favors marriage equality, a Public Policy Polling survey found that “only 48% believe there should be no legal rights for gay couples at all” and the majority favor either legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions.

With these sorts of numbers, it looks like Perkins will only be able to cite the much-mocked poll from the right-wing Alliance Defense Fund finding that 62% of Americans oppose marriage equality.

Rick Santorum has demonstrated, yet again, his willingness to associate with people whose views are repugnant to most Americans. This afternoon he appeared on one of the most extreme Religious Right programs in the country – American Family Radio’s Focal Point with Bryan Fischer.

The majority of Bryan Fischer's interview with Rick Santorum on his radio program today revolved around a discussion of the fact that social issues and "the fact that you have been so unwavering in defending Judeo-Christian values" has been the key to his campaign's success.

Santorum spent most of his time asserting that East Coast liberal media elites "recoil" at anyone like him who not only talks about social issues and faith, but is willing to stand up for them and has "shown where my heart is."  The media, Santorum says, seeks to portray him as someone who intends to impose his "deeply-held religious beliefs" on everyone else, when the reality is that it is "people who had my deeply-held religious beliefs who created the opportunity for freedom":