Video

Newt Gingrich Has The "Eye Of The Tiger"

In honor of the news that Newt Gingrich is going to announce his intention to run for president tomorrow, I just want to piggyback off our our earlier post to just take remind everyone of just how massive his ego already is.

Starting with his speech at the annual CPAC conference in 2009, Gingrich has made a habit of turning his mere entrance into a spectacle. While every other speaker during every other CPAC has entered the stage from the wings, Gingrich alone enters the room from behind and works his way, state-of-the-union-like, through the crowd as Survivor's "Eye of the Tiger" blast over the speaker system.

Note the very first video from 2009 where David Bossie looks off stage after introducing Gingrich, expecting him to enter from the wings as every other speaker had done, and questioningly throwing up his hands when he doesn't appear, only to see Gingrich emerge from the crowd moments later much to everyone's surprise:

And he proceeded to do the very same thing the next year:

And he did it once again this year:

Right Wing Leftovers

American Family Association Goes To War With Glee

In April, Right Wing Watch first reported on Bryan Fischer’s interview with Houston’s Fox affiliate, where he sharply criticized the television show Glee for “glamorizing homosexual behavior,” comparing it to promoting drug abuse. Fischer, who is the Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association, is escalating his attacks on Glee and the AFA recently launched a boycott campaign.

One Million Moms, a “project of American Family Association,” called on activists to urge advertisers to drop Glee. “Ryan Murphy, an open homosexual and the producer of GLEE, is pushing political correctness and his lifestyle choice on teens. Teenagers are being desensitized, but parents can do something about this hidden agenda,” the group says, “Please send Burger King, Boost Mobile, Subway and Taco Bell an email letter asking them to pull their support from GLEE and no longer sponsor this program through advertising.”

On Friday, Monica Cole of One Million Moms joined Fischer on his radio show Focal Point to criticize Glee for featuring music from Lady Gaga and Madonna, having “vulgar” choreography, and including a gay couple:

Fischer and Cole also agreed that Glee promotes “deviant sexuality,” “normalizing homosexual behavior,” idolatry, and anti-Christian views, with particular animosity towards the openly gay, atheist character Kurt:
  

Cole: We were really offended by the choreography, it’s very vulgar, it looks like its pretty much imitating strippers, and they have music by Lady Gaga and Madonna, which if you’re familiar with any of their, let’s just say their role-playing or their lyrics, it’s not wholesome entertainment, it’s a far-stretch from anything that you would want you child singing in a school musical or a school class.

Fischer: So you’ve got choreography as well as lyrics in the songs that are sexually provocative, sexually explicit, and yet the idea here is this is supposed to be some kind of high school music club getting ready to put on theatrical productions. And, this came up when I had the debate at the Fox Houston affiliate that it aired at 7:00; I mean that’s right in the heart of what’s supposed to be family-friendly viewing time.

Cole: That’s what you would think, and that’s right. And there’s a lot of other content though, Bryan, that is just really offensive and inappropriate, when you have mockery of Christianity, there’s mockery of the Katrina victims, and the we also had three individuals going on dates, insinuating a three-some, and then you have the homosexual couples on the show, I mean there’s kissing on the show with same-sex couples. And they also have made several homosexual references in the show that we feel like that even though kids may not be seeing this, parents are not oblivious to what is going on, there is not a hidden agenda, it’s to me it’s very blatantly obvious what they are portraying as a normal lifestyle for a teenager.




Fischer: This program Glee is not only mocking Christianity but is promoting deviant sexuality, and Monica I’m looking at the alert that you sent out, the head of the piece, I’d like you to grab it if you got a copy of it: Glee Mocks Christianity. It’s interesting to me, if you’ve got there, maybe rehearse for us some of the content, I’m looking just at the second and third paragraphs about some of the explicitly anti-Christian content that was in Glee that prompted you to way in on this, this was back in October.

Cole: On October 5th, the episode had different quotes and dialogue saying God is a Santa Claus for adults, and it’s wrong to tell people to believe in a fantasy, they also have an openly gay student that says that he is an atheist and he doesn’t believe in God more than one time. And they also talk about God as a jerk because He made me gay and then His followers told me I chose to be this way and then I’m mocked every day, so he called God a jerk.

Fischer: That’s interesting to me because his character is an atheist who claims he doesn’t believe in God but then he calls God a jerk for making him like this.

Cole: So there’s this name-calling and, you know teenagers are watching this show, and you have other teenagers on the show saying ‘I fall asleep when I pray’ and ‘I see God every time I make out with a new chick,’ and we had one scene in the show that had a student burn a grilled cheese and it was in the image of God, or it was in the image of Jesus actually, so he prays to this grilled cheese and calls it Grilled Cheesus, and he makes this twisted idea of a relationship with this grilled cheese because they win the football game so he keeps going back and back to this grilled cheese, saving it, being very protective of it. So he pretty much having this idol thinking this is why he’s winning his football games. But the end of the program does say that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you believe in something.

Fischer: Even a grilled cheese sandwich.

Cole: That’s right, and that was very disturbing as a parent.

Fischer: Let’s go back to the program last week because that’s why the Fox affiliate invited me on to debate this gay activist because that night there was particular focus, particularly focused emphasis on normalizing homosexual behavior. What was the content of the program that night?

Cole: Well the episode was named ‘Born This Way,’ and so we had many opportunities we were hoping there could be a lesson learned in this particular episode, saying you know how you’re physically born, how someone may look, and just being accepting and happy of the way you were born. That could’ve been a good lesson learned. But then they had the homosexual student saying how you’re born homosexual, you’re born gay, and there’s nothing you can do about it, it’s not a lifestyle choice. So instead of having tolerance there, they were actually wanting to bring the point of acceptance and affirmation of this lifestyle choice.

Will Money Help Gingrich Win Over The Religious Right?

The Wall Street Journal today features an extensive profile on Newt Gingrich’s vast network of political organizations, including American Solutions, Renewing American Leadership (ReAL), and Gingrich Productions. The paper reports that Gingrich’s “network has amassed more than 1.7 million voter and donor contacts and raised $32 million between 2009 and 2010—more than all his potential 2012 rivals combined.” Gingrich also helped steer $150,000 to American Family Association Action to help defeat three Iowa State Supreme Court justices that ruled in favor of marriage equality. Along with ReAL, which is led by anti-gay activist Jim Garlow, and his support for the AFA, Gingrich has made overtures to other Religious Right groups and leaders including John Hagee, Bryan Fischer, Janet Porter, Liberty University, Liberty Counsel, The Family Leader and the Minnesota Family Council.

But will Gingrich’s financial influence, religious documentaries and appeals to prominent Religious Right figures translate to real support from activists who might be wary of backing a thrice-married adulterer? Fischer remains a skeptic, but Iowa’s Bob Vander Plaats, who coordinated the anti-judge campaign, is still grateful for Gingrich’s significant monetary aid:

Mr. Gingrich hasn't run a truly competitive campaign in 21 years. He is given to public gaffes, most recently criticizing President Barack Obama for failing to back the rebels fighting Col. Moammar Gadhafi, only to reverse himself after Mr. Obama ordered U.S. planes into Libya. He resigned from Congress in 1998 under an ethics cloud, after his party suffered a historic midterm loss. It was later revealed that he was having an affair with a congressional aide.

Even groups that have allied with him, such as the conservative American Family Association, aren't poised to back him, citing his two messy divorces and three marriages. "He is brilliant, and has much to offer. But he isn't what we need in the Oval Office," said the AFA's director of issue analysis, Bryan Fischer.



Wearing an array of organizational hats, he has met repeatedly with pastors, trained local candidates, consulted with doctors on his proposed health-care innovations and met with local refiners to tout ethanol. After raising money through one of his groups, Mr. Gingrich funneled $150,000 in seed money to a successful campaign last fall to oust three Iowa Supreme Court judges who supported gay marriage.

"Newt's role was quiet and very low key, but it was pivotal," said Bob Vander Plaats, a well-known Iowa conservative who led the anti-judges campaign.



The heavy emphasis on religion is part of his long push to atone for his multiple divorces, according to people who know him. "He was very direct about this," said Rev. Brad Sherman, a prominent Iowa evangelical leader, recounting a session Mr. Gingrich had last year with a small group of Iowa religious leaders. "He said he had deep regrets, and asked our forgiveness."

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Bill Donohue isn’t a fan of the just-released music video of Lady Gaga’s “Judas.”

Fact Checking Barton Part V: Treaty of Tripoli

When David Barton and Jon Stewart begin discussing the Treaty of Tripoli (11:30 into the interview), Barton maintains that it simply demonstrates that the US isn’t an anti-Muslim nation like Tripoli’s European enemies. But Article 11 of the treaty clearly states that the US isn’t an anti-Muslim nation because “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Here is the full text of Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Barton goes on to allege that Article 11 wasn’t in the original document. While there is confusion with how Article 11 materialized, there is no doubt that it was included in the treaty that was ratified unanimously by the Senate and approved by John Adams.

Rob Boston found in his research on diplomat Joel Barlow and the Treaty of Tripoli [PDF] that Article 11 was in fact part of the original treaty, negotiated under George Washington and ratified under Adams, and the only version without it is in an Arabic version, not the one ratified by the US:

In recent years, some “Christian nation” advocates have argued that Article 11 never appeared in the treaty. They base the claim on research conducted by a Dutch scholar, Dr. C. Snouk Hurgronje, published in The Christian Statesman in 1930. Hurgronje located the only surviving Arabic copy of the treaty and found that when translated, Article 11 was actually a letter, mostly gibberish, from the dey of Algiers to the ruler of Tripoli.

But Hurgronje’s discovery is irrelevant. There is no longer any doubt that the English version of the treaty transmitted to the United States did contain the “no Christian nation” language. Article 11 appeared intact in newspapers of the day as well as in volumes of treaties and proceedings of Congress published later, including the Session Laws of the Fifth Congress, published in 1797, and in a 1799 volume titled The Laws of the United States. In 1832 Article 11 appeared in the treaty when it was reprinted in Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States 1789-1815, Volume II – a tome that can still be examined today in the Library of Congress’ main reading room.

Furthermore, in Hunter Miller’s definitive 1931 work on treaties from this period, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, he notes that “the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate....it is the English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.” It’s clear that the English version of the treaty, which Congress approved, contained the famous Article 11. Why the article was removed from the Arabic version of the treaty, who did it and when remains another mystery.

Fact Checking Barton Part IV: "I Never Had To Retract A Single Thing"

David Barton tells Jon Stewart that he never took President John Adams’ ideas on the relationship of church and state out of context. First Barton lies about Adams’ faith, positing that he was a 'Trinitarian Unitarian.' Unitarianism, however, is based on the rejection of the Trinity and noted Unitarian thinker James Freeman Clarke writes that “Unitarians, strictly speaking, are those Christians who reject the Church doctrine of the Trinity, and do not believe that Jesus is God the Son, equal with the Father, or that he is the Supreme Being.”

After misrepresenting Unitarian beliefs, Barton defends his use of Adams’ quote. As People For the American Way details in the report, Barton’s Bunk, David Barton absolutely cherry picked from Adams’s remarks:

One of the most damning fact-checks concerns a letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush from 1809. Barton cites a long section of the letter in which Adams says, in part, “There is no authority, civil or religious –there can be no legitimate government - but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it – all without it is rebellion and perdition, or, in more orthodox words, damnation.” But Barton does not include the sentence which immediately follows, which is “Although this is all Artifice and Cunning in the secret original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lay down their Lives under the Ax or the fiery Fagot for it. Alas the poor weak ignorant Dupe human Nature.” In other words, Adams was mocking the very point that Barton claims he was making.

Later, the beginning of the third part of the interview, Barton told Stewart that he “never had to retract a single thing.”

Oh really? As noted in Barton’s Bunk, Barton “edited and renamed one book (The Myth of Separation became Original Intent) after critics pointed out false material.”

Here are just a few erroneous quotes of the Founding Fathers used by Barton in his books and documentaries that he later admitted were questionable:

We have staked the whole future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments. – Falsely attributed to James Madison

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. - Falsely attributed to John Quincy Adams

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. - Falsely attributed to George Washington

I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens. - Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. - Falsely attributed to Patrick Henry

It appears now that David Barton has to mislead others to cover-up his own falsehoods.

He also dismisses historians who disagree with him simply as secularists. But many of his major critics are indeed Christian historians, such as J. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee, John Fea of Messiah College and Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College. Barton may be an expert in dodging questions, but he has holds little respect for the study of history.

Fact Checking Barton Part III: First Amendment

Towards the very end of the televised portion of David Barton’s interview on The Daily Show, Barton said that one of the cases he “did at the US Supreme Court was rabbi Leslie Gutterman was asked in Providence Rhode Island to give a prayer at a graduation, and he wasn’t allowed to, now tell me how “Congress should make no law’ means that a rabbi cant say the word ‘God’ at a prayer.” He claims that this poses that the first Amendment is misused by putting a restriction on individuals, rather than government.

He referred to the case of a Rhode Island rabbi who was invited to deliver a prayer at a public school graduation to demonstrate that the Constitution is being misapplied to stifle religious expression. But it was the public school, not the rabbi (Gutterman), that was the defendant in the Supreme Court case Lee v. Weisman. Robert Lee was the principal of the school who invited the rabbi and Daniel Weisman’s daughter was the graduating student at the school who objected to the prayer service.

In the following section, that was posted only online, Barton dismisses fears that people could be coerced into prayer in schools, saying, “there’s coercion, you have to pull on your big boy pants and do something” and “look at all the pressure that goes to school anyway, there’s drugs and everything else and we don’t rule that unconstitutional.”

Barton misconstrues the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (see Everson and Cantwell), and calls the ruling a “pretty strange parsing of the Constitution” and places a “restriction on the rights of people to say the word God in public.”

As Justice Kennedy writes in the majority opinion, which decided that the school is barred from holding a prayer service during the graduation ceremony, the First Amendment has been interpreted to prevent the government from sanctioning or endorsing religion:

The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference.

As Stewart notes, Barton completely neglects the rights of the students whose beliefs are compromised by the school-sanctioned prayer by putting the burden on the student to just put up with it. Kennedy writes that such thinking “turns conventional First Amendment analysis on its head. It is a tenet of the First Amendment that the State cannot require one of its citizens to forfeit his or her rights and benefits as the price of resisting conformance to state-sponsored religious practice.”

Barton grounds his beliefs that the majority should trump the rights of the minority in his view that the First Amendment actually doesn’t prevent the state from endorsing religion. Lauri Lebo writes in The Devil in Dover that in Barton’s book The Myth of Separation,

Barton argues in his book that the First Amendment only refers to the establishment of a specific Protestant denomination. In other words, Barton claims that Christian founders were saying they couldn’t endorse Lutheranism, for instance, over Presbyterianism. But in Barton’s view, forcing Christian beliefs on the nation’s citizens has always been fair game.

But the drafters actually rejected proposed amendments that only stopped governmental recognition of denominations or sects. Warren Throckmorton, a professor at Grove City College, a Christian school, pointed to James Madison’s speech during the debate over the First Amendment where he makes clear that “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law” for otherwise they could pass laws that “might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a national religion.”

By ignoring the meaning behind the First Amendment and opposing the First Amendment’s incorporation to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, Barton pushes a radical version of the Constitution. If “taken to logical conclusion,” Throckmorton notes, “this argument would establish Christianity as the religion of the nation, something the Founders specifically did not do.”

Fact Checking Barton Part II: Constitution Explicitly References Religion

In the second part of the televised interview on The Daily Show, David Barton claims that the Constitution contains “four references to God” in Article VII. Article VII reads: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”

That’s it.

Barton is presumably referring to the following line: “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.” As noted in People For the American Way’s Barton’s Bunk, “Barton claims that this passing reference to the Declaration of Independence incorporates that document and its reference to rights endowed by a Creator into the U.S. Constitution, making the Constitution a religious document that reflects and requires a national acknowledgment of God’s hand in our founding, history, and prosperity.”

Barton dodges Stewart’s question about presidential oaths. As Stewart rightly claims, the oath outlined in the US Constitution does not specify the use of the Bible. Moreover, Article II even allows Presidents to make an “Affirmation” rather than an Oath: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’” In fact, Franklin Pierce decided to affirm rather than swear during his inauguration, John Quincy Adams “took the oath upon a volume of law,” and Teddy Roosevelt didn’t use a Bible in his rushed inauguration.

Barton has also repeatedly asserted, including in Wednesday’s WallBuilders Live radio program, that the Bible was used as the basis for republican form of government (Exodus 18:21), the separation of powers (Jeremiah 17:9), and the three branches of government (Isaiah 33:22).

So let’s check his citations:

Exodus 18:21 You should also look for able men among all the people, men who fear God, are trustworthy, and hate dishonest gain; set such men over them as officers over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. (Barton: Republican government)

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse — who can understand it? (Barton: Separation of powers)

Isaiah 33:22 For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our ruler, the Lord is our king; he will save us. (Barton: Three branches of government)

Now, if the Bible was the foundation for republican government, where the citizenry and not a monarch occupy the power of government, then what does Barton have to say about all the prominent monarchies in the Bible, like King David and King Solomon?

In addition, where in Federalist Numbers 47 and 51, which many historians point to as the basis for the separation of powers and the three branches of government, does James Madison cite Jeremiah or Isaiah, let alone any Biblical passage? In Federalist No. 47, Madison frequently cites Montesquieu, but not the Bible; Madison also doesn’t use the Bible or any theological explanation in Federalist No. 51.

While Barton can find passages in the Bible that may reflect a similar opinion or sentiment of the Founding Fathers, he is consistently unable to demonstrate how the Founders specifically used the Bible or “Biblical principles” to develop the Constitution.

Fact Checking Barton Part I: Texas Textbooks

With no academic credentials as a historian, David Barton toldThe Daily Show host Jon Stewart that his involvement in editing textbooks around the country was proof that he is a respected and esteemed historian. However, his work with textbooks if anything reveals his blatant partisanship and pseudo-scholarship.

As Mariah Blake writes in The Washington Monthly, Barton’s Christian nation mythology was indeed just one aspect of his role shaping the Texas textbooks as a consultant for the Texas School Board. Barton wanted to give a positive spin to Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist politics and “purge the standards of key figures of the civil rights era, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall.” As Blake writes, Barton tried to diminish the work of civil rights leaders like Martin Luther Ling Jr. by arguing “that they shouldn’t be given credit for advancing the rights of minorities. As Barton put it, ‘Only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society.’ Ergo, any rights people of color have were handed to them by whites—in his view, mostly white Republican men.”

Barton, who was once vice-chair of the Texas GOP and a paid surrogate of the Republican National Committee, tirelessly works to convince black audiences that they should vote for Republicans and oppose the Democratic Party because the GOP is responsible for black civil rights.

But Barton’s claims that he writes about more than just America as a “Christian nation” shouldn’t distract from the reason Texas School Board members invited Barton to edit their textbooks in the first place. In fact, then-Texas School Board member Cynthia Dunbar admitted that it was the board’s goal to promote religion through the state’s textbooks to counteract “a Biblically illiterate society,” and another ex-member Don McLeroy said that it was his job at the School Board to fight “secular humanists” because “we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles” and “the way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel.”

Barton also told Jon Stewart that he was used to help write textbooks in other states, namely California. However, this is quite an exaggeration. Rob Boston writes that while Barton was invited by a conservative to advise California in its development of textbooks, his proposals went nowhere:

In 1998, a conservative member of the California Academic Standards Commission appointed Barton to an advisory position, asking the Texan to critique proposed social studies/history standards. From that perch, Barton attacked the portion of the standards that discussed the development of religious freedom, trying to remove every reference to separation of church and state.

He almost pulled it off. Commission members, unfamiliar with Barton’s agenda, seemed open to adopting his suggestions. They changed course only after intervention by Americans United’s Sacramento Chapter, AU’s national office and others.

Chris Rodda of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation notes that this isn’t the only time Barton embellished his work with other states, as he also worked with Michele Bachmann when she was a Minnesota state legislator to ensure that schools display the Declaration of Independence.

Such a record of exaggeration demonstrates why real historians, including Christian historians, who have followed David Barton have repeatedly criticized and dismissed his faulty “scholarship.”

Bachmann: Ask God To Assemble and Anoint My Campaign

As Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann prepares to launch her bid for the presidency, she is asking for God to make her campaign staff picks. While speaking to Dan Cella of Financial Issues Stewardship Ministries, who claims to have “developed and uses a Biblically-Responsible system of managing and picking stocks with great success,” Bachmann called upon listeners to pray that God will give her and her husband “a special anointing on how to put our team together” for the campaign and that “He would bring those people to us.”

Cella: So, when are you going to announce?

Bachmann: Well I’ve let people know that in June I will be making that decision and quite literally I am asking your listeners now to please pray for me and my husband and my team. We’re in the process of planning an office decision; we’re putting our team together. Ask that the Lord will give us a special anointing on how to put our team together, who those team people will be, that He would bring those people to us. Because it won’t be easy, it will be a very, very difficult fight. But if this is something that the Lord has called us to, He will make a way where there is no way, and so we’re asking for that prayer.

The Religious Right's Fact-Free Climate Change Misinformation Campaign

Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance is at the center of the Religious Right’s growing push against “the Green Dragon,” otherwise known as the environmental movement. As noted in the latest Right Wing Watch In-Focus, Beisner has his PhD. in Scottish history and absolutely no scientific credentials, however, he does have close ties to corporate-financed, anti-environmental groups such as the Acton Institute and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Now, right-wing activists like David Barton, Wendy Wright, and Bryan Fischer are heavily promoting Beisner’s film (which they are also featured in).

According to Beisner, environmental protection is “anti-biblical” while heightened carbon dioxide emissions are good for the earth. Even though actual scientists have concluded that the rapidly increasing human emissions of carbon dioxide cause warming temperatures, drought, and rising sea levels.

While climate change threatens to reduce precipitation and produce devastating food shortages, Beisner wrongly claims that climate change will increase the food supply and, in fact, goes so far as to accuse the EPA of intentionally seeking to "hurt the poor":

Beisner: A lot of agricultural economists think that the increased crop yields that we've seen over the last forty to fifty years, something in the neighborhood of twelve to fifteen percent of that is attributable directly to increased carbon dioxide, which means that food gets more plentiful and that helps the poor.

Well, the EPA wants to hurt the poor [in] two ways: one, by raising energy prices by forcing us to switch from carbon-based fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, to much more expensive and much less reliable fuels like wind, solar, and bio-fuels. And two, they want to hurt the poor by lowering the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would reduce plant growth efficiency, reducing crop yields, reducing food availability, raising food prices. So it's a double whammy on the poor.

Then David Barton, of all people, accuses scientists of ignoring anything that does support their worldview and manipulating data to support it, while complaining that it is all plot to increase government control and play God:

Barton: This is not about science, this has nothing to do with science. Science is a vehicle to give them more control over the lives of individuals.

Green: So there's no intellectual honesty then there?

Barton: No. There's no intellectual honesty. You find something that lines up with your worldview and you say "here it is, this is what I've always believed, I knew it was out there." And you find a fake science like the IPCC at the UN which has its own agenda ...

Green: And they're willing to put out supposed data, that's false ...

Barton: And the great proof that it's a philosophical worldview is when you refuse to listen to opposing data. When you get all these scientists on the other side ... who roll out all these studies that say "no, no, no that's wrong." When you won't listen to opposing data, science has nothing to do with it. You're into a worldview conflict at that point and your saying that my worldview demands that I have more control over your life, over what you do, that's why government does exist, you're hear to serve government, not vice versa, and this is the vehicle to do it. This really has nothing to do with science.

But what happens is, not understanding that, a lot of Americans buy into that this is science.

Green: Oh, they've been indoctrinated with it in education for the last twenty years.

Barton: Are you kidding me, Earth Day in the schools? We've got to save the Earth? I mean, that's like a tick ... trying to save a whole heard of cattle. I mean, ticks go along for the ride, they don't manage the cattle, they don't tell them where to go. And that's our arrogance in thinking that we can do something to save the planet and control where the planet goes. You know, we're just along for the ride and we're insignificant peons on this thing

Green: Well, arrogance is the right word. I mean, it really does, we get to the point where we think - not that we shouldn't do the things we can do, of course you do the things that are responsible - but we think that we can control this whole thing. We think we're God.

Palin Teams Up With Right Wing Holy Warrior For "Tribute to the Troops"

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you are not doubt familiar with Jerry Boykin, the former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence under Donald Rumsfeld who retired after video emerged of him explaining that we were engaged in a spiritual war against Islam that the US would eventually win because our God was bigger than their God.

Since leaving the military, Boykin has joined up with self-proclaimed prophet Rick Joyner and become the Religious Right's resident "expert" on all things Islam and a leading member of the Religious Right's Spartan-like army. He is also the man who exposed the fact that President Obama is a Marxist who intends to use the health care reform legislation to build an army of Brownshirts loyal only to him:

So it only stands to reason that next month, Sarah Palin would share the stage with him at a "Tribute to the Troops" rally in Colorado:

Former Alaska Governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin will speak at a May 2 fundraiser for veterans at Colorado Christian University in Lakewood, the school just announced.

Palin will be keynote speaker at "Tribute to the Troops with Sarah Palin" at the university in Lakewood.

Lt. Gen. William Boykin will also speak, and there will be appearances from representatives of all the military branches.

Fischer: Beating of Transgender Woman "Proves That We Are Right"

Last week, a transgender woman was violently beaten at a McDonald's in Baltimore, MD.

Bryan Fischer talked about the assault on his radio program today and I am sure you will be shocked to learn that not once did he utter a single word of condemnation, but rather used it as justification for the AFA's opposition to "bathroom bills":

The victim appeared to be a woman. In the video, it looked like a woman [with] long hair. But at one point in the fracas, her wig is pulled off and you still think its a woman, looks like a woman, and she's beaten to within an inch of her life, she winds up in convulsions on the floor.

And then we discover now that it was a guy all the time, it's not a woman at all. It's a transgendered woman, which means he's a man, he's a male. He's a male in every single cell his DNA. Every single cell of his body, every strand of his DNA in his entire body is male. He's not a woman, he's not a transgendered woman, he's not a transgendered female, he is a man. And here's the deal: apparently he was getting ready to go into, or had been in, the ladies' restroom.

And remember, Maryland came within one vote - I don't know if you knew this - Maryland came within one vote of passing a law this last session that would have provided special protections for transgendered people, people who think they're in the wrong body.

So if that law had passed, then this man would have had every legal right to go into the ladies' restroom, even if there are young teenage girls present and nobody would have stopped him. In fact, if McDonald's had tried to keep him, as a man, from going into the ladies' restroom, if that law had passed McDonald's is the one who would have got in trouble. They would have gotten sued, a potential franchise ending lawsuit.

That's why we always call these things "bathroom bills" and this proves that we are right. This exactly shows you the hazard of these bathroom bills. You give special privileges to people based on deviant sexuality, you're going to get in all kinds of trouble and all traditional norms of respect, privacy, civility, those are going to be completely shredded.

VIDEO: Gingrich With Hagee, Warning US Becoming "Secular Atheist Country Dominated by Radical Islamists"

A few weeks ago, Newt Gingrich spoke at John Hagee's Cornerstone Church where he declared that he was "convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

At the time, we looked all over for video of Gingrich saying this, but to no avail.  But it turns out that a few days after the event, the NewtExplore2012" YouTube account uploaded his entire speech and we were able to find this quote:

Robertson: Left Backs Abortion Rights To Make Straight Women More Like Lesbians

Pat Robertson has figured out why President Obama supports the funding of Planned Parenthood and believes in a woman’s right to choose: because progressives want women to have abortions as a way to achieve equality for lesbians. While speaking with co-host Terry Meeuwsen of The 700 Club about the recent debate over Planned Parenthood’s funding, Robertson attempted to use “psychological stuff” to rationalize why progressives back Planned Parenthood and “this culture of death.” According to Robertson, progressives want straight women to “abortion their babies” to “put [lesbians] on a level playing field.”

Watch:

Meeuwsen: There are lots of government-funded agencies in this country. Why do you think the President picked that one above all else to say, ‘not one penny’?

Robertson: Well it’s the left; it’s this culture of death. The far-left is livid about killing babies. They want to kill do this, they want to destroy. You go back, and I don’t want to play all this psychological stuff but nevertheless, if a woman is a lesbian, what advantage does she have over a married woman? Or what deficiency does she have?

Meeuwsen: Well she can’t have children

Robertson: That’s exactly right. And so if these married women don’t have children, if they abort their babies, then that kind of puts them on a level playing field. And you say, nobody’s there to express that? Isn’t that shocking, well think about it a little bit ladies and gentlemen.

Parsley: Planned Parenthood Is Of The Devil

After building the case that Planned Parenthood is trying to commit black genocide, Rod Parsley now claims that he knows the real source of Planned Parenthood: Satan. According to Parsley, who believes the Antichrist is coming soon, Satan and demonic spirits control Planned Parenthood as part of their mission to gain a foothold in America. Parsely says during Breakthrough that Planned Parenthood is leading an “onslaught of evil” that is “too sinister to be of human origin, it must be, it is, the carefully calculated conspiracy of fallen angels called demon spirits.”

Watch:

AFA Video Uses Fake Quote From John Quincy Adams To Prove "The Biblical Foundations Of Government"

The American Family Association is promoting the lecture series “Biblical Foundations of Government with Erich Pratt,” a graduate of Pat Robertson’s Regent University and a conservative activist with Gun Owners of America. The group advertises that “the Bible tells us that all governing authorities are instituted by God and are responsible for the reward of good behavior and the punishment of evil,” and by watching the series “you’ll gain a strong, scriptural understanding of the basis of American civil government and your role as a citizen.”

But the one minute trailer prominently features an uncorroborated quote attributed to John Quincy Adams, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: ‘It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.’”

But where did Pratt find this unsubstantiated quote of Quincy Adams?

It was included in pseudo-historian David Barton’s America’s Godly Heritage series, one of the many examples of Barton misquoting or selectively editing the words of the Founding Fathers.

Ed Brayton writes that “the quote, to be blunt, is a fake”:

This is another textbook example of what happens when quotes are simply passed along and repeated without anyone bothering to check the original source to see if it's accurate. This is why, in scholarly documents, footnotes are used to provide specific documentation of the source of a quote. Let's follow the trail backwards and see where it leads. The quote is used by David Barton, who is nearly always the modern source of false quotations from the founding fathers. We'll see an example of another one below. Barton did not get it from the original documents, he got it from another book of quotations by William Federer called America's God and Country: An Encyclopedia of Quotations. So Federer got it from the original, right? Wrong. Federer's footnote is to a book by John Wingate Thornton from 1860. The Thornton book is full of quotations and footnotes locating the source of those quotes. But these words, attributed to John Quincy Adams, are not in fact a quote at all. The words belonged to Thornton. The words are not in quotation marks and there is no footnote giving a source. And no one has ever located an original source from Adams that contain those words, of even a similar sentiment to it. The quote, to be blunt, is a fake. Adams never said it. But this is an excellent example of what passes for historical scholarship among the Christian Nation proponents - the truth doesn't matter so long as something can be made to appear as supporting their position.

Barber Claims Isabella Miller Will Become A "Trophy Child" For "The Gay Agenda"

As Kyle just posted, new developments in the kidnapping of Isabella Miller point to the possible complicity of Mat Staver’s Liberty Counsel, whose lawyer Rena Lindevaldsen is representing Lisa Miller. According to the FBI affidavit, Miller is living in a house owned by the father of Staver’s administrative assistant. Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel’s Director of Cultural Affairs, has consistently attacked Miller’s former partner Janet Jenkins and the courts. Staver, Lindevaldesn and Barber are all also professors at Liberty University School of Law.

Earlier this week, Barber said that a recent ruling in Louisiana that upheld the state’s refusal to issue a birth certificate including both of the names of the two men who were adopting a child born in the state would bolster Miller’s case. Referring to Jenkins, who was awarded custody of Isabella, Barber said that Liberty Counsel is attempting to protect Lisa and Isabella Miller “from this homosexual activist woman who wants this trophy child to hold up as an advancement of the gay agenda.”

Watch: 

So this is great in the court, in ruling on this, said ‘the full faith and credit clause does not oblige Louisiana to confer particular benefits on unmarried parents contrary to its law.’ My hope is that the Virginia Supreme Court, as we continue on with our case with Lisa Miller, that eventually they will look to this federal ruling. I think this gives cover to other federal judges as we continue fighting on behalf of Lisa and Isabella Miller, to protect them from this homosexual activist woman who wants this trophy child to hold up as an advancement of the gay agenda.
Syndicate content

Video Posts Archive

Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 08/25/2011, 9:08am
Cindy and Mike Jacobs of Generals International have produced a new video explaining how the recent earthquake that struck Washington, DC is a sign that "God is awakening his people" and pointed to this prophesy that Cindy delivered last year: On December 31st, 2009, the Holy Spirit spoke through me and said, “I’m going to shake the earth. You will begin to see earthquakes—I am going to shake everything that can be shaken. Look where the earthquakes are hitting because God is going to release a wind of Pentecost in those places.” ... There is no doubt... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Wednesday 08/24/2011, 4:53pm
NOM Exposed: Circumventing campaign finance law for donor secrecy. Towleroad: NOM Rabbi Yehuda Levin Blames Earthquake on Gays, Claims Direct Link Between Quakes and Homosexuality. Nick @ Bold Faith Type: Kathryn Jean Lopez Continues to Put Partisanship over Principles. Norman Lear @ Variety: "What You Talkin' Bout, Willard?" Alvin McEwen: GLSEN forces Family Research Council to change fraudulent video. Igor Volsky @ Think Progress LGBT: Rick Perry Compared Homosexuality To Alcoholism, Condemned ‘Radical Gays’ For Promoting ‘Gay... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 08/24/2011, 4:48pm
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC’s William Gheen is out in force after we at People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch reported on an interview with Janet Mefferd in which he said that “extra-political activities” that he described as “illegal and violent” might be the only way for people to stop the "Dictator Barack Obama." Gheen told Mefferd that the Obama administration is “putting out videos and propaganda telegraphing what I believe to be a conflict with White America they’re preparing for after they get another 10 or 15... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Wednesday 08/24/2011, 1:49pm
John Stemberger is a leading Religious Right activist in Florida.  He was deeply involved in the Rifqa Bary saga and also serves as the President of the Florida Family Policy Council, which was the organization behind the successful 2008 Florida For Marriage effort to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing marriage equality in the state. On Saturday night, Michele Bachmann will be the keynote speaker at FFPC's 6th Annual Policy Awards Dinner: We hope you will be able to join us for our Florida Family Policy Council, 6th Annual Policy Awards Dinner on August 27, 2011 at the Rosen... MORE
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 08/23/2011, 12:22pm
During the The Jim Bakker Show on August 12, Jim Bakker and self-proclaimed prophet Cindy Jacobs both claimed to have prophesied the September 11th terrorist attacks. Jacobs added that her Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders, which is composed of leaders of the New Apostolic Reformation, and colleague Mike Bickle also prophesied the attacks. Bickle, the founder and director of the International House of Prayer, was an emcee and organizer of Rick Perry’s The Response prayer rally (which Jacobs also endorsed). He previously prophesied that Oprah Winfrey is the harbinger of the... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 08/19/2011, 1:35pm
We have written before about the utter pointlessness of trying to have any sort of debate with Bryan Fischer because he categorically refuses to engage in any sort of rational discussion. Fischer's standard practice is to develop one talking point and then - literally - refuse to deviate from that talking point, no matter what. So you have to hand it to Alan Colmes, who keeps taking up the thankless task of trying to actually engage Fischer and get him to explain the outrageous things that he says, like that God wants men to be president. Colmes had Fischer on his radio program last night,... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 08/18/2011, 1:08pm
One of the standard claims from organizers of Rick Perry's "The Response" prayer event was that the event was going to be non-political, so that any criticism about mixing church and state was totally unfounded. So maybe they can explain why the American Family Association is now sending out this email to everyone who registered to attend "The Response," urging them to get active politically and "imagine the impact we could make on the future of America if these Christians made their voices heard in the voting booth": Thank you for registering for The Response... MORE