Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Colossal Fraud David Barton's 'Thomas Jefferson' Book Withdrawn from Publication

Book is pulled due to complaints of it having too many historical inaccuracies. Shockingly, it appears the outrage over the book's lies comes mostly from Christian scholars

by Larry Simons
September 26, 2012

I'm kicking myself. Back in April when David Barton's book "The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson" was released, I was going to write a story on it exposing the fact that Barton's book itself was a lie. I had not read the book, but only had glanced at the titles of the chapters. Chapter titles such as "Lie 3: Thomas Jefferson Wrote His Own Bible and Edited Out the Things He Didn't Agree With" and "Lie 7: Thomas Jefferson Was An Atheist and Not A Christian" were all I needed to start pecking away the keys in my easy venture to refute Barton.

It turns out that I did not have to write the story after all [although if I had, it just would have been yet another example of RTO providing the facts before there was a public outrage against that which I was exposing]. Last month, on August 9, Thomas Nelson, the largest Christian publisher, withdrew Barton's book from print.

Novelist and legal scholar Garrett Epps wrote last month, "It's rare enough for a publisher to withdraw a book that has already been printed; rarer still if the book has been on The New York Times bestseller list. Thomas Nelson spokesman Casey Francis Harrell announced that the publisher had received a number of complaints that the book is inaccurate. "Because of these deficiencies, we decided that it was in the best interest of our readers to cease its publication and distribution," Harrell said."

According to Epps, although withdrawing a book after it's been printed is rare, it should not be shocking this has happened to Barton. "For the past 20 years", writes Epps, "Barton has been a tireless producer of books and pamphlets designed to demonstrate that America was founded by Christians and should be governed by Christians, that the separation of church and state is a myth, and that Protestant Christianity should be a part of government. In that time, he has come to occupy a position of influence within the Republican Party. His success is appalling, first because he is not a historian of any kind (his sole degree is from Oral Roberts University in religious education), and second because, even by the standards of today's right wing, he is an obvious crackpot."

This should be no surprise that Barton distorts facts and tells outright falsehoods to achieve his religious agenda. He has to, because the facts fly in the face of that religious agenda. Another non-shocker is that Barton has been an advisor to Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich. He has received accolades from the likes of Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck. Beck has even referred to Barton as "the library of Congress in shoes." Beck even wrote the forward to "The Jefferson Lies", in which he stated in that forward, "David Barton boldly questions the myths and arms you with the well-researched truth."

Ironically, Barton's heaviest criticism came from religious scholars who actually had the guts to come forward and put Barton in his place, condemning the book for its claims that Jefferson was an orthodox Christian who, in his letter to the Danbury baptists about the separation of church and state, advocated no barrier between the religious and their infiltration of government.

Jon Stewart exposed Barton's fraudiness last year on The Daily Show about that very issue [among many others]. Watch the below interview between Stewart and Barton.

In July, History News Network voted "The Jefferson Lies" the least credible history book in print. They stated, "Commenters criticized the book for its gross factual errors and political agenda -- in an email to HNN, Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter, professors at Grove City College and authors of Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President, wrote that "Barton misrepresents and distorts a host of Jefferson's ideas and actions, particularly his views and practices regarding religion, slavery and church-state relations." A commenter on HNN's boards noted that the book "looks like an intentional attempt to mislead and deceive in the guise of history.""

Also included in HNN's list of least credible books is one of my favorite books, "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. The two biggest differences [in my opinion] between Barton's book and DiLorenzo's book is that Jim Loewen, who writes for History News Network, is openly criticized in DiLorenzo's books and other writings. So, it's obvious that the agenda of HNN is compromised openly in DiLorenzo's books. In fact, the afterword in "The Real Lincoln" is devoted exclusively to DiLorenzo quoting his own critics of the first edition of "The Real Lincoln" and setting them straight. How many authors include the criticisms and quotes of their own attackers in further editions of their books?

No author even wants to admit or let others know they have critics, let alone include their quotes in their own books. One would say, "Well, yes they would include their critics' quotes if they could refute them". That's my point. DiLorenzo refutes his critics. Barton does not. Some of DiLorenzo's critics write for HNN, the site that listed his book as among the least credible. My point is clear: HNN is only interested in the truth as long as that truth does not interfere with their political or religious agenda. When it does interfere with their agendas [notice I didn't say "when it does interfere with their 'interpretation of the facts'], they deem a work "not credible".

The second big difference is that DiLorenzo's publisher, Three Rivers Press, did not withdraw publication of "The Real Lincoln". I will even add a third difference: Jefferson himself would have agreed with every word of "The Real Lincoln" since Lincoln believed that the Union existed before the States [it didn't] and that Lincoln violated Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

There's no escaping Barton's blatant lies. As I mentioned above, one of Barton's chapters is entitled, "Lie 3: Thomas Jefferson Wrote His Own Bible and Edited Out the Things He Didn't Agree With". All one has to do is perform the simple task of going to to see that the Jefferson Bible exists. One might say in Barton's defense, "But Barton is not saying the Jefferson Bible doesn't exist. He is saying that the lie is that Jefferson wrote it."

If this is their defense, then Barton's proposed "lie" is false, because the claim has never been that Jefferson wrote his own Bible. The fact has always been that Jefferson constructed the book by using a razor to cut out portions of the gospels from various bibles to make a continuous narrative of Jesus' life while omitting everything supernatural. Barton quite frequently engages in making a false claim and proves the false claim is false, therefore making him believe he refuted a "lie".

Another example of this is another of his chapters: "Lie 7: Thomas Jefferson Was An Atheist and Not A Christian". Nobody ever made the claim that Jefferson was an atheist to begin with. So, Barton takes a false claim, proves the false claim is false and presto, he thinks he refuted something. The longstanding belief has always been that Jefferson was not a Christian. Many morons in religious circles actually do believe that if one is not a Christian, they are, by default, an atheist. That alone is a colossal lie, but Barton wants everyone to believe it. Stands to reason that if Jefferson is splicing up bibles and removing all things supernatural in the life of Jesus, he is not a Christian. It is basic theological teaching that Jesus was divine and performed miracles. Jefferson, however, did not believe that.

Hopefully, this has brought shame to David Barton and is a wake-up call to not only himself but to all his readers. The Bible itself warns believers to be aware of false teachers. This fraud has been exposed the worst way possible: his own publisher ceasing all further printings of his book. Hopefully, this same driving force can extend into the corporate-controlled mainstream media and get many "news" programs taken off the air. I know, wishful thinking.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Joel Osteen Admits That Sexual Orientation Is Not A Choice, but Condemns Homosexuals Anyway

Osteen says he did not choose to be straight, that's just who he is. Stands to reason that homosexuals did not choose their sexuality either. So why does God condemn a behavior that one does not choose?

by Larry Simons
September 22, 2012

I realize that televangelist Joel Osteen is highly respected by his church members, as well as the millions that no doubt tune in to watch his goody goody, watered-down prosperity-based theological sermons every week. But, this guy is a fraud; and a big one at that.

Not only does Osteen rarely talk about people being sinners, but his sermons rarely contain scripture. He even admits that his sermons try to "help people with their everyday lives" and he tries to focus on the goodness of God rather than sin. Basically, Osteen is a motivational speaker that inserts the word "god" into the text every 2 minutes. His sermons also falsely lead people to believe that God will reward them with wealth and power if only they just have a positive attitude.

Thursday, Osteen appeared on the CNN program Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien. When O'Brien asked Osteen how he could be uplifting LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people when he is telling them they are sinners, Osteen said:

"It seems like in Christianity, sometimes we categorize sin. I mean pride is a sin, being critical is a sin, being negative is a sin."

After O'Brien brilliantly stated that pride, being critical and being negative are all things you can change [the implication is that one cannot change being a homosexual], Osteen replied, "I don't think it's God's best".

Homosexuality is "not God's best"? Osteen likens God to a sculptor who makes hundreds of great sculptures and every once in a while makes a bad one. O'Brien asked Osteen if he believed homosexuality is a sin. Osteen agreed and said, "Exactly". She then pointed out that when Osteen is talking to his 45,000+ congregation every week and some are gay, that he's telling them, "you're a sinner".

Osteen replied, "That's what I believe, that the scripture condemns it. It says it's a sin, but it also says, you know, lying is and that being prideful is."

After O'Brien points out to Osteen that LGBT people did not choose to be "sinners", but liars did, Osteen said, "I know I have not chosen to be straight, I feel like that's who I am. I don't understand all those issues so, you know, I try to stick on the issues I do understand. I know this: I'm for everybody, I'm not for pushing people down. ... I don't know were the fine line is, but I do try to stay in my lane."

Interesting. Osteen admits to O'Brien and the CNN panel that he did not choose to be straight. So, explain this to me Mr. Osteen: If you did not choose to be straight and God does not condemn your behavior, then how could God possibly be a just God if he condemns homosexuality when they did not choose to be gay?

Is Osteen saying that he did not choose to be straight but homosexuals did choose their lifestyle? If this is true [that Osteen is saying this] then not only is Osteen being a colossal hypocrite, but Osteen is admitting that God is not just unjust, but also imperfect. Only an imperfect God would create some humans with the ability to possess free will in order to choose their lifestyle and create others without that ability to choose. Thanks Joel. You have reaffirmed to the thinking population on this planet that God is neither just or perfect.

The obvious question is this: If Osteen is claiming that he did not choose to be straight [and he did claim it], would it not stand to reason that homosexuals also did not choose to be gay? And since [if what Osteen is saying is true] straight people do not choose to be straight, then [God being just and perfect] homosexuals also do not choose to be gay. It's "who they are" as Osteen claimed about himself.

Here is the ultimate question: Since homosexuals do not choose to be gay, how can God condemn it?

The Bible clearly says homosexuality is wrong, but Osteen plays it off like it's no biggie.

Leviticus 18:22 states "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable".

Leviticus 20:13 states "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable".

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God".

Romans 1:26-28 states "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done".

Doesn't sound to me like God just passes it off as 'not his best'. It says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. But Osteen wants us to think God is going to make gay people stand in the corner for an hour before entering heaven.

My take on this is simple: Osteen is full of shit because the Bible is full of shit. Both are frauds. Straight people are straight and gay people are gay. If God was all powerful and all perfect to begin with, he would have created human beings in such a manner where the desire to be sexually attracted to the same sex would be non-existent. I am sick and tired of hearing the "free will" bullshit.

If God is the ultimate computer tech and human beings are the computer circuit boards, God would have wired us without the possibility of being sexually attracted to the same sex if he abhors it so much. But, he did not do this, did he? Know why? Because being gay is not a sin. If God is not all powerful and not just [as I believe I have just proven, with Osteen's help], then it stands to reason there is probably no such thing as sin as well.

There are many examples in the Bible of God not giving humans free will [God "hardening Pharaoh's heart" is just one. I could list more and more]. Osteen wants his zombie followers to believe that both straight and homosexual people do not choose their own sexual behaviors [but that being straight or gay is "who we are"] but ONLY homosexuals are condemned to hell for it.

That belief, just like Osteen, is 100% complete bullshit.

watch the clip

Friday, September 14, 2012

Jesse Ventura Says He Will Run for President in 2016

The former Minnesota Governor says if he can get on the ballot in every state and get into the debates, he will run

by Larry Simons
September 14, 2012

Former Minnesota Governor and wrestler Jesse Ventura told Alex Jones yesterday that he will give serious consideration to running for President in 2016 if he is able to get ballot access in all 50 states and can participate in the debates. Ventura also tells Alex Jones that he will be running as an Independent.

Let me give you my take on why none of this will happen. The establishment will either assassinate Ventura to prevent him from entering the race or they will put such a stranglehold on the media [even worse than they did with Ron Paul] that he will be virtually ignored.

If, by some miracle, Ventura is not blocked from entering from the result of either being assassinated, "suicided" or the victim of a complete media blackout, then the following is my position on what will happen in the actual campaigning/debates process:

1.  All attempts will be made to block Ventura's participation in the debates. Attempts were made to exclude Ron Paul from some debates, and some were successful.

2.  They will give Ventura virtually no screen time in the debates. They were very successful in doing this to Ron Paul, but my prediction is that if they try this with Ventura, Ventura will call them out on it right in the middle of an attempted media blackout. They did it to Ron Paul easily, because he is old and for the most part very passive. Ventura is very outspoken, so any attempt to ignore Ventura will be met with a confrontation.

3.  Unlike with Ron Paul, where it was actually the media's choice to intentionally mention 9/11 [media outlets tried to associate Ron Paul with many of his supporters who believe 9/11 is an inside job] in order to smear Ron Paul, this will not happen with Ventura. Ron Paul has always publicly denounced that 9/11 was an inside job, but Ventura has openly expressed he believes it was. So, obviously, the media, in knowing Ventura's stance on the subject, will ignore this subject, because it will not be for smear purposes. They will ignore it because Ventura has already been on countless programs openly talking about his views about 9/11. The media knows his views make sense and are very logical. They will not want the subject of 9/11 being an inside job to be presented in any way other than within the context of the nutty babblings of a raving lunatic, so they will ignore it.

4.  The media will have a very hard time ignoring the subject of 9/11 when they correspond with Ventura in a debate, because, as said above, Ventura has been very vocal about his take on 9/11 and conspiracies in general. The powers that be also know the other candidates on stage will confront him with this subject. This is the very reason Ventura will not even be allowed into the debates at all. Ventura will, as he has always done, bring up good points about it and make sense. The media cannot afford to have conspiracy theories about 9/11 presented in a nonpejorative manner. Besides Ventura's stances on 9/11, he will not be popular among other Neo-cons in both parties who support war, torture and big government.

I will support Ventura's run. I do not see it happening because of my above stated reasons. But if a miracle happens and he is allowed to debate, this is when we will truly see clearly that elections are not decided by the people.