Oh, Nazis Used The Swastika Too? No One Told Me…

Kevin Drum (D-Can’tSeeWhatAllTheFussIsAbout) slicks back his cowlick, pops his eyes wide, and utters a heartfelt “Garsh!” at the sight of certain hypersensitive little pantywaists taking umbrage at this cartoon:

As Alfalfa writes:

Now, if you capitalize this you get Stab In The Back, which is famous as a popular German rationalization for their loss in World War I: i.e., the real reason they lost was because the German army was “stabbed in the back” by various actors, including politicians and the public. Hitler later adopted this as a populist rallying cry during his rise to power.

Ramirez may or may not know this history. He probably does. Nonetheless, this from Mark Kleiman seems overboard to me:

I know that supporters of the currently ruling coalition of crooks, warmongers, torturers, incompetents, and theocrats are deeply, deeply hurt when they and their pet politicians are compared to Nazis. But could someone suggest to them — politely, of course — that it would help if they stopped borrowing Nazi iconography and phraseology?

But look: the phrase “stab in the back” is a common idiom. Everyone reading this has probably used it dozens of times in their lives without once thinking about its German roots. It’s simply not a phrase like “Final Solution,” which clearly became exclusive Nazi property after the Holocaust.

God knows I have plenty of reason to dislike Ramirez since I had to put with his swill for years when he was the editorial cartoonist for the LA Times. What’s more, the “stab in the back” myth that Republican war supporters have been ginning up for the past couple of years is both odious and unsupportable. As an idea, it’s worth fighting tooth and nail. But that still doesn’t make it “Nazi iconography.” It’s a common phrase, commonly used, and I’ve never heard a suggestion that it’s no longer suitable for ordinary conversation. Unless we’re ready to make that argument, we should probably call off the language police on this one.

Yeah, looking at this cartoon and seeing a parallel to the Dolchstoss myth really demands the kind of concentration and effort required to make yourself see the unicorn in one of those “Magic Eye” pictures.  Same thing goes for, say, putting a Hitler mustache on a Happy Face.  No serious-minded person would leap to the conclusion that the use of these images mean that anybody is calling anybody else a Nazi.  First of all, it’s not like the National Socialists were particularly known for a reliance on symbols or iconography (I doubt that, if you polled even members of the High Command, you would find more than 2 or 3 of them who were comfortable using Photoshop.)

Secondly, this is, as Kevin points out, a “common phrase, commonly used,” (I must use it five or six times a day: “No!  I did pay a lot for this muffler — Midas stabbed me in the back!“…”Excuse me, do you have the time?  No?  Thanks for stabbing me in the back!“…”Say, do you mind if I work in here on the leg-press machine, or would you prefer to just stab me in the back!“).

Of course, we’re not talking about the phrase so much as we are Ramirez’s use of the image, and the Nazis would have had to have frequently and shamelessly employed something similar before you could legitimately get all bent out of…

Hm.  Well, I’m sure that’s just an outlier.  It’s not like they made a big deal about blaming Jews and liberals and politicians for the German loss in the War…

Although traditional anti-Jewish stereotypes remained virulent in the Weimar Republic, racial antisemitism became increasingly prominent following the war and revolution. Numerous völkisch and nationalist parties and associations added antisemitic elements to their manifestos. Antisemitic propaganda reached broad sections of the population through more than 700 newspapers and countless publications.

“Germans, think about it!”, Postcard, around 1923

With the “stab in the back legend”, the myth that the German army were unconquered in the field, antisemitic propaganda blamed the breakdown of the Kaiserreich on “Jewish revolutionary forces”. This caricature shows the Social Democrat Philipp Scheidemann raising a dagger behind the backs of the soldiers. He is receiving the approval of Matthias Erzberger from the Centre Party. Wealthy Jews are pictured in the background as the alleged perpetrators of the deed.

Alright, fine. But for Ramirez to have been exploiting the concept of Dolchstoss would only make sense if there were a movement afoot in the wingnut world to blame our inevitable failure in Iraq on Democrats and certain fellow-traveling, weak-sister Republicans in Congress. And yet, have we seen any such evidence? Sady…no!

Posted by scott on Tuesday, May 15th, 2007 at 1:55 pm.

8 Responses to “Oh, Nazis Used The Swastika Too? No One Told Me…”

I think you stopped the blockquote a little early. Right now, it looks like you’re the one saying “‘stab in the back’ is a common idiom.”
Left by Drew Johnston on May 15th, 2007

Thanks, Drew. Fixed (I hope).
Left by scott on May 15th, 2007

Can’t read half the text. Usually once I click on the “Comments” buttton it clears up, but not this time.
Left by BeginningToWonder on May 15th, 2007

“Where’s the gay desperado from the previous post?”
“Oh, they’re stabbing him in the back.”
Left by Bistroist on May 15th, 2007

A classic of the genre.
Left by Andy Vance on May 15th, 2007

For those who don’t wish to be labelled Nazis, may I suggest the alternative phrase “brutally penetrated from behind” ? I’m pretty sure that will avoud any misconception.
Also, instead of saying that the Germans invaded Poland, say that they “liberated Poland”–just like Iraq has been liberated.
I’d also suggest that the application of a “my child is an Honor Roll student” bumper sticker on the back of your PanzerKampfWagen VI ‘Tiger’ will immediately dispel any notion that you are in fact a Nazi.

Left by Britisher on May 16th, 2007

 

Kevin Drum (D-Can’tSeeWhatAllTheFussIsAbout) slicks back his cowlick, pops his eyes wide, and utters a heartfelt “Garsh!”
This is so freaking awesome. I’m going to visualize it the next time Drum makes me see red (the next time I’m bored enough to click over there, in other words).
But did Alfalfa commonly say “Garsh!”, or is Drum an Alfalfa/Goofy hybrid in this case?

Left by Ouroboros on May 18th, 2007

But did Alfalfa commonly say “Garsh!”, or is Drum an Alfalfa/Goofy hybrid in this case?
Kevin’s a mixed breed. Attitude of Alfalfa, height and build of Goofy. Dim prospects for Best in Show.

Left by scott on May 18th, 2007

The Great Fabricator

Sadly, No! highlights the embarrassing case of Arkansas Alaska Republican Don Young, who entered this increasingly famous, wholly fictitious Lincoln quote into the Congressional Record:  “Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.”

Well, putting puerile and pedestrian words in the mouth of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the finest orator to ever occupy the White House, seriously damages my morale, and well as the morale of my G.I. Joe, who is so depressed he’s lost his Kung Fu Grip, so I advise Rep. Young to lawyer up and pack his bags.
Still, inventing quotes and evidence sure makes supporting one’s morally bankrupt arguments a whole lot easier, and I see no reason why some idiotic Congressmen from the hillbilly moose-infested hinterlands should have all the fun.  So I put it to you:  What is your favorite made-up Lincoln quote?

I’ll get the ball rolling.  During the campaign of 1860, little Grace Bedell wrote to Abraham Lincoln, suggesting that he let his whiskers grow, so as to conceal his sad and homely countenance.  Lincoln promptly wrote back: “My Dear Little Miss:  Thank you for your kind advice, but I acquired all the beard I’ll ever need when I married Mary Todd.”

Posted by scott on Friday, February 16th, 2007 at 1:44 am.

COMMENTS:

Unfortunately, Don Young is from Alaska not Arkansas. I’ve voted against him every time I have had the chance. I would happily give him to Arkansas, though.

Left by Michelle on February 16th, 2007

No great quote, but here is “the rest of the story”(thanks to S,N! for the link to FactCheck!):
This quote came from an article written in Dec. 2003: “Democrats Usher in An Age of Treason.” , the writer claims it was an editorial mistake.
In August 2006, Dana Irey used it in her run for Congress against Jack Murtha. She retracted and apologized for it after being told it was a false quote.
So this goofball not only used a false quote, he used one that a would be colleague of his used and retracted!
So, when will he retract it, wonder? Can one retract something from the CR?

Left by maryc on February 16th, 2007

Okay, do they HAVE to be Lincoln quotes? How about Reagan? Here’s my absolutely true made-up quote from Ronald Reagan The Greatest President Ever:
“I sure hope the country never elects any of my vice-president’s progeny to any public office because they’re all a bunch of spoiled brat idiots.”

Left by BeginningToWonder on February 16th, 2007

[...] –Abraham Lincoln, 1859 Add to: Bloglines | document.write(“Del.icio.us”) | Digg it | +Google | Y! MyWeb [...]

Left by Blog of the Moderate Left » Quote of the Day on February 16th, 2007

My favorite Lincoln quote comes from the interview he did with Entertainment Weekly:
“‘A House Divided’ I can’t stand, but ‘Full House’ is a real rib-tickler. Love those Olsen twins!”

Left by Ricky Ticky Tabby on February 16th, 2007

My favorite Lincoln quote is:
“I want to free the slaves, and I hope the blacks remember that the Republican party is their best friend, and they should never, ever, vote Democrat.”

Left by Bill on February 16th, 2007

I think Lincoln said it best when he stated:
“The citizenry must forsake all of its meddlesome interferences regarding governmental affairs. Likewise the MSM, rumormongers, and lower elected officials (I’ve got my eye on you Douglas), must not concern themselves with the machinations of higher politics.
I am the decider.”
–Conversation with his shoe after too much Whiskey 1861

Left by dbati on February 16th, 2007

My favorite actual Lincoln quote:
“Fourscore and…
[looks at his pocket watch]
seven minutes ago… we, your forefathers, were brought forth upon a most excellent adventure conceived by our new friends, Bill… and Ted. These two great gentlemen are dedicated to proposition which was true in my time, just as it’s true today. Be excellent to each other. And… PARTY ON, DUDES! “

Left by michael on February 16th, 2007

Absolutely one can retract things from the Congressional record, but it isn’t mostly necessary. Generally, as I understand it, Congressional speeches made on the Floor are made under the understanding that the Congressperson, or his or her staff, will be “revising and extending” later. So what goes into the record is, essentially, what the Congressperson’s staff told him or her to say, in written form, rather than the garbled mess it came out as. And then that goes home to the voters as a record of what stirring speeches your Congressperson has offered for the edification of the Chamber and the nation on whatever debate.
On the other hand, I’d be mighty amazed if he actually cared that his Lincoln quote is a hoax, and I bet it will go out in the constituent newsletters with it included, not like most of them know it’s false, either, I mean, they’re stupid enough to keep voting for the bastard.
As a measure of hope, CSPAN doesn’t have a “revise and extend” option. So in ten years, if we’re all still alive, we’ll all be able to sit and marvel at how bugfuck dumb so many of our Congresspeople are, and how any of them ever managed to tie their shoes without a little diagram on the toe.

Left by D. Sidhe on February 16th, 2007

Fake Lincoln Quote:
“We don’t agree that it is a civil war.”

Left by Robert McElroy on February 16th, 2007

“Abraham Lincoln once said that if you’re a racist, I will attack you with the north.” – Michael Scott

Left by mnvnjnsn on February 16th, 2007

In his middle age, Lincoln was often heard to say, “I wish they could find that one really handsome-looking daguerreotype that was taken of me back in my younger days. No one believes me anymore when I tell them how hott I was.”
Sorry, nothing I can come up with can top the Mary Todd/beard quotation.

Left by Lucy on February 16th, 2007

“You can fool some of the people all the time; and you can fool all of the people some of the time; but, uh, you can’t sing ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’ in the middle of the 19th century.”

Left by Doghouse Riley on February 16th, 2007

I’m with Lucy — how are we supposed to top the beard line?

Left by Anntichrist S. Coulter on February 16th, 2007

“No! It’s the pass that protects GREECE! Mere cities don’t matter now. It is Greece that counts! Only by being united can we hope to avoid slavery. Now, I am no politician, but I will plead this cause with you until the moon wanes and the night brings forth a new day!”

Left by Yule Brawl on February 16th, 2007

I meant to link my quotation to that news story from the other day, but I posted too soon. I’m sure you all knew what I meant, though, not that it would make me any funnier.

Left by Lucy on February 16th, 2007

And, sheesh, I just got done pantsing Tony Snow over Bull Run. It really is the Ghost Dance with these people, except the hopelessness on the Plains followed defeat at the hands of a numerically superior enemy which had had the great good sense to come from a place that had horses and resistance to smallpox. Our modern Dancers have just shot themselves in the foot so many times they’ve either decided they’re bulletproof or fully exsanguinated. I’m not sure which. But they’ve gone from lying about their immediate surroundings to lying about the established past, and like their misunderestimated Captain, it’s no good anymore trying to pretend they’re just being crafty.
I realize that no nation has ever faced up to the daunting prospect of a good one-third of its citizens being in need of an indefinite course of mental health care under maximal security. God knows plenty have had the opportunity before us and passed. But this is America, dammit.
I would like to add that that FactCheck article is far too timid; Lincoln, as any non-homeschoolboy should know, faced a tremendous amount of opposition in the North, not always with strict legality but without threatening to hang half the Congress (or, for that matter, the Copperheads in the officer corps that many in his cabinet saw as the reason for the early defeats). Good thing, too, since after the midterm elections he needed a lot of those votes.

Left by Doghouse Riley on February 16th, 2007

“We know where the munitions are. They’re around Atlanta, and north, south, east, and west somewhat.”
–Abraham Lincoln, 1862

Left by Jeff Fecke on February 16th, 2007

Doghouse, I just want to say that I want to bear your children – And I mean that in a strictly platonic non-stalking kind of way.

Left by BeginningToWonder on February 16th, 2007

Many people know of the famous “Bixby Letter” that Lincoln wrote to the mother whose fice sons were killed fighting for the Union Army. The version most people are familiar with is, however, a truncated one. Full version appears below.
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the
Adjutant General of Massachusetts, that you are the mother of five sons
who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless
must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the
grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you
the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to
save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your
bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and
lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice
upon the altar of Freedom.
However.
I must point out to you that as none of your sons served the full terms of their enlistment, the Government is owed part measure of the signing bonuses they received. Also I am given to understand that as certain portions of your sons’ equipment were damaged or lost, there is a question of monies for the replacement thereof. Please find invoice enclosed.
Insert mechanical signature here.

Left by R. V. Dump on February 16th, 2007

Secretary Stanton had taken offense to the comments of one of Lincoln’s generals; Lincoln advised him to write a letter, detailing his offense. When he finished Stanton showed Lincoln the missive. Lincoln expressed his admiration for the sharp wording, and asked Stanton what he planned to do with it.
“Why, send it, of course,” replied Stanton.
“You don’t want to send it,” said Lincoln. “You had a good time writing it, and now you feel better. Put it in the stove. That’s what I always do. But first make an anonymous copy and send that to Drudge. And try to work in something about the sumbitch being gayer than Buchanan’s wig maker.”
(With all due obsequies to Michael O’Donoghue and “The Churchill Wit”.

Left by Doghouse Riley on February 16th, 2007

You better, BTW. I’m the official Doghouse Riley stalker around these parts. I got permission and everything. I have no interest in bearing anyone’s children, though. Which, actually, might be why I got the gig. Well, that and I’m lazy. really, really lazy, as stalkers go.
I mention this not because anyone cares, but because for some reason it amuses me and it might be leading to double posting, but my copy of the current version of Adobe Reader with the Asian Language Pack installed seems to make WordPress wig out when I hit “enter” while it’s open. Dunno why that is. I’m not uninstalling the ALP, though. ‘Cause even though I can’t read ‘em, there’s pdfs I couldn’t open without it.

Left by D. Sidhe on February 16th, 2007

‘Four-score and some odd years ago, our evangelical Christian forefathers…’

Left by Scott1960 on February 17th, 2007

“Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. So really, this whole Secession thing was based on bad intelligence. And really, even though it is 1865, I think calling it a Civil War is, well, a little premature.”
From Lincoln’s 2nd Naugahyde Address

Left by tomg on February 17th, 2007

“Don Young blows goats.”
– Abraham Lincoln, 1865

Left by historian on February 17th, 2007

The last I heard it’s now history that lincoln had 13,000 Americans hanged for treason. Why do you think their (republicans) telling that lie?
Lincoln Quote ” I believe this war will last weeks, months, maybe, and we’ll be greeted as liberators”

Left by madcowboy on February 18th, 2007

I heard Lincoln say this in a séance:
“What have they done with my Party? Register me as a Democrat”

Left by jasperjava on February 19th, 2007

“Neal Horsley seduced my mule!” ejaculated Abraham Lincoln.

Left by Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel on February 22nd, 2007

March 21, 2005 by s.z.

Rewriting the Constitution Our friend Glenstonecottage emails us with a request: I got the enclosed "joke" version of the The Declaration of Independence (although the idiot wingnut who wrote it doesn't even know the difference between the Constitution and the The Declaration of Independence!) from an e-mail buddy of my dad's. I was thinking perhaps you and some of your regulars might consider giving it a good old World O'Crap going-over so I can send a revised and improved version back to the same guy who sent it to me? This might make a good reader participation feature for you and allow you to take a break from having to constantly come up with yet another item. I think that's a great idea for a number of reasons (such as "This is such a wingnutty piece that it deserves a rebuttal" and "It would be very amusing to read the email buddy's response upon getting a rewritten version of this piece," and "You people are so funny, and I am so tired.") So, here's the "Revised Declaration of Independence."  Read it over, and see what re-revisons and/or improvements you would make to it.  Do it to not just help me, but to to help Glenstone's Dad's email buddy, who might otherwise continue to send this crap to other people, which has to be doing severe damage to his karma. Subject: Fw: 2005 Revised Version of The Declaration of Independence   "We The People Of The United States" The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...  Actually, a guy named Lewis Napper wrote it back in 1998 -- but he called it "The Bill of No Rights," which is either more or less accurate than the current title, depending on how you look at it. Here's an explanation about the confusion of authorship from "The Blessings of Liberty" site: Kaye, for the record, is a male representative for Marietta, Ga., and he was not the originator of the piece. It's nice that Blessings of Liberty provides the helpful info about Kaye being male, because otherwise you might be fooled about his gender, "Kaye" being a female name and all, even when paired with the first name "Mitchell." His capitol office in Atlanta was helpful, however, in providing the Web site address of the Oregon-based "Backwoods Home Magazine"-- a publication dedicated to "practical ideas for self-reliant living"--which recently published the Bill of No Rights, a copyrighted piece written several years ago by one Lewis Napper, a self-described amateur philosopher and Libertarian from Mississippi. But I guess Kaye can still run for president if he wants. (Interestingly enough, a few years ago an online journalist named K. Daniel Glover wrote an article explaining that it was just an internet legend that Kaye authored the piece.  Now several sites credit Glover as the author.) Anyway, on with the Declaration: "We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby TRY ONE MORE TIME to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights as such: ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything. ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be. ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy. ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care. ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure. ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights. ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (lastly....) ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!! If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States speak out because if you do not, who will? PS. There's a lot of good sense here, but it's hard to encapsulate all of the experiences of people into a simple statement, or for that matter into a code of laws.  Um, yeah, this is all so sensible that it's a shame that the Founding Fathers didn't think to encapsulate it into law. Oh, and when you're deconstructing it, don't blame Lewis Napper for Articles 10 and 11, because they were not part of his original, copyrighted work.  His version did include the following section, though (I wonder why it was deleted from the version currently making the rounds on the email lists:):   ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat. Of course, this was back in 1998, when Freedom wasn't On The March, and so it was liberals who wanted to battle tyrants with funny hats. You now have all the necessary data to rewrite this piece, so get to work; your nation is counting on you. 4:28:45 AM

The Gannon News 1.  Bellaciao reports that either Scottie McClellan misspoke or lied or something (which, based on history, seems so unlikely as to be a virtual impossibility), or the House Press Office wasted Secret Service resources (and tax payer funds) to check out JimJeff's criminal history DAILY for months at a time. Friday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told ePluribus Media that his office had never requested a 30-day security clearance for James D. Guckert, aka "Jeff Gannon," directly contradicting a statement made earlier that day by the U.S. Secret Service.The Secret Service’s "30-day access list program," used by the White House press office, would have allowed Guckert to visit the briefing room for a 30-day period without undergoing daily criminal-history checks. At 2 p.m. EDT on Friday, in a phone interview with ePMedia, Secret Service spokesperson Reginald Hudson stated that the pattern of "appointments" submitted on Guckert’s behalf "looked like an access list" request, adding that the press office uses access lists "quite a bit." But at 6 p.m., White House spokesperson David Almacy called ePMedia to say that "Scott McClellan himself" told him Guckert was "never on an access list." Of course not.  Because that would raise questions about why the rules were being broken on JimJeff's behalf (and the answers would have to be (a) "Because we liked his politics and his soft-ball questions"; (b) "Because we liked somebody else who asked us to give him special treatment"; or (c) "Because we liked his manly physique." Anyway, per Almacy, the 30-day access list, "is only used for people awaiting a `hard pass.’"  Being on an access list is one of the three ways under which the Secret Service will admit you to the White House briefing room.  The others are: possessing a permanent WH press pass; or being granted a temporary appointment.  Strictly speaking, Guckert received temporary appointments, a well-defined Secret Service designation. Having been denied a permanent press pass in February 2004 because he was working for G.O.P. lobbyists, he thus needed an appointment to attend every briefing. But it takes two to make an appointment. Guckert also required a sponsor, a "staffer" to submit the request to the Secret Service. A request for access to the White House complex is not a trivial event, even for McClellan’s office: For a temporary appointment to the White House Press Briefing Room, the White House Press Office will submit to the U.S. Secret Service the name and personal identifiers (name, date of birth, place of birth, Social Security number) of the individual seeking the appointment. The U.S. Secret Service then conducts criminal history checks utilizing Federal/Local Law Enforcement and Secret Service criminal data bases. These checks are done each time a request is submitted for access for the individual. The "30-day access list program" prevents this avoidable waste of time, manpower and money by granting 30 temporary appointments, with a single criminal-history check per recipient per month. The program makes sense: As Almacy pointed out, the access list is only for bona fide journalists awaiting permanent passes. But here is where Scott McClellan has seemingly managed to paint himself into a corner of an oval office. Every day from December 20, 2004, through January 31, 2005 -- 43 consecutive days including Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day -- a member of McClellan’s staff requested a temporary appointment for James Dale Guckert to visit the White House. So, if Scottie is telling the truth, then his office had the Secret Service do record checks on JimJeff every day for 43 consecutive days -- even though JimJeff only showed up for 7 of those days, it being the holidays and all.  Or, Scottie is wrong, and somebody misled the SS, telling them that JimJeff qualified for a hard pass that hadn't yet been granted, so he could get on the 30-day access list. Bellaciao (and the Secret Service, apparently) thinks it's the later.  If the White Hous releases his records about JimJeff, maybe we'll find out the truth. However ... 2.  JABBS reports that "Three Months Later, White House Press Office Has Not Released Documents on J.D. Guckert." The White House Press Office has not responded to a Feb. 10 request to turn over documents relating to the press credentials of J.D. Guckert (aka "Jeff Gannon"). The request was made by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). A copy of his letter to White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan can be found by clicking here. Lautenberg aide Yuna Jacobson told JABBS yesterday that there have been "no new developments on the acquisition of related documents from the White House Press Office." To use the popular parlance, I believe we have a filibuster. Read the whole thing. 3.  Bill Maher discusses his "coup" in getting JimJeff as a guest on "Real Time." What I like about my show is the freedom to not have to talk to people who are not that intelligent," Maher says. "I don't mean that as a putdown of guests on my old show, but we did have to fill four guest chairs, five nights a week. This show is once a week, three guests." Since his guests on the new show have included Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough, David Frum, and Ann Colter, the guests from the old show should feel put down.  But anyway, talking about people who ''are not that intelligent," naturally segued into a discussion of the JimJeff interview. Recently "Real Time" staged a bit of a coup when Maher interviewed embattled White House journalist/alleged gay escort Jeff Gannon. "We'd been negotiating with him the entire season," Maher says. "He wanted to do it, but his lawyer wouldn't let him. Finally, he relented and said, 'I'll do it, but you can't just make fun of me.' "I said, 'Jeff, I won't just make fun of you, I'll partly make fun of you. And you'll do the rest." And so he did. This was my favorite part of that interview: MAHER: But it came out this week, the Freedom of Information request was granted, and you made three dozen visits, apparently, to the White House, at times when there were no press briefings going on. On 14 occasions, the Secret Service has no record of your entry and exit times. What were you doing in the White House? GANNON: There's lots of things that go on at the White House when there aren't briefings. I've been to briefings with other administration officials: Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Andy Card, Dan Bartlett. I've gone down to the T-ball games on the South Lawn on Sunday afternoons in the summer. I like to think that they let JimJeff play T-ball with George, Condi, Alberto, and the rest of the first graders. 3:37:27 AM

January 31, 2005 by s.z.

Casey Kasem's Countdown of the Top 25 Evangelicals

Kathryn Jean alerts us to an interesting-sounding Time magazine piece:

THEY DIDN'T KNOW 25 EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS? [K. J. Lopez]
Time magazine this week has a photoessay on the "25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America." Included are Fr. Richard John Nehaus and Rick Santorum, both Catholics.
Posted at 01:13 PM

However, I'm not sure I know what her point is.  It can't be that Time falsely said that Nehaus and Santorum are Protestant, because it didn't.  Is she claiming that there's no such thing as Catholic evangelicals?  Is she complaining that her homies got included in this group of loonies?  Does she even have a point?

Anyway, in case you were wondering, the top 25 are:

Rick Warren, Howard & Roberta Ahmanson, David Barton, Doug Coe, Chuck Colson, Luis Cortes, James Dobson, Stuart Epperson, Michael Gerson, Billy & Franklin Graham, Ted Haggard, Bill Hybels, T.D. Jakes, Diane Knippers, Tim & Beverly LaHaye, Richard Land, Brian McLaren, Joyce Meyer, Richard John Neuhaus, Mark Noll, J.I. Packer, Rick Santorum, Jay Sekulow, Stephen Strang, and Ralph Winter.

Some of them sound like okay people.  Some even appear to be quite admirable.  But some are, as far as I can determine, liars, hypocrites, and wingnuts.  Some of them (the Ahmansons, Dobson, Colson, the LaHayes, and Santorum) are old wingnutty friends.  Some of the others sound worth investigating.  So, we are starting a new feature: "The Most Influential Evangelical Wingnut of the Day."  Let's begin with Time's item about this guy:

David Barton

The Lesson Planner: Even before he got directly involved in politics, David Barton was a major voice in the debate over church-state separation. His books and videotapes can be found in churches all over the U.S., educating an evangelical generation in what might be called Christian counter-history. The 51-year-old Texan's thesis: that the U.S. was a self-consciously religious nation from the time of the Founders until the 1963 Supreme Court school-prayer ban (which Barton has called "a rejection of divine law"). Many historians dismiss his thinking, but Barton's advocacy organization, WallBuilders, and his relentless stream of publications, court amicus briefs and books like The Myth of Separation, have made him a hero to millions—including some powerful politicians. He has been a co-chair of the Texas Republican Party for eight years, is friends with House majority leader Tom DeLay (whom he has advised on the Pledge Patriot Act, which seeks to keep the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance) and was tapped by the Republican National Committee during its election sprint as a liaison to social conservatives.

For all that you do, David Barton, you're our "Top Influential Evangelist Wingnut of the Day!" 

Here's part of Barton's WallBuilders' bio (plus his official picture, which seems to indicate that he stole some gum from Willie Wonka's factory and is in the process of turning into a blueberry -- you'll note that he looks a lot meaner, but less purple, in his Time photo):

Author and historian David Barton is the Founder and President of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization which distributes historical, legal, and statistical information; and helps citizens become active in their local schools and communities.

David’s exhaustive research (from original writings) on the Founding Era has rendered him an expert in this field, and consequently he serves as consultant to state and federal legislators; has participated in several cases at the Supreme Court; was involved in the development of the History/Social Studies standards for both Texas and California students; and has contributed to projects and legislation set forth by countless other groups, individuals, and legislators across the country.

Wow, David is a historian, he has helped to set history standards for public school students, has participated in Supreme Court cases, and has contributed to legislation.  So, he must have a Ph.D. in history, a law degree, and maybe a Masters in education, right?

Um, not exactly.  The WallBuilders bio adds:

David holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts University and an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Pensacola Christian College. 

So, David has a B.A. from Oral Roberts University, and an honorary degree from a strip mall Christian college -- that's it as for educational attainments.  One begins to suspect why "many historians dismiss his thinking." 

However, there's more to this issue than just Barton's lack of degrees.  See, it seems that Barton has made some big mistakes, which he's been called on.  For instance, per Rob Boston (writing in April 93's Church & State Magazine), Barton claimed in the original version of his video "America's Godly Heritage" that the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" came from a speech that Thomas Jefferson made in 1801.  Barton added that later in the speech, Jefferson said, "That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

However, actual historians say that Jefferson first used the "wall" metaphor in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. And the letter says nothing about the wall being "one directional," and Jefferson does not assert that it was intended to keep Christian principles in government. 

Even though Barton doesn't include this "quote" in the later versions of his book and video, that doesn't stop the wingnuts from repeating this erroneous claim to this very day. (Here are just a few of the examples retrieved by Google: Bible.org: Sermon Illustrations: Pastor Joe's Political/Religious Sound Off !!!; www.devotions.com/7-6-96.htm; America’s Godly Heritage.  All cite Jefferson's letter to the Banbury Baptist Association as the source of the quote, with only the first and last saying that they got this info from Barton).

Per Boston, in the first version of the video Barton also falsely claimed that 52 out of 55 of the Founding Fathers were "orthodox, evangelical Christians."  Of course, while many of the Founders were orthodox members of the Church of England, none of them were evangelical Christians, since the evangelical movement didn't begin in America until the late 19th century.

And there were numerous other distortions and misinterpretations.  But, per Boston, the scariest thing about Barton are the groups he associates with: 

Perhaps most alarming, Barton also has had a relationship with the racist and anti-Semitic fringes of the far right. According to Skipp Porteous of the Massachusetts-based Institute for First Amendment Studies, Barton was listed in promotional literature as a "new and special speaker" at a 1991 summer retreat in Colorado sponsored by Scriptures for America, a far-right ministry headed by Pastor Pete Peters. Peters' organization, which is virulently anti-Semitic and racist, spreads hysteria about Jews and homosexuals and has been linked to neo-Nazi groups. (The organization distributes a booklet called Death Penalty For Homosexuals.)

Barton has reportedly said that he didn't know about Peters' racist views before accepting the invitation to speak -- but since Peters has been pretty open about them, my guess is that Barton will speak for any group that will pay him (see info below re his work on behalf of the GOP). 

And speaking of backtracking, per Boston, in 1996 Barton issued a one-page document titled "Questionable Quotes." It states that twelve statements which various people had been attributing to the Founding Fathers (or other prominent historical figures) were actually either suspect or false.  Interestingly enough, nine of these statements had been used in Barton's 1989 book, The Myth of Separation, as proof of Barton's position that the Founders had never wanted that "wall."  WallBuilders issued this document only after real historians had called "no way!" on the quotes, of course.

But despite all this fraud and error, Barton's work is still held in high repute by many evangelical leaders, to include Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, and James Dobson.  Oh, and also "historian" Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and Karl Rove.

Here's more about Barton from a BeliefNet piece from last year:

David Barton, the founder of an organization called Wallbuilders, was hired by the RNC as a political consultant and has been traveling the country for a year--speaking at about 300 RNC-sponsored lunches for local evangelical pastors. During the lunches, he presents a slide show of American monuments, discusses his view of America’s Christian heritage -- and tells pastors that they are allowed to endorse political candidates from the pulpit.

Barton, who is also the vice-chairman of the Texas GOP, told Beliefnet this week that the pastors' meetings have been kept “below the radar.... We work our tails off to stay out of the news.” But at this point, he says, with voter registration ended in most states and early voting already under way, staying quiet about the activity “doesn’t matter.”

Barton’s main contention is that the separation of church and state was never intended by the nation’s founders; he says it was created by the Supreme Court in the 20th Century. The back cover of his 1989 book, “The Myth of Separation,” proclaims: “This book proves that separation of church and state is a myth.” Barton is also on the board of advisers of the Providence Foundation, a Christian Reconstructionist group that advocates America as a Christian nation. (Click here for an explanation of Reconstructionism.)

As you may recall, Reconstructionism holds that America should be governed by Biblical Law (to possibly include stoning witches, homosexuals, adulterers, and disobedient children), and that Christians should be the only ones doing the governing.  "Non-biblical" practices such as welfare, labor unions, public schools, etc. should be eliminated.  (Batholomew has more about Barton and Recontructionism.)

But here's more from the BeliefNet piece about Barton and his work for the RNC:

The lunches are coordinated by the RNC’s evangelical outreach director, Drew Ryun. “He and I make it very clear we are not partisan per se, we’re biblical,” says Barton. But according to Federal Election Commission filings, Barton has earned $12,000 this year from the RNC for “political consulting.” A spokesman for the RNC, Scott Hoganson, did not respond to questions about Barton.

Barton contends that the IRS allows pastors to endorse candidates from the pulpit as long as they make it clear it’s their own personal opinion and not an official church endorsement.

[...]
According to Barton’s reading of the law, it is legal for a pastor to stand up in the pulpit and say, “’Now look, I’m going to tell you something--and the church didn’t vote on this and the elder board hasn’t gotten together on it--but I’m telling you, John Kerry is not fit to be president.’ He can do that, that’s fine. The pastor has the right of free speech, but he cannot bring the corporate machinery to bear."

Meanwhile, says Barton, a pastor can talk about any issue he wants to. If he wants to preach against same-sex marriage or abortion, he can. And he can talk about the voting records of individuals or groups on those matters.

Sadly, that's not what the IRS says, but since the RNC doesn't actually care about the law or evangelicals, the fact that Barton was lying didn't stop them from sending him out to evangelize for Bush.

And despite what many people believe, WallBuilders is not a nonprofit foundation, and so Barton is always trying to sell his books, videos, and speaking services (so it makes sense that he would sell out his fellow evangelicals for $12,000 from the RNC).  And while I can't recommend that you buy anything from him, some of his work is pretty funny.

As BeliefNet said:

Barton has said that God influenced his sense of mission. In America: To Pray Or Not To Pray? Barton writes: "In July 1987, God impressed me to do two things. First, I was to search the library and find the date that prayer had been prohibited in public schools. Second, I was to obtain a record of national SAT scores (the academic test given to prospective college-bound high school students) spanning several decades. I didn't know why, but I somehow knew that these two pieces of information would be very important."

As a result, Barton writes that he learned America has declined because of the 1962 and '63 Supreme Court rulings banning school-sponsored prayer. He believes God is angry at the country and has retaliated.

Yes, God punished America for "banning school prayer" by lowering our kids' SAT scores.  That will teach us!  (Man, I wish I had attended school prior to 1963, because I bet I could have been really smart back then.)  And then God told Barton to look up those SAT scores, so that David could be the Isaiah-like prophet who would  tell us that we are feeling God's wrath because of our disobedience.

Anyway, Barton's claim in his bio that he "was involved in the development of the History/Social Studies standards for both Texas and California students" seems to be true, since, as this Texas Observerarticle details, he and his group helped to shape the McGraw-Hill text books that were then bought by many of the states' school districts.  The reporter, Nate Blakeslee, didn't think that this was exactly a good thing, since the books now have a more conservative, less historical slant to them.  But I do love Blakeslee's snarky recap of Barton's rise to fame:

In 1989, Barton self-published The Myth of Separation, a pseudo-historical, poorly argued polemic purporting to prove that the American tradition of separation of church and state is based on a historical fallacy resulting from a misreading of the writings of the founders. Barton followed his book with a popular video titled America's Godly Heritage, which has been widely promoted by the Christian Coalition, James Dobson's Focus on the Family, and the Eagle Forum. Barton's video traces virtually every social problem in America -- from declining S.A.T. scores to increasing alcoholism -- to the Supreme Court's anti-school prayer decisions of the early 1960s. 

And Bartholomew reveals perhaps the most shocking thing yet about Barton: he hangs out with Doug Giles!

Yes, Barton was a speaker at a conference on "Returning Christ to the Public Square" that the ClashChurch hosted last April.  Barton is also a regular contributor to Doug's ClashRadio program, doing a bit called "David Barton's Moment in American History." And guess who was a guest on Doug's program on January 7, 2005? 

Yes, it was David Barton!!!

Although Doug's radio program drives me crazy, what with all all of the stupid sound effects, annoying wavs files, and general immaturity and stupidity, I made a real effort and listened to this day's program as part of my never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way.  (You can listen too, if you go to http://www.clashradio.com/listen.html.)  Here's my report:

The David Barton/Doug Giles Show

Doug introduced Barton, adding that "wackos and Satanists hate this guy."

Doug then gave his ClashPoint, this being our second favorite one of all time, the one about the our luscious American tree, and Paul Bunyan on crystal meth.  It's made even goofier by wav files of vomiting, and the clips from Clint Eastwood movies.

Then Doug brings on Barton, who claims that what WallBuilders does is like what Old Testament prophet Nehemiah did: "Pull out the old scrolls, and see what we used to be like."

Doug says that he smoked a lot of marijuana in junior high and high school, but during his public school days he didn't get ANY of the information that Barton presents in his video.  [Doug, that's probably because Barton smoked a lot of marijuana while he was coming up with his history.]

Doug asks Barton how many books he's written.  Barton can't remember -- maybe a couple dozen.  [Again, I blame "wee."]

Doug and Barton whine about how much more evil America is now than it was in the '30s and '40s.  [Nobody mentions racism, but I think that to them this is part of the reason why the '30s were a golden age.]

As proof of how much worse we are now than in the past, Barton says that "the violent crime rate is 694% more than it was three decades ago."  

[Which is very interesting, since the DOJ says "Violent crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2003" 

They even have a graph, which shows the trend over the last three decades:

So, where did Barton get that info about a 694% increase?  My guess is out of his ass.  He probably knew that Doug's listeners are all idiots, so he didn't even have to sound credible.]

Then Barton says that the problem with our society is that we can't teach children any kind of self-restraint, because the schools aren't allowed to "impose morality on kids."  But since "74% of Americans want prayer back in the classroom," and "68% want creationism taught" in schools, the only reason we can't impose morality on kids is those evil activist judges.

And people today have "a shallow Bible world view," in that they think that the Bible only gives us spiritual guidance, when it is also supposed to also tell us how to run the government.  [Okay, this part of the conversation demonstrates why Barton is on the board of Reconstructionist group like the Providence Foundation, so pay attention.]  "The Founding Fathers could tell you which Bible verse condemn estate taxes (Proverbs 13:22), which verses condemn capital gains taxes, and which condemn minimum wage laws."  The Bible is also against progressive income tax. 

[If there had been time, I'm sure that Barton could have shared with us which Bible verses says that we should be stoning homosexuals, and which say that non-Christians shouldn't be allowed to hold political office.}

[Oh, and Proverbs 13:22 says "A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just."  Taken in conjunction with other verses in this chapter, I interpret it to mean that a good man leaves a tradition of righteousness as a legacy to his family, while the sinner's wealth is given to the just via the "death tax."  So, I wouldn't use this verse as a basis to end estate taxes.]

Doug says that when he became a Christian at 21, he was a member of a charismatic group that didn't teach anything about how good Christians should be running the government, so he just "twiddled his thumbs" until he heard the tapes of Barton and his ilk. 

Doug and David discuss how churches these days don't tell kids to go into politics or law, but, as Barton says, "24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees, so half of the signers were pastors or ministers."  [I am too tired to look this up, so I will just say that I don't believe that everyone in those days who had a degree from a seminary served as a pastor or minister.]

Barton says that people today just don't use their minds like they did in the 18th century. [And Barton's claim about the 694% increase in violent crime over the past three decades seems to prove his point.]

Barton says that the Founding Fathers got most of their ideas from John Locke, who quotes the Bible extensively.  This means that our country is actually based on Biblical precepts.

Doug asks, "What do the radical lesbian feminists do with this?"  Barton says that they don't like it.  [Radical lesbian feminists apparently being big opponents of inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.]

And then it's time for a commercial, and then Meghan Fox pops in with her "Zero of the Week."  This time it's Bill Clinton, for showing compassion for tsunami victims.  She mockingly says that Clinton felt their pain, and then adds, "I'm sure he also felt up at least one reporterette too."  Hey, I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like slander to me!  {If only she owned something worth suing for.]

But then it's back to Doug and Barton, who discuss what a genuine Christian George Bush is.  Barton tells how George shared his faith with the Premiere of China, and knelt in prayer with the president of Macedonia.  [Barton wasn't present on either occasion, but he apparently got a faith-promoting email that told these stories.]

Barton says that George has introduced faith-based programs in five different departments, and gives us another stat: "Normal prison rehabilitation programs have a 81% rate of recidivism, while Chuck Colson's program has only a 21% recidivism rate.  So why wouldn't we use what works?"

[Um, maybe because even Chuck doesn't give any figures like those.  Chuck says that inmates who completed his Prison Fellowship Ministry program had a recidivism rate of only 16%, compared with 36% of those who complete a vocational program, and the 67% national rate (which would include all the prisoners who are involved in no real rehabilitation programs). 

Colson's InnerChange program claims a rate of 8% recidivism after two years, compared with "a 22% return rate for inmates who were eligible for the program but did not participate." 

See, not all inmates are eligible for Chuck's program -- only the ones with the best chance of reforming WITHOUT any help.  Also, the prisoners who don't complete the whole program (which includes getting a job and continuing with counseling AFTER release from prison) aren't counted as participants.  So, these stats mean nothing.  As we pointed out last year when George Bush touted Chuck's program as one of George's faith-based sucess stories, crime control expert Mark A.R. Kleiman explained that a widely cited study actually indicated that those enrolled in the faith-based program had a higher recidivism rate than the control group.

I have scoured the internets, and still have no idea where Barton came up with his citation of a "81% recidivism rate for normal prison rehabilitation programs, 21 rate for Chuck's program."  So, I must conclude that Thomas Jefferson said it in his famous Gettysburgh Address.]

And then Doug and David talked about the importance of praying for leaders (praying that good ones like George fulfill their mandates, and praying that bad ones like Saddam Hussein die painful deaths and go to hell). 

And then our time was up. (Thank heavens!)

So, in conclusion, I think that you can see how scary it is that David Barton in one of the country's 25 most influential evangelicals.  The only silver lining is that Doug Giles isn't.

2:33:26 AM