Comments on: David Barton misleads Focus on the Family on death penalty case

By: Carol A Ranney

Carol A Ranney — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:50:43 +0000

Throbert McGee# my thoughts exactly. Barton’s wording seems calculated to mislead one to believe it’s the US Supreme Court he is referring to. Every case they hear originates somewhere–this one, he says, came out of Pennsylvania. If indeed he is speaking of the PA Supreme Court (which it turns out he is) then why state that the case came OUT of Pennsylvania? To my mind, the whole thing is a cleverly worded lie with an escape loophole in case he is challenged.

By: Geo F.

Geo F. — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:50:41 +0000

I have been doing some of my own checking up on Mr. Barton’s versions of events, and motives. Most recently, I was struggling through the facts behind the case you have discussed here. I had the timeline of events pretty well in order, but could not find any text on the 1991 PA Supreme Court ruling on the 1st (Bible issue) sentencing phase. Then I stumbled on your site and this page. Voila! Research complete for this item!
So I Thank you. And I commend you on the efforts expended in putting just this one post together. And your commentary is right on target.
I am pleased to see that you have an ongoing interest in Mr. Barton as well. I have subscribed to your blog, and hope to see additional source info posted.
On your David Barton page you suggest that Barton focuses on Jefferson and Adams quite a bit. I agree; his ‘famous’ John Adams letter misrepresentation was what launched my ‘career’ into this realm of twisted reality. He has been pushing that one forever it appears. But there is so much that gushes from his mouth (and so fast), and it is so widely spread about on the web. Even though much of it is repeated endlessly, it seems that I am also finding new stories of his to check out every day. Here is a tidbit that perhaps you haven’t come across yet; you have to take a step or two down the ‘Founding Fathers heirarchy…Ethen Allen makes the grade for Barton simply for his quote: ‘In the name of the great Jehovah, and the Continental Congress…’ while in the process of capturing Fort Ticonderoga. Barton, however, does not make any mention that Ethen Allen also wrote a book following the war (1785) ‘Reason: the Only Oracle of Man’ which was specifically targeted against Christianity, it was an unbridled attack against the Bible, established churches, and the powers of the priesthood. (It also never sold very well, but that is beside the point here.)

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:34:44 +0000

Actually, the case isn’t really about religion, it is about a prosecutor attempting to cite laws that don’t apply in the US. And I don’t think the outcome would have been any different, if say the defendant had been from Uganda, (and the community made up largely of Ugandan immigrants), and the prosecutor cited Ugandan law in arguing the defendant should be put to death.

By: Dave J.

Dave J. — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:34:44 +0000

This case sounds like very good protection for people in PA from Sharia Law. I wish Barton seeming lack of specifics should be unsettling to his audience.

By: Carol A Ranney

Carol A Ranney — Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:28:58 +0000

By: Geo F.

Geo F. — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:57:22 +0000

By: Dave J.

Dave J. — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:48:50 +0000

This case sounds like very good protection for people in PA from Sharia Law. I wish Barton seeming lack of specifics should be unsettling to his audience.

By: Throbert McGee

Throbert McGee — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:23:47 +0000

Right here in his very first sentence, Barton also manages to be outrageously misleading without actually telling a lie:

as evidenced by the case that we had at the Supreme Court not long ago

If you're trying to get a national radio audience politically riled up, it does very little good to tell them about the alleged misdeeds of a state-level supreme court, because people nationwide have no control over what the Pennsylvania supreme court does. But letting your national audience think that SCOTUS was involved immediately puts them in mind of Presidential elections, because it's that damned crook in the White House who appoints new SCOTUS justices. (If called on this, Barton could point out that SCOTUS was indirectly involved in the Carl Chambers case "not long ago", insofar as a 2002 SCOTUS case became relevant when a Pennsylvania appeals court reduced Chambers' death sentence to life-in-prison in 2006. But that was related to Chambers' abnormally low IQ, and had absolutely nothing to do with the prosecutors' citation of the Bible back in Chambers' original 1987 trial, which was ruled on by the Pennsylvania supreme court in 1991.)

By: Bernie

Bernie — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:33:02 +0000

Yes, thank you for making this case abundantly clear. It was portrayed by Barton, of course, as an attack on Christianity.
It boggles my mind, as to what extent Barton will lie in order to make his case.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:06:25 +0000

Thank you for this blog post .. I have been hearing about some case where the citing of the bible caused the verdict to be thrown out for many years now. I presume it was this one. Wow, how different the facts are from the rhetoric!
Dave