Category: politics

Could David Barton Win The Texas GOP Senate Race? (UPDATED)

There is a lot of chatter these days among tea partiers in Texas about who should run against John Cornyn in the 2014 Senate primary. Despite a conservative voting record, Cornyn is being targeted by the tea party set because he is perceived to be soft on Obamacare, immigration, taxes and the national debt. As I reported on Monday, David Barton has been asked by some tea party folks to consider a challenge to Cornyn. The spin is that Barton has party experience, broad name recognition, and, probably with Glenn Beck’s help, could access adequate funds for a Senate campaign.
Without Barton in the mix, Cornyn seems safe. Cornyn’s current challengers probably could not mount a significant campaign to unseat Cornyn. Thus far, those challengers include attorney Linda Vega, Erick Wyatt and Dwayne Stovall. Vega got into the race last week and is known as an immigration activist. Her main themes appear to be immigration reform and outreach to the Latino community. Except perhaps on immigration, she sounds all the right tea party notes.
Wyatt is a veteran of the Iraq War and sounds familiar tea party themes of small government and overturning Obamacare but is newcomer to politics. Also a novice, Stovall also appeals to tea partiers with a twist — he spoke at the 2013 annual meeting of the Texas League of the South. The TX League website described his speech as follows:

The second speaker was Dwayne Stovall, who shared his experiences from the recent election where he ran for office. He also elaborated on trends he is seeing in other groups as well, noting that all major groups in Texas have positions on the secession issue, with the major difference being the time tables they are considering.
He also elaborated on the recent legislative session in the Texas Legislature noting the bills and concerns of interest to achieving local sovereignty. A matter which he brought up worth noting is the amount of debt owed by Texas along with the source of that debt, which consists mainly of school districts and municipal bonds.

Stovall is VP of the Houston chapter of the Refounding Father Society. The society seems to have much in common with the League of the South, especially a preoccupation with nullification and interposition. The society’s website refers visitors to Mike Church’s Founder’s Library. Church is a radio talk show host who shares at least some common ground with the League (e.g., dislike of Lincoln, promotion of secession and nullification). Stovall might appeal to the far, far right but could be too extreme for the GOP, even in TX.
If these three are the only challengers, the Senate seat seems safe for Cornyn. However, I suspect the situation would change if Barton gets into the race.
Barton’s name recognition would swamp the other three challengers and soon involve the national media. A Barton v. Cornyn confrontation would place additional focus on the current GOP Civil War. Barton’s supporters would invoke memories of Ted Cruz’s improbable victory over an establishment candidate in Texas with Barton cast as Cruz’s ally. Given Barton’s early support for Cruz, I suspect Cruz would endorse Barton. Cornyn would have a boatload of opposition research to use but Barton’s followers seem immune to such things. All of this is probably enough to cause major heartburn among the GOP establishment in Texas.
UPDATE: National Review Online is on the case and confirms that Barton is considering a run against Cornyn. Barton’s partner at Wallbuilders, Rick Green told NRO:

More than 1,000 (zero exaggeration, that is an actual number) tea party and republican party leaders have asked David Barton to run. Polling says Sen. Cornyn is vulnerable and that’s why he is running ads right now. Like America’s Founding Fathers, David Barton will not “seek” this office, but if the people of Texas speak loud enough in the next few days, he could most certainly be drafted in by the voters.

A look at the membership of the Facebook group dedicated to drafting Barton reveals that many of Barton’s family are also a part of the effort. Barton himself is a member of the group and Green’s wife is actively adding members to the group.  Julie McCarty, tea party leader mentioned in the NRO article, has mounted a vigorous defense of Barton on her Facebook page.
The blog Opposing Views has also covered the possibility of a Barton Senate run.
Related Posts:
David Barton For Senate?
Rick Green: 5,000 Likes On Facebook Could Trigger A Senate Run For David Barton
Janet Mefferd: David Barton Has Too Much Baggage On Historian Credentials To Run For Senate
David Barton For Senate: Status Report With More From Politico, Glenn Beck, First Things

David Barton for Senate? (UPDATED)

According to this tweet, David Barton is being recruited to run against John Cornyn for the Republican Senate nomination.

The link leads a Facebook group titled: Draft David Barton for US Senate. According to the page,

This group is set up to alert the grassroots that there is a movement taking place that would like to encourage David Barton with Wallbuilders to run for the US Senate against John Cornyn.

Currently, the group has 394 members.
I hope he runs since it would shed more light on his history lessons and other curious statements.
UPDATE:
Apparently, there is some buzz building about this idea. This supporter of Barton believes the rumors are legitimate. As of the morning of Oct. 29, the group now has over 1000 members.

Institute on the Constitution, God and Government, and Christian Reconstructionism

Yesterday, the Institute on the Constitution dropped a press release about their God and Government program. From the Christian Newswire release:

The “Institute on the Constitution” has launched “The God And Government Project” the purpose of which is to remind elected officials, and those who seek civil government offices, that government is from God and their first duty must be to obey God and His Word (Romans 13.)

The folks at IOTC want citizens to use open mic time before city council meetings to tell officials that they need to use the Bible as the basis for civil law. IOTC encourages followers to use IOTC-prepared scripts.  See an earlier post on the subject and this article for more on what IOTC encourages their followers to do.
The GaG (appropriate) program is consistent with IOTC’s Christian reconstructionist worldview. During his course on the Constitution, Peroutka twists history to make it appear that the founders deliberately created a biblical form of government in line with IOTC views. In a current commentary on his IOTC website, Michael Peroutka makes a case that civil government officials are obligated to govern in accord with his view of the Bible.

Since civil government is ordained by God in order to protect God-given rights, then the function of civil government is to obey God and to enforce God’s law – PERIOD.
It is not the role of civil government to house, feed, clothe, educate or give heath care to…ANYBODY! (Or to operate a Panda-cam at the National Zoo.)

According to Peroutka, government can only do what he thinks God says government can do.
The IOTC website enshrines Rousas Rushdoony, the father of Christian reconstructionism. IOTC’s Director of Communications, John Lofton, calls Rushdoony his “theological mentor” on more than one occasion.  Rushdoony’s articles on theocracy and dominionism, politics, taxation, and religion in law are available along with many others. Mark Rushdoony’s (son of Rousas) speech on Christian reconstructionism is cited approvingly as well.
According to Mark Rushdoony, Christian reconstructionism sees the church as Israel.

In 1987 Ross House Books (which is now part of Chalcedon) published a book on covenant theology by Charles D. Provan called The Church Is Israel Now.That title sums up the heart of covenant theology, that the Christian church is heir of the promises to and the responsibility of the Hebrew nation of old.

Thus the proper society is ruled by an Old Testament style regime where the Christian reconstructionist’s understanding of the Bible is the basis for civil law. This is exactly what IOTC’s God and Government program promotes as the message followers should tell elected officials.
Even after his death, Rushdoony’s views are controversial. IOTC does not back away from this. On the IOTC website, readers are directed to an interview given to Bill Moyers in 1988 by Rousas Rushdoony.  In this interview, Rushdoony affirms that civil government should be based on the Bible, including injuctions that would lead to the death penalty for 15 crimes, including adulterers, homosexuals, and truly incorrigible sons.  Roll the tape:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paL2s4HJScg[/youtube]
Listen to the entire segment to get the context. The section on the death penalty is as follows:

Moyers: You’ve written that the Bible calls for the death penalty, and I’m just running down a variety of things as you can see. You’ve written that the Bible calls for the death penalty of some 15 crimes: rape, sodomy, adultery.
Rushdoony: Adultery because in the Bible the basic institution is the family. There’s no law of treason against the state. The Bible doesn’t even imagine anything remotely like that. But the basic institution is the family. And so, several of the death penalties are associated with the family and its life.
Moyers: So adultery was considered a theft of the family.
Rushdoony: It was, yes, it was treason to the family.
Moyers: Homosexuality.
Rushdoony: Yes, it was treason to the family.
Moyers: Worthy of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: What?
Moyers: Worthy of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: Yes.
Moyers: Deserving of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: Yes, that’s what Paul says.
…
Moyers: But you would re-instate the death penalty for some of these or all of these Biblical crimes?
Rushdoony: I wouldn’t—
Moyers: But the reconstructive society–
Rushdoony: I’m saying that this is what God requires. I’m not saying that everything in the Bible, I like. Some of it rubs me the wrong way. But I’m simply saying, this is what God requires. This is what God says is justice. Therefore, I don’t feel I have a choice.
Moyers: And the agents of God would carry out the laws.
Rushdoony: The civil government would, on these things.
Moyers: So you would have a civil government, based upon–
Rushdoony: Oh yes. I’m not an anarchist. I’m close to being a libertarian. But–
Moyers: But the civil law would be based on the biblical law. And so you’d have a civil government carrying out a religious mandate.
Rushdoony: Oh yes.

Given their reverence for Rushdoony and the link to this interview, I think it is a fair assumption that IOTC is in sympathy with these views. Since they won’t answer my requests for information, I will ask here publicly – IOTC leaders (Peroutka, Lofton), do you agree with Rushdoony here? Would you, in the government you are calling for, put people to death for adultery, homosexuality and the other crimes delineated by Rushdoony?
One thing I don’t need to ask about is the IOTC view of public schools. In the citation above, Peroutka says civil government has no role in education. Historically, reconstructionists have been strong supporters of Christian schools as alternatives to public education. One of the leading reconstructionists, and Rushdoony’s son-in-law Gary North, said this about the relationship between Christian schools and religious liberty (for a longer quote and commentary, see this article).

The major churches of any society are all maneuvering for power, so that their idea of lawful legislation will become predominant. They are all perfectly willing to use the ideal of religious liberty as a device to gain power, until the day comes that abortion is legalized (denying the right of life to infants) or prohibited (denying the “right of control over her own body,” after conception, to each woman). Everyone talks about religious liberty, but no one believes it.
So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. Murder, abortion, and pornography will be illegal. God’s law will be enforced. It will take time. A minority religion cannot do this. Theocracy must flow  from the hearts of a majority of citizens, just as compulsory education came only after most people had their children in schools of some sort. But religious anarchy, like “democratic freedom” in ancient Greece, is a temporary phenomenon; it lasts only as long as no single group gets sufficient power and accepted authority to abandon the principle. Religious anarchy, as a long-term legal framework for organizing a society, is as mythical as neutrality is. Both views assume that the institutions of civil government can create and enforce neutral law. They are cousins, and people believe in them only temporarily, until they make up their minds concerning which God they will serve.

While I doubt this will ever happen, it seems clear that the IOTC and like-minded reconstructionists will keep on trying to make it a reality. For IOTC supporters who love the First Amendment, you have a rude awakening coming. As Peroutka and Lofton proclaim, civil law should obey and enforce God’s law, and by that they mean their interpretation of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Someone’s religion must be obeyed according to Rushdoony, and the folks at IOTC want to make sure it is their religion. For now, they will use freedom of speech and religion at city council meetings to get their voices heard but if ever they get their way, one cannot count on these rights remaining. If you really believe in freedom of conscience and religious liberty, then you cannot fully embrace IOTC’s GaG program. While the folks at IOTC want freedom of religion to speak at public meetings, they very openly proclaim that they want civil government to obey their religious views to the exclusion of all others.
In contrast, I want the reconstructionists to be able to speak their mind, but I don’t want civil officials to use one religion as the basis for their governing. In contrast to Peroutka’s odd construction, using one religion as the basis for civil law is prohibited by the First Amendment. Gary North says no one really believes in religious liberty. He is wrong; the framers most certainly did.

League Of The South Fears Average Southern Whites Might Be Offended By Neo-Nazi Ties

In a post on the League of the South Facebook group (also on their public page), it was disclosed that recent League of the South award winner Matthew Heimbach has been banned from the upcoming League protest of “demographic displacement” in Murfreesboro, TN. Heimbach’s offense is that he consorts with neo-Nazis and plans to speak at a National Socialist meeting.
Explaining the action, League president Michael Hill said
LeagueAverageWhites
Three observations come to mind.
One, I can’t tell if this a pragmatic move for public relations, or if Hill really believes national socialism is incompatible with Southern nationalism. In any case, it seems clear that Hill sees problems with continued association with Heimbach. The League normally decries charges that involve guilt by association. Influential League member and organizer of the TN protest Brad Griffin (aka Hunter Wallace) chided those who get caught in the “associations game.” Now the League has found a reason to do the same thing.
Two, I wonder if Michael Hill will now stop appearing on neo-Nazi radio shows. Twice recently, once in August and then again in September, Hill appeared on the American Nationalist Network radio show. When you click through the American Nationalist Network link on blogtalk radio, you come to unashamed white supremacist, Hitler worship. For instance, check out this disgusting little gem of wisdom from der Fuhrer on the Facebook page of the organization Michael Hill dignified with an interview.
The ANN tweeted about Hill’s appearance back in August. No seig heiling but Hill was fine with being associated with the ANN.

Seems like Hill shouldn’t go to the TN rally either. Probably they should just cancel it.
My third observation involves Michael Hill’s statement that the League of the South seeks to rally average Southern whites. Can it be any clearer that skin color and region are the main issues of interest for the League? The target audience is marked by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. If League of the South board member Michael Peroutka is serious with his recent video invoking Martin Luther King, then shouldn’t he publicly condemn his own League of the South for targeting people based on skin color?
 

Rick Joyner Doubles Down On Prediction That America Is Headed For Martial Law

In a “prophetic bulletin” out today, Oak Initiative president Rick Joyner again declares that martial law is coming to America. During a September 30 broadcast on his website, Joyner declared that “our only hope is a military takeover, martial law and that the crucial, most crucial element of that is who the marshal is going to be.” Referring to that prediction, Joyner writes today:

What I did say, and am saying, is that democracy in America is failing, and we are headed for martial law.
I make no apologies for this statement, and I will stand by it. (emphasis in original)

There is nothing in this bulletin about a military takeover but his words from Monday have generated significant reaction within and outside the church. Charisma seemed supportive in their reporting, while Chris Rodda warned that like-minded military members and officers might be inclined to heed Joyner’s words about a military takeover.
See also:
Rick Joyner: The Only Hope For America Is A Military Takeover