Mike Huckabee is lying. Again.

Former Southern Baptist pastor and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is not an honest man.

Huckabee has taken to repeating the lie that President Obama is a God-hating God-hater who refuses to say the word “Creator” when quoting from the Declaration of Independence.

This is a lie. Mike Huckabee is lying.

And Mike Huckabee is telling a particularly stupid lie. President Obama speaks in public, a lot. And almost every word he has said for the past several years has been recorded on video. So claiming that Obama never says something he says all the time — the president loves quoting the Declaration — either reveals Huckabee’s hamfistedness as a liar, or else it reveals his utter contempt for those in his audience, whom he assumes are too stupid not to just swallow every bogus word he feeds them.

YouTube Preview Image

Why does this lapsed clergyman believe that bearing false witness is OK?

 

 

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    While I understand the frustration, and I’d in general prefer bad ideas be voted down rather than shouted down, I’m not convinced the thing you want to avoid can be avoided by avoiding the behavior that nominally causes it.  That is, I’m not convinced that the world WITH that event causes the theocrats to spin their worldview any more effectively than the world WITHOUT that event.

    I also suspect that the habit of self-censoring out of concern for what the enemy might do if we behave a certain way (as opposed to more general concerns for polite behavior) does more harm than the enemy themselves can cause, in this case.

    This reminds me of the endless handwringing in the 80s and 90s over the “flamboyant” queer people and how “alienating” they were and how they just played into the hands of the anti-queer people who want to portray all queers as weird.

    And,I mean, in some sense it was true… the anti-queer folks did go into a frenzy of pearl-clutching over that flamboyance. They still do, every Pride parade. But y’know? Looking back over the last fifty years, I see no reason to think that the end result would have been better had all of those flamboyant queers protested in three-piece-suits, let alone if they’d stayed home.

    Sometimes the benefits of being visible exceed the benefits of being polite.

  • banancat

    Maybe you took a magically binding oath on an oath rod? Oh wait, I’m thinking of a different group that can’t lie.

  • Ross Thompson

    Speaking of that birth certificate, has anyone proven wrong the “OMG TYPEWRITERZ IN THE 1960s COULDN’T KERN THE TEXT HURHURHUR” load of crap the birthers throw out?

    You could show them this IBM advert from 1954…

  • deathfrogg

    You’d be amazed at how many Black Metal or Death Metal bands are consisted of people who were raised in fundamentalist religious households.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667708632 Kenneth Raymond

    And yet the Aes Sedai have a (not entirely undeserved) reputation as the most disingenuous, devious people in the world despite such an oath. One mainly earned by talking around the truth instead of outright lying, which really is still deception. They don’t get an automatic pass on whatever they say.

    Now if only reality made as much sense as fiction.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     My son is nine months old. We got his birth certificate about three weeks ago.

    “Fortunately”, my son is also white, so no one is ever going to question whether his US birth certificate is legitimate.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It really boggles my mind just how fiercely people are digging to find any “proof” that Obama cannot be a legitmately elected President of the USA.

    There wasn’t even half this much kerfluffle when John McCain was found to have been born in Panama.

    And hell, this kerning thing, word for word, came up when the Dubya Bush Nat’l Guard papers apparently popped up. (Incidentally, why didn’t 60 Minutes focus on the fact that it is provable that Dubya Bush had a new driver’s licence [ and driver's licence number ] issued in his name when he became Governor of Texas, which had the fortunate – for him! – side effect of causing destruction of the old licence and his old record!)

  • Mark Z.

    He tried to troll us in another thread by being bad at algebra.

  • Carstonio

    That is, I’m not convinced that the world WITH that event causes the theocrats to spin their worldview any more effectively than the world WITHOUT that event.

    My concern is that many modern Christians might be swayed by the booing into siding with the theocrats. They might come to believe the theocrats’ lie that secularism equals hostility to religion. Part of the problem is that the convention format doesn’t allow for the kind of nuance we need, and the principle of neutrality among religions requires nuance to explain effectively.

  • Carstonio

    Also, while you’re right to condemn the hand-wringing over campiness, that’s not a fair comparison to what happened at the Democratic convention.

    You would have a point if the flamboyant gays were explicitly advocating the things that the James Dobsons and Tony Perkinses accuse them of, trying to destroy heterosexuality and recruit kids into homosexuality. That’s why I grow frustrated with anti-theists, because they wrongly claim that the problem is religion and not absolutism or intolerance, even when I agree with them about First Amendment principles and the danger of theocracy.

  • JayKay4

    Wow, this looks like a bad infestation of loony, left-wing, cool aid drinkers complete with the obligatory lies and profanity. 

    I believe Obama recently attempted to remove God from the Democrat platform.  Also, he did recently quote from the U.S. Constitution leaving out the words “endowed by our Creator”. 

    Is there any wonder that many people including Huckaby might question his committment to a belief in God? 

    The nondiscript author of this hit-piece should be proud to have the honesty and integrity of Mike Huckaby, but he, obviously, doesn’t have those attributes.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    many modern Christians might be swayed by the booing into siding with the theocrats

    I understand. And I sympathize with your concern.

    But if the DNC were to politely refuse to include explicitly theistic language in their secular party platform, I expect that the story on Drudge would be that Democrats reject God, and the exact same pearl-clutching would commence, and we’d still be having a conversation about how concerned we were that such a refusal would alienate modern Christians.

    Instead the DNC included the language, over loud objections from an aggrieved minority, so now we’re concerned that they’re not acceding to the preferences of those modern Christians politely enough.

    And, sure, maybe if the DNC had included the language politely, that would be enough to change the story. OTOH, maybe the Drudge headline would be “Republicans shame Democrats into accepting God!” and we’d be concerned that Democrats are perceived as playing “catch-up” on this issue, and how they should make more of an effort to proactively include God in their nominally secular party platform. And would it hurt to maybe mention Jesus a few times while we’re at it, just as a nod to the modern Christians we might attract that way? And so on.

    So, I dunno. As I say, I do sympathize with the concern. But I also sympathize with the value of saying “No. Our party platform is a secular document, and religious language in it is inappropriate.”

    But, sure, all things being equal I would prefer that get expressed more  politely than public booing. Not because I think the more polite expression would prevent those modern Christians we’re concerned about from being swayed into voting against us… I mostly don’t… but just because I prefer polite discourse.

    You would have a point if the flamboyant gays were explicitly
    advocating [..] trying to destroy heterosexuality and recruit kids into
    homosexuality.

    That’s true, I would.

    As it happens, I think I also have a point if the flamboyant gays were instead advocating a public discourse in which statements of public policy don’t include references to “one-man-one-woman marriage” or “traditional families” or other implicit endorsements of the privileged status of heterosexuality.

    Which many of them were, and are.
     

    That’s why I grow frustrated with anti-theists, because
    they wrongly claim that the problem is religion and not absolutism or
    intolerance, even when I agree with them about First Amendment
    principles and the danger of theocracy.

    (nods) I can understand that frustration.

    For my own part, I often grow frustrated with theists who treat their formulation of Deity as so privileged that references to it belong everywhere, even in secular political documents, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.

  • AnonymousSam

     

    I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life.  … I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead—being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.

    Boy, Obama sure does mince words! I can totally see why you’d be skeptical, what with him avoiding reference of the lord and creator that 100% of the entire Earth worships without any possible exceptions. It’s not like he has to represent people of diverse religious and multicultural backgrounds or anything.

  • Carstonio

    loud objections from an aggrieved minority, so now we’re concerned that they’re not acceding to the preferences of those modern Christians politely enough.

    My point has nothing to do with politeness. Even people who aren’t religious rightists might reasonably conclude from the aggrieved minority’s behavior that a good portion of the party was booing “God”. Elsewhere I’ve had very frustrating debates with people who insist that removing the sectarian religious reference from the Pledge is “against God,” as if a neutral position among competing religions wasn’t possible. This issue isn’t about religion or theism against atheism, but it’s about preventing government from favoring any particular position on religion. The booers in Charlotte gave the impression that they were attacking not sectarianism but religion in general.

    To put it more simply, the sectarians prefer that everyone subscribe to their religion. The anti-theists prefer that everyone reject religion. Most theists and atheists see this as about individual choice, with government neutrality on religion.

  • EllieMurasaki

    It never occurred to you that Obama and the Democratic platform authorial committee might have been attempting to express their commitment to non-Christian voters? We do exist, you know. This particular non-Christian voter is furious with them for voting God back into the platform.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, then.

    If instead of booing, the DNC delegates had simply refused to allow language about God into the party platform, on the grounds that it was a secular document and language about God didn’t belong there, would you consider that better, worse, or equivalent to what actually happened in terms of how it communicated the impression that the DNC attacks religion in general?

  • Carstonio

    And if that were the case, it wouldn’t even be about Christian voters versus non-Christian voters. “God” with a capital G is a sectarian reference to a particular type of religious belief. There are many voters whose religious beliefs don’t include a single god, such as Hindus and Buddhists and Shintos and animists. The vast majority of Americans, upon hearing someone declare a belief in “God,” would assume the person to be a Christian. So any reference to “God” in a party platform would endorse monotheism in principle and Christianity in practice. There are plenty of religious people, Christians included, who rightly object to this type of sectarianism as against the First Amendment.

  • Carstonio

     The booing was worse only in terms of providing a damning audiovisual that Fox News could show over and over.

  • NoDoubtAboutIt

    I lick yer ids.  Want yr noozlitturs.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Definitely a super weakness.

    “I’m not coming to work today. No, I’m not sick, I just can’t face our asshole customers today.”

    “The check’s not in the mail.”

    “I’m breaking up with you. It’s not me, it’s you. I can’t listen to you eat cereal one more time. Also, I never really loved you. I just moved in with you to get out of my parents’ house.”

    “No, your baby’s not cute. It looks like a turnip.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=659001961 Brad Ellison

    I probably wouldn’t be.  To hate something as much as some of those guys seem to hate religion, you need have some intimate experience with it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=659001961 Brad Ellison

    He sure can spell Mike Huckabee’s name like a champ, though.

  • Lunch Meat

    I believe Obama recently attempted to remove God from the Democrat
    platform.  Also, he did recently quote from the U.S. Constitution
    leaving out the words “endowed by our Creator”.

    It was the democratic delegates who removed it, and Obama personally intervened to have it put back in. Citation: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/06/dem-delegates-steam-over-move-to-restore-god-jerusalem-to-platform/

    Also, if you’re quoting from the Constitution including the words “endowed by our Creator,” you’re misquoting, because those words are nowhere in the Constitution.

  • Carstonio

     Even if Obama had been responsible for removing it, that in no way should call his faith in the Christian god into the question. More to the point, there would be nothing wrong with having a president who believes in a god other than the Christian one, or who doesn’t believe in any gods.

  • http://twitter.com/jclor jclor

    Let’s see … (gets out scorecard)

    1. Immediately poisons the well with insults?  Check.
    2. Reference to “Democrat” Party, as though this were some kind of insult?  Check.
    3. Misspelled name of well-known public figure despite typing comments into a Web browser—you know, where Google lives? Check.
    4. Made up “facts” issued without any citation? Check.
    5. Confuses U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence?  Bonus points!

    Overall, a great effort.  Points off for not including any CRAZY CAPS, though.  Please, do try to remember them in the future.

  • Lunch Meat

    This Christian is upset too. And from what I understand, the booing happened because they took the voice vote to put the language back in three times, and each time the Nos clearly outweighed the Yeses, but the chair said that the Yeses won anyway. Horrible, silencing procedure.

    People on facebook are complaining that it’s evidence of “how far our country has fallen” and “how the DNC are acting like demons” and “mentioning the word ‘God’ isn’t forcing your beliefs on anyone.” Number 1, if I’ve elected someone to speak for me, and in that position they attempt to summarize the common beliefs of their electorate (which is what a platform is) and they include beliefs I don’t hold that they do, that is almost by definition “forcing their beliefs on me.” Number 2, imagine the uproar if a national party’s platformed just “mentioned” the word Allah (unless to equate that word with Satan). Everyone would be talking about Sharia law and Islamists coming to overthrow us. How is this any different because it says “God”?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Mike Huckabee is a complete douchebag. (Content warning: Trivialization of rape)

  • AnonymousSam

    I’m not sure what to think of that. Yes, it’s appalling, but it’s also deeply confusing. Huckabee was one of the people who came to Akin’s defense for the “forcible rape” idiocy, and yet here he is, simultaneously affirming the idea by reiterating “forcible rape” while contradicting the “but she can’t get pregnant from it” side of things.

    And what’s his bloody point? That women shouldn’t be in a rush to get an abortion after being raped because it might turn out they like their baby anyway? That’s their decision, you disgusting shitbag (Huckabee, not you, Neutrino!).

    It reminds me quite a bit of Rick Santorum’s “rape is God’s way of giving you a baby you didn’t know you wanted” filth.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2RAPF5V3YPOUWAZGAJ2VCQM76Q Alicia

    That’s just the thing. I think that most of these guys don’t really believe that it’s impossible to get pregnant from rape. They’re only defending the overall position because they are anti-abortion absolutists. It’s the equivalent of saying that you don’t agree with a clinic bomber’s actions, but you do understand where he’s coming from. I don’t think that most of these guys wanted Akin to come out and say what he did, but they’re mostly only upset because the rape comment aspect of it might make them look bad, not because they actually disagree with *everything* he said.

  • AnonymousSam

    Mmm, I dunno, the bill which almost created a legal precedent to make distinctions between types of rape did get a lot of yes-votes…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2RAPF5V3YPOUWAZGAJ2VCQM76Q Alicia

    Maybe so, but I really think that the issue is about abortion. The rape thing is a smokescreen; if they thought they could get away with it, they would probably support a bill that had no distinctions on rape and banned abortion in every case, regardless of “forcible” or “not forcible”. 

  • AnonymousSam

    That strikes me as paying lip service to the wackos in their own party while still trying to build common ground with them. Sad.

  • Dan Audy

    That was my impression too.  I’m not actually convinced there were more Nos than Yeses (rather than just being louder) but it was certainly was not a clear 2/3rds majority in favour which is what was necessary to amend.  The booing only occured after they failed to get that majority for a 3rd time and declared that it passed with a 2/3 majority anyways.  

    It should have been rejected or postponed for a ballot vote at a later time.

  • Carstonio

     I object to rape exceptions because they amount to punishing women for wanting to have sex without becoming mothers. It’s apparently OK to force women to carry a pregnancy to term if she originally consented to the sex. My position is that such forcing is not OK under any circumstances.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.hansen.1675 Richard Hansen

    I would “go away” only on that page. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.hansen.1675 Richard Hansen

     That’s the vibe I’m getting from Patheos, too. It’s getting annoying hearing their generalizations and accusations of “racism”, but hey, I have nothing else to do.
    And also, these liberals claim I’m racist for questioning Obama for his birth certificate, but they don’t realize that I’d also jump in to question any presidential candidate with a name like Sergei Nihlov or any distinctly foreign name. They’re pretty desperate, and I don’t blame them… Ex-liberals like myself and others are waking up from their BS. (:

  • Lunch Meat

    they don’t realize that I’d also jump in to question any presidential
    candidate with a name like Sergei Nihlov or any distinctly foreign name.

    That’s…pretty much the definition of racism. “John Smith” is just as likely to be a foreign national as anyone, but you ignore him because his name sounds like yours.

  • AnonymousSam

    Nah, it has something more to do with the fact that you think Hispanics are purposefully out-breeding whites so they can take over the United States and persecute the white minority, as well as your constant insistence that begetting biracial children should be avoided at all costs — something you want to enforce upon others even within your own community because you don’t feel you can trust even other “white separatists” to hold to their vows of chastity around the non-whites who would purposefully move into the neighborhood to seduce them.

    Don’t think your hypocrisy of wanting to control where people live and visit while refusing to leave a community where you are not wanted has gone unnoticed.

  • AnonymousSam

    Tip of the iceberg, my sandwich-filling friend. Tip of the iceberg.

  • Fusina

     Wait, didn’t that spy they recently caught have the last name Hansen? I think we should investigate this guy… in case…

  • Lunch Meat

    Well, I was gone this past weekend, and never had time to catch up on comments.

  • AnonymousSam

    Here’s the bulk of it. Link should put you down at his first comment. “Enjoy.”

  • Joshua


    these liberals claim I’m racist for questioning Obama for his birth certificate, but they don’t realize that I’d also jump in to question any presidential candidate with a name like Sergei Nihlov or any distinctly foreign name. 

    Yes, that is what the word means.

    Ex-liberals like myself

     See, folks? This is what happens when you drink too much paint thinner.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     

    Yes, that is what the word means.

    I really like that argument though. “Liberals think I’m racist because I mistrust blacks, but what they don’t realize is that I also mistrust Slavs and indeed anyone with a foreign-sounding name.”

    Seriously, what? That has to be a parody of something. No one’s that stupid.

  • PJ Evans

    From what I heard, the delegates were booing the guy at the podium for trying to force a majority. It gets him lots of points for being a beckwit. (Note: he’s my mayor, he’s about to be term-limited out, and I’m not going to vote to put him in any other job. Publicity hound, not all that good at his job.)

  • PJ Evans

     I don’t know if he’s that stupid the rest of the time, but he is when he’s here.

  • Tricksterson

    So young.  So innocent.

  • Lunch Meat

    I read the first page, and then glanced at the page count…nope. Not worth it. Thanks for the context though.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.hansen.1675 Richard Hansen

    Wrong. The definition of racism is hatred of someone based on the color of one’s skin. Buy a dictionary, Mr. Meat.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.hansen.1675 Richard Hansen

    For a “community where [I am] not wanted,” I sure garner a lot of attention from all of you. You must love trolls.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X