Sarah Palin's Newt Gingrich Embrace

Any of us can quote anyone else, and as long as we cite the author of that quote, and place quote marks around that exact quote, we could SAY we are telling the facts. But what if that person we quoted is lying? When facts are needed, are those we quote actually giving us the facts?

As an example: David Barton, historian for the Republican Party, and former Chairman of the Texas Republican Party, quotes two (of many quotes) by the Founding Fathers:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" -- Patrick Henry

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves . . . according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison

Sounds great doesn't it? It is even more encouraging that Newt Gingrich has promised he will be working closely with David Barton when Gingrich is President; Mike Huckabee calls him a great historian, and Glenn Beck regards Barton as "the most important man in America." Mike Huckabee has even said that people should be "held at gunpoint" to listen to David Barton. Obviously, these quotes are facts.

Unfortunately, "the facts," as offered by Gingrich, Huckabee, and Beck--are NOT, in fact, actual facts. In addition, Gingrich, Huckabee, and Beck KNOW that Barton is not telling the truth, and still praise him!

To say, then, that we have done the right thing by placing quotation marks around a statement, does NOT make the statement TRUE.

David Barton is, in fact, NOT a historian, and NOT an honest man. This does not stop him from concocting "quotes of the Founding Fathers," however. If you care to create a quote about David Barton, you might say then: "David Barton does not tell the facts," and you would be telling facts about David Barton.

If we SAY we are quoting facts, it is probably facts that people expect. Are we certain when we cite "the facts," that we are, indeed, reporting facts? Keep in mind, also, that most of the political websites on the Internet are not reporting FACTS. These Websites are reporting the POLITICAL AGENDA that will sway the voter. These sites are NOT required to uphold accuracy in the media, ever since President Ronald Reagan eliminated the words: "accuracy in media," from the FCC guidelines--in 1987

ann keenan of MI 2:12AM January 31, 2012

brucetee

Tv is boring so I looked up:

“RCP Average 1/5 - 1/28 -- 51.5 39.1 Obama +12.4”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Notice this is a 23 day period. Newt has gone UP in polls:

Gallup poll is newer from Jan 24-28, 2012

“TRIAL HEAT

CHANGE

Obama

50%

+3

Gingrich

48%

+4 ”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Bill Hedges of MO 10:37PM January 29, 2012

the numbers are what they are,as of today,just because some people donn;t like what say does not make them wrong.

their from three major polls

donn;t take it out on the messenger just because you donn;t like the message.as to being a fool.it;s your specious argument that s foolish.

bruce b of NV 9:24PM January 29, 2012

here's a sports up date. 1/29/12

posted on 'real clear politics". every major poll show the president beating gingrich.

rasmussen=obama 50/ gingrich 37

n.b.c./ wjs =obama 55/ gingrich37

fox news =obama/51/gingrich 37

reuters =obama/53/gingrich38

i see the newster has picked up a few endoresments.fred thompson,herman cain,sarah"half term" palin,convicted ex congressman randy"duke" cunningham.

have to wonder who will be next.maybe mark sanford.

what a lineup!

bruce b of NV 5:38PM January 29, 2012