David Barton Lies. Film at 11.


David Barton is a liar. That’s been well-established. I don’t mean he sometimes gets things wrong, I mean he lies — constantly, flagrantly and repeatedly. His latest lie, which he’s told before, is that “the Obama administration has refused to prosecute any child pornography.”

As Right Wing Watch points out, the FBI has announced the indictments or sentences for child pornography in six separate cases in the last week alone. In reality, prosecutions for child pornography have “soared” in the last few years. Barton doesn’t care, of course. Lying is what he does.

Comments

  1. says

    He’s not lying. The Obama administration has refused to prosecute any child pornography. It’s probably for the best as, as cool as a “Presidential Press Secretary Cop” TV series would be, it’s outside the administration’s general wheelhouse and expertise to act as the FBI. That’s what the FBI, under the DoJ, under the Executive, is for. Who better to act as the FBI than the FBI?
     
    And, look, just because “prosecutions” have “soared” doesn’t mean Obama gets credit. It really just points to the crime wave that’s come about under Obama’s corrupt, weak, tyrannical, dictatorship. Or something. Whatever it turns out to be, we already know that Obama’s in the wrong, and can form our conclusion based on that fact.

  2. leonardschneider says

    Ugh. “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” C’mon, man, either allow links or don’t! (Sorry, just grumpy today.)

    (*ahem*) I have a few questions. First off, are all child pornography cases, from production to distribution to possession Federal offenses, or are there some offenses or circumstances where it’s handled by the county or state?

    Safe to assume there are more child pornography* offenses than the three I mentioned above… But I’ll be damned if I can think of what they’d be. Presumably the adults procuring children for production would face a whole different set of charges. As a hypothetical: say there’s a web hosting service who is vigilant about keeping illegal shit off their servers…. But miss some child pornography somewhere. The hammer falls. Can (and should) the hosting company try to defend itself by simply saying, “We didn’t know it was there, honest!”? It’s obvious they’ve gotta lawyer up, I’m just curious as to what degree.

    Whoever responds, thanks for your help.
    ________________________________________________________

    When I worked in an “adult book store” — a silly description, as the material available is invariably rather adolescent-minded — our distributors had an unending hassle with European production companies, due to the age of consent. For chrissakes, the AoC in Spain is 13! And the European companies would be sending sample tapes of their new releases, featuring girls (and guys) who were, like, fifteen or so, total jailbait. The purchasing agents would put in a tape, watch for five minutes, and say, “Oh, no way can we carry this.” The distros couldn’t get it through the Europeans’ skulls that no, actresses MUST be eighteen. “But is beautiful girls, yes?” “Yeah, darling, and in the eyes of U.S. law — and mine, too — still a child. We. Cannot. Carry. This.” Shit, at least they were post-pubescent, and signing on to the job of their own free will.

    We’d also get scumbags coming in looking for kiddie porn. Would you like to know what I got to do with the pedophile pieces of shit? Click Here.

  3. says

    Oh I know there are many problems with politicians suing for libel, not the least of which is subjecting themselves to an embarassing fishing expedition during discovery, but I do wish there were some serious consequences for people like Barton. He’s a very bad man, who does very bad things and he should pay for that. The guy is a social polluter of the wosrt kind. I’m not violent, but I’d like to punch him in the face. Not many people make me feel that way, but he does. I think it would be very satisfying to pound him senseless.

  4. Loqi says

    He just means Obama, during his term as president, has never personally acted as the prosecutor in any trial in which a stack of kiddie porn was the defendant.

    Clearly, this is another case of the liberal media trying to tear down him, his careful historical research, his unimpeachable reputation for integrity, and his uncanny ability to pull absolutely anything out of his ass. (Seriously, I once saw him do it with an entire dump truck. I have no idea how he fits it all in there. It’s like an Anus of Holding.)

  5. Michael Heath says

    Dr. X writes:

    Oh I know there are many problems with politicians suing for libel, not the least of which is subjecting themselves to an embarassing fishing expedition during discovery, but I do wish there were some serious consequences for people like Barton. He’s a very bad man, who does very bad things and he should pay for that. The guy is a social polluter of the wosrt kind. I’m not violent, but I’d like to punch him in the face. Not many people make me feel that way, but he does. I think it would be very satisfying to pound him senseless.

    Half of my fantasy was fulfilled in the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial. There reality deniers were put on the stand and when their assertions were challenged, they had no defense – they were exposed as obvious lies. They were revealed as zealots who cared not about facts and optimal outcomes for children but instead were focused exclusively on perpetuating their religion even though it meant lying.

    Experts were put on the stand and their facts withstood the challenges by those lawyers defending the denialists. Barbara Forrest in particular presented one of the most devastatingly effective arguments, and defense of her argument, I ever encountered. She exposed the denialists for what they were, with no room for significant doubt.

    The unfilled half of that fantasy is that the greater population of deniers have successfully continued to avoid that their beliefs are a lie rather than being exposed in a way that leaves no room for them and the public to avoid the fact they’re liars lying. The media fails us by not focusing on the incredible scandal of people who lie to others, where those same media outlets even offer powerful liars a venue to lie to millions, and even when such lies cause suffering.

  6. mikeyb says

    Wow how low can you go. Obama the black, anti-colonial marxist fascist hater of white guys and guns bla bla bla, now supports child pornography. It’s official, Obama is the antichrist.

  7. jjodieb says

    “I think it would be very satisfying to pound him senseless.” It seems that he already has been beaten senseless. That would explain a lot. Were it possible to beat sense INTO someone, even I might advocate a bit of violence.

  8. tsig says

    Let’s make it simple.

    Obama did it.*

    *it being anything the right wing hates**

    **Oops that would be anything that isn’t right wing.

  9. abb3w says

    @3, Dr X:

    I know there are many problems with politicians suing for libel

    The legal standard of “actual malice” heading the list (highlighted by NYTimes v Sullivan). Contrariwise, Barton’s remark may have cleared that hurdle via reckless disregard. Nohow, for President Obama to sue Barton would seem too likely to be giving Barton more “there’s no such thing as bad” press coverage.

Leave a Reply