Republican Presidential hopeful, Mike Huckabee, continued to demonstrate why we need more history education in this country, in his interview Wednesday night with Jon Stewart. 

Minnesota Representative, Michelle Bachmann, still holds the lead with respect to Republican ignorance of American History, with her comment that the Founding Fathers ended slavery. 

But Huckabee is a close second.  He started off the interview by reiterating his support for theologian, David Barton, a right-wing lunatic known for peddling his belief that separation of church and state is a myth to simpletons and the occasional white supremacist organization.

Huckabee says:

David is, I think, very much a historian, and I love his stuff, because he documents everything with source material, and he’s very specific about dates and times and he has a lot of original documents — Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence...

Notice that Huckabee incorrectly calls Barton a historian, but I'll let that pass, since it's normal for Christians to confuse theology with history.  But, I will point out that Barton has zero history credentials.  In fact, he barely even has academic credentials, since his degree is actually in religious eduction from Oral Roberts University.

What Huckabee likes about Barton is that Barton  challenges the belief that the Founding Fathers intended to separate church and state.

Huckabee states:

There’s a perception among many that this is a completely secular nation and that the Judeo-Christian worldview was not a very significant part of our creation. I think it was, and that’s what I believe he’s trying to do...Separation of Church and State was a phrase that didn’t appear until a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in [1802] 1804, and it was written to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut.

This is an argument frequently used by Republicans.  The logic seems to be that since the phrase wasn't used until after the constitution, then the constitution couldn't possibly have meant to separate the two. 

This is a preposterous and nonsensical argument.  Jefferson used the phrase to easily sum up what Madison established with the First Amendment.  Actually, we know that Madison, who authored the First Amendment, wanted to go much further than what the amendment actually states.  Madison wanted to disestablish religion at both the federal and state level - the amendment only separates the two at the federal level.  The 14th amendment later did it at the state level.

Huckabee, not really understanding the constitution, tried to change the subject, and turned to an earlier document for support.

Well, listen: take the Declaration of Independence, which was the establishment of our nation as an independent country.

Oops, he got the wrong also.  The Declaration of Independence did not establish our country, the constitution did. 

He continued:

When it says, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,' if you read the early state constitutions, the states — and originally our government was supposed to be a rather weak, limited, and local form of government, with not a whole lot of power at the federal level.

Incorrect again.  Yes, the states were suppose to have more power and the federal government less power, but that was not "our government," it was the Confederation.  Huckabee conveniently forgot that we corrected that mistake with the constitution, which created a completely different government - the United States of America.

But in the state constitutions, there are some surprising things regarding the establishment of the government, to make sure that there was a Christian — or a Judeo-Christian — there were often these very explicit languages in the constitutions of states in New England that would probably not recognize those constitutions today.

Yes there are some very surprising things in those state governments.  Things like no Jews, Catholics, or Atheists. Is that what Huckabee wants to return to?  Which of those groups would he like to eliminate?  I'm sorry, "eliminate" is too harsh.   I meant, which of those groups would he like to reduce to second class citizenship?  I know how PC Republicans like to be.

Thankfully, the 14th Amendment prohibits that today.  How inconvenient that must be to Republicans - although it was Republicans who passed it following the Civil War.

Huckabee continued with an extended rant:

Now, what we’ve done over the past 240 years is, we have moved more and more power to the federal government. Let me be fair: this isn’t a Democrat / Republican thing, because Republicans have been just as adamant about moving that power more and more toward the federal government and away from cities and states. The danger is that, the closer you are to the people being governed, the more likely you are to get it right, because when you govern more locally, and in a more limited way

Madison disagrees with constitutional scholar Huckabee.  Madison and the Founding Fathers were actually highly suspicious of democracy, precisely because the people would trample on the rights of minorities.  It's why Hamilton saw democracy as "mob rule."  And it's why Madison wanted the federal government to be able to veto laws passed by the states.

Jon Stewart rightfully called Huckabee out for his support of Barton.  Stuart challenged:

But you’re gonna run for President and you call him a historian who you think should teach our children in public school. Now, that is the intersection of state and religion that makes some people — non-evangelical Christians — uncomfortable.

Huckabee responded with more gibberish that was edited out of the broadcast:

Some of us, Jon, are uncomfortable with the idea that we have history books today in which there is more material about, let’s say, Madonna, than there is about George Washington. That’s the thing.

Wow, I'd like to see that book.  It's a common Republican tactic.  When confronted with logic and reason that you can't respond to, make shit up.

I have no problem with people being ignorant about history.  People have lives.  They don't have time to read all the scholarship that's been produced on the subject.  But at the same time, people who don't have the time to be smart, shouldn't pretend they know something, shouldn't run for president, and certainly shouldn't cite pseudo-historians, who preach to white supremest groups and Nazis.

Copyright © By Jay Jordan Hawke, April 7, 2011.

Jay Jordan Hawke is author of "A Scout is Brave," a novel about anti-gay bullying.

The Right Wing spin machine has been out in full force this week with the surprising announcement from the White House that they would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  Fox News contributor Monica Crowley referred to Barack Obama's decision as "A form of dictatorship."  She said:

"It's beyond belief. We are a nation of laws, not of men. We are governed by the rule of law. And what the Constitution says is that the president of the United States doesn't get to decide which laws he likes and which ones he's gonna enforce.... that is a form of dictatorship. That is Mubarak Obama."

Crowley went on to say that if W. Bush had done something similar, the left would be calling for his impeachment. [Note that Monica changed what Obama said from "defend" to "enforce."]

And the leader of the Republican Party, and part-time legal scholar, Rush Limbaugh couldn't resist a similar critique.  He said:

"Determining the constitutionality of a statue is not the job of the president, it's not the job of the attorney general. They can't do, legally, what they're doing here...These are the new left outlaws."

And the other leader of the Republican Party, Glen Beck had this to say:

"This guy thinks he can literally do anything he wants whether he has a legal way to accomplish it or not, and it is frightening."

And Fox News entertainer, Sean Hannity, agreed with Crowley:

"And I'm thinking, it's almost like, they don't -- do they not care about the rule of law? Do they not care about precedents?

And the entire right wing blogosphere is erupting.

There is only one problem.  Obama isn't doing anything new.  It's long-standing tradition for a president to decide not to defend an obviously unconstitutional law.  In fact, one of our Founding Fathers did it as president.  President Jefferson ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the Sedition Acts.  In fact, as Vice-President, he had authored a state law, which nullified it completely. 

And we don't even have to go back that far to find "dictators" in the White House. George W. Bush, in fact, ordered the Justice Department not to defend a law that withheld federal money from transit systems that had ads advocating the non-enforcement of drug laws.

Clinton and Papa Bush are also on the list of Presidents who refused to defend unconstitutional laws.

So, when is Fox News going to start calling George W. Bush "Mubarak Bush?" 

Don't hold your breath.  Republicans have long ago won the hypocrisy award, and they don't plan on giving it up anytime soon.

Wow!  This has been a good week for the Tea Party.  There were so many foolish and blatantly ignorant things said on the national political stage this week that the Tea Party probably feels like they've already completely taken over the country.  First Michele Bachmann (R-MN) stated that the Founding Fathers spent all their waking moments trying to end slavery.  She sites John Quincy Adams as an example of one such Founder.

The Founders, she claimed, "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States....Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

Chris Mathews on MSNBC's "Hardball" responded by hammering Bachmann all week for not knowing any American History.  He corrected her by pointing out  that slavery was not eradicated by the Founding Fathers, and that it actually took the Civil War and the 13th Amendment to do that.  I think Chris Mathews was so busy correcting Bachmann that he failed to point out the obvious.  John Quincy Adams was not a Founding Father!  John QUINCY Adams was the SON of John Adams.  John Adams, not his son, was the Founding Father.  John Quincy Adams was only 9 years old when America declared independence from England.  He may have been a prodigy, but I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with our Revolution.

Well, I guess Sarah Palin got jealous that the retard spotlight had been taken away from her, because, after all, she had gotten so used to it.  So she chimed in on Barrack Obama's "State of the Union" Address.  Apparently she didn't like his references to Sputnik, and his declaration that this is "our Sputnik moment."  Obama brought up the historic reference to demonstrate that as a nation, we've been behind before.  The Soviets beat America to space with Sputnik.  But America went on to win the space race by getting to the moon first.  So, "Yey us!" was Obama's message, and let's beat those Chinese who own us, and everyone else, because "yes we can."  Well, Palin mocked the president on Fox News for not understanding that Sputnik destroyed the Soviet Union.  She said:

“That was another one of those WTF moments that when he has so often repeated the Sputnik moment that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. He needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space. Yeah, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time, that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union, so I listen to that Sputnik talk over and over again, and I think we don’t need one of those.”

First of all, Sarah, points to you for using "WTF."  I'm sure that will sit well with your family values constituency.  And it will definitely get you the youth vote - at least, those young enough not to know first grade history.  Unfortunately, people that young can't vote, but Palin probably doesn't know that.  Secondly, a brief history lesson.  Sputnik occurred in 1957.  The Soviet Union didn't collapse till 1991.  WTF???  And I think she meant the arms race destroyed the Soviet Union, not the space race.  Oh well, who needs all that like learny education stuff anyways, eh Sarah?

Finally, Glenn Beck, current leader of the Republican Party, decided he wasn't going to let all the other retards in his party "out idiot" him.  So, he qualified Michelle Bachmann, by stating that the Founding Fathers ended slavery with the Three-Fifths Compromise.  WTF?  Meanwhile, back in reality, (pay attention to this Glenn) the Southern states were not going to join the Union, because they were concerned that the North would eventually use the powerful Congress created by the US Constitution to abolish slavery.  Southern delegates could already see the trend in the North.  The North had already began to pass "gradual abolition laws."  And slavery had already been banned in the Northwest territories.  Abolitionist sentiment was on the move.  So, to entice the South, and alleviate their fears about slavery being abolished, the North agreed to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which allowed the South to count their slave population as three-fifths of a person for deciding representation in Congress.  This would allow them to keep abolitionist laws from being introduced.  It furthered and ultimately increased slavery, Glenn; it didn't end it.  The Founding Fathers then went on to write a gag order into the Constitution.  They put a ban on Congress even discussing abolishing the slave trade for 20 years.

These are the people running the Republican Party folks.  They lack even the most basic knowledge of American History, and yet nearly every day they call their political enemies anti-American.  I'll accept such a criticism from Michelle Bachmann the second that she can even locate America on a map.