GOP Lawmakers Encouraged to Avoid Registering Poor, Young, Irreligious Voters and to Take Dominion Over Government

David Barton regularly hosts a strategy conference for state and federal legislators. For the version held this year in November, Barton posted photos which revealed some interesting details of the far right battle plan. I am surprised he posted this one:

Take note of the slide being used by George Barna. I assume this is from a talk on election strategy, Barna’s slide encourages selective voter registration. The audience is encouraged not to register young, uneducated, lower income, and irreligious people. Barna told the audience that those groups gravitate toward socialism.

In addition to the rather undemocratic tone of this advice, I don’t think he is correct. While it was true at one time that college-educated voters on average went for the GOP, now the trend has reversed. College-educated voters now are more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate.

Wallnau Climbs His 7 Mountains

Another revealing photo from the conference gallery is this one of Lance Wallnau teaching lawmakers about 7 mountains dominionism. Simply put, this view of Christian involvement in culture mandates a takeover of seven aspects of society: Religion, Family,Education, Government, Media, Arts & Entertainment and Business.

Wallnau is clearly teaching the legislators about the seven mountains mandate. Since these Christian legislators are considered government level apostles, their job is to take dominion in the mountain of government. This is the objective of Project Blitz which is supported by Barton via financing by his Wallbuilders organization. Project Blitz seeks to pass legislation which privileges Christianity in Congress and in state legislatures.

Barton and his group of Christian nationalist lawmakers aren’t interested in pluralism. They want to empower Christian Republican voters to enact a legal structure that privileges conservative Christians. Even though this is their right to pursue, in my view their aims are contrary to the vision of the framers who crafted a framework for pluralism and freedom of conscience for all.

 

 

 

37 thoughts on “GOP Lawmakers Encouraged to Avoid Registering Poor, Young, Irreligious Voters and to Take Dominion Over Government”

  1. WWJD? Yeah, definitely look for more ways to marginalize the poor.

    I had thought of Barna as a generally reliable source for understanding trends in the church; I had no idea he was joining the efforts of Barton and his ilk. Makes me less likely to value Barna as a source in the future.

    I suspect the historical echoes of using the term “Blitz” for political efforts that align with a fascist-leaning demagogue are lost on these people.

  2. They have a First Amendment right to advocate for a theocracy. But they should be called out for what they’re doing: Advocating the destruction of the Constitution.

    What truly scares me is that this is likely the next step. Does anyone think the Republican Party wouldn’t toss the Constitution overboard in a heartbeat if they could? If so, you’re kidding yourself. Because that is coming. We now have a significant portion of the electorate who would do that without hesitation. They don’t want equality, they don’t want the majority of people to even have a vote. They want a dictatorship. The Constitution is an impediment. Mark my words: They will reach the point of demanding its abandonment. It impedes their road to power, so it must be done away with.

    We are much closer to the point where we lose this country than people think. We are already at the point where this part of the electorate would like to see those who disagree with them, and those who champion the values of the Constitution, dead. If anyone doesn’t see this, they haven’t been paying attention.

    1. Unfortunately well put.

      …they haven’t been paying attention.”
      I’m afraid that’s all those enabling Trump and his GOP minions.

    2. Their goals are similar to the Spanish Catholic church and it’s support of Franco during his reign.

      1. Anyone heard of the interpretation of Revelation where The Beast represents a corrupt political system and The False Prophet a corrupt religious system?

        Of the two (Beast and False Prophet) which is always the boss and which is the flunky who THINKS he’s the boss as the Beast leads him around on a leash?

        1. The only people who act like beasts and/or false prophets are Warren Throckmorton and his cohorts. 2 Peter 2 talks about such people:

          False Teachers and Their Destruction
          2 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

          4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh[c] and despise authority.

          Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from[d] the Lord. 12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.

          13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.[e] 14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer,[f] who loved the wages of wickedness. 16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—an animal without speech—who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.

          17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.” 20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”[g] and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”

          So, Throckmorton lists blitzwatch.org as supposedly evidence that Project Blitz’s purpose is to create theocracy in America by GOP, but nothing can be further from the truth. Apparently, the site he is listing gives link to the actual Project Blitz, and Project Blitz actually calls for making laws that would protect Bible-based Christians from assaults on their religious liberties, which has been done by secularist bigots for decades. Project Blitz and the Seven Mountains do not want to deprive non-Christians of exercising their First Amendment rights, hence the accusation of dominionism is bogus. These people simply want Bible-based Christians to participate in civil political discourse on par with everybody and not be retaliated against for their Christian beliefs. I’m sure Throckmorton knows about it, but he and his followers are false teachers, described in 2 Peter 2, so they are intentionally misleading the public because their goal is to strip Bible-based Christians of their First Amendment rights and to impose oppressive secularism and socialism on America. This is why they are opposed to GOP and other conservative pundits, since conservatives stand ferociously in the way of America becoming a secularist nation. Perhaps, these liberals are following the tactic of Joseph Goebbels: they accuse their opponents of things that they actually plan to do to them.

          So, we can see that Throckmorton and his ilk, is serving the Devil, not God, because they don’t care about people hearing the Good News and repenting, but rather pleasing the feelings of those experiencing worldly sorrows (2 Corinthians 7) and they are friends of the world. For this reason, every Bible-based Christian organization should sever its ties with Throckmorton until he repents.

          1. “Project Blitz and the Seven Mountains do not want to deprive non-Christians of exercising their First Amendment rights…”

            Just don’t register the poor and uneducated to vote. Get Christians elected and make sure non-Christians have to adhere to their religious practices like Christian Bible reading and prayer in school and public events. Mr. or Mrs. TV, just change everything you say and insert another religion and see how you would like living in that nation.

          2. Mr. or Mrs. TV, just change everything you say and insert another religion and see how you would like living in that nation.

            But That Can Never Happen, because WE’RE GOD’S TRUE ANOINTED!
            GOD IS ON OUR SIDE! WE HOLD THE WHIP!

          3. Take a look at the last line on the first picture’s PowerPoint:

            * Awaken Republicans and and Independents

            As in “Woke for The Cause”?
            And when they’re Woke, will they have to become “More Woke Than Thou”?

          4. You would get this information from blitzwatch.org, but they are making false accusations against the Blitz Project. For instance, they only talk about making laws that would prevent punishment of people who voluntarily read Christian Bible and/or pray at public events. I believe that laws of that kind are necessary.

            Here is an example what Bible-based Christians are experiencing today:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y68C8r03XMc&t=2s

            https://pjmedia.com/faith/uw-teacher-reprimanded-by-director-do-you-read-your-bible-on-campus/

            The Blitz Project is saying that we need to make laws that can offer protection to people like Susana, but blitzwatch.org is saying that people like Susana and me, and GOP politicians have ulterior motives when we simply ask for more legal protection in public spaces, which is to force everybody to become Christians against their will, ie create a theocracy.

            Btw, this woman is from former Czechoslovakia, which is now split up into Czech Republic and Slovakia, where in schools and universities, students have voluntary options to take classes on Christianity. There are colleges in America that offer English courses on Bible reading, which are optional as well. I don’t see it as a problem, and would not see it if similar voluntary options would be offered in public schools.

          5. Can you find a Blitz project law that would address this situation? I can’t think of anything that I have heard associated with the Blitz project that would touch her problem. What she is dealing with is a problem, not just for Christians but for speech in general on college campuses. She thankfully had the backing of her union and from what I can tell needs to have a stronger union to go to bat for her as well as perhaps intervention from the AAUP. I will not deny that some campuses are hostile to free speech but it is not only religious professors who are being attacked.

          6. First Amendment Defense Act would surely address Susana’s problem. They list this proposed law in their 148 pages playbook, which took me a few hours to read. Btw, FADA was introduced by two Republican Senators, Mike Lee and Paul Labrador, and it is being supported by other conservative organizations besides Blitz:

            When asked by Heritage Action, FRC Action, and the American Principles Project if they would pass the bill in their first 100 days in office, three of the top four Republican presidential candidates in the 2016 election said they would, the exception being Donald Trump.[4] It was also supported by the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and the Liberty Counsel, among other groups, shortly after it was introduced.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_Defense_Act

            It’s interesting that Trump used to be neutral on this.

            Susana should definitely get help from ACLU. This union has a reputation of helping people to ensure their free speech rights and winning, regardless if people are religious or not.

          7. First Amendment Defense Act would surely address Susana’s problem. They list this proposed law in their 148 pages playbook, which took me a few hours to read. Btw, FADA was introduced by two Republican Senators, Mike Lee and Paul Labrador, and it is being supported by other conservative organizations besides Blitz:

            When asked by Heritage Action, FRC Action, and the American Principles Project if they would pass the bill in their first 100 days in office, three of the top four Republican presidential candidates in the 2016 election said they would, the exception being Donald Trump.[4] It was also supported by the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and the Liberty Counsel, among other groups, shortly after it was introduced.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_Defense_Act

            It’s interesting that Trump used to be neutral on this.

            Susana should definitely get help from ACLU. This union has a reputation of helping people to ensure their free speech rights and winning, regardless if people are religious or not.

          8. I don’t have a problem protecting a person for their beliefs but I could have a problem defending what someone does based on belief against same sex marriage. Substitute biracial marriage in there (which many people still do oppose based on religion) and I hope you can see the problem. Religion isn’t a grounds for discrimination against someone else. Susana didn’t discriminate based on a belief – she didn’t even say what she believed. Her belief didn’t have anything to do with her action. She was set up it appears to me (provided she is being honest and she did appear sincere).

          9. It appears like Susana’s two gay students and her boss felt she discriminated against those students based on her belief against same-sex marriage, when she assigned to write an essay listing pros and cons of it.

          10. No, they believe she did something discriminatory by assigning an essay. I disagree with them but the action was the issue not her belief. I disagree that assigning such an essay is discriminatory or abusive and I suspect if she is pushed and it comes to an adjudication, she will win. I would like to read all of the evidence before I say for certain what I think but if the situation is just as she presented it, she was fine to make that essay an option.

          11. I don’t have a problem protecting a person for their beliefs but I could have a problem defending what someone does based on belief against same sex marriage. Substitute biracial marriage in there (which many people still do oppose based on religion) and I hope you can see the problem. Religion isn’t a grounds for discrimination against someone else.

            Laws that prohibited biracial marriages were not remotely close to laws not allowing homosexual marriages. For instance, Obergefell and his male partner were not ever thrown in jail because they lived together, just like it happened with the Lovings. Therefore, you can’t compare the two. Apparently, there is a tactic among liberals who are trying to portray defenders of traditional definition of marriage as equivalent to racist bigots so that we would be ostracized by society just like those hateful people, ie fired from jobs and expelled from colleges. But Bible-based Christians who believe that such law does common good to society are not hateful; we love everybody and we want what is good and righteous for everybody. Under our Constitution we have the right to participate in civil political discourse. On the other hand, people who claim that God supposedly prohibits men and women of different races to marry each other are as pseudo-Christians and false teachers as those activists who claim that homosexuals are born that way and can never change or live happily abstaining from homosexual practice therefore we must create same-sex marriage laws to accommodate their feelings. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 contradicts this theory. Opposition to same-sex marriage is not just based on biblical laws but on simple laws of nature. You don’t have to be religious to realize that only unions between a man and a woman produces children, hence it makes sense to make laws to acknowledge the importance of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman for society. For example, Ryan Anderson makes an excellent case for this without invoking religion in his book “Truth overturned.”

          12. Those organizations are not Christian in any way that can be reconciled with Jesus’ teachings. They are, for the most part, power hungry people using religion as a tool to gain the power they crave. IOW, the antithesis of Christian. It is sad that the Church has in large part become deaf to the voice they claim to follow, in favor of this sort of distortion of the faith. It was only a matter of time before they elected someone as amoral as Trump. Like the writer said, the Church will be found to be a whore. She is pretty much there now.

          13. And the Weaponized SCRIPTURE comes right into play.

            Just like a Jihadi with his Koran — “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN!”

          14. Seriously? Someone seems to be off his meds.

            And “This is why they are opposed to GOP and other conservative pundits,since conservatives stand ferociously in the way of America becoming a secularist nation.” is the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a while. THE US IS A SECULAR NATION! There is no God in the Constitution. This is not a Christian nation.

            And we plan on keeping it that way.

          15. First Amendment of the US Constitution says the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” Based on this, the US is neither Christian, nor a secular nation. However, you sound like you want it to be secularist, meaning that you want to totally prohibit Christianity from being exercised because you don’t like what is said in the Bible. Under US Constitution, it’s unacceptable. On the other hand, I certainly do not want to make laws that would punish you for publicly disparaging Christianity, conservatives, Republicans (Trump et al.), or anybody else. This is your First Amendment right which equally applies to you as it does to me.

          16. We have a secular government, that is indisputable. But it is neutral to the beliefs of it’s people. The loss of a tiny bit of hegemony enjoyed by the Evangelical Church in the past few decades is hardly an attack on their rights of worship. You are being used by a political party that long ago figured out that you could be. The Church, the Government, and the rest of us are all suffering for it.

          17. I don’t see “However, you sound like you want it to be secularist, meaning that you want to totally prohibit Christianity from being exercised because you don’t like what is said in the Bible.” at all in DoctorDj’s comment. You seem to think ‘secular’ is ‘anti religion’. It means multiple faiths along with none of the aboves co-existing in mutual respect and peaceful disagreement – none achieving political power over others. Christianity as Jesus taught it, isn’t a ‘power over’ proposition, it’s a ‘power under’ proposition where prayerful, compassionate, humble faith persuades and convinces people of the best course of action as much as is possible for all concerned. If you think the free exercise of Christian religion means that the political majority, arguably Christian at this point, means Christianity can vote itself to rule over other faiths, nones and even among the many, many Christian denominations – you’re asking for ‘Christian’ tyranny and the death of the church as a meaningful witness to Jesus Christ’s Love. That’s the problem. Centuries of Christian wars in Europe was the result for them – not a vibrant church witnessing to Christ’s redemption. This current manifestation of Christian power grasping is a major reason for young people renouncing the church in droves – no one wants to be dominated or coerced – same as you. God Bless.

          18. Secular is different from secularism. The latter implies that religious ideologies are prohibited in public spaces. If you pay attention to my post where you quoted me from, you will see that I did not advocate anything remotely close to this:

            If you think the free exercise of Christian religion means that the political majority, arguably Christian at this point, means Christianity can vote itself to rule over other faiths, nones and even among the many, many Christian denominations – you’re asking for ‘Christian’ tyranny and the death of the church as a meaningful witness to Jesus Christ’s Love. That’s the problem. Centuries of Christian wars in Europe was the result for them – not a vibrant church witnessing to Christ’s redemption. This current manifestation of Christian power grasping is a major reason for young people renouncing the church in droves – no one wants to be dominated or coerced – same as you. God Bless.

            This is what I said:

            I certainly do not want to make laws that would punish you for publicly disparaging Christianity, conservatives, Republicans (Trump et al.), or anybody else. This is your First Amendment right which equally applies to you as it does to me.

            It negates the previous quote of yours.

          19. I absolutely get what you said, TV. I simply can’t fathom that you expect those who are now pursuing political power in order to legislate their Christian Dominionist agenda and implant it in our courts and schools will somehow cling to your high minded and praiseworthy view instead of pursuing their own motivations. I don’t believe they deserve your trust or support. And you should reconsider who the ‘false prophets’ of this era really are. God’s Peace to You and Yours this Christmas season.

          20. I agree, Trump much more dangerous for his lack of self control. Pence though, is a political animal who follows the scent of success for himself at all cost, even fealty to a clearly immoral leader. So, should he become President, the dangers he presents would be his aberant view of Christian faith’s place in American society and how low he would sink to keep his new position. The Pences of this world are the kind of people the Trumps of this world use to gain power & wealth. We can hope for the best and pray he would be better than his past.

          21. As a born again, spirit filled refugee of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement I wholeheartedly agree. The concept of America being ‘God’s Country’ is a monstrous fiction created by decades of propaganda by Christian media types and seized upon by ‘Moral Majority’ types as a lever to gain political power to fulfill their fancied role in their dispensationalist endtime fantasy. This is a dangerous belief system that is antithetical to Jesus’ teachings, not that they care. The last thing America needs is some form of “Christian Protectionism’ authored by a bunch of religious zealots that repeatedly lie to support their ‘anointed ones’ further lies. Self deception is a potent poison and when realised will bring deep harm to the church in America, shattering its witness for Jesus and twisting many believer’s faith in knots.

    3. Yeah, the die-hards on the ground I interact with would definitely ditch the Constitution (while saying they’re following the Constitution!) because they don’t give a fig for the means; they have certain ends in mind and that’s all that matters. Those ends include these implied or stated explicitly: one party rule, all Dems in concentration camps, total rights removal/or elimination of muslims, forced public ‘christian’ prayers, etc. all the “swamp” in jail, which again is only Dems… no GOP swamp creatures and any kind of harassment/persecution etc for anyone who doesn’t go along 100% with their ideas.


    4. We are much closer to the point where we lose this country than people think.

      You bet we are, and it’s not an easy trend to stop.

  3. So, how come he isn’t wearing his silly looking trademark flag shirt? Is he pretending to be a serious grown up?

  4. Laws to privilege one religion over another are un-constitutional. And so the GOP, the Federalist Society and other conservatives feel the need to pack the SCOTUS with false originalist schemers in black robes.

    1. I don’t know if it’s possible, but we’re going to have to figure some way to avoid bringing cases before such a stacked court… like I say above, justice isn’t part of the agenda; a bunch of pet “ends” are what they’re all working for.

Comments are closed.