Go on and guess who is behind republishing Barton’s Jefferson Lies

In a followup to last week’s story about Barton’s book being pulled by the publisher

Jefferson Lies Author Negotiating New Edition with Glenn Beck’s Mercury Ink.

David Barton, author of The Jefferson Lies, which Thomas Nelson pulled from shelves last week, is in negotiations to publish a new edition of the book with Mercury Ink, Glenn Beck’s publishing arm. Barton told PW he bought back around 17,000 copies of the current edition and will sell out of those before the publication of the new edition.

Barton said the new edition “will not include any substantive changes, but I will rephrase some things to remove any potential confusion.”

Tip: Bob Blaskiewicz, Conspiracy Guy (via Hemant Mehta)

Well, color me COMPLETELY unsurprised. Oh, he claims to have found… “more supporting documents that strengthen my case”. Erm… whatever. I think your idea of “supporting” are going to be open to interpretation.

To hear Bob talk about this topic, with me stuck in the middle because “the MAN” sabotaged his internet connection, watch The Virtual Skeptics vodcast for last week. (Start 5:00 mark)

  6 comments for “Go on and guess who is behind republishing Barton’s Jefferson Lies

  1. One Eyed Jack
    August 20, 2012 at 11:03 AM

    As expected, there was no problem finding another publisher.

    If anything, the incident will probably boost the ultimate number of copies sold. There’s nothing a fundamentalist loves more than being able to paint themselves as a persecuted martyr.

  2. LREKing
    August 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM

    At least the book is appropriately named.

  3. Jim Gerrish
    August 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM

    At least David Barton cites his sources and real skeptics will go and check them out before commenting in public (I have checked them, by the way). I doubt that there are any real and HONEST skeptics connected with the “Doubtful News” either as reporters, or those posting comments. You all have made your minds up about this, so I won’t attempt to confuse you with the facts.

  4. August 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

    You aren’t familiar with skeptical and scientific research are you? Citing some contrary sources or using some strange, out of context interpreting does not constitute facts.

  5. Jim Gerrish
    August 23, 2012 at 5:51 PM

    You’re not familiar with skeptical and scientific research are you? CLAIMING that David Barton is citing contrary sources without referencing those claims by citing the actual words and identifying the sources that are supposed to be contrary marks you as ignorant of either skeptical thought, critical thinking, or scientific research methods. Calling unnamed and unidentified interpretations as “strange and out of context” does not constitute fact or establish your credentials to write unbiased critiques of any value. This publication is aptly named “Doubtful News.”

  6. August 23, 2012 at 6:47 PM

    Textbook tactics you use, Mr. Gerrish. I know a troll trying to get me riled up but you know what? I also know poor scholarship when I see it. Barton is a guy with an agenda to push his Christian ideology. That’s a bogus way to go about pushing information.

    I’m not going to ask your credentials because, frankly, I don’t care. You come in here and make ridiculous assertions about my site and “facts”. We go by a reasoned consensus here, whether it be science or history. Your cheerleading for Barton’s absurdities are not welcome. Go to some conspiracy forum where they are.

Comments are closed.