*Update - Michael's follow up post consisted of this "analysis":
I think I’ve finally figured out why these neo-conservative talk show hosts and bloggers [yours truly] are clueless at interpreting the Founding Fathers. Just look at who they idolize… In 1985, President Ronald Reagan received a unique assembly of foreign visitors at the White House. After welcoming them, the president addressed the press on their behalf. Pointing towards the group he said, “These are the moral equivalent of America’s Founding Fathers.” The Gipper's guests were members of the Afghan Mujahiddin. Today we refer to them as the Taliban.
With all the distortions and unprecedented destruction of our fundamental founding principles being carried out by the current administration, Michael points to Ronald Reagan as an example of being "clueless" about interpreting the Founding Fathers. Yet he continues to ignore the
Once again (see my previous response here), blogger Michael Aubrecht attempts to take the Tea Party to task for being, as he describes them, "Liars and Conspires" (sic). I think Michael meant conspirer or perhaps conspirator. Anyway, Michael's circular reasoning just doesn't cut it with me. Moreover, in accusing the Tea Party of believing in an "ultra-conservative utopia of American-Exceptionalism", he cites leftist historians and websites - "Alternet" for example, which promotes "social justice." Uh-huh. While Michael seems to have lots of issues with the "ultra-right", as he calls them, he seems to have no problems with the ultra-left.
Michael also takes Glenn Beck and David Barton to task for their "distortions" while referring readers to Jon Stewart's Daily Show for accurate analysis and perspective. Uh-huh.
Regarding the "document" faux pas in the video, I don't believe Barton was specifically referring to Jefferson's writings. There are, in fact, thousands of official federal and state documents which use the phrase, "In the year of our Lord" - referring to Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact, I have one hanging on my office wall. It is a gubernatorial appointment from 1994.
And, finally, Michael is really scraping the bottom when he not so subtly suggests that those who might agree with at least some of the perspective of Beck, Barton, et al are Nazis by stating that their perspective and analysis "would have made Joseph Goebbles proud."
Now who's being extreme?