Again, I think I can see where a great part of the striking assertiveness, confidence unfettered by accurate facts, and consequent vitriol against those who disagree with their 'party line', come from in so many of the SNAP-type supporters: if you take a 'true believer' mentality, and not necessarily well-versed in the tasks and discplines of accurate research and assessment, and then present that mentaility  with putatively official and 'scholarly' input such as Lawyer Hamilton's, you are going to produce pecisely what is so often seen in online comments on all sorts of sites (again, the NCR and Philadelphia trial sites are easily-accessed examples).
 
You in effect create numbers of wind-up dolls that are programmed to go out into the webverse and eagerly disseminate this stuff, blissfully certain that they have History (and/or God) on their side and that they speak with the authority of one or both of those aforementioned Entities.
 
And – but of course – when 'God' (or History) is 'on your side' and you are consequently Deputized to speak for one or both of those Biggies, then bullying of anybody who disagrees pretty much arises as a matter of justifiable praxis.
 
But as I have noted in other comments on this site, this SNAP coalition includes both folks who do believe in God (though so often not the Church) and those who don't; those who believe in some other master-entity (History, Reason – however those are defined) and those who do not.
 
Yet what they all have in common is the 'true-believer' complex of characteristics I sketched above.
 
And then there are those who don't give a hoot for any concepts and simply are willing to do 'whatever it takes' to accomplish their agenda and purposes. For these types, the 'true believers' function as Lenin's "useful idiots", the cattle always ready to stampede on cue.
 
I wonder: what will happen when t-h-i-s profound axis of division within the SNAP-py ranks becomes obvious to the cattle?