Wallbuilders

Is David Barton Biblically Illiterate Or Just Deliberately Misleading His Audience?

During his radio broadcast yesterday, right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton said that we here at Right Wing Watch mock him for saying that Jesus opposes the minimum wage, but that is only because "it is highly unlikely that they even know what is in the Bible."

Of course, it is because we have read the Bible and know what it says that we mock Barton's absurd misrepresentations. And, amazingly, Barton provided a perfect demonstration of just how he misrepresents the Bible yesterday while trying to prove that we are the ones who don't understand what it says.

Barton did so when he again cited the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard from Matthew 20 to make the case that Jesus opposes the minimum wage:

20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

The proper context for understanding this parable is that, in Matthew 19, the disciples asked Jesus who can get into heaven and Jesus responded that everyone who believes in Him will be saved, but cautioned that "many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first."

Jesus then illustrated this point with the parable of the vineyard in order to explain that no matter how late in one's life one comes to Christ, the heavenly reward is the same; those who embrace Christ on their deathbed will receive the same eternal reward as those who are devoted Christians all of their lives because of God's generous love. Jesus was telling his disciples that those who dedicate their lives to Christ early on cannot complain when those who come to Jesus later also receive the same heavenly reward.

But that is not how Barton interprets this parable, as he instead skews it to claim that it was Jesus who hired the workers and then used the situation to teach them about the evils of the minimum wage and government regulation.

"In Matthew 20:15, Jesus says, 'Is not my money to do with as I please?'" Barton said. "'I'm the employer. Don't I get to decide what I'm going to pay everyone in this thing?' No, no, no, the government has a minimum wage. No it didn't. Jesus says, 'My money is mine to do with as I please and, by the way, you made a contract with them.' And then he tells the guy, 'If you didn't like the contract, you can go down the road to another vineyard and see if they'll pay you two silver coins for what you did, but you agreed to work for me for that.'"

"So what you have here," Barton continued, "is Jesus says, 'The government doesn't tell me how much to spend, I get to choose my own wages and, two, if you choose to work for me for that, you have an agreement, we have a contract; and three is if you've got greater skill, you can sell it to somebody else for a higher price, you can go down the road.' That's all free market stuff, there's no government regulation of wages; and by the way, Right Wing Watch, that is the minimum wage. Government doesn't tell you want to pay an employee, you make a contract with that individual for whatever they agree on and what you agree on, and if the don't like that, they can use the free market to go somewhere else and try to get more. All of that is in Matthew 20."

Obviously, all of that is not in Matthew 20. In fact, none of that is in Matthew 20, because it was not Jesus who hired and paid the laborers, it was a landowner in the parable He was telling. On top of that, nowhere in the parable does it say that if the workers don't like the payment they received, they can take their services elsewhere—in fact, that wouldn't even make sense considering that it was a lesson about eternal salvation and Jesus teaches that "no one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus certainly wasn't saying that if you don't like God's way of doing things you can go find some other god to worship! 

So, David Barton, we do know what is in the Bible and that is how we know that you're interpretation of it is so often laughably wrong. 

David Barton Says Donald Trump's Campaign 'Definitely Has Reached Out' To Him

At the end of the presentation he recently delivered to a Tea Party gathering in Arkansas, Religious Right activist David Barton stuck around to take a few questions from the audience, during which he revealed that Donald Trump's presidential campaign has reached out to him and that he "helped do some things with them."  

When an audience member asked if either of the current presidential candidates had sought his counsel, Barton, a relentlessly dishonest right-wing pseudo-historian who has repeatedly stated that we will never find a cure for AIDS because the disease is God's punishment for homosexuality, laughingly responded that Hillary Clinton's campaign "definitely hasn't." 

But "the other one definitely has reached out and we've helped do some things with them, putting some events together," Barton said. "We'll see how it goes. But they're looking for input, looking for help."

David Barton: 'I've Got A Ph.D.'

Earlier this month, we watched as David Barton appeared on Glenn Beck's radio program and lied to Beck's face when he falsely claimed that he had earned a Ph.D. in education:

As we noted, Barton does not have a Ph.D., as he himself admitted on several occasions in the last two years, and his own bio states that "David holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts University and an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Pensacola Christian College."

Yet, when Barton spoke at a Tea Party conference in Arkansas over the weekend, he falsely told the audience that he does have his Ph.D.

Barton, a relentlessly dishonest right-wing pseudo-historian who is reportedly a favorite of House Speaker Paul Ryan, was criticizing the book "The Godless Constitution" for not including footnotes and using it as an example of why people should not listen to "experts" who try to undermine God's role in the founding of this nation and the formation of our government.

"We defer to experts today who have no brains," Barton said. "I'm at the point where I often—I've got a Ph.D., but I often ask now how many Ph.D.s does it take to make you stupid? Because we're at the point where we have lost common sense on so many aspects of things."

David Barton Explains Why 'You Just Don't Find Atheists' Living Out In The Country

Right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton spoke at an Arkansas Tea Party conference last weekend, where he repeated his claim that you only find atheists living in cities because people who live in the country can see proof of God's existence revealed everywhere in the laws of nature.

Barton claimed that God has given us the laws of nature to show us how to live by simply watching how things like ant hills operate, which demonstrates how the government should guide the economy. Just as ants store up provisions for lean times, Barton said, so too should the government save in preparation for economic downturns instead of relying on deficit spending.

Lessons like this are found everywhere in the laws of nature, he declared, which is why you don't find any atheists among those who live out in the country.

"Do you know how hard it is to find an atheist in the country?" Barton asked. "You find atheists in the city. You find atheists in areas that don't get to see God. If you spend time looking at creation, you just don't find atheists out there."

'That's What They Claim': David Barton Falsely Tells Glenn Beck He Has A Doctorate In Education

Glenn Beck is hosting an event at his network headquarters in Texas this weekend to promote the release of his latest book, "Liars: How Progressives Exploit Our Fears for Power and Control," and his good friend David Barton will be on hand, offering private tours of various historical artifacts that Beck and others have collected that have been put on display for the event.

Beck brought Barton onto his radio program today to promote the event by spreading his latest bogus claim that the United States put its own soldiers in danger by specifically warning Japanese civilians which cities we were going to bomb before dropping atomic weapons during World War II.

During the conversation, Beck once again falsely claimed that Barton earned his doctorate in education.

"You have your doctorate, don't you?" Beck asked Barton.

"That's what they claim," Barton replied. "I've got papers for it."

Perhaps realizing that "that's what they claim" is a rather odd answer to a simple yes or no question, Beck sought to clarify.

"You have your doctorate in education," he reiterated.

"Yeah, that's right," Barton responded.

"So he's a doctor of education," Beck stated. "David has an actual doctorate."

Barton, of course, does not have a doctorate in education, as we noted earlier this year when he somewhat confusingly admitted that he doesn't have a Ph.D. In fact, his own bio reports that he merely "holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts University and an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Pensacola Christian College."

David Barton Decrees 'Biblical' Standards For President But Supports Trump, Who Fails To Meet Them

Over the weekend, right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton appeared on the Bible Broadcasting Network's "Weekend Connection" program, where he offered conservative Christians some guidance on how to vote in the presidential election based on the Ten Commandments.

Barton, who has made clear that he believes that Donald Trump is "God's guy" in this election, admitted that no candidate is perfect as he made the case again that Christians must first and foremost focus on electing candidates who promise to appoint conservative judges because the Bible says that "the righteousness of the land is dependent on the judges in that land."

In addition, he said, Christians must look to the Ten Commandments in casting their vote; specifically by supporting a president who "publicly acknowledges God [and] who openly supports the acknowledgement of God," who is committed to "keeping the marriage bed pure" by opposing gay marriage, who opposes abortion and who opposes the use eminent domain to allow the government to take private property:

Trump, of course, pretty much fails to meet every one of these standards, as his public acknowledgements of God have been laughable, he clearly is not personally committed to "keeping the marriage bed pure," his positions on gay marriage and abortion have been all over the map, and his love of eminent domain is well documented.

"There's four issues right there that God put in his top ten" that Christians should use when deciding how to cast their vote, said Barton, who has already made clear that he'll be voting for a candidate who has violated most of the very standards that he just laid out.

David Barton Falsely Claims U.S. Warned Japan 'Exactly Which Cities We Were Going To Bomb And When' Before Using Atomic Weapons

Last night, David Barton delivered a presentation at a Patriot Academy gathering in Austin, Texas, which, as usual, was filled with all sorts of misrepresentations and falsehoods. This time, Barton falsely claimed that prior to the use of atomic weapons against Japan during World War II, the United States had specifically warned Japanese civilians of "exactly which cities we were going to bomb and when."

Barton was complaining that the Advanced Placement history standards for WWII only present the U.S. in a negative light and don't teach that the U.S. put its own forces in danger in an effort to protect Japanese civilians by letting Japan know in advance exactly which cities were going to be targeted.

"We dropped 70 million pamphlets in Japan telling the Japanese exactly which cities we were going to bomb and when and what bombs we would use on them," Barton said. "We said, 'We do not want to hurt civilians but we are going to destroy the military side of this, we urge all civilians to leave Nagasaki, to leave Hiroshima.' We gave 29 cities that we were going to bomb because they were loaded up with military stuff. And, by the way, they said, 'We have a bomb that has never been seen by the world before, it is the equivalent of 5,000 B-29s dropping their bombs at the same time. It's one bomb; you need leave those cities, get out of those cities, we don't want to hurt you' ... Because we told them what cities we were going to be bombing, we'd also told the Japanese where they could set up their guns to shoot our planes down as we come over. So we put ourselves in jeopardy in that."

If it seems unlikely that the U.S. military would warn its enemy of "exactly which cities we were going to bomb and when," thereby providing them with an opportunity to shoot down our airplanes, that is because it never happened.

What actually happened was that the U.S dropped millions of leaflets on dozens of cities, warning that "some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs" and urging residents to evacuate:

Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.

After the first atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima, the U.S. then dropped another leaflet urging Japan to surrender or face another atomic bombing:

TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:

America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.

You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.

The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war with you.

Also, because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.

A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.

Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.

Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

The U.S. did not warn Japan "exactly which cities we were going to bomb and when," as Barton claimed, as that would obviously have been lunacy, as Gregg Herken explained:

But there was never any specific warning to the cities that had been chosen as targets for the atomic bomb prior to the weapon’s first use. The omission was deliberate: The United States feared that the Japanese, being forewarned, would shoot down the planes carrying the bombs. 

David Barton Falsely Claims Wesleyan University Doesn't Offer Separate Housing For Male Or Female Students

During his recent appearance at Cottonwood Creek Church in Allen, Texas, David Barton added a new anti-transgender wrinkle to his standard presentation that, unsurprisingly, contains a blatant falsehood.

After repeating his false claim that the Supreme Court banned mandatory Bible reading in public schools over concerns that it was causing "brain damage," Barton claimed that it is actually society that has been suffering brain damage since removing the Bible from schools, pointing to a policy at Wesleyan University that he said bans separate student housing for male and female students.

Recounting that he had recently participated in a cattle drive where "none of us had any difficulty telling the difference between male and female" cattle, Barton said that "there was no gender identity crisis that we had; only in America as we become more secular do we have difficulty seeing what's obvious throughout all of nature."

Barton then pointed to a Newsmax article about an "Open House" option at Wesleyan University that "works to create a Wesleyan community that appreciates the variety and the vivacity of gender, sex, and sexuality, and we work to be an anchor of the amorphous, chaotic, and beautiful queer community" and used it to falsely claim that all student housing at the university was "based on 15 different sexual orientations and you know what's missing? They do not offer housing for male or female, but they've got everything else, just not male or female."

This is, like so much of what Barton says, entirely false, as the Wesleyan website makes perfectly clear:

As students move through their years at Wesleyan, they have an opportunity to choose an increasingly more independent living option from residence hall doubles to singles to program houses, apartments, and eventually wood frame houses. All of these options are within a 5-10 minute walk to campus. All of our units house both men and women; however, some residence halls are coed on each floor, while other halls offer single-sex floors. Smoking is prohibited in all University Housing. Residential facilities vary by size, room type, and ratio of first-year to upper-class students.

...

Student housing at Wesleyan is designed so that first year students live together in residence halls near the center of campus.  Residential facilities vary by size, room type and ratio of first year to upperclass students.  In all locations, first year students comprise at least 50% of the residents.  All of the buildings are coed, however some halls offer single-sex floors.

Gender Neutral Housing:

Wesleyan University assigns roommates for incoming students based on legal sex.  Students choose among the following three options on the housing preference form:  to be assigned according to this policy, to request an exception to this policy, or to be available as a potential roommate for someone who has requested an exception.  Gender neutral housing is available in all student residences.

David Barton Falsely Claims That 'The Declaration Of Independence Had Two Clauses Condemning Slavery'

Last month, David Barton delivered a presentation at Calvary Chapel in Salt Lake City, Utah, where he falsely claimed that the Founding Fathers denounced slavery in the Declaration of Independence.

"Great Britain would not allow us to end slavery," Barton said. "A number of the states passed anti-slavery laws and King George III struck them all down, said, 'No, no, no, you're part of the British Empire, as long as you're part of the British Empire you're going to have slavery,' which is why a number of Founding Fathers got involved because they did not want slavery. That's why the Declaration of Independence had two clauses condemning slavery as a reason we were leaving Great Britain. Now, we always hear about taxation without representation, that's one clause, but twice as often in there you'll hear about slavery being an issue. We don't cover that."

Of course, anyone can read the Declaration and discover for themselves that "the final document makes no mention of slavery or African Americans."

What Barton conveniently failed to mention was that while the original draft did contain a passage on slavery, it was removed from the final version, as the Heritage Foundation explains:

Jefferson's draft constitution for the state of Virginia forbade the importation of slaves, and his draft of the Declaration of Independence — written at a time when he himself had inherited about 200 slaves — included a paragraph condemning the British king for introducing slavery into the colonies and continuing the slave trade:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of a CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

These words were especially offensive to delegates from Georgia and South Carolina, who were unwilling to acknowledge that slavery went so far as to violate the "most sacred rights of life and liberty." So, like some of Jefferson's more expressive phrases attacking the king, these lines were dropped in the editing process.

David Barton Brags That He Helped Craft 'The Most Biblically Friendly' GOP Platform He's Ever Seen

Right-wing political operative and pseudo-historian David Barton played a key role in drafting the Republican platform ahead of the GOP convention earlier this month and has been bragging that the platform committee ended up producing "the most conservative platform in modern history."

Over the weekend, Barton spoke at Cottonwood Creek Church in Allen, Texas, where he stated that his main goal in helping to draft GOP platforms is to "make sure that I get as many biblical principles in as possible" and boasted that he has been historically successful at doing so.

The current platform is "the most biblically friendly platform we've had in my lifetime," Barton stated, and that is because he has been able to convince the platform committee to adopt just about every amendment that he has ever recommended.

"They tell me that I have set the record for platform writing," Barton crowed. "Four years ago when we wrote it, I made 140 amendments to the platform — staff writes it and then we edit it — and all but one of those amendments were accepted. This year there was something like 70-something amendments and every one of them was accepted, which tells me that we have a somewhat friendly audience because I kept inserting stuff about the Constitution, the Declaration, and God and the Bible and they keep voting it up."

GOP Platform Committee Member David Barton Falsely Claims His Anti-Gay Comments Were Taken Out Of Context

It seems that just about every time a Religious Right activist is asked by the press to comment on some outrageous thing that Right Wing Watch has caught them saying, they respond by simply asserting that those comments were "taken out of context" without ever explaining how our reporting supposedly misrepresented their statements or bothering to explain how understanding the real context would have in any way changed the meaning of what they said.

And this is exactly what David Barton, a member of the Republican National Convention's platform committee and a longtime Religious Right activist, did when the the Daily Beast asked him to comment on two of the many offensive statements he has made about LGBT people, both of which were first reported by Right Wing Watch:

And David Barton, a committee member from Texas, believes that God is preventing the medical profession from finding a cure for HIV/AIDS, and claimed that gay people die “decades earlier” than others and have more than 500 partners apiece in their lifetimes.

Barton told The Daily Beast that these statements did not represent his views, and this was “an example of something taken out of context and mischaracterized. I’m an advocate for faith-based conservative values, which include love, grace, and truth, focusing on traditional family values.”

Since Barton doesn't bother to clarify the "context" in which these comments were made, allow us to do so.

In the case of his claim that gay people die "decades earlier" and have hundreds of sexual partners, Barton said that on his radio program back in 2010, when he was somewhat facetiously making the case that the government should regulate gay people's sex lives.

Barton argued that since the government seeks to regulate all sorts of things that are unhealthy, it should also regulate consensual sex between members of the same gender because it is not only dangerous for those who practice it but bad for society as well:

Homosexual/bi-sexual individuals are seven times more likely to contemplate or commit suicide. Oooh, that doesn’t sound very healthy.

Homosexuals die decades earlier than heterosexuals. That doesn’t sound healthy.

Nearly one-half of practicing homosexuals admit to five hundred or more sex partners and nearly one-third admit to a thousand or more sex partners in a lifetime.

There is no mischaracterization involved in quoting his statement that "homosexuals die decades earlier" and that some gay people "admit to five hundred of more sexual partners," as that is exactly what he said.

The same goes for his comments about God preventing us from ever finding a cure for AIDS because doing so would eliminate the penalty for sin.

Barton has been saying this since 2012 and we have heard him make this claim on several occasions, asserting just last year:

I don't think they will ever find a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. And I say that based on a particular Bible verse ... Notice this, homosexuals receive in their bodies the penalty due them. The Bible says if you engage in homosexuality, your body will do things that will penalize you. So if you can have a vaccine for AIDS, then you're keeping your body from penalizing you. I don't think they'll ever find a vaccine for AIDS.

Again, there is nothing "out of context" about this remark, which he has made multiple times. 

Barton continuously makes unfounded and offensive remarks about LGBT people and has repeatedly suggested that God is punishing gay people with a deadly disease, yet the Republican Party continues to invite him to help shape their national platform — which just so happens to be extraordinarily hostile to LGBT people. Barton’s unconvincing attempts at denying his past comments shouldn't let them get away with it.

The Absurd Hypocrisy At The Heart Of David Barton's 'School Of Practical Government'

Right-wing pseudo-historian and GOP platform committee member David Barton closed out a presentation last week at Charis Bible College in Colorado, where he is in the process of launching a "School of Practical Government," by sharing a couple of historical quotes that perfectly expose the utterly absurd hypocrisy that lies at the heart of his latest endeavor.

After spending nearly an hour explaining how his "School of Practical Government" will prepare students to seek public office for the purpose of implementing public policy based explicitly on the Bible, Barton read quotes from the likes of Samuel Adams and Benjamin Rush, who have said that those who seek office are not to be trusted and that those who refuse to serve in office when asked are selfish.

First he cited this quote from Adams:

It bodes very ill to Government when Men are exalted to places of high trust through their own Sollicitations.  He only fills a place with Dignity, who is invited to it by his Fellow Citizens, from the Experience they have had of his adequate Abilities, & who does the Duties of it with Zeal & Fidelity ... Whoever interposes in their Elections, with his own Sollicitations for himself, it is to be feard, if he is of any Consequence, will in time become a dangerous Party Man.  He ought therefore to be despised as an obtruder.

Barton then cited a similar quote from Noah Webster:

As a general rule, it may be affirmed that the man who never intrigues for office may be most safely entrusted with office...Such a man cannot desire promotion unless he received it from the respectable part of the community, for he considers no other promotion to be honorable.

It seems rather odd that Barton would cite quotes warning voters not to trust people who seek public office while promoting a school that is designed to teach people how to run for office and even includes a class entitled "How to Run For Office."

To make matters worse, Barton then cited a quote from Rush to argue that if people approach you to ask you to run for office, "you are not allowed to say 'no' because that was being selfish ... Didn't God put you here to serve others? "

Back in 2013, Barton himself was asked by his friends like Glenn Beck to run for the U.S. Senate and refused to do so, though that has somehow not stopped him from regularly lecturing other people that they have no right to be selfish by doing exactly what he did.

More Evidence That David Barton Isn't Going To Stop Saying Something Just Because It Is False

It should be obvious by now to anyone familiar with David Barton and his particular brand of right-wing pseudo-history that he is not going to stop repeating claims just because those claims happen to be demonstrably false. 

The latest incident occurred when he appeared on "Table Talk" on Daystar TV last week where he, for the third time, falsely claimed that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion in which he stated that "we all know that all the provisions in the Bill of Rights, the due process clauses, came out of the Bible."

As we have noted the last two times that we found Barton making this assertion, his claim is utterly and demonstrably false. What Breyer actually said in his 1999 concurrence in Lilly v. Virginia was that the right to face one's accuser is mentioned in the Bible, as well as several other places (emphasis added):

The Court’s effort to tie the Clause so directly to the hearsay rule is of fairly recent vintage, compare Roberts, supra, with California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155—156 (1970), while the Confrontation Clause itself has ancient origins that predate the hearsay rule, see Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542, 548 (1926) (“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions”). The right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises. See The Bible, Acts 25:16; W. Shakespeare, Richard II, act i, sc. 1; W. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, act ii, sc. 1; 30 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure §6342, p. 227 (1997) (quoting statutes enacted under King Edward VI in 1552 and Queen Elizabeth I in 1558); cf. Case of Thomas Tong, Kelyng J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (out-of-court confession may be used against the confessor, but not against his co-conspirators); M. Hale, History of the Common Law of England 163—164 (C. Gray ed. 1971); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *373. As traditionally understood, the right was designed to prevent, for example, the kind of abuse that permitted the Crown to convict Sir Walter Raleigh of treason on the basis of the out-of-court confession of Lord Cobham, a co-conspirator. See 30 Wright & Graham, supra, §6342, at 258—269.

Barton's claim is easily debunked, but he knows that his right-wing audience will never bother to actually attempt to verify anything that he says, which allows him to continue to spread these sorts of falsehoods with impunity:

David Barton: Christians Must Accept That Trump Is 'God's Guy' In This Election

On his "WallBuilders Live" radio program today, David Barton fielded a question from a listener who will be serving as a delegate to the Republican convention but feels that he cannot support the nomination of Donald Trump. The listener asked Barton if there is anything that delegates can do to stop the nomination of Trump, to which Barton replied that Christians should simply accept that Trump is "God's guy" in this election.

Barton, who has already made clear that he will be voting for Trump despite the fact that he ran a super PAC supporting Ted Cruz, explained that since Christians were very active in the Republican primaries, they must conclude that Trump's victory was part of God's plans.

"One thing I know for sure is that in the race of primaries, we had a lot really good God guys in there," Barton said. "And we had a huge turnout of professing Christians and evangelicals and others, so there is nothing to complain about that we didn't get a voice, we didn't get a candidate. We had great candidates to choose from and this is who the people chose, and this is who the people chose with a really high turnout of evangelicals. So I kind of look back and say, 'Hmmm, I wonder where God's fingerprint is in this?' because this is not necessarily a failure of the church."

"This may not be our preferred candidate, but that doesn't mean it may not be God's candidate to do something that we don't see," he said. "We may look back in a few years and say, 'Wow, he really did some things that none of us expected.' So I am fully open to the possibility that because we did everything as Christians that we could, we can't complain about our turnout, we can't complain about our quality of candidates, and this is what the people chose; I'm a whole lot more open to the fact that God may have something going here that is much bigger than what we think or see."

David Barton Accuses Us Of Lying About What He Said ... By Lying About What We Said

Back in 2014, we wrote a post titled "Barton: Not Allowing Women To Vote Was Designed 'To Keep The Family Together'" in which we posted an audio clip of David Barton defending the Founding Fathers for denying women to right to vote when writing the Constitution on the grounds that doing so was designed to protect the institution of the family. 

Here is what we wrote:

On today's episode of "WallBuilders Live," David Barton explained that women were not given the right to vote when the Constitution was written because the Founding Fathers were trying to protect the institution of the family by giving every "family" a right to vote through the male head of the household.

Responding to a question from a listener who argued that the Founding Fathers denied women the right to vote not out of sexism but rather based on the biblical principle that a house divided against itself cannot stand, Barton said that this interpretation was exactly right because not allowing women to vote was designed "to keep the family together."

That introduction was followed by the audio of Barton's remarks and a transcript. 

Some people took Barton's comment to mean that he doesn't think that women should have the right to vote, which is not what he said, nor is it what we claimed that he said. 

But for some reason, Barton blasted us on his Facebook page last night while responding to someone on Twitter who accused him of not wanting women to vote: 

This past weekend, I saw a tweet blasting me by HGM@RightWingIdiot1 (see picture):

@DavidBartonWB I hope you wife and if you have daughters leave you and your hate for women. How dare you state women shouldn't vote.

This references a May 1, 2014 WallBuildersLive radio program in which I was answering audience questions, including one about women’s suffrage, the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution. The questioner did not believe the Founders were being sexist but rather that they voted more by households than by individuals. I affirmed that this was correct, and showed occasions of women voting as far back as the 1600s if they became the heads of the household. We also pointed out that the Constitution did not prohibit women from voting prior to that, but that the 19th Amendment was added to ensure women’s suffrage.

Nevertheless, Right Wing Watch – a far left secularist progressive group whose parent organization is funded by atheist billionaire George Soros – came out with an article wrongly claiming that I defended the inability of women to vote in early America. That false claim was picked up and repeated by others, including the tweet I saw this weekend.

Interestingly, one of my strongest critics and loudest opponents, Professor John Fea of Messiah College in California, actually defended me against this false charge. (I have been told by students of Messiah College that they actually taught a course there against me – that they use me to show the wrong view of American history in the Founding Era.) Dr. Fea acknowledged that he “just listened to the entire episode,” and then pointed out several reasons why the claim from Right Wing Watch was wrong, including:

“1. Nowhere in this episode does Barton say the 19th amendment was a bad thing or that women voting is a bad thing. Listen for yourself. Some might say he is implying this. If someone wants to make this argument, it is a stretch.”

“2. The clip I posted above [from Right Wing Watch] has been edited. The part of the discussion in which Barton and Green seem to suggest that women's suffrage is a positive development in American life has been cut out.”

Right Wing Watch omitted the part of the program that would refute their own false claim. (This is something they regularly do in their frequent charges against me.) Their false accusation that I oppose women voting continues to have life even years later because folks too often repeat what others say rather than following the example of critic John Fea, who listened to the entire episode and thus recognized the claim as false.

Furthermore, I have been on record for years stating that my goal is for 100% of all Americans to be registered to vote, and to vote – I want 100% citizen participation in voting.

Given all of this, my questions for HGM@RightWingIdiot1 would begin with:

1. Did you fail your Math and English classes in school? For years I have said that my objective is 100% of Americans voting in every election. Do you think that 100% of Americans does not include women? 100% is fully inclusive and means everybody!

2. You want my wife and daughter to leave me??? I would not wish that on anyone, even those who consider themselves my enemies. It is ironic that those who accuse others of being haters are often the ones who display the most hate.

3. You really think I hate women? I have reprinted books and appeared on numerous media programs to reintroduce female heroes from history back to the modern generation. In fact, in writing history and social studies standards for state boards of education, the official public records affirm that I have been solely responsible for including numerous women in the texts.

4. Why don’t you set an example for people from your side: check the facts for yourself rather than just parrot what someone else says – learn to think for yourself rather than be part of Right Wing Watch group think.

It’s time for the falsehood that I don’t want women to vote (and so many of the other fabrications distributed by Right Wing Watch and their allies) to come to a halt. Perhaps this post will help accomplish that.

DB

We never once claimed that Barton opposes the right of women to vote, as he repeatedly asserted. We were rather highlighting his absurd claim that the Founding Fathers were not sexist in denying women the right to vote because they did so in the name of "protecting the family." 

It is amazing that Barton is seemingly so incapable of telling the truth that he is now reduced to lying about us having supposedly lied about him. 

David Barton: 'The More Secular Something Becomes ... The Less Well It Works'

Last week, Republican operative and pseudo-historian David Barton spoke at a church in Utah where he declared that the further governmental and social institutions move away from the Bible, the more inefficient they become.

After repeating his false claim that the Constitution is filled with verses from the Bible, Barton asserted that the Founding Fathers based all of our institutions on the Bible because they knew that was the only way those institutions could survive.

"The more secular something becomes, the further the Bible moves away from it, the less well it works," Barton stated. "The more secular education becomes in America, the less well it works. The more secular government becomes in America, the less well it works. The more secular the judiciary becomes, the less well it works. The more secular economics becomes ... you see, the safety and permanence of our institutions are built on the Bible."

David Barton's Brilliant New Defense Against Criticism: I'm Rubber, You're Glue

Pseudo-historian David Barton seems to have come up with a new talking point for hitting back at those who criticize right-wing Christians: I know you are, but what am I?

On his "WallBuilders Live" radio show yesterday, Barton mistakenly claimed that Romans 2:21 says that those who condemn others are often only condemning themselves because they are guilty of the very things for which they are attacking others, which he used to attack those who criticize the Religious Right (it's actually Romans 2:1 that says this).

"Usually what they accuse you of is what they're guilty of," he said. "They yell intolerance at us when they're the intolerant ones. They yell bigotry at us, they're the bigoted ones. They yell anti-science at us, they're the anti-science. You get used to when people call you names, it's because they're very conscious and sensitive of what that looks like because they are one."

Apparently Barton was so pleased with this ingenious argument that he repeated it on today's show, declaring that when "they accuse us of being the haters or whatever; no, that's because they look in a mirror and they know how to recognize a hater when they see one because they see one every morning."

David Barton: Academics Who Criticize My Work 'Hate America'

Right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton appeared on "The Patriot and The Preacher" radio program over the weekend, where he declared that historians who criticize his work do so because they hate America.

After spending several minutes blasting President Obama for supposedly apologizing to Japan for our use of atomic weapons during World War II (Obama did nothing of the sort), Barton said that it is all part of an effort to "tear America down."

"The academic community and the political elites, they are determined to tear America down so that they can remake it as part of a global thing ... that we can be like the rest of the world," Barton said. "That's been their objective is we should not have an independent, distinct identity, we should be part of what they call the community of nations. And so that's part of the deconstruction that's happening in America right now."

"I'll tell you, [in] academics, this is such a big issue," he continued. "Two years ago when I wrote a book, I made a comment about American exceptionalism, which is something we've believed since Alexis de Tocqueville gave us that term in 1831. I can't tell you how many academics came out of the woodwork and just attacked me viciously, 'How dare you say that America is a special nation, how dare you say that America has done anything right.' The academic community is phobic over this thing and Obama, of course, was a law professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago. And so that academic community, they hate America with a virility that is hard for the rest of us to understand."

Right Wing Round-Up - 5/26/16

  • Warren Throckmorton: Information and Misinformation on Gender Dysphoria from Wallbuilders and the American College of Pediatricians, Part One.
  • Sam Reisman @ Mediaite: Ginsburg: Having Only Eight Justices Means SCOTUS Can’t Do Its Job.
  • Dara Lind @ Vox: Trump campaign chair: We’ll pick a white man for VP. Anything else would be “pandering.”
  • Alan Colmes: Klayman: Baylor Sexual Assault Scandal Makes Starr ‘Sympathetic’ To Bill Clinton.
  • Jose Medina @ TFN: Bruner: I Ran to Expose the ‘Evil’ Actions of ‘Cock-Roaches’.
  • Oliver Willis @ Media Matters: Trump’s Kitchen Cabinet: What The Media Needs To Know About The Nominee’s Top Advisers And Supporters.
  • Tom McKay @ Mic: The Haunting Of Ted Cruz: These 5 Sinister Extremists Are His Dark Legacy From 2016.
  • Charles Johnson @ LGF: Definitive Video Proof That Donald Trump Is a Minion of Satan.

David Barton: With Ted Cruz Out, Conservative Christians Must Become More Engaged In Electing God-Fearing Candidates To Office

David Barton, the Religious Right psuedo-historian and activist who ran a major super PAC supporting Ted Cruz’s presidential candidacy, released a video today laying out the path for conservative Christian activists to take now that Cruz, the candidate they had long prayed for, has dropped out of the presidential race. 

The results of the GOP presidential primary, he said, drive home three life lessons: 1) Nothing catches God by surprise; 2) God cares how you respond to adversity; 3) All things work together for good according to God's plan.

As such, Barton said that conservative activists cannot now abandon all that they have fought for and must, instead, "become more engaged" and get to work electing people who will operate according to "the timeless principles given to us by God" to local, state and federal offices.

"We become more engaged and we get our neighbors engaged," Barton said. "We need to make sure our neighbors are registered to vote and that they choose God-fearing leaders and that, above all, we teach ourselves and others to think and act biblically."

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious