Wallbuilders

Barton: Gay Activists Don't Want Equality, They Want To Be Dominant

The guest on "WallBuilders Live" today was Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel church in California who came on to warn the audience about SB 323, the "Youth Equality Act," which would require youth nonprofit organizations operating in the state to comply with California’s nondiscrimination laws.

That, of course, is an outrage to folks like David Barton, who warned that gay activists don't just want equality, they want to dominate and force everyone else to accept their views, which is something that Christians would never do:

Notice that this bill is pointed against quote 'discriminate against LGBT groups.' Now discriminate against now means, in California officials' views, to disagree with.  So it's not discriminate against, it's if you disagree with these groups, we're going to punish you for not having a government-approved view. This is what happens when [Christians] refuse to get involved and its now going to effect home-schoolers as well.

We often say let homosexuals have the right to marry, et cetera; no, no, no, it doesn't stop with that - a little leaven leavens the whole loaf - these guys are not wanting to be equal, they're wanting to be dominant.

And that's what we've seen across Europe, that's what we've seen everywhere else but we keep thing, well, we wouldn't do that if we were in charge, we wouldn't force our views on them. Great, but you're not in charge and you're not getting involved and you're not electing people.

Lapin: 'Singleness ... Tends To Give Us Tyranny In A Society'

On several occasions, Glenn Beck has made it clear that he does not share the Religious Right's panicked belief that marriage equality will destroy the nation and even stated that the push for equality is winning "because the principle of it is is right."

So it was a little odd that he handed over his television program last night to David Barton and Rabbi Daniel Lapin who spent the entire hour making the case that, in fact, marriage equality will destroy the nation and that government has no right to change God's definition of marriage.

While Barton claimed that the Founding Fathers all agreed that the government had no power or right to change anything that God had established, Lapin declared that "it is marriage that makes government possible."

"Singleness," Lapin added, "in other words, an obliteration of marriage, tends to give us tyranny in a society and, what's more, tyranny seems to stimulate a destruction and a pulverizing of marriage."

Barton: Glenn Beck Is A Christian Who Identifies As Mormon Simply Out Of Loyalty

It has been no secret that there have been some among the Religious Right who have raised concerns about the prominent role that Glenn Beck has been playing within the movement because he is a practitioner of the Mormon faith.  And given David Barton's close ties to Beck, Barton has also received criticism for defending Beck, often by claiming that if you judge Beck simply by the "fruits" of his works and not his label, he is really a Christian.

While Beck himself openly embraces his Mormon faith and has even dedicated entire programs to defending it, Barton continues to insist that Beck is really just a Mormon in name only, and he only does that because he has a loyalty to the church for helping him overcome with problems with alcohol.

As Barton explained to Steve Deace last week, individual Mormons can go to Heaven and Beck really "became a Christian back when he was in Alcoholics Anonymous" but identifies as a Mormon today only "because he has a loyalty to them":

They see the label Mormon and they say "ah, I know what that is." No you don't.  To say a Mormon can't go to Heaven is like saying every Baptist is going to Heaven. What you have to look at is individuals. And individuals often don't believe what the rest of the of the group does.

Now, in the case of Glenn - and I'm not going to speak for Glenn, I'll just speak for what I know about him - Glenn became a Christian back when he was in Alcoholics Anonymous, but when he was up in New England and laying on the floor, curled up, trying to get withdrawal from drugs and alcohol, no Christians reach out to him; it was the Mormon Church that took him under its arm and said 'hey, let us help you.' And they just loved on him and they just held him and he's got a loyalty to them because they're the people who reached out for him when he really needed help.

So people get stuck over what the label is and my position has been very simple; if I walk up to a tree and it says I'm a banana tree but I keep seeing apples, what do I go by? The label or what I see of the fruit?

And so people again keep getting caught up over labels, but hey, back off the labels, judge the fruit.  And there's going to be things we disagree with and I think you analysis was good is that it's in development.  You know, you look at where he was three years ago and where he is now; a world of difference.

David Barton Doesn't Need Religion Or The Bible To Lie About Gay Marriage

When it comes to honesty and accuracy, we have learned not to expect much of either from David Barton, just as we have learned that he is not going to stop repeating something just because it is demonstrably false. And that trend continues as, on his radio program today, Barton misrepresented a ten year old study to prove that "homosexual marriage is not a good deal for a country":

I don't need religion or a Bible to prove that homosexual marriage is not a good deal for a country. We have now twelve nations who have adopted homosexual marriage; they have stats. 

Jesus did give us a good admonition in Matthew 7 that you can judge a tree by its fruits, so if I take the nations that have homosexual marriage and I look at them, I say okay in those nations where you have homosexuals allowed to marry, only two percent of homosexuals do marry. So even though they want homosexual marriage, 98% of homosexuals don't marry when they get it and the average homosexual marriage lasts eighteen months and involves eight extra-marital partners.

Now by what stretch of the imagination would you consider that to be a marriage?

Predictably, nothing Barton said was true. As Jim Burroway pointed out several years ago, this talking point about gay marriages lasting only a year and a half and including multiple partners has been cited incessantly by anti-gay activists despite the fact that the study they are supposedly citing said nothing of the sort.

In fact, the study focused on the transmission of HIV infections among gay men in Amsterdam and was completed years before gay marriage even became legal, so it literally has nothing to do with gay marriage whatsoever, as Burroway diligently explained:

Claim #1: The study was of homosexual relationships between married homosexual men.

This study was not about homosexual relationships. The authors are mostly doctors and epidemiologists – they study how diseases are passed along from one person to the next. Their research article presented a mathematical model that was intended to predict how HIV and AIDS would spread among gay men. If a couple is monogamous, then by definition they would not be contributing to the spread of HIV and AIDS. Monogamous couples were simply irrelevant to the study, which is why they were explicitly excluded.

Claim #2: Homosexual relationships last for an average of only one and a half years, making same-sex marriages short-lived.

The first problem we have here is that everyone over the age of thirty was excluded from the study. By keeping the age of the sample population artificially low, this artificially limits the length of time any of them could have been in a “steady relationship”. You’re certainly not going to find any twenty-nine-year-olds in thirty-year relationships — or even fifteen-year ones.

But that’s not the only problem. The study didn’t ask if any of the participants were married because they couldn’t marry. Marriage equality didn’t arrive in the Netherlands until April 2001, two years after the study ended. Instead the participants were simply asked if they had a “steady relationship” with no further guidance on what that means. People dating for a few weeks could consider themselves in a “steady relationship” – which would be a far cry from full-fledged marriage.

This is an important pont. If legally recognized marriage had been an option for these couples (and if the researchers had been interested in studying only married gay men), they would have had a consistent standard for excluding those couples who were merely dating, or even those who were living together but who didn’t want to get married. That would have been the only valid way to compared married gay couples to married straight ones. You would have weeded out those who don’t want to marry, or who weren’t at that stage in their relationships where they felt ready to be married. After all, not all straight couples in “serous relationships” are married. By including couples in short-term relationships as well as those who don’t want to be married, the average length of relationships is significantly lowered.

And of course, monogamous couples were excluded from the study altogether. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to assume that non-monogamous relationships are less likely to be as stable as monogamous ones. By excluding monogamous couples, the average is likely reduced even more.

To make a valid comparison to straight couples, we would need to compare this group of gay men to married and unmarried urban straight couples – all under thirty and all non-monogamous. This didn’t happen.

Claim #3: Men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.

The authors quoted that average in their study, but they never tried to claim that it was true for gay men as a whole. Because the study excluded monogamous couples, the stated average would naturally be excessively high. What’s more, we don’t know how much this average was skewed because we don’t know how many monogamous couples were excluded.

The only thing we can conclude from this study is that when people decide to be non-monogamous, they decide to be really non-monogamous.

As we have seen, the “Dutch study” claims made by anti-gay activists are seriously distorted. Like most of their claims about gay men’s sexual behavior, anti-gay activists rely on studies that are not representative of the general population. What’s worse, they especially rely on studies culled from STD clinics for most of their claims. And by not telling you the nature of these studies or their participants, they are engaging in a deliberately deceptive practice. And they get by with it because they assume you won’t read these studies yourself, which is a safe assumption for most readers. After all, who has the time to go to a medical library to look up these studies in arcane professional journals?

This is the second time in recent weeks that we have heard Barton make these same phony claims and it presumably won't be the last, since Barton is not the sort who lets lack of truth stop him from spreading his propaganda.

Gay Marriage Violates the Separation of Church and State, Apparently

On Wallbuilders Live today, David Barton and Rick Green hosted Baptist pastor Danny Holliday, who was active in the campaign to block marriage equality legislation in the Illinois legislature. Green kicked off the show by comparing Holliday’s anti-gay activism to John Adams’ push for the adoption of the Declaration of Independence: “He was like John Adams at the Continental Congress, the guy behind the scenes that was working day and night to make sure we got the Declaration of Independence.”

Barton also wanted people to know that there is nothing “gay” about being gay.

“I’m not going to call it gay marriage; it’s homosexual marriage,” Barton pointed out. “Our friend Ken Hutcherson says he’s the gayest guy he knows because he’s not going to give the word gay up to homosexuals; gay means happy, bright and cheerful and that’s not what homosexuality is.”

Holliday told the hosts that marriage equality for gays and lesbians violates the separation of church and state. Under his Barton-esque view, Holliday said the separation of church and state actually means that the government has “no right to disregard what God says” about marriage or other issues.

It’s not about the character or integrity of people who are gay, it’s not about them. The issue is God defined marriage and since our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence and the oath of office in the state of Illinois recognize almighty God, then we have no right to disregard what God says about the institution of marriage. They don’t have a right to step beyond the veil, that separation of church and state, because it is God who gives us religious freedom and not the state.

Ohio School District Offering Summer Course in David Barton's Revisionist History

Warren Throckmorton reports today that Ohio’s Springboro School District is planning to offer a summer course on the Constitution…taught via video by revisionist historian David Barton and his Christian Reconstructionist pal John Eidsmoe, and sponsored by the extreme Christian-nation group Institute on the Constitution.

The announcement for the course offers families an opportunity to “learn your Godly American heritage and birthright”:

As RWW readers know, David Barton is the discredited “historian” whose most recent book on the nation’s “Christian heritage” was pulled by its conservative Christian publisher because it was riddled with factual errors. John Eidsmoe is a leading Christian Reconstructionist thinker and intellectual mentor of Michele Bachmann.

Springboro’s school board made national headlines last month when it debated adding creationism to its curriculum.

Barton: Gay People Will 'Enlist In the Military Just So They Can Have Gay Marriages'

Reiterating false claims he made in an interview with Glenn Beck following the Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA, David Barton today once again alleged that the Obama administration plans to compel chaplains and Central American nations to administer same-sex marriages against their will.

Barton, speaking on Wallbuilders Live today, suggested that gays and lesbians will now enlist in the armed forces just to get hitched: “Now that there is no longer a definition of marriage as a man and a woman and DOMA’s struck down, guess what? Guess what happens in the military? Guess what is going to happen in the military? Guess who is going to enlist in the military just so they can have gay marriages and force chaplains to do that?”

He accused the State Department of telling other countries that “you gonna have to get on track with gay marriage and you gonna have to get homosexuality in the nation.” And he finally named which Central American country the US is supposedly forcing to legalize same-sex marriage: Belize.

Of course, Barton was completely off base: the State Department criticized Belize over its harsh law criminalizing homosexuality and for unbridled harassment and discrimination against gays and lesbians.

“So the United States has now become an evangelist for gay marriage, homosexual marriage, across the world,” Barton said. “This is unconscionable.”

Gohmert: Kids Don't Need Sex-Ed Because This Isn't The Soviet Union

On today's episode of "WallBuilders Live," David Barton and Rick Green were joined by Rep. Louie Gohmert for a discussion about the dangers posed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the organization's "indoctrination" of students.

Predictably, Green, Barton, and Gohmet all repeated the absurd right-wing talking point that the SPLC has been "linked to domestic terrorism," but Gohmert seemed primarily dismayed by the idea that kids might be learning about sex.

Kids don't need to learn about these things, Gohmert insisted, because "mankind has existed for a pretty long time without anyone ever having to give a sex-ed lesson to anybody" but now such instruction is commonplace in public schools ... and it all reminds him of the Soviet Union:

Let the kids be innocent.  Let them dream. Let them play. Let them enjoy their life. You don't have to force this sexuality stuff into their life at such a point. It was never intended to be that way. They'll find out soon enough.  And, in fact, ... mankind has existed for a pretty long time without anyone ever having to give a sex-ed lesson to anybody.  And now we feel like, oh gosh, people are too stupid to unless we force them to sit and listen to instructions.  It's just incredible.

And there is a natural law that parents should be involved in education, they should know about, they should be part of the training - that's a law of nature; Alan Keyes was just talking about it this weekend when we were together. That is such an important part of nature and yet that is the very thing that some of these liberals want to take away.

And it reminds me so much of the summer that I was an exchange student in the Soviet Union back in the Seventies and I was shocked when they were saying 'no, the children don't belong to parents, they belong to the state.' And if any parent said anything in front of their children negative about the wonderful Soviet Union, then we will take their children away and give them to somebody more deserving.  And I just thought how horribly shocking that was, that of course parents were the ones who love the children, not the state. And I thought thank God that we don't have that in our country.

And now I've seen this coming with a lady from MSNBC saying "hey, children belong to the state" ... and it just sent chills because it took me back to the Seventies when that's what the Soviet Union used to say and we know how well that worked out.

Barton: 'You Can't Drink Starbucks and be Biblically Right'

Recently, David Barton delivered his stock presentation at during a service at Whitesburg Baptist Church in Huntsville, Alabama where he once again falsely asserted that the Supreme Court banned the practice of requiring Bible reading in public school because it could give students brain damage, as well as the various other false claims that he routinely makes.

But, as he frequently does, he added in a few new bits of information; in this case, a  pronouncement that Christians cannot drink Starbucks coffee because the company supports marriage equality.

"Biblically, there is no way a Christian can help support what is attacking God," Barton said, adding "I'm sorry, you've got to find some other coffee to drink.  You can't drink Starbucks and be biblically right on this thing.  It's just a real simple principle":

Barton: AIDS Is God's Penalty for Those Who Engage in 'Shameful Sexual Acts'

On today's episode of "WallBuilders Live," David Barton reiterated his belief that we will never be able to find a cure for AIDS because the disease is God's punishment for homosexuality, but taking it a step further by saying that even if we do cure AIDS, new deadly diseases will continue to emerge because God says there must be a "penalty" for engaging in these kinds of "shameful sexual acts":

I've gone on record before, and I'll say it again: I think Romans 1:27 is one of the reasons that we'll never find a complete cure for AIDS; and if we do there will be another disease pop up like this bacterial meningitis because the Bible says this, Romans 1:27 says 'men committed shameful acts with other men, sexual acts, and received in themselves the due penalty for the error.'

There is going to be a consequence for this type of sexual behavior, so even if we find a cure for AIDS, something like bacterial meningitis is going to pop up; if we cure that, something else is going to pop up because God says there is a penalty in your own body when you do this kind of sexual acts - the Bible calls them shameful sexual acts - and so we as Christians have to have that same position, regardless of what the culture says.

Barton: Partner Abuse 'Ten Times Higher' in Same-Sex Relationships

David Barton isn’t just a terrible and unaccredited historian, he’s also an awful amateur sociologist. While talking to co-host Rick Green on today’s edition of WallBuilders Live about how same-sex marriage will take away from society the benefits of marriage, Barton argued that “spousal abuse is through the roof, up to ten times higher in homosexual couples whether they be gay or lesbian, male or female, spousal abuse is higher.”

He also said that “no sociological study out there” is supportive of same-sex parenting, adding that “we know that kids coming out of those homes are having much more difficulty.”

Green: If you were to come and totally rearrange my house when I wasn’t here and do something totally different than what it was intended for that would— if you do that with marriage and government does that with marriage it also changes the benefits of that institution that God created. Now you’re not going to have that stability of the home, you’re not going to have that environment for a child to be raised where they won’t go down those paths that you were talking about. Just like if you were to change my house I wouldn’t have the benefit of the way that we designed our house and the things that we enjoy about our house, so if we allow government to go outside its jurisdiction and redefine what marriage is we’re going to lose all those benefits of the family and marriage as one man and one woman.

Barton: Lose is the right word because you don’t create new benefits, I mean there is no sociological study out there that says ‘hey look kids do so much better when they are in a home without a mother and a father, when they are in a home with two mothers, two fathers.’ By the way, we know that in those homes where gay marriage exists, spousal abuse is through the roof, up to ten times higher in homosexual couples whether they be gay or lesbian, male or female, spousal abuse is higher; we know that kids coming out of those homes are having much more difficulty.

But the CDC’s 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey [PDF] notes that lesbian women experience slightly higher rates of intimate partner violence (43.8%) than heterosexual women (35.0%) and found comparable rates among gay men (26.0%) and heterosexual men (29.0%).

Bisexuals are much more likely to experience partner violence, but the CDC notes that the vast majority of them — 89.5% of bisexual women and 78.5% of bisexual men — reported that an opposite-sex partner was the perpetrator.

The anti-violence group Jane Doe Inc. found that “Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are abused at approximately the same levels as heterosexual couples, but the abuse may be exacerbated by social isolation caused by societal oppression and discrimination,” and the Center for American Progress similarly reports that “studies have found that domestic violence occurs among same-sex couples at comparable rates to straight couples.”

Barton’s claim about children is also erroneous.

The American Sociological Association maintained in an amicus brief that “the social science consensus is both conclusive and clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents as when they are raised by opposite-sex parents.” The Washington Post adds that “there is a growing consensus among experts that the sexual orientation of parents is not a major determinant in hos well children fare in school, on cognitive tests and in terms of their emotional development,” noting that one recent survey found that children of lesbian parents “did fine—better even, than children in a similar study involving more diverse families.”

How False Religious Right Talking Points Are Born

On August 15, 2012, a gunman walked into the Washington, DC headquarters of the Family Research Council with the intent of killing as many people as possible. Fortunately, the FRC's building manager confronted him and, despite being shot in the arm, subdued him and prevented any loss of life.

When the gunman, Floyd Lee Corkins, was interrogated by the FBI about why he carried out this attack on the FRC, he said it was because of the organization's anti-gay activism. When Corkins admitted that he had visited the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center while doing research, the Religious Right seized on the info as supposed proof that the SPLC's designation of FRC as an anti-gay hate group was leading to violence.

In particular, they insisted that the "hate map" on the SPLC's website played a direct role in Corkins' actions. 

Here is that map:

How that vague image somehow directed Corkins to the FRC's headquarters is never explained. In fact, the map doesn't even provide any data as to FRC's actual location, unlike the FRC's own website which provides its address and detailed directions.

But since Corkins mentioned the research produced by the SPLC during his interrogation, and since Corkins was charged under the District of Columbia's Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002, for activsts like Jerry Boykin and David Barton, that means that the SPLC is now "directly linked to domestic terrorism":

Boykin: Islamic terrorists are not the only people we need to be concerned about. We have now, right here, in our own country, an organization that is connected to domestic terrorism as a result of a federal trial in Washington, DC.

..

Barton: The fact that now, in federal court, they have been directly linked to domestic terrorism, that's significant stuff.

Much like the way that anti-Islam activists falsely insist that various Muslim groups were designated as "unindicted co-conspirators" with ties to terrorism by a federal court, we expect to keep hearing the Religious Right falsely assert that the SPLC is linked to domestic terrorism despite the fact that it is obviously nonsense.

Barton: Right-Wing Vote-Rigging Scheme Gives 'the People a Greater Voice'

After watching the Republican presidential candidates lose the last two elections, right-wing activist Ken Blackwell cooked up a scheme whereby states would move away from winner-take-all allocations of electors to a system in which Electoral College votes would be assigned according to congressional districts.

The result would be that a Republican presidential candidate who does not win the overall popular vote in the state could still end up receiving a majority of that state's electoral votes simply by virtue of winning the popular vote in more individual districts.

Today, Blackwell appeared on "WallBuilders Live" to promote this scheme, where it was met with enthusiastic support from Rick Green and David Barton. As Blackwell explained, if every state had implemented this plan for the 2012 election, Mitt Romney would have won despite the fact that he lost the overall popular vote by nearly 5 million votes.

That, of course, is ridiculous ... and the fact that people think it is outrageous is, according to Blackwell, a sign that it is a good idea:

Blackwell: There's an old farmer's tale that if you throw a brick at a pack of pigs, the one that squeals is the one you hit.  Well, when we put this out there, the Left started squealing, the New York Times started squealing, so we must be on to something.

Green: You must be on to something. No doubt about that.  I haven't had a chance to look, I don't if anyone has done a map, I'd be real curious to know if every state did this, how would the last few elections [have gone]? Have you had a chance to look?

Blackwell: I already know. If every state did it, Romney would have won the election.  And so that's another reason that the Left just instinctively dislikes it.

...

Barton: This actually is a way to give the people a greater voice rather than just having the majority slap it to the minority every time you turn around. And I really like what he's proposed here with reverting back out of the winner-take-all philosophy of the states, going back to congressional district take all, which is a good way to do it.

Only to David Barton could a scheme designed to ensure that a Republican candidate who loses the national popular vote would still win the election be a good idea because it supposedly give "the people a greater voice."

Barton: 'Bioshock Infinite' Is Teaching Kids to Hate Conservatives and Christians

A few weeks ago, shortly after the video game "Bioshock Infinte" was released, Glenn Beck's The Blaze ran a story suggesting that the game was an anti-conservative, anti-Christian attack on the Tea Party.

Today on "WallBuilders Live," David Barton seemingly picked up on that story.  Though he never mentioned the game by name, Barton told co-host Rick Green that there is a game out right now where players shoot conservatives and Christians and that this is just like what the Nazis did in demonizing Jews:

Barton: Christians are starting to be ruled out in many areas in our country. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but there's a new video game out now and in this video game you shoot the bad guys, you go in and kill the bad guys and the bad guys are Christians and conservatives.

Green: Are you kidding me?

Barton: For real. There is a video game out now where the bad guys you are supposed to shoot are both conservatives and Christians.  So that's the ones that kids are being taught you have to rule out ... see, this is the kind of stuff that the Nazis started early on with young people and getting them to hate Jews, teaching them at Jews were bad and all the bad things that Jews did.  And Jews did not have the political platform to be able to turn that around.  Now Christians still do and if Christians don't get involved [in politics] we're going to have trouble.

Of course, to anyone even remotely familiar with this game, or the series in general, Barton's interpretation of the plot if literally laughable.

You know, it is odd that he didn't mention that the bad guy in the first Bioshock game was career criminal who posed as a champion of the underclass in order to take control over a Randian empire or that the main enemy at the center of Bioshock 2 was seeking to build a collectivist utopia.

It is almost as if Barton has literally no idea what he is talking about.

Barton: 'Decent People Find [Homosexuality] Absolutely Reprehensible and Disgusting'

On yesterday's program, David Barton asserted that one way to win the fight against gay rights is to start talking about how "reprehensible" homosexuality is going into graphic details on the theory that it will gross people out and educate them about what is really going on.

On today's broadcast, dedicated to discussing the possibility that the Boy Scouts might lift the ban on gay scouts and/or scout leaders, Barton and co-host Rick Green again asserted that as part of this battle, anti-gay activists need to inform people about how "reprehensible and disgusting" homosexuality really is:

Green: Just yesterday on the program with Father Frank, you were describing at the end of the program just like what Representative [Bill] Dannemeyer had read on the House floor in describing just how graphically disgusting these activities are in the homosexuality community.  And I think a lot of folks who are kind of siding with them on this Scout fight again, do not realize what they're approving to go camping with their ten and eleven year old boys.

Barton: Yeah, people have an image of what they think sexuality is and, you know, that can come from movies or come from other sites as well, but when you get the specifics of what homosexuality activity is, even decent people find that absolutely reprehensible and disgusting.  And that's why when Representative Dannemeyer said "hey you Democrats are trying to promote this, let me read what you're promoting, even Democrats got grossed out and tried to censor the Congressional Record and get that stuff taken out because it was so disgusting.

That is probably a good point to make Rick. While we think of this as being tolerant and whatever, no, you do need some details to realize what we're facing here and it's not what you think it might be. Get some details on it.

Barton: Democrats 'Have Wrapped [Kermit] Gosnell Around Themselves'

On today's "WallBuilders Live," David Barton and Rick Green interviewed Frank Pavone of Priests for Life where they discussed the trial of Kermit Gosnell. Following the interview, Barton asserted that the Gosnell case "the biggest mass murder trial in American history" before declaring that activists should not be afraid of placing the blame on the Democratic Party because the Democrats "have wrapped Gosnell around themselves":

The news has done a very, very, very poor job of covering the Gosnell trial which is one of the mass murder trials, the biggest mass murder trials in American history. You know, just basically decapitating a hundred babies or sniping the spinal cords and all the screaming, it's just unbelievable.

Democrats are the ones who have owned the abortion issue. In their platform they proudly proclaim [it,] so why do I feel like I have to tread on neutral ground and not call out Democrats versus Republicans? Hey, the Democrats are the ones who have wrapped the flag of abortion around themselves, they have wrapped Gosnell around themselves. Gosnell is a product of the Democrat thinking and philosophy ... If you're in the Democrat Party,  this is what your party believes, this is what your party platform says, this is what you've wrapped yourself around, this is what you promote as president, this is it.

Barton went on to proclaim that the key to winning the abortion battle is to educate people about the graphic nature of what abortion entails ... just like they should do with the issue of homosexuality in explaining how truly "reprehensible" it is:

Bill Dannemeyer, a Lutheran guy, he said "you Democrats, you're wanting to fund all this homosexual activity, let me describe to you what homosexuality is."  And he just took a homosexual handbook that described the different types of homosexual sex and it grossed all the congressmen out. He said "why are you grossed out, this is what you're funding" and he literally read it into the [Congressional] Record and they wanted to purge the record. But once you get education, you go man, this is gross stuff, whether it's homosexuality, whether it's abortion.

You know, even my grandad, when I got involved in the Republican Party ... he had been a lifelong Democrat, he said "why'd you do that?"  And I said "well, Grandad, because of where they are on abortion and where they are on religious expression and where they are on homosexuality."  We were building a fence at the time and I vividly remember it, we were putting the barbed wire up and nailing it on the post and he just listened to me and for about five minutes, he didn't say anything and about five minutes later he said "sometime you're going to have to tell me what homosexuality is. I hear people use that and I'm not sure what that is."

And there's a guy who has been in the Democrat Party his whole life but because of the reprehensible nature of what it is, he didn't know, it had never been described. The Founding Fathers called it the crime not to be mentioned, it was that reprehensible.

David Barton Cogently Explains Why Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional

On Thursday's episode of "WallBuilders Live," David Barton attempted to explain why marriage equality is a violation of the Constitution because it is a violation of the Declaration of Independence which is a violation of natural law which is a violation of God's law.

As Barton sees it, the 7th Amendment's language regarding "in suits at common law" means that the Constitution incorporates all of natural law into our legal system, and since common law is based on God's law, our entire system of government is really based on God's law.  And thus gay marriage can never be constitutional because it is a violation of God's law.

If that wasn't confusing enough, Barton went on to claim that the government must take a position on the issue of marriage because by not taking a position on it, it is creating an environment in which it must spend tax dollars on dealing with the negative things that happen as a result of not taking a position ... just like how supposedly "25% of all property theft occurs from people who are on drugs who steal money for their habit" somehow demonstrates the dangers of not outlawing drug use:

From a constitutional standpoint, you cannot exclude morals. A number of conservative libertarians in recent months have been saying "hey, marriage is not a constitutional issue" ... yet it is because Article 7 of the Constitutional through the attestation clause incorporates the Declaration [of Independence] into the Constitution.

The Declaration erects the moral standard by talking about the laws of nature and of nature's god.  Marriage has always been defined not only as a law of nature - now, it's not necessarily in nature, but they called it a natural law that you should be married to one man, one woman because that is what divine law says; the laws of the god who created nature, the law of nature's god even in the very beginning said one man, one woman, this is good. Jesus reiterated that in Matthew 19 and other places.

So the moral standard, the moral law dictates that marriage is between and man and a woman.  That was then incorporated into the Constitution in the Seventh Amendment in what was called the common law. The common law is part of the legal process. And if you look at the common law all the way through time, marriage has been part of the common that.  That is why you do not allow bigamy or polygamy or other forms of "igamy" that attack marriage.  Marriage is a man and a woman as part of the common law that's part of the Constitution.

Now what's happened in recent years, people have tried to say "hey, morals have nothing to do with government" ... yes they do ... and to believe that you can have government without morals, that's not part of the Constitution, that's not part of the Seventh Amendment, that's not part of the Declaration of Independence, it is a twisted view of constitutionality that says morals are to have no place in this. 

The problem is once you don't legislate it, it becomes a government issue because if you say we're not going to legislate drugs, guess who's going to have to take care of all the drug problems that arise? It will be government.  We know that right now, 25% of all property theft occurs from people who are on drugs who steal money for their habit.  If you legalize that, then there goes property.

If you look at the justice system, the increase in needs to jails and jail beds and et cetera, government is going to take care of this.  So if government says this is not an issue, it will be an issue.  It will effect our money, it'll effect our spending so anytime a government takes a position that it won't take a position, it has taken a position that it is going to take a position because it is going to spend money on it, if all that convoluted nonsense makes sense.

Barton: Instead of Passing Obamacare, Congress Should Have Called on People 'to be More Religious'

On "WallBuilders Live" today, Rick Green and David Barton interviewed Frank Newport, author of the book "God Is Alive and Well: The Future of Religion in America."

Following the discussion, Barton commented that the problem in America today is that while the vast majority of people consider themselves to be Christians, not enough are reading the Bible regularly and applying it to their daily lives.

After comparing the Bible to an owner's manual for a car, Barton said that "the more religious you are, the better your health is" and suggested that instead of passing health care reform legislation, Congress should have passed legislation "calling on people to be more religious":

Part of the problem we have is we've not shown then applicability. It's like saying "why don't you sit down and read the owner's manual for your car."  They say "no way, if I need something, I'll go there and get it" and so we wait until we think there's a need but actually, if you read it ahead of time, you'll find there's a ton of stuff that applies before you get there. You'll find when you read it that there's a whole lot more features on your car than you knew about that helped you maximize ... and so we have that same kind of mental hurdle to get over.  People think, man, if I get in a crisis, I'll go get this and read it.  No, no, no, read it before you get in a crisis because it is going to apply to stuff you don't even imagine right now and it will elevate and benefit your life.

And by the way, I thought it was really cool that he pointed out that the more religious your are, the better your health is. Now, instead of passing Obamacare, why didn't we pass a bill calling on people to be more religious and therefore help health over all?

That's the benefits of using God's word and applying God's word is it does provide tangible, measurable benefits not the least of which is health.

Barton Backtracks, Falsely Claims He Wasn't 'Justifying' Brutal Treatment of Native Americans

A few weeks ago, we posted some audio clips from a "WallBuilders Live" radio program in which David Barton explained the concept of just war theory during which he justified the brutal treatment of Native Americans by white settlers and the American government on the grounds that they needed to be destroyed in order to be taught a lesson and eventually made civilized.

Shortly thereafter, WallBuilders posted a message on its Facebook page claiming that Barton was not "justifying" this sort of treatment but merely "explaining" what had happened:

David was not justifying, but merely explaining the historical context of what happened, in the same way that he explained the British march to the sea. He made a parallel between the two as to tactics and strategy that were used during war at that time. David was explaining the historical events regarding King Philip's War, not the atrocities that were in general committed against the Indian tribes and nations, which we in no way condone. There is a big difference between justifying and merely explaining or reporting.

Like so much of Barton's work, this explanation holds up only so long as one blindly accepts Barton's nonsensical interpretation and doesn't bother to verify what he says, which is pretty easy since we produced a transcript of it at the time.

As anyone can see, Barton was not merely "explaining" what happened but was actively defending it on the grounds that "you cannot reason with certain types of terrorists." As Barton said at the time, the Indians had "declared war on all the white guys" and so "we had to go in and we had to destroy Indian tribes all over" until they got the message:

You have to deal, a lot of it, with how the enemy responds. It's got to be based on what the enemy responds [to,] you cannot reason with certain types of terrorists; and see that's why we could not get the Indians to the table to negotiate with us on treaties until after we had thoroughly whipped so many tribes ... What happened was the Indian leaders said "they're trying to change our culture" and so they declared war on all the white guys and went after the white guys and that was King Philip's War.  It was really trying to be civilized on one side and end torture and the Indians were threatened by the ending of torture and so we had to go in and we had to destroy Indian tribes all over until they said "oh, got the point, you're doing to us what we're doing to them, okay, we'll sign a treaty."

...

Take, for example, what happened in the western plains wars in the late 1800s when we were taking on the plains Indians.  I'm not talking about treaties, I'm not talking about behavior of Americans toward Indians or vice versa, there were violations on both sides of nearly every treaty.  I'm talking about what happened in ending those wars after Custer and everything that went on.

People complain about the fact that the American military and buffalo hunters went out and wiped out all the buffalo in the western plains.  Doing that was what brought the Indians to their knees because the Indians lived on those wide western plains where there were very few towns; Indians didn't go into town to buy supplies, they went to the buffalo herds, that's where they got their meat, that's where they got their coats, the hides provided coats, they provided covering for their teepees.

If you don't have the buffalos, those Indians cannot live on the open western plains without those buffalo and so what happened was the military wiped out the supply line by wiping out the buffalo.  That's what brought those wars to an end, that's what brought the Indians to their knees and ended all the western conflict.

The focus of the radio program was a discussion of just war theory and Barton's purpose in bringing up this issue was to explain that these tactics were justified specifically because they do not appear to be justifiable.

Barton was not merely "explaining" what had happened, but was justifying it on the grounds that when your enemies refuse to abide by the "rules of civilization, you still have to secure the life and the property and the protection of your citizens" in whatever way you can.

Barton: 'Conspiracy Mentalities Are a Bad Deal'

On the weekly "Good News Friday" episode of "WallBuilders Live" today, David Barton cited a poll supposedly showing that a majority of Americans believe that the government poses a threat to their rights and freedoms, which he suggested is a good thing because it meant that there was also a majority of citizens who would be willing to stand up and push back.

But there was also a danger, Barton warned, in that it could lead people to fear the government which, in turn, leads to conspiracy theories:

I think fear causes you to do a lot of things.  Conspiracy mentalities are a bad deal. We're told in Isaiah 8:11 not to call conspiracy everything that everybody else calls conspiracy ... The problem with conspiracy is that faith is actually fear and if you have a lot of faith, that is having fear.  Job said "that which I feared has come upon me;"  it's like having faith for bad stuff to happen.

...

A lot of times when you get a conspiratorial mentality, it causes you to act in ways that the conspiracy actually becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. So I think on the one hand, as long as we have a health skepticism of government and Washington and their ability and, actually, their efforts right now to take power, I think that that's healthy so long as it doesn't turn into fear that becomes conspiratorial and phobic which then drives us to do things that causes Washington to really come after us.

Hmmm ... maybe Barton ought to share this view with his BFF Glenn Beck the next time he appears on his program.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious