Wallbuilders

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.

David Barton Explains Just War Theory: 'We Had to Destroy Indian Tribes' Until They Became Civilized

Today on "WallBuilders Live," David Barton was discussing just war theory which, in his unique interpretation, essentially boiled down to the view that whatever you need to do to end a conflict and protect the lives of your citizens and soldiers is justified.

To demonstrate his point, Barton said that Native Americans declared war on "all the white guys" because missionaries tried to convince them to stop torturing their enemies but they resisted these efforts to civilize them and "so we had to go in and we had to destroy Indian tribes all over until" they got the message.

Barton followed that up by defending the practice of wiping out the buffalo on the western plains because it decimated the livelihoods of Native Americans and thereby brought an end to their resistance to the US government:

A lot of it is based on what you have to do to secure justice and to secure the protection of life and liberties for your citizens and you do what you have to do at times, but you play on the rules sometimes that the other guys have set up. And if they're not going to negotiate with things like the Geneva treaty or other rules of civilization, you still have to secure the life and the property and the protection of your citizens.

...

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.

NOM's Peters: Regardless of 'Propaganda,' the Human Heart Knows Gay Marriage is Wrong

Thomas Peters of the National Organization for Marriage was the guest on today's episode of "WallBuilders Live" where he discussed the organization's efforts to spread its anti-marriage equality message to the next generation, saying that the key to their success will be finding a way to overcome the "intolerance and hatred" on campuses against those who promote this message.

Insisting that being anti-gay marriage does not make one anti-gay, Peters asserted that, despite all the "propaganda," the human heart simply knows that gay marriage is wrong and so this position will eventually win out, and it is imperative to work to prevent people from becoming confused and lost in the meantime:  

I'd say that the two big steps to getting to that message, of course, are fighting against the intolerance and hatred that is directed against us, especially in schools. You have a lot of pro-marriage people my age and younger in schools right now and they don't feel safe right now in sharing their pro-marriage convictions on that vast majority of college and high school campuses. That is something that has got to end.  We've got to figure out how to break down this ostracizing of pro-marriage viewpoints.

And second of all, we have to continually talk to people about how being pro-marriage is not anti-gay and that there is simply nothing discriminatory about seeing the love of a man and a woman as unique and special and worth protecting.

...

Marriage just speaks to the human heart and no matter how much propaganda you try to throw at that, the human heart always reestablishes what it knows to be true.  And we just know it's true that there is a difference between two men coming together and a man and a woman coming together.  And so I think that is the core message of marriage that eventually will overcome.  The question is how many people in the meantime are confused, how many people lose out on that saving message.

David Barton Continues to Peddle Falsehoods

It has become pretty obvious by this point that David Barton simply does not care that various claims he makes as part of his standard presentation are demonstrably false; he will simply continue to repeat them as fact because they are useful in promoting his right-wing political agenda.

As we have noted five times already, Barton repeatedly insists that the Constitution is filled with multiple "direct quotations" out of the Bible, insisting that anyone who doesn't see them is simply "biblically illiterate;" an assertion he made again while speaking at Fellowship Reformed Church in Hudsonville, Michigan over the weekend:

And if you know the Bible and you know and read the Constitution, you will see Bible verses and Bible phrases all over the Constitution.  It quotes Bible phrases everywhere.  People today say 'oh, it's a godless Constitution, it's a secular document.' If somebody tells me it's a secular document, I know that they're biblically illiterate. They don't recognize a Bible verse when they see one because the Constitution is loaded up with direct quotations out of the Bible.

Of course, the only person who is illiterate here is Barton himself, as he is apparently unable to comprehend what the phrase "direct quoation" since none of the evidence he provides represent, in any way, "direct quotations."

But Barton wasn't done spreading falsehoods in this presentation, as he also repeated the claim that the Supreme Court ended mandatory Bible reading in public schools because it was causing brain damage to students:

[In 1963] the Supreme Court said no more Bible in schools. Now why would they do that?  We have 320 years, literally, of the Bible in school; the Supreme Court itself said this is without any historical precedent.  There is no historical precedent in our history for not having the Bible in schools, but it's time to take it out.  Why would they take it out?

Well, the Court explained why they would take it out.  As a matter of fact, they called on the testimony of a psychologist - they didn't have any historical precedent, they didn't have any legal precedent, but Dr. Solomon Grayzel told them what was going to happen if kids read the Bible in schools and they said 'that's what we thought.' And so here's the quote the Supreme Court pointed out in its decision on why we took the Bible out of schools; they said 'if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and had been, psychologically harmful to the child.'

We've now discovered the Bible causes brain damage; we can't let you kids suffer brain damage, we've got to stop the brain damage.  That's the reason given by the Supreme Court on why the Bible went out of schools; it was psychological harm to children.

As we pointed out before, if you actually read the ruling in the case, you will find that the Supreme Court did not cite this as the reason for ending mandatory Bible reading in schools, rather the Court was merely describing the road the case had taken through the court system, noting that Dr. Grayzel's testimony had been heard during the initial trial.

Beyond that, Barton intentionally misrepresents the point of Grayzel's testimony itself, which was to note that forced Bible reading from a Christian perspective in public schools was potentially damaging to Jewish students:

Expert testimony was introduced by both appellants and appellees at the first trial, which testimony was summarized by the trial court as follows:

Dr. Solomon Grayzel testified that there were marked differences between the Jewish Holy Scriptures and the Christian Holy Bible, the most obvious of which was the absence of the New Testament in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Dr. Grayzel testified that portions of the New Testament were offensive to Jewish tradition, and that, from the standpoint of Jewish faith, the concept of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was "practically blasphemous." He cited instances in the New Testament which, assertedly, were not only sectarian in nature but tended to bring the Jews into ridicule or scorn. Dr. Grayzel gave as his expert opinion that such material from the New Testament could be explained to Jewish children in such a way as to do no harm to them. But if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and, in his specific experience with children, Dr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child, and had caused a divisive force within the social media of the school.

In both of these cases, it has been demonstrated time and again that the claims Barton is making are irrefutably false, but he simply does not care and continues to repeat them as truth as he delivers his pseudo-historical presentations to conservative audiences all across the country.

How Cindy Jacobs' Prayers May Have Saved David Barton's Life

We already know that Cindy Jacobs' prayers have stopped terrorism and saved the global economy, but on the latest episode of "God Knows" she revealed how her prayers may have saved David Barton's life.

Apparently, several years ago Barton and his family were driving to Florida when Jacobs received a dream from God ordering her to start praying that the wheels on the Barton's van would not fall off.  She immediately did so and when the Bartons arrived at their destination, she told them of her dream and David and Cindy's husband Mike took the van to a local mechanic who told them that the bearings were completely worn away and "there is absolutely no reason why your wheel should not have come off the axle."

As Cindy explained, "God had given a word for David" that he was going to use him to rewrite school curriculum standards throughout the nation, but "Satan was trying to resist him," but her intercessory prayers prevented that from happening:

False Inconsistency: Jerry Boykin, VAWA, and Women in Combat

The Family Research Council's Jerry Boykin was the guest on "WallBuilders Live" today for a discussion of the Pentagon's recent decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat.  Not surprisingly, Boykin opposes the idea, wondering why the Obama Administration would approve this change even as Congress was working to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, claiming "there is such an inconsistency here":

The Congress, the Senate at least, passed the Violence Against Women Act which was designed to protect our women. Now it had some flaws in it, so we don't support it ... but it's violence against women, protect our women.

Now with this decision by Leon Panetta and the President, what we're doing is we're saying 'now you ladies, fix your bayonets, we're going to send you right into hand-to-hand combat with these men that are physically more capable than you in most cases and they're going to try to kill you.'  There is such an inconsistency here.

More Evidence That David Barton's 'History' Cannot Be Trusted

As we have said time and time again, David Barton's books, DVDs, radio programs, and presentations are so riddled with misrepresentations that just about any factual claim he makes needs to be checked for accuracy.

And Barton once again demonstrated the need for such fact-checking when he recently delivered a presentation at Glen Medows Baptist Church in San Angelo, Texas where he made an utterly laughable claim about the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Abington Township v. Schempp which declared that school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools was unconstitutional.

In Barton's telling, the Court struck down the practice because reading the Bible was going to give students brain damage:

The Supreme Court, when it took the Bible out of public schools, said that this is without precedent; there is no precedent in our history for taking the Bible out of schools but this is the time to do it.

Now, if there is no historical precedent, why would they say the Bible has to go out of schools?  I mean, everything we have in history says just the opposite, so why?  They quoted Dr. Solomon Grayzel on the reason that we need to get the Bible out of schools ... In the Supreme Court decision, this is what the Court said why the Bible has to come out of schools; the Court says this:

If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and had been, psychologically harmful to the child.

Time out.  Let me see if I get this: if we keep reading the Bible in schools, our kids are going to suffer from brain damage? Yeah, that was the reason given by the Court for the removal of the Bible out of the classroom back in 62-63.

Of course, if you actually read the ruling in the case, you will find that this citation of Dr. Grayzel appeared at the beginning of the decision when the Supreme Court was merely describing the road the case had taken through the court system, noting that Grayzel's testimony had been heard during the initial trial. 

On top of that, Barton also utterly misrepresented the point of Grayzel's testimony, which was to note that forced Bible reading from a Christian perspective in public schools was potentially damaging to Jewish students:

Expert testimony was introduced by both appellants and appellees at the first trial, which testimony was summarized by the trial court as follows:

Dr. Solomon Grayzel testified that there were marked differences between the Jewish Holy Scriptures and the Christian Holy Bible, the most obvious of which was the absence of the New Testament in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Dr. Grayzel testified that portions of the New Testament were offensive to Jewish tradition, and that, from the standpoint of Jewish faith, the concept of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was "practically blasphemous." He cited instances in the New Testament which, assertedly, were not only sectarian in nature but tended to bring the Jews into ridicule or scorn. Dr. Grayzel gave as his expert opinion that such material from the New Testament could be explained to Jewish children in such a way as to do no harm to them. But if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and, in his specific experience with children, Dr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child, and had caused a divisive force within the social media of the school.

Just about everything in Barton's description of this court decision is fundamentally misleading and demonstrably false ... and yet it will continue to make no difference to those on the Right who regularly cite him as an expert historian.

Rick Perry Hopes the Boy Scouts Won't Cave to the 'Aggressive, Almost Cruel Intolerance' of the Left

Texas Governor Rick Perry stopped by "WallBuilders Live" today to voice his opposition to the upcoming vote by the Boy Scouts of America on possibly ending the organization's ban on gay scouts and scout leaders. Perry, the author of the book "On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For," was predictably opposed to any such change, calling on the organization not to "break the hearts" of those who love it by caving to the "cruel intolerance" of the left:

What this gets down to Rick is that scouting is not about sex, it's about building character.  And the Boy Scouts is not the proper intersection for a debate over sexual preference.  It is with this very aggressive, almost cruel intolerance by the far left that is making it so.  So I really urge the Boy Scouts of America leadership not to succumb to this and I happen to believe that it is every scout's, and certainly my Eagle Scout duty to speak out before scouting breaks the hearts of so many who love it.

Those just very, very aggressive, intolerant individuals on the left are what is driving this agenda and the Boy Scout leadership, I hope, will really listen and think about what the long-term impact of this is going to be.

This is about popular culture shifting in America.  The values that the Boy Scouts are based upon are not values that shift ... and Americans will be ill-served when one of the great institutions that it has in this country starts following pop culture rather than the clear, strong values that have served this country for over a century in the Boy Scouts.

Celebrating Black History Month with David Barton

February is Black History Month and WallBuilders is encouraging everyone to celebrate it buy purchasing a copy of David Barton's absurdly biased DVD ""Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White":

We'd encourage everyone to save their money and just read the report we wrote several years ago, exposing how Barton's DVD systematically blames the Democratic Party for everything from slavery to Jim Crow:

Though the program is billed as an attempt to recognize “the forgotten heroes and untold stories from our rich African American political history,” it is, in reality, a 90-minute effort to portray the Democratic Party as responsible for every problem that has ever plagued the African American community in America and imply that the Republican Party is the antidote. Barton’s website proudly claims that he “is currently breaking ground in the African-American community with his presentations” based on this DVD.

Throughout the program, Barton presents a staggeringly slanted, openly partisan, and tellingly incomplete view of American history. Barton focuses on the Democratic Party’s historical support for slavery and Jim Crow, but completely ignores the transformation of American politics brought about by the civil rights movement. Barton, of course, never mentions that the rise of the modern Republican Party was built on a “southern strategy” of embracing and exploiting the resentments of racist southern Democrats who joined the Republican Party after Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson pushed and signed landmark civil rights and voting rights legislation.

We even grabbed a few choice video clips from the DVD itself highlighting the way in which Barton links the Democratic Party to the Ku Klux Klan and asserts that Democrats supported slavery just as they support abortion today:

David Barton Reviews 'Lincoln' After Admitting He Hasn't Seen It

David Barton returned to Glenn Beck's television program last night for a program focusing on the history and use of presidential executive orders.  During the course of the discussion, Beck asked Barton if he had seen the movie "Lincoln," with Barton admitting that he hadn't because there was too much profanity ... but that didn't stop him from claiming that the film was totally inaccurate because there was no need for any "wheeling and dealing" or back room deals in order to secure passage of the 13th Amendment because "it was slam dunk, big time" and passed easily without any real opposition, which prompted Beck to declare that he now wished he could "unsee" the movie:

Apparently Barton doesn't realize that constitutional amendments have to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, so the 119 to 56 vote in the House that the movie chronicles was anything but a big time "slam dunk."

Lapin: It is 'Anti-Social Behavior' for People to Choose Not to Have Children

Rabbi Daniel Lapin was the guest on "WallBuilders Live" today where he discussed "the health benefits of attending synagogues and churches." During the conversation with co-host Rick Green, Lapin made the case that God designed people to interact and thus social connections were integral to good health, which is why people ought to regularly attend religious services.

That prompted Green to complain that under President Obama's "socialized medicine," states where people frequently attend church and are therefore healthier will end up having to "foot the bill" for all the states where people don't attend church. 

That observation struck Lapin as quite insightful, who then offered his own bizarre theory that people who don't have children are "anti-social" because they are forcing other people's children to take care of them:

Green: If you are in a society and culture that has that connection and that places a high value on religion and affiliation there and you get the better health that results, it looks like now, the way that America is going with socialized medicine, those states that are like that are going to end up footing the bill for the states that choose the other path, which is less connection and less affiliation with religion and those things because they are going to have a higher health bill.  But now, with socialized medicine, we'll pay for it.

Lapin: Oh, absolutely.  And by the way, that is also true of Social Security.  It's all very well people choose not to have children; not only do they pay a health penalty for that but the truth is that your children and mine are going to have to pay for them. People say "it's not true, I have my investments to take care of me, I don't need children." Well, that may be true, however your investments depend on a growing market of customers because your investments are in company and what characterizes a profitable company is that it has customers; it's customer are my children.

Green: Yeah, that's a good point, I hadn't even thought about that. If you don't have children, first of all, they are not contributing to the overall marketplace but also the tax base and everything else.

Lapin: That is exactly right.  So I really do think that a claim of anti-social behavior can be lodged at the door of people who choose not to have children.

Barton: There Should Be No Limits on the Second Amendment

Shortly after the Sandy Hook tragedy, David Barton appeared on Glenn Beck's television program where he made the case that the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee to citizens access to any and all weapons that might possibly be used against them in the name of self-defense.  And since citizens might have to defend themselves from the government,  they were entitled to own the same types of weapons that the government possesses. 

Under Barton's logic, the Second Amendment therefore guarantees to citizens the right to own tanks and bombers and attack helicopters and destroyers and even nuclear bombs because that is what the government owns. 

But that seems crazy and he couldn't possibly mean that, right?

Wrong. That is exactly what he means because he made the same point today on "WallBuilders Live":

The Second Amendment is not to arm you less than it is to arm the government. Because what specifically happened was if the Americans had not been able to go home and grab their guns off the mantel over the fireplace, they could not have taken on the British coming after them. 

The British was their government and the Americans had to have equal firepower with whoever was coming after them and that's why they went to Fort Ticonderoga and got all the British cannons and came back and used those. That was just individual citizens doing that.

So the purpose of the Second Amendment was you have got to be able to defend yourself, your rights, period against anybody and that sometimes means it may be your government coming after you.  So if the government has got AR-15s, guess what? The people can have AR-15s ... Whatever the government's got, you've got to be able to defend yourself against. So there was no limitation on what you could or couldn't do with the Second Amendment; it was a self-defense amendment and if everybody is coming at you AR-15s, you don't defend yourself with BB guns, you get AR-15s.

Barton: Armed School Children Prevent School Shootings

Last night, David Barton appeared on Glenn Beck's television program to discuss the "real issues" regarding gun control and the Second Amendment.  After an opening segment in which Beck claimed that Obamacare will force people to give up their guns and lead to Nazi-like euthanasia programs, the two got down to business with Barton explaining that the NRA was founded in order to protect freed slaves from lynchings and that there never used to be school shootings in the 1800s because all of the kids carried guns to school:

Barton: There Were No Gun Accidents During the Founding Era

Today, Rick Green and David Barton weighed-in on the tragedy at Sandy Hook by laying out not only the standard Religious Right solutions of putting prayer and the Bible back in schools, but also adding a unique suggestion to start arming everyone from early childhood.

Explaining that he began teaching his own kids how to use guns at the age of four, Barton said that people only want to get rid of guns because they are afraid of them, which can be attributed to the fact that they don't know how to use them.

As such, if everyone had a gun and was taught how to use it from childhood, there would never be any firearm incidents or accidents, just like during the founding era:

That's what these guys do not see and do not look at; they're just flat scared of guns.  And the solution to that is exactly what the Founding Fathers said and that is you start teaching kids to use guns when they're very young because gun accidents are caused by non-familiarity with guns; once you're familiar with them, you don't have accidents with them.

I have searched and in the founding era I think I've only ever found two gun accidents and everybody was hauling guns back then; you took your guns to church, you were required by state law in some states to take your guns to church.  We didn't have accidents because everyone was familiar with how to use them.  It's not being familiar that makes is dangerous.

A Math and Reading Comprehension Lesson for David Barton

David Barton's tendency to utterly misrepresent things in order to promote his own right-wing political agenda is well-established, but it never hurts to keep documenting examples, especially since he continues to provide them on a regular basis.

On today's broadcast of "WallBuilders Live," for instance, Barton claimed that the reason President Obama won re-election was because voters "were not thinking right."  And one of the reasons voters don't "think right" is because the higher education system is dominated by Obama supporters, as demonstrated by the fact that, according to Barton, 96% of the professors at Ivy League colleges donated to Obama's campaign:

After the election, we had those two days where we talked about it afterwards and we went through a lot of the numbers just showing that people were not thinking right.  They voted according to what they thought, but they were thinking wrong about so many areas.

And so, if we're going to change the direction of the nation and the way its headed, we have to change the way people think.  It's real simple. 

What are the areas that cause us to think the way we do?  Well, the media is one, education is one, the pulpit is one.  There are several areas that help us shape the way we think.  Now, I will point out, if we're looking for help out of universities, it ain't going to happen.

This is a report that I just read that is kind of amazing: 96% of the faculty at the elite colleges donated to President Obama ... Not just voted; 96% of faculty donated.

So you have 96% of faculty who donated to the Obama campaign; 96% from the elite colleges.  So if we're looking to get help out of the schools, that ain't going to happen.

You will be undoubtedly be surprised to learn that the report to which Barton referred found not that 96% of faculty donated to Obama but rather that 96% of the donations made by faculty and staff from the Ivy League schools went to the Obama campaign.

Think about it: if only one donation was made by a faculty member from a particular university and it went to the Obama campaign, then the percentage of donations coming from that university that went to Obama would be 100%. But that doesn't mean that 100% of the faculty at that university donated to Obama, which is the claim that Barton is making.

Considering that Barton is a former math teacher, you'd think he'd be a little better at math.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious