In the second in a series of presentations that he recently made at Charis Bible College in Colorado, right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton reiterated his belief that God will never allow a cure or vaccine for AIDS to be discovered because the disease is divine punishment for homosexuality.
Citing Romans 1, which declares that "men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved," Barton said that God will never allow a cure to be found for AIDS because that would eliminate the "penalty" that is due for engaging in such behavior.
"Anything the Bible says is right, there is scientific basis for it now," Barton said. "The federal government, in the last several years, has spent tens of billions of dollars looking for a vaccine for AIDS and I don't think they will ever find a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. And I say that based on a particular Bible verse ... Notice this, homosexuals receive in their bodies the penalty due them. The Bible says if you engage in homosexuality, your body will do things that will penalize you. So if you can have a vaccine for AIDS, then you're keeping your body from penalizing you. I don't think they'll ever find a vaccine for AIDS":
UPDATE: Warren Throckmorton took a look at the scientific evidence that Barton subsequently cited as "proof" of this point and discovered that Barton completely misrepresented the facts.
Earlier this month, David Barton delivered a series of presentations at Charis Bible College in Colorado on "The Principles of Success." In the very first presentation, Barton made a claim that we had never heard from him before, despite having listened to literally hundreds of his radio programs and presentations, when he told the audience that he played college basketball for a team that "set the NCAA record for two years in a row of most points scored" per game.
Barton was teaching on a passage from 1 Corinthians about the need to "strike a blow to my body and make it my slave" and whip one's self into shape in order to be a success and cited his college basketball days as an example.
"I remember when I was playing basketball, the college stuff that we did," he said, "we started every day with a five mile run, then we lifted weights, then we had an hour of racquetball, then we had two hours of full-court basketball, then we came back for another run. It wasn't particularly enjoyable, but in those years, our college team set the NCAA record for two years in a row of most points scored. We averaged 105, 104, 103 points a game, I forget what it was":
According to Wikipedia, the ORU men's basketball team led the nation in scoring in the 1972 and 1973 seasons. A search of the rosters posted on ORU's own website from the years Barton presumably attended finds no mention of him having been on the men's basketball team, including during the two record-setting seasons he specifically cited:
UPDATE: Warren Throckmorton contacted ORU directly to inquire about Barton's claim and a school official declared that "after checking with the Athletic Office, there is no record of a David Barton ever playing basketball for ORU."
Recently, David Barton sat down for a conversation with Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, California, during which he asserted that even Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer knows that the due process clauses in the Bill of Rights came directly out of the Bible and even mentioned this fact in one of his Supreme Court decisions.
"I was reading a Supreme Court case," Barton said, "and in it, Justice Breyer — and no one is going to accuse Justice Breyer of being a religious individual, he'll not be found guilty of that — and he makes the comment that 'of course we all know that all of our due processes clauses in our Bill of Rights came out of the Bible.'"
Barton said that Breyer even footnoted this assertion in his ruling, citing Volume 30 of "Federal Practice and Procedure," which Barton claims contains a sixty page explanation of how our system of due process came directly out of the Bible.
"There's Breyer saying 'of course we all know that the due process clauses came out of the Bible,'" Barton said. "We don't know that today":
As is typical when Barton makes these sorts of claims, he doesn't actually provide any information about the ruling in which Breyer supposedly made this assertion, making it all but impossible verify the claim that he has just made.
Our best guess is that Barton is referring to Breyer's 1999 concurrence in Lilly v. Virginia (emphasis added):
The Court’s effort to tie the Clause so directly to the hearsay rule is of fairly recent vintage, compare Roberts, supra, with California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155—156 (1970), while the Confrontation Clause itself has ancient origins that predate the hearsay rule, see Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542, 548 (1926) (“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions”). The right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises. See The Bible, Acts 25:16; W. Shakespeare, Richard II, act i, sc. 1; W. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, act ii, sc. 1; 30 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure §6342, p. 227 (1997) (quoting statutes enacted under King Edward VI in 1552 and Queen Elizabeth I in 1558); cf. Case of Thomas Tong, Kelyng J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (out-of-court confession may be used against the confessor, but not against his co-conspirators); M. Hale, History of the Common Law of England 163—164 (C. Gray ed. 1971); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *373. As traditionally understood, the right was designed to prevent, for example, the kind of abuse that permitted the Crown to convict Sir Walter Raleigh of treason on the basis of the out-of-court confession of Lord Cobham, a co-conspirator. See 30 Wright & Graham, supra, §6342, at 258—269.
You'll note that, contrary to Barton's claim, Breyer is not saying that "all of our due processes clauses in our Bill of Rights came out of the Bible," but merely that the right to face one's accuser is mentioned in the Bible, among other places. On top of that, the Bible verse that Breyer cites, Acts 25:16, consists of the Apostle Paul citing his right to confront his accuser according to Roman law:
I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges.
A few weeks ago, we noted that David Barton had reportedly won a million-dollar defamation lawsuit against two Democratic candidates who ran for the Texas Education Board in 2010 after they produced a campaign video that asserted that Barton was "known for speaking at white supremacist rallies." At the same time, Barton also filed suit against an online writer who had called him an "admitted liar," though that writer disappeared after being sued and never responded to any of Barton's legal filings.
In the wake of this court decision, Barton immediately went to work trying to portray his very narrow legal victory as a complete validation of his widely-criticized scholarship, asserting that his work had now been vindicated in a court of law when, in reality, the case revolved only around allegations that he had ties to white supremacists.
Now it seems that Barton is pressing ahead with his effort to portray his legal win as a wholesale vindication of his body of work, as his WallBuilders organization sent out an email to activists today calling up them to take to Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, or anywhere else that they might see Barton and his work being criticized and post links to an article about his legal victory in order to defend Barton and prove that "the critics’ claims are false":
A few weeks ago, news broke about David Barton winning a major defamation lawsuit. (Thank you for all of your emails and calls of support and encouragement!)
The more publicized of the two defamation lawsuits we won was the one where David was labeled an anti-Semite, racist, and white supremacist. But the second lawsuit we won addressed the false claims that David's works are widely discredited, that he is an admitted liar, that he makes up his history, etc. (Makes up history? How ridiculous is this claim when WallBuilders owns one of America's largest private collections of original Founding Era documents -- more than 100,000 originals or copies of original documents from before 1812. In fact, we even footnote our historical email blasts!)
David's best-selling works have been viewed by literally millions of Americans, and such numbers represent a sizeable segment of the American population. Detractors don't want these readers -- and especially any additional ones -- to know the important role that religion and morality historically played in America. The reason is simple. For Americans to tolerate and support our current secularist progressive policies, they must be divorced from our religious, moral, and constitutional history.
The critics are very aggressive, very well-organized, and very well-funded. (In fact, many of the groups attacking David receive funding from atheist billionaire George Soros.) They often select seemingly religious mouthpieces (often secular progressives from the Religious Left) to deliver their attacks over the internet, in articles, and on blogs.
This is where we need your help!
When you see attacks against WallBuilders and David on Facebook, Twitter, in articles, comments, and so forth, please take a few minutes to enter your own rebuttal comments, even linking to the national articles reporting that the critics’ claims are false (e.g., David Barton Wins Million-Dollar Defamation Suit).
The Bible tells us in Proverbs 18:17 that one side sounds good until facts from the other side are presented. So far, the critics have often been the only voice – or at least the loudest. We need your help to present the other side. As Song of Solomon 8:13 reminds us, your friends listen to your voice -- so speak! Your voice on Facebook, Twitter, in articles, on Amazon book reviews, and in web comment sections will help beat back the false claims and thus help millions of Americans be open, and even eager to learn the truth about America's Godly constitutional heritage!
Last month, David Barton spoke at the First Baptist Church in Eastland, Texas, where he added a new wrinkle to his claim that the Bible dictates how the government is to operate by declaring that the Bible explicitly prohibits governments from taking on debt.
For the Lord your God will bless you, as he promised you, and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow, and you shall rule over many nations, but they shall not rule over you.
"The Bible tells us, Proverbs 22:7, that the borrower is servant to the lender," Barton said. "See, the Bible is real clear: stay out of debt. You lose your freedom when you get into debt. Well, that applies for individuals, it applies for families, it applies for churches, it applies for states, it applies for the nation. God doesn't want you in debt, which is why Deuteronomy 15:6 says your nation is not to go into debt. Here we are. That's not a political issue, that's a biblical issue. God spoke about that a long time before America ever existed":
Barton then went on to repeat his absurd claims that "the Bible absolutely condemns the estate tax," that Jesus hates the capital gains tax, and that the Bible prohibits the use of progressive taxation.
David Barton is outraged that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg nodded off during the State of the Union address last month, which Ginsburg attributed to the “very fine California wine” that Justice Anthony Kennedy had shared at dinner that evening.
Barton writes in a WorldNetDaily column today that while he isn’t personally “calling for the removal of Ginsburg for her recent faux pas,” Justice Ginsburg’s nap represented bad behavior and disrespect to the U.S. Constitution, both offenses warranting impeachment and removal from office.
You may recall pictures of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sitting on the front row in the House Chamber sleeping during President Obama’s State of the Union Address. News recently broke explaining why: “I wasn’t 100 percent sober.”
A State of the Union message is a constitutionally mandated duty (Article II, Section 3), and for those who respect the Constitution, this address is serious stuff. But apparently not to Justice Ginsburg – which probably is not surprising given that her rulings routinely reflect a general dismissal of the Constitution and that she publicly advises leaders in other nations to seek something better than the U. S. Constitution for their country.
Regardless, it is certain that public intoxication by a Supreme Court justice does not inspire faith in the Judiciary. Luther Martin (one of the 55 delegates who framed the U. S. Constitution) warned: “It is necessary that the supreme judiciary should have the confidence of the people,” and to ensure this, the founders made certain that the federal bench could be ridded of those who embarrassed or misused it.
Citizens today might be dubious of such a statement, for we have long been told (and wrongly so) that federal judges have lifetime appointments. They do not – and it was the Founding Fathers themselves who specifically stipulated that federal judges could serve only for the duration of “good behavior” (Article III, Section 1). So as long as a judge acted right, he could stay on the bench, but if he acted otherwise, he could be removed. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of, much less guarantee for, lifetime appointments for judges.
The first federal judge to be removed from the bench came at the behest of President Thomas Jefferson. That judge, John Pickering, was no obscure lightweight. Originally placed on the federal bench by President George Washington, Pickering had been a framer of the New Hampshire Constitution, served as the state’s governor, was selected as a delegate to frame the U.S. Constitution (but declined) and was subsequently a ratifier of the federal Constitution. So why was he removed? Among the reasons given was public intoxication (as well as a public disrespect for God). The Founding Fathers considered this to be bad behavior for a judge.
Don’t think I am calling for the removal of Ginsburg for her recent faux pas. Rather, I am pointing out that the current notion that federal judges are unaccountable because they have lifetime appointments is one of the greatest lies of our lifetime.
If America ever again expects the federal courts to be just one of three so-called “co-equal” branches rather than the supreme branch they have become, then we must recover the notion that our federal judges are not unaccountable demigods.
Radical Religious Right activist Janet Porter has released yet another trailer for her upcoming documentary "Light Wins: How To Overcome The Criminalization Of Christianity," which features a who's who of anti-gay activists as well as several Republican members of Congress and presidential hopefuls Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee.
"Like a tank in Tiananmen Square," Porter says, as she walks down the middle of a dark street as a pair of headlights bear down upon her, "the homosexual agenda has been running over people since Anita Bryant's courageous stand in the 1970s."
After that, it is nothing but 10 minutes of anti-gay activists calling upon Christians to rise up and fight back against the "homosexual agenda."
Among the participants we immediately recognized in this new clip are Huckabee, David Barton, Gary Glenn, Steven Hotze, Robert Knight, Judith Reisman, Stacy Swimp, Greg Quinlan, Rep. Louie Gohmert, Brian Camenker, James Dobson, Bill Donohue, Scott Lively, Frank Pavone, Dutch Sheets, Phyllis Schlafly, Rick Scarborough, Gary Bauer, Mark Crutcher, Jerry Boykin, and Harry Jackson.
At one point, Gohmert declares that it is the duty of Christians to "love people who engage in homosexualty" because "we all have family members that we think are making major mistakes with their lives, but you can still love them."
Later, Pastor Steve Witt declares that just as God would have saved Sodom and Gomorrah if only 10 righteous people could be found, so too can most American cities be spared, but only if thousands of people will take a stand against homosexuality.
At the end of this new clip, Porter is shown in an empty football stadium, warning that "the battle for our freedom is being fought while most Christians are on the sidelines. We need to get out of the stands and into the game because the Super Bowl for our country is being fought and our team is not even on the field."
David Barton was a guest this morning on the American Family Association's "Today's Issues" radio program where he explained to the right-wing audience that in order to understand President Obama's foreign policy, one simply has to ask the question: What does the Muslim Brotherhood want?
As Barton explained it, 95 percent of Obama's foreign policy decisions regarding the Middle East can be summed up by the phrase, "If the Muslim Brotherhood would be for it, [Obama] is for it; if they're against it he's against it."
As "proof" of this, Barton went on to claim that on seven separate occasions, Obama "has publicly leaked to the media secret intelligence from Israel about what they were doing to stop terrorism," especially regarding Iran.
"On seven occasions, he has leaked secret intelligence about what Israel is about to do in Iran or elsewhere and released that to the Muslim world," he claimed. "I scratch my head and say, 'How can you do that to your closest ally, release their top secret intelligence on what they're about to do?' And the answer is: Muslim Brotherhood would do it and so he does."
As usual, Barton did not actually provide any evidence to support this claim other than his own "research," so it is impossible to know what he is even referencing or how he would explain the millions of dollars in U.S. aid to the al-Sisi government in Egypt, which has vowed to destroy the Muslim Brotherhood.
UPDATE: On the February 23 edition of his "WallBuilders Live" radio program, Barton finally provided some "evidence" to back up his claims, though he only managed to cite four specific instances, most of which do not prove his point at all:
The first instance Barton cited was a report from 2010 that revealed that Saudi Arabia had agreed to allow Israeli bombers to pass over the country in the event that Israel was going to carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. According to the article, a "U.S. defense source in the Persian Gulf" revealed that the plan "has all been done with the agreement of the State Department." Why the Obama administration would seek to undermine Israel by leaking details on an agreement that it had reportedly approved is not something that Barton ever explained.
The second instance Barton cited was a 2012 instance in which the Obama administration supposedly leaked to the New York Times information "on war exercises that Israel was doing, practicing a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities." Of course, if you read the article in question, it focused on a simulation run by the U.S. military on the ramifications of an Israeli strike on Iran, which concluded that such an attack would draw the U.S. into a large regional conflict.
The article did not, as Barton claimed, reveal Israeli war plans, but rather the results of a U.S. simulation of what could happen in the wake of an Israeli attack.
The third instance that Barton cited — a 2012 ABC News piece that reported that analysts in Israel were "accusing the Obama administration leaking information to pressure Israel not to bomb Iran and for Iran to reach a compromise in upcoming nuclear talks" — is the only one that says what Barton claims it says.
The final example that Barton cited was an April 2012 article in the New Yorker which he claimed contained leaked information from the U.S. that revealed that "the Israeli intelligence agency was helping fund and train the Iranian opposition ... the more moderates to help take out that administration."
The article in question was a Seymour Hersh piece reporting that the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command had been training "members of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a dissident Iranian opposition group known in the West as the M.E.K," despite the fact that the M.E.K is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Among the material contained in the Hersh article was information from an earlier NBC report that that several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated since 2007, presumably by members of the M.E.K who were trained and financed by the Israeli Mossad.
As far as we can tell, outside of possibly the 2012 ABC News piece, not one of these articles cited by Barton actually contains evidence that the Obama administration has "publicly leaked to the media secret intelligence from Israel" as he originally claimed.