David Barton

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."

Right Wing Round-Up - 4/30/13

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.

Right Wing Round-Up - 4/10/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 4/10/13

  • It looks like the Religious Right is threatening to leave the GOP ... again.
  • Happy Anniversary, David Barton.
  • Sen. Rand Paul says America needs a “spiritual cleansing of the people.”  If we were like the Religious Right, we'd freak out because that kind of sounds like "ethnic cleansing" and start warning that Paul wants to kill all non-Christians.
  • Apparently Rush Limbaugh thinks "the onus is on the black population" to realize the GOP is not racist.
  • Finally, Rick Scarborough says "the goal of Obamacare has always been to drive everyone into a single-payer, government system.  Once that goal is achieved – and it is about to be achieved – Big Brother Government will control every citizen who wills to live and find medical care."

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.

Right Wing Round-Up - 4/8/13

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/28/13

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.

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/14/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/13/13

  • A new Pope has been selected and Erick Erickson adores him already.
  • You'd think that a movie about the wonders of capitalism would take the hint that the market is not interested, but no, "Atlas Shrugged" will get a third installment.
  • Joseph Farah says child sacrifice and same-sex marriage "are linked. They are inextricably linked as behaviors characterized as abominations by the God of the Bible. They both emerge right from the pit of hell."
  • Both Franklin Graham and Richard Land support universal background checks for all gun purchases.
  • Finally, someone should really ask David Barton to explain how he supposedly "gives about 440 speeches a year" because that comes out to 1.2 speeches every single day, including holidays and weekends.

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.

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/11/13

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/8/13

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:

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious