Wallbuilders

WallBuilders

WallBuilders is an organization founded by Republican Party activist and self-proclaimed historian David Barton for the purpose of "educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country." Barton and his work are routinely cited by those on the Right who claim that the United States was founded by Christian men on explicitly Christian principles.

David Barton Falsely Claims The Average Welfare Family Receives $61,000 A Year In Benefits

As we noted just earlier today, just about every statement that is made by David Barton needs to be fact-checked because, more often than not, the claim he is making turns out to be entirely false.

As if to help drive home this point for us, Barton appeared on Glenn Beck's radio program today and absurdly declared that the "average welfare family" receives $61,000 a year in government benefits, meaning that in many states they earn more than teachers and secretaries.

"Right now, if you are on welfare, you make than a teacher in eleven states and you make more than a secretary in thirty nine states," Barton said:

Barton's figure comes from a document produced by the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions, back in 2012 that was, not surprisingly, entirely misleading.

As experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained, this figure was derived by relying on "a series of serious manipulations of the data that violate basic analytic standards and are used to produce a potentially inflammatory result:"

Counts payments to hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and other medical providers — including payments for care for sick elderly people at the end of their lives and for people with serious disabilities who are institutionalized — as though these payments are akin to cash income that is going to poor families to live on.  The single largest area of federal spending in the Sessions comparison is health care spending.  Close to half of all of the spending that Senator Sessions portrays as income to poor households consists of payments to hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers through Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or smaller health programs.  The majority of this health care spending is for the elderly or people with disabilities, including end-of-life care and nursing home care.

...

Counts, as spending on poor people, benefits and services that go to families and individuals who are above the poverty line.  As noted, Senator Sessions divides the cost of a broad set of programs by the number of households with income below the official poverty line.  Yet many of these programs, by design and for good reason, serve substantial numbers of low- and moderate-income Americans whose incomes are above the poverty line.  For example, 65 percent of the lower-income working households receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in 2011 had incomes above the official poverty line.  Many programs do not cut off benefits abruptly at the poverty line, for two reasons.  First, many hard-pressed families and individuals modestly above the poverty line have significant needs; for example, an elderly widow living on only $12,000 a year is above the poverty line.  Second, abruptly cutting off benefits at the poverty line, rather than phasing them down gradually as income rises, would create large work disincentives.

...

Long-term care alone constitutes 28 percent of all Medicaid costs — and a larger share of Medicaid costs for seniors and people with disabilities.  A substantial share of Medicaid spending on long-term care is for seniors who had middle-class incomes for much of their working lives but whose long-term care needs now exceed their ability to pay for that care.  In 2010, private nursing home care averaged $83,585 per year, assisted living facility costs averaged $39,516 per year, and home health aide services averaged $21 per hour.  In 2009, the average long-term care cost for a Medicaid beneficiary receiving such care was $34,579, a figure sure to be somewhat higher today.

By including the costs of such care in the calculation of the average spending per poor household, the Sessions analysis creates a misleading impression that typical low-income families and children receive extravagant benefits.  Providing a frail senior with nursing home care does not mean that the typical low-income family with children is receiving huge amounts of benefits that give it a high standard of living ... Older people, people with disabilities, and people with serious illnesses incur far higher health care costs than do healthy individuals, but that doesn’t make them “higher income” or give them a higher standard of living than healthier households have.  Similarly, a low-income family with a child who has a serious disability is not “well off” because Medicaid covers the child’s sizable health care costs.  A middle-income household with a member fighting cancer doesn’t suddenly become “high income” when the family’s insurance covers costly cancer treatments.

Once again, Barton's claim is entirely false, as the average family on welfare does not, in any way, receive $61,000 a year from the government.

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

Just last month, we wrote a long post exposing the way in which David Barton routinely misrepresents court cases in an effort to support his pseudo-history and promote his cultural and political agenda. Today, we came across another instance of Barton doing the same thing with a different court case while delivering a presentation a few weeks ago at Calvary Chapel in San Jose, California.

Barton was making the case that, until the the Supreme Court's decision in Abington Township v. Schempp in 1963 — which Barton also routinely misrepresents — teaching the Bible in public schools had been the norm. To support this point, Barton cited the Supreme Court's 1844 ruling in a case called Vidal v. Girard's Executors, which he claimed declared that no school that refused to teach the Bible could receive public funds:

"We look at Christian schools today," Barton said, "and we think that's alternative education. No, no, no. Christians schools is mainstream education. Secular education is brand new in America. We never had that before. That's the new thing ... In 1844, the U.S. Supreme Court had case called Vidal v. Girard's Executors and what you had was a government-operated school that was not going to teach the Bible and the Supreme Court came back with an unanimous 8-0 decision and the Supreme Court said well, if you don't want to teach the Bible, you don't have to teach the Bible but you do have to become a private school. We're not going to fund any public school that won't teach the Bible.

As usual, if you actually take the time to read this case, the facts in no way support Barton's interpretation.

The case involved an extremely wealthy man named Stephen Girard who, as a childless widower, left in his will large sums of money to City of Philadelphia for various civic improvements, as well as money to establish a school for "poor male white orphan children."

Among the stipulations Girard placed upon the school was that no religious leader was ever to hold a position there nor could any particularly denominational doctrine be taught:

I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college, nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.

In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever, but as there is such a multitude of sects and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans who are to derive advantage from this bequest free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce; my desire is that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that, on their entrance into active life, they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence towards their fellow creatures and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.

Some of Girard's heirs then sued on various technical grounds that are not germane to Barton's point, as well as by arguing that prohibiting clergy from working or teaching at the school was a violation of both the Constitution and the Common Law because it discriminated against Christianity.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument:

All that we can gather from his language is that he desired to exclude sectarians and sectarianism from the college, leaving the instructors and officers free to teach the purest morality, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, by all appropriate means, and of course including the best, the surest, and the most impressive. The objection, then, in this view, goes to this -- either that the testator has totally omitted to provide for religious instruction in his scheme of education (which, from what has been already said, is an inadmissible interpretation), or that it includes but partial and imperfect instruction in those truths. In either view can it be truly said that it contravenes the known law of Pennsylvania upon the subject of charities, or is not allowable under the article of the bill of rights already cited? Is an omission to provide for instruction in Christianity in any scheme of school or college education a fatal defect, which avoids it according to the law of Pennsylvania? If the instruction provided for is incomplete and imperfect, is it equally fatal? These questions are propounded because we are not aware that anything exists in the Constitution or laws of Pennsylvania or the judicial decisions of its tribunals which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to teach poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a charity in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity? Hitherto it has been supposed that a charity for the instruction of the poor might be good and valid in England even if it did not go beyond the establishment of a grammar school. And in America, it has been thought, in the absence of any express legal prohibitions, that the donor might select the studies, as well as the classes of persons, who were to receive his bounty without being compellable to make religious instruction a necessary part of those studies. It has hitherto been thought sufficient, if he does not require anything to be taught inconsistent with Christianity.

Looking to the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion or are opposed to any known policy of the State of Pennsylvania.

This view of the whole matter renders it unnecessary for us to examine the other and remaining question, to whom, if the devise were void, the property would belong, whether it would fall into the residue of the estate devised to the city, or become a resulting trust for the heirs at law.

Upon the whole, it is the unanimous opinion of the Court that the decree of the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania dismissing the bill, ought to be affirmed, and it is accordingly.

Barton's representation of this case is entirely false, as it had literally nothing to do with the teaching of the Bible nor any requirement that schools must do so in order to receive public funds.

Despite the fact that his claims are totally false, Barton will nonetheless continue to make them in future presentations, secure in the knowledge that his Religious Right supporters will never hold him accountable for his misinformation and misrepresentations.

Five Conservatives Who Don't Understand Net Neutrality…But Are Definitely Against It!

On Monday, President Obama publicly urged the Federal Communications Commission to adopt strong rules preserving net neutrality, the principle that internet service providers must treat all data equally.

Obama’s comments placed a previously fairly niche technical issue right into the middle of the national political debate, forcing commentators to take a side on something many of them did not seem to understand. But luckily, many conservative politicians and pundits have an easy way of deciding where to stand on an issue: if Obama is for it, it will destroy America and they are against it!

1. Ted Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz got the right-wing net neutrality pile-on started with a tweet calling the proposal “Obamacare for the Internet."

It didn’t really make sense, but as Matt Yglesias notes, that wasn’t the point: “What, if anything, that phrase means is difficult to say. But its political significance is easy to grasp. All true conservatives hate Obamacare, so if net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet, all true conservatives should rally against it.”

2. Bryan Fischer

As soon as Cruz spoke out, his far-right acolytes seem to have felt obligated to follow. On his radio program on Monday, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer struggled to grasp the proposal that he was definitely against, claiming that it would ban internet providers from charging customers more for faster service — something that already happens and that has nothing to do with net neutrality.

3. Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck is outraged that President Obama wants to end “the freedom of the internet” and ruin something that’s “working pretty well” because “the government is not involved in it at all.” Apparently unaware that current FCC regulations allow his online network, The Blaze, to stream on an open internet, Beck claimed that regulations preserving net neutrality would end this supposedly government-free system in which he operates his business.

Beck’s cohost Pat Gray accidentally debunked his own point by comparing Internet regulation to the interstate highway system, which he seems to also think remains open and accessible because it’s free from government interference.

4. FreedomWorks

The Tea Party group FreedomWorks got into the game yesterday with a video “clearing up” net neutrality for its supporters.

As Consumerist explains, FreedomWorks’ net neutrality explanation is basically a work of fiction:

“Supporters of the plan call it a [uses finger quotes] ‘free and open Internet’ but in reality it’s anything but,” says Somberg. “What net neutrality does is force providers to treat all Web content equally — the same speeds, the same prices, the same access.”

This is simply untrue.

Net neutrality merely says that ISPs can’t slow down, block, or prioritize any content. It doesn’t mean that everything gets treated with the same speed — just that an ISP does nothing to impede or boost any particular content company’s speed. So if it’s fast coming in from the company, it should be fast going out to the end-user. And if the host is slow, then it remains slow.

5. Alex Jones

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones added his own special twist to the net neutrality debate, claiming that it is a “high tech version of what the Soviets and the Nazis and the Chinese Communists and Fidel Castro and every other nut ball did.” 

Bonus: David Barton

While net neutrality might have just recently crossed the radar of many right-wing commentators, make-believe historian David Barton has been beating the anti-net-neutrality drum for years. In 2011, Barton called net neutrality “socialism on the internet” and “redistribution of wealth through the internet” and insisted that it is "wicked stuff" that goes against the dictates of the Bible and the Founding Fathers.

This launched Barton into a discourse on the concept of “fairness,” which he said “is a word no Christian should ever use in their vocabulary” because “what happened to Jesus wasn’t fair.”

Laurence White: With Houston Subpoenas, Satan Has Finally 'Tipped His Hand'

Laurence White, pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church in Houston, Texas, was the guest on today's broadcast of "WallBuilders Live" where, predictably, the controversy over the city government having subpoenaed documents, including sermons, from a few local pastors came up for discussion.

White remarked that by issuing these subpoenas, which have since been withdrawn, Satan had finally "tipped his hand."

"What's happening is The Adversary, in his arrogance and his pride, has become so bold that he's tipped his hand," White said. "He's usually the great masquerader who hides his real goal, bit in this case, he made the mistake of revealing his true agenda."

This is not a political debate, White declared, but rather proof that the "godless humanism of the religion that has come to predominate throughout our culture" believes itself to be so powerful that it can now openly seek to destroy Christianity.

"Christians may finally begin to recognize how much is at stake here and what we stand to lose," White hoped. "This is about the integrity of our faith as Christians":

David Barton Is 'Grateful' That The Most Recent 'Left Behind' Movie Bombed

On the "WallBuilders Live" radio program today, David Barton declared that he was "grateful" to see that the most recent "Left Behind" remake had bombed at the box office because, he said, the books and movies teach an unbiblical eschatology that causes Christians to check out of the culture wars as they simply wait for Jesus to take them away in The Rapture.

"The movie is a complete bust," Barton rejoiced. "It did really pathetic at the box office ... and quite frankly I was somewhat happy the movie was a bust."

Barton said that the books, written by influential Religious Right leader Tim LaHaye, and the movies, initially starring the likes of Barton's pal Kirk Cameron, promote a false eschatology, which is the theological belief about how the End Times will unfold. He said the "Left Behind" series has convinced too many Christians that "it is a waste of time to get involved" in the affairs of the world because nothing they do will change anything and they won't be around to suffer when everything falls apart anyway.

Barton said that this belief conflicts with Jesus' explicit teaching that Christians are to occupy the world until He returns and so he "was really grateful that the movie didn't do well because I didn't want that mentality going out there. It violates way too many things in the Bible."

"I think the movie not doing well is [a sign] that hopefully our eschatology is beginning to change for a more sound biblical direction in America," he said. "Maybe we're getting a little more mature and a little wiser over some things":

Barton Says The Founding Fathers 'Tied Religion To The Constitution To Give It Strength' Through Oath Requirements

Most of this week's "WallBuilders Live" radio program has consisted of excerpts from the new DVD series "Constitution Alive! A Citizen's Guide to the Constitution" featuring Rick Green and David Barton. On yesterday's program, Barton explained that that the Constitution’s requirement that members of Congress and the president take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" was the Founding Fathers' way of infusing religion into the document since an oath is a "direct appeal to God" to hold lawmakers accountable for their actions and "there is no such thing as a secular oath."

Any oath that is not made to God, Barton said, must instead rely on "the goodness of man and there's not a whole lot in me that says the goodness of man is great. Just look back across the Twentieth Century and the one hundred and fifty million lives that were lost because Stalin wasn't good and Hitler wasn't good and Tojo wasn't good and Pol Pot wasn't good."

The Founders knew this, Barton said, and so they "tied religion to the Constitution to give it strength" through these oath requirements, asserting that any attempt to implement the Constitution without religion is like trying to breathe on the moon.

"You and I, if we go to the moon and breathe there, we'll die," Barton said, "because that's not our atmosphere. And if you take a secular atmosphere to the Constitution, it will die because that's not its atmosphere. It was birthed and created in a religious atmosphere and if you take that air out of the room, it will suffocate. It will die because it's not made that way":

Barton: ​God's Blessing On America Depends On Electing Senators Who Will Confirm Godly Judges

Once again, David Barton has joined prosperity gospel preacher Kenneth Copeland for another week of programs encouraging Christians to be sure to vote in the upcoming midterm elections, especially for candidates running for the U.S. Senate because it is through judges that America with either be cursed or blessed.

Citing passages from II Chronicles and Psalms, Barton declared that the Bible tells us that judges are to be "ministers of God" and are therefore obligated to "make the same decision that [God] would make" when hearing cases.

If Christians "want our land to be blessed," Barton said, "it won't be blessed without righteousness. And if you want righteousness, it comes from the judges." And since, under our system of government, federal judges must be confirmed by the Senate, Christians must be dedicated to electing members of the Senate who will only confirm judges that will follow God's rules.

"If you want righteousness in the land, you'd better get involved and you'd better look at the Senate races in your state and you'd better figure out which of these persons running for Senate is going to be the best on judges," Barton said, "because if you want God to restore the land, you gotta start with judges":

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

Several times, we have heard David Barton make the absurd claim that biblical law was directly incorporated into the U.S. Constitution through the Seventh Amendment, which he then uses to assert that laws legalizing abortion and gay marriage are unconstitutional.

Lately, Barton has tried to bolster this argument by citing an obscure 1913 Texas Supreme Court ruling in a case called Grigsby v Reib, which he claims proves that America can never accept a definition of marriage that differs from God's definition.

In Barton's telling, this case was about efforts to attain legal recognition for secular "civil unions" that were separate from marriage as a religious institution but which the court denied on the grounds that "government is not allowed to redefine something that God himself has defined."

On his radio show yesterday, Barton once again cited the case and read excerpts from the decision to argue that gay marriage can never be legal: 

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband ... The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage. which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary. Marriages will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.

The key finding in this case, Barton asserts, is that the court basically ruled that "we can't do something different than what God's done on" the issue of marriage.

Given that nothing that Barton says ought ever to be taken at face value, we decided to read the court decision for ourselves and, not surprisingly, found that Barton's interpretation of the ruling is entirely misleading.

The case involved a woman named Jessie Stallcup, who claimed to have been the wife of a widower named G.M.D. Grigsby and who had sued Grigsby's sister for control of his estate following his death. Stallcup was a prostitute whom Grigsby used to visit and she claimed that the two had agreed to become husband and wife, though they never held a ceremony, nor did they cohabitate or take any other actions to signal that they were now living has husband and wife.

The case heard by the Texas Supreme Court revolved around Stallcup's contention that she lost her lawsuit because the trial court ignored a binding appellate court precedent that stated that a common law marriage "requires only the agreement of the man and woman to become then and thenceforth husband and wife. When this takes place, the marriage is complete."

The Texas Supreme Court disagreed with Stallcup's contention, pointing out that the ruling in question involved a couple that had lived and presented themselves as husband and wife following their agreement, with the Texas Supreme Court stating that it takes more than a simple verbal agreement to constitute a legitimate marriage.

To demonstrate this point, the Texas Supreme Court proposed a hypothetical situation in which a man and a women met for the first time, agreed to become man and wife, and then went their separate ways, never to see one another again. This obviously would not constitute a binding marriage, the court found, and neither did the relationship between Stallcup and Grigsby on the grounds that, beyond their apparent agreement, they never took any further steps to establish themselves as husband and wife.

"It would be sacrilegious" to give legal standing to such relationships, the court found, because it would then give complete strangers the right to contest seemingly every inheritance by simply claiming to have been the secret spouse of the deceased.

Contrary to Barton's claims that this case enshrines divine principles about marriage into our civil laws, the court repeatedly notes that marriage is a nothing more than a civil contract that requires "neither license nor solemnization of religious or official ceremony" to be legally binding.

​Barton claims that this case was about trying to create a secular alternative to marriage, which the court slapped down because there can never be any legal marriage that does not correspond to "God's definition." In reality, the case addressed the issue of whether a supposedly secret verbal agreement to become husband and wife constitutes a legally binding and recognizable common law marriage and whether the relationship between Stallcup and Grigsby qualified as one under the law, with the court ruling that it did not because it didn't meet the most basic requirements.

This is just one more example of Barton's willingness to intentionally and flagrantly misrepresent history in order to promote his religious and political agenda.

Barton: The Entire Nation Suffers When Political Leaders Don't Base Public Policy On The Bible

Today's episode of "WallBuilders Live" featured an audio excerpt from David Barton's "Biblical Principles and the Political Process" DVD in which Barton explained that Christians must be in charge of crafting public policy at all levels in America or else God will be unable to bless this nation and all citizens will suffer as a consequence.

As Barton explained, God measures the righteousness of a nation "by the public policies they have and how well those policies conform to God's standards." Repeating his false claims about the non-discrimination ordinance passed last year in San Antonio, Texas, Barton warned that everyone in San Antonio, even those who opposed the ordinance, will now suffer "because the city has taken a position God cannot bless."

Just as, in the Bible, all of Israel suffered because of the wickedness of Ahab and Jezebel, so too will everyone in America suffer for electing leaders who do not base public policy on the Bible, he added.

"Even the good guys had to go through the national judgment brought on by bad policies from national leaders," Barton said. "Even if you disagree with those policies, even if you disagree with non-discrimination ordinances, if your city has one, God's not going to be able to bless that":

Barton: The Founding Fathers Wanted The Bible Taught In Schools To Prevent Another Inquisition

On today's episode of "WallBuilders Live," David Barton and Rick Green responded to a question from a listener who complained that she was watching a program about extraterrestrials on the History Channel recently in which some professor from Notre Dame University asserted that Thomas Jefferson "hated Christianity and considered it a dangerous religion" that was responsible for atrocities such as the Inquisition.

As if that set-up was not already strange enough, Barton then launched into an explanation that "American Christianity" was nothing like the "European Christianity" that carried out the Inquisition, asserting that, in fact, the Christianity responsible for the Inquisition was not really Christianity at all.

As Barton put it, the Christianity in existence during the Inquisition was one "in which the Bible had no role."

"You had high illiteracy, people did not read, could not read the Bible," he said. "The Bible was not available to them, it was not in their language. Folks who tried to bring the Bible to the common man got themselves killed."

Barton's co-host Rick Green then piped up to declare that "you almost can't call it Christianity; it's really a hijacked religion, it was abuse of power in the name of Christianity."

"That's right," agreed Barton, as he then went on to explain that the Founding Fathers wanted the Bible taught as the foundation of public education in America in order to prevent another Inquisition from ever taking place.

"If you look at the very first public school law passed in America," Barton said, "that act says we just came out of Europe and what they call Christianity over there is full of atrocities. That's not it. We don't want that in America, so in America we're going to make sure that the Bible is the basis of all public schools because if you read the Bible, you won't do those atrocities."

Florida Lawmaker: Make Students Watch Dinesh D'Souza's Movie Because America Owes It To Those Who Died Protecting Freedom

Florida state Senator Alan Hays was the guest on "WallBuilders Lives" today, explaining the need for his legislation that would require every eighth grade student in the state to watch Dinesh D'Souza's ridiculous film "America: Imagine The World Without Her."

As Hays explained to host Rick Green, requiring schools to show this film will help to stimulate an intellectual exchange of ideas among students who otherwise will learn "nothing but a bunch of dogma."

And this is vitally import, he explained, because "over the years, there have been hundreds of thousands of Americans who have given their lives on foreign soil to defend freedom here in America and around the world and we owe it to them to protect that freedom."

"It's our obligation to keep that freedom going," Hays said, "and this movie can play a very important role in that":

David Barton: Obama, Kerry Won't Fight Terrorism Because Of Their Support For Abortion Rights

On today's "WallBuilders Live" radio program, David Barton and Rick Green invited Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert on on to discuss America’s role in the Mideast. Barton declared that "terrorism was really on the ropes" before President Obama removed the last U.S. troops from Iraq, but now "terrorism has really rebuilt itself ... [because] this has been an administration that has not done a good job of trying to take terrorists down or take terrorism out."

Barton and co-host Green repeatedly expressed their desire to have someone like Gohmert serving as president instead of President Obama because, they said, Gohmert understands the difference between good and evil, which Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and the rest of the administration can never grasp because they support abortion rights and gay marriage.

"I don't know why that Louie [Gohmert] would think that John Kerry has any moral equivalency given the position that John Kerry holds on marriage, on homosexuality, on abortion, on religious conscience, on religious expressions," Barton said. "I mean, since he opposes everything that's traditionally moral, why would there be a question of whether he's moral" when it comes to terrorism?

While Barton said that he was being a little facetious, Green replied that he was absolutely correct because "if [Kerry is] so wrong on all these other clear moral issues, how can we expect him to figure this one out."

"If you're wrong on an issue as simple as innocent life, then you have real trouble with guilty life as well," Barton explained. "When you take an unborn child this is innocent life and he doesn't think that that's right and wrong to take the life of an innocent unborn child, then when you see something like Hamas, which is guilty people who are murderers being taken out, he thinks that that's abominable."

"His whole value system is skewed," Barton concluded, "and that's the way so much of this administration has been," which is why it has been wrong on everything from economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy.

"You just can't be a world leader if you don't believe that certain things are right and certain things are wrong":

Notorious Pseudo-Historian David Barton Helps RNC Promote Its Campaign To Mobilize Religious Right Voters

Back in June, the Republican National Committee launched an effort to mobilize Religious Right voters heading into the midterm elections called GOPFaith.com, the goal of which is to mobilize tens of thousands of Religious Right activists on behalf of GOP candidates.

The RNC put South Carolina GOP chairman Chad Connelly in charge of the project and Connelly has been making the rounds of Religious Right radio programs to promote it and now radical right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton, who has a long history of working directly for the Republican Party, has filmed a video promoting the effort as well.

In the video, Barton asserted that the Founding Fathers all believed that religion ought to be central to America's public policy and cited various instances in which these early leaders called the nation to prayer before laughably declaring that, until now, evangelical voters had been "ignored by both parties."

"The good news now," Barton then announced, "is the Republican National Committee is no longer ignoring evangelicals or people of faith," pointing to the new GOPFaith.com effort as proof that the RNC is "now reaching out and saying 'hey, we're very comfortable with faith people, we want them involved, you have been involved, you've been the basis of America from the beginning.'" This GOP outreach effort, Barton insisted, now "gives us an even stronger reason to get involved in our churches to move people forward to support, as George Washington said, our foundations of religion and morality."

"If you want to see what can be done to help increase voter turnout in the faith community to get the right standards back in America," Barton said, concluding his pitch, "you can go to GOPFaith.com":

David Barton: Pro-Choice Candidates Will Take Away Your Property And Guns

On his “Wallbuilders Live” program yesterday, David Barton offered a handy guide to voters who are concerned about whether their elected officials respect “natural law”: ask them if they support abortion rights, and if they do, know that they will also take away your “property” and your “self-defense.”

“One of the easiest way to tell about natural law is to ask them where they are on abortion, because if they don’t respect the inalienable right to life, they do not respect any other inalienable right,” he advised.

“If you don’t respect the right to life,” he said, “you won’t respect property, you won’t respect protecting income, you’ll think you ought to tax people more rather than protect their income, you’ll take it from them, you won’t protect their property, you won’t protect their religious liberties, you won’t protect their right of self-defense, you’ll try to take their self-defense away from them.”

He added that even if the candidate is running for an office that has nothing to do with abortion policy, such as a school board, abortion should still be the litmus test.

David Barton: 'How Can You Be A Christian' And Be Gay Or Have An Abortion?

Earlier this week, John Hagee declared that Christians (or “counterfeit Christians,” as he called them) who are pro-choice or supportive of LGBT rights are the “greatest problem” leading to America’s destruction.

David Barton picked up the theme on his “Wallbuilders Live” radio program today, rattling off statistics showing that many young Christians don’t think homosexuality and abortion are sins, and that some have even had abortions or are “active homosexuals” themselves.

“Whoa,” Barton said. “There is nothing in the Bible — nothing — that aligns with this. How can you be a Christian and a follower of Jesus Christ when you don’t follow his teachings on these things?”

He concluded that it was a problem of “real biblical illiteracy” in the U.S.

David Barton Repeats Debunked Claim That Chaplains Are Forced To Perform Same-Sex Weddings

Last year, after the Supreme Court struck down the federal component of the Defense of Marriage Act, David Barton claimed that the ruling would force military chaplains to perform same-sex marriages against their will.

That fear, of course, was completely unfounded and the Pentagon clarified that DOMA repeal would in no way mean that a military chaplain would have to perform a marriage against his will.

But Barton is still claiming that military chaplains are being forced to officiate same-sex weddings that violate their religious beliefs, saying on his “Wallbuilders Live” program today that military commanders are ordering chaplains to “perform homosexual weddings.”

Ukrainian Leaders Are Using David Barton's Theocratic Pseudo-History To Build Their Nation

Last month, Glenn Beck mentioned that David Barton had been invited to deliver his standard presentation of lies and misinformation to high-ranking government leaders in some former Soviet nation that is seeking to model itself on the United States.

Today, Barton appeared on James Dobson's radio program where he revealed that the country that had invited him was none other than Ukraine, where he spent two days meeting with members of the government and various religious leaders in order to teach them how to build a proper government based on the teachings of the Bible.

"They were absolutely shocked to find out how practical the Bible was," Barton said. "They had no clue that all of these things [pertaining to government] were in the Bible ... We talked to them about all sorts of things, about education in the Bible, about all sorts of things, so they were alive and on fire."

Since returning to America, Barton revealed that he has been contacted by several other members of the Ukrainian government, asking him to return and deliver his presentation to the entire parliament, as well as from government leaders in neighboring nations who want him to come and present his message there as well:

Barton: God Will Strike America With Drought And Weather Disasters For Not Supporting Israel

David Barton appeared on TBN's "Praise The Lord" program last week where he warned that America is going to suffer the wrath of God for not properly supporting Israel because "any time you go after the Jews, God comes after you."

Asserting that since God personally established Israel's boundaries, Barton said that politicians had "better get God's permission" before they start advocating any changes to those boundaries because "if you start messing with that, you're messing directly with God."

Countries like the United States that are not siding with Israel will suffer the consequences, he warned, as God strikes this nation with extreme weather, droughts, productivity declines, and agricultural disasters:

William Gheen: Immigration Reform Rooted In 'Anti-Christ Culture'

Mashable’s Gina Piccalo writes today about the split among evangelical conservatives on the issue of immigration reform. While some evangelical activists have cited biblical values to support comprehensive immigration reform, others — such as Phyllis SchlaflyDavid Barton and Bryan Fischer — are busily trawling through the Bible for passages to justify their opposition.

Piccalo interviews Americans for Legal Immigration’s William Gheen, who it turns out also takes a Christian nationalist view of his opposition to immigration reform. Gheen conveniently escapes any theological difficulty when it comes to dealing with the thousands of Central American child refugees on the southern border by claiming that the violence they are escaping is a hoax:

"Illegal immigration is the antithesis of Christianity,” says William Gheen, Raleigh, N.C.-based president of Americans For Legal Immigration. “It’s a gross mischaracterization of Christianity to apply it to tolerating the mass lawlessness, death and damages involved in illegal immigration.”

When asked about those children crossing the border in search of refuge from gang-related violence and death, Americans for Legal Immigration president Gheen said immigrant children are coached by money-hungry smugglers who give them “cheat sheets” with fabricated stories of woe, crafted to ensure their amnesty. “There’s no mass slaughter of children in any of the host countries,” Gheen said. “There’s no documentation of any mass slaughter...The children are reciting lines. This is being orchestrated.”

Gheen sounded the same note in an interview Tuesday with VCY America, linking immigration reform proponents with the “anti-Christ culture flooding up through the united states in our movies, in the TV shows, in the minds of people where they hate Duck Dynasty or anything associated with Christians.”

He said that immigrants’ rights groups are anti-Christian because “they don’t like laws, they don’t like borders”: “They like to equate Christians with Nazis and Klansmen and all sorts of stuff like that because Christians try to show any type of restraint on behavior. And they don’t want any restraint on any behaviors, whether it’s criminal or not. They don’t like laws, they don’t like borders. It’s anything goes, people do whatever they want.”

Syndicate content

Wallbuilders Top Posts

WallBuilders is an organization founded by Republican Party activist and self-proclaimed historian David Barton for the purpose of "educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country." Barton and his work are routinely cited by those on the Right who claim that the United States was founded by Christian men on explicitly Christian principles. MORE >

Wallbuilders Posts Archive

Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 11/25/2014, 2:45pm
As we noted just earlier today, just about every statement that is made by David Barton needs to be fact-checked because, more often than not, the claim he is making turns out to be entirely false. As if to help drive home this point for us, Barton appeared on Glenn Beck's radio program today and absurdly declared that the "average welfare family" receives $61,000 a year in government benefits, meaning that in many states they earn more than teachers and secretaries. "Right now, if you are on welfare, you make than a teacher in eleven states and you make more than a... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 11/25/2014, 12:34pm
Just last month, we wrote a long post exposing the way in which David Barton routinely misrepresents court cases in an effort to support his pseudo-history and promote his cultural and political agenda. Today, we came across another instance of Barton doing the same thing with a different court case while delivering a presentation a few weeks ago at Calvary Chapel in San Jose, California. Barton was making the case that, until the the Supreme Court's decision in Abington Township v. Schempp in 1963 — which Barton also routinely misrepresents — teaching the Bible in public... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Friday 11/14/2014, 10:57am
On Monday, President Obama publicly urged the Federal Communications Commission to adopt strong rules preserving net neutrality, the principle that internet service providers must treat all data equally. Obama’s comments placed a previously fairly niche technical issue right into the middle of the national political debate, forcing commentators to take a side on something many of them did not seem to understand. But luckily, many conservative politicians and pundits have an easy way of deciding where to stand on an issue: if Obama is for it, it will destroy America and they are against... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 11/04/2014, 2:36pm
Laurence White, pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church in Houston, Texas, was the guest on today's broadcast of "WallBuilders Live" where, predictably, the controversy over the city government having subpoenaed documents, including sermons, from a few local pastors came up for discussion. White remarked that by issuing these subpoenas, which have since been withdrawn, Satan had finally "tipped his hand." "What's happening is The Adversary, in his arrogance and his pride, has become so bold that he's tipped his hand," White said. "He's usually... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Wednesday 10/29/2014, 1:20pm
On the "WallBuilders Live" radio program today, David Barton declared that he was "grateful" to see that the most recent "Left Behind" remake had bombed at the box office because, he said, the books and movies teach an unbiblical eschatology that causes Christians to check out of the culture wars as they simply wait for Jesus to take them away in The Rapture. "The movie is a complete bust," Barton rejoiced. "It did really pathetic at the box office ... and quite frankly I was somewhat happy the movie was a bust." Barton said that the books,... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 10/24/2014, 11:10am
Most of this week's "WallBuilders Live" radio program has consisted of excerpts from the new DVD series "Constitution Alive! A Citizen's Guide to the Constitution" featuring Rick Green and David Barton. On yesterday's program, Barton explained that that the Constitution’s requirement that members of Congress and the president take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" was the Founding Fathers' way of infusing religion into the document since an oath is a "direct appeal to God" to hold... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Monday 10/20/2014, 11:25am
Once again, David Barton has joined prosperity gospel preacher Kenneth Copeland for another week of programs encouraging Christians to be sure to vote in the upcoming midterm elections, especially for candidates running for the U.S. Senate because it is through judges that America with either be cursed or blessed. Citing passages from II Chronicles and Psalms, Barton declared that the Bible tells us that judges are to be "ministers of God" and are therefore obligated to "make the same decision that [God] would make" when hearing cases. If Christians "want our land to... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 10/10/2014, 10:50am
Several times, we have heard David Barton make the absurd claim that biblical law was directly incorporated into the U.S. Constitution through the Seventh Amendment, which he then uses to assert that laws legalizing abortion and gay marriage are unconstitutional. Lately, Barton has tried to bolster this argument by citing an obscure 1913 Texas Supreme Court ruling in a case called Grigsby v Reib, which he claims proves that America can never accept a definition of marriage that differs from God's definition. In Barton's telling, this case was about efforts to attain legal recognition... MORE >