Barton Lies About Lawsuit He Won

I reported recently that David Barton had won a settlement in a lawsuit he filed against two Texas Board of Education candidates who accused him of being “known for speaking at white supremacist rallies.” And he actually had a case there. But now he’s lying and claiming that this vindicates his dishonest and inaccurate historical claims.

Last month, Barton prevailed in his lawsuit and reportedly received a million-dollar settlement and an apology. Predictably, he is now spinning this as a complete and total victory, declaring on his radio program today that his work has now been vindicated in court.

A lot of folks who try to use Barton’s materials, he said, have often found themselves dismissed because “oh, you’re quoting Barton, he’s a discredited historian, he makes up his history. Well, guess what? For those people who have used those quotes and been beat up for it, this now vindicates them as well.”

“We don’t want people to be drug down because we get beat up,” he said. “We want them to be able to use historical quotes and not get their brains beat in and so this really is a vindication for everybody who is concerned about original intent and everybody who wants to quote things about the faith of the Founding Fathers or things like that. Now you’ve got a way when they said ‘oh, that’s all made up,’ no, no, no, here’s a judgment, here’s a defamation suit, here’s the court judgment that says that stuff was defamatory, that was false and defamatory.”

No David, you’re lying. Again. Winning that defamation suit has nothing remotely to do with the fact that you lie about history constantly. That fact is absolutely indisputable and easily proven in court if you’d like to file a suit. He simply cannot stop lying. Ever. It’s as natural as breathing for him.

Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://rationalrant.blogspot.com/ sbh

    The lawsuit (which was settled out of court in Barton’s favor) had nothing to do with his historical claims. The issue was whether he was known for speaking to white supremacy groups.

  • John Pieret

    I suppose the “logic” here is: “I sued some people who were mean to me and won, which just goes to show that everyone who is mean to me is wrong and the reason they are mean to me is because I’m right!”

    Barton’s logic, on the other hand, is: “The people I want to reach never bother to look up the quotes I manufacture or take out of context, so they won’t look up what the suit was really about either. Therefore, I can tell them anything I want about it and they’ll believe me because they want to believe that I’m right about this being a Christian nation.”

  • yoav

    Oh, you’re quoting Barton, he’s a discredited historian, he makes up his history.

    And Barton’s reply to said claims, make up his history.

  • DaveL

    Does anyone have a link to the actual settlement document? Because I have a hard time believing he won a million-dollar settlement after admitting that he did in fact address at least one group that could reasonably be described as “white supremacist”. An article from The Blaze on the subject notes:

    The historian declined to give the exact sum of money received, as settlements are sometimes less than the sum presented in a judgement.

  • bmiller

    I wonder if the winnings are closer to the $9.99 of my favorite recent Presidential candidate?