Did David Barton Break the Law?

The Texas Freedom Network just sent out the following press release:


TFN Asks for Investigation into Whether David Barton’s Support for SBOE Incumbent David Bradley Violates State Law

The Texas Freedom Network today asked district attorneys in Harris and Jefferson counties to investigate whether a State Board of Education (SBOE) incumbent’s campaign fundraising events feature the illegal involvement of a prominent political leader who also publishes instructional materials used in Texas public schools.

Republican SBOE member David Bradley’s campaign website touted David Barton, head of a political advocacy group called WallBuilders, as a featured speaker at two Bradley fundraisers on Saturday (March 31) in Beaumont and Houston. Among the state board’ s responsibilities is adopting instructional materials for public schools. WallBuilders publishes instructional materials. But according to the Education Code, “a person engaged in manufacturing, shipping, selling or advertising instructional materials commits an offense if the person makes or authorizes a political contribution to or takes part in, directly or indirectly, the campaign of any person seeking election to or serving on the board.” Violation of the statute is a Class B misdemeanor.

Barton’s participation in Bradley’s campaign raises questions about the law as well as propriety, TFN President Kathy Miller said.

“Clearly, we think this raises serious legal questions about Mr. Bradley’s fundraising and Mr. Barton’s participation in it,” Miller said. “But it also rings alarm bells about potential cronyism and highlights how big a role politics plays in decisions about what textbooks our kids use in their schools. This isn’t just a technicality. We shouldn’t have people who are involved in creating and selling instructional materials also raising money for candidates for a state board that decides which materials will be sold to schools.”

Barton and WallBuilders have published various instructional materials used in public schools.

  • Barton is co-author of an American history textbook, Drive Thru America, that has been marketed to schools as “designed to meet state-mandated curriculum guidelines” and aligned with standards developed by the National Council for the Social Studies. The state board is set to consider proposed instructional materials for social studies in 2014.
  • Various school districts reported using during the 2005-06 school year materials published by WallBuilders, including the “American Government and Bible” video (Brady ISD); Barton’s book “Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution & Religion” and the “Foundations of American Government” and “The Spirit of the American Revolution” videos (Mineral Wells ISD); and “America’s Godly Heritage” video (Belton ISD).
  • Barton’s organization, WallBuilder Press, publishes the “New Testament Bible Study Course: Dallas High Schools” and “Old Testament Bible Study Course: Dallas High Schools,” which were originally published by Dallas Public Schools. The New Testament course book was still used in at least one Texas school district as recently as the 2005-06 school year. The Legislature passed a law laying out guidelines for public school Bible classes in 2007, and the State Board of Education subsequently adopted curriculum standards for the courses.

Bradley’s challenger in the SBOE District 7 Republican primary is Rita Ashley of Beaumont. Because no Democrat is seeking the seat, the winner of the GOP primary will be a member of the SBOE when that body approves textbooks and other instructional materials for public schools, including for science in 2013 and social studies in 2014.

8 thoughts on “Did David Barton Break the Law?

  1. Whether or not he broke the law is irrelevent, Barton always crosses the line. Too bad ignoring him doesnt make him go away.

  2. The concept of “Original Intent: is a keystone component of the Neo Confederate Revival which asserts that any Amendments to the Constitution after Appomattox violated the “original intent” of the fist sets of Founders, hence are invalid userpations of the Original Intent.

    It also assets that any quotes or notes of any of the Original Founders have the weight of Constitutionality superior to that of the subsequent amendments after Appomattox.

    Now if one assumed for the moment that those who wrote the subsequent Amendments that were passed by the State Legislatures (three quarters concurring) have the same Founder-Weight as the Original Founders, then we have several sets of Founder-Groups (FG): One FG per Amendment after the Bill of Rights makes for 17 FG.

    Back out two for the 11th and 12tth, and since the 18th and 21st negated each other, take two more out leaving 14 FGs in addition to the origian one (1) for a total of 15 FG all total. Since the word volume of the original constitution and Bill of Rights is quantitative, then a qualitative normalization and allocation of Constitutional Word Count Weight Factor (CWCWF) can be applied to determine the midpoint and allocation of CWCWF across the spectrum of Original Intention as some of the original content was deleted and replaced. This will of course accomplished nothing of probative value, unless one goes to the Darkest Heart of Barton which is delisting all Amendments after Appomattox.

    This will solve some of the problem of Obama’s Entitlement Programs by returning all Blacks to slavery as the Original Intent intended. This will reduce the cost in taxes by the sale of slaves who now will have a market value and contribute to the GNP. This will also take care of ObamaCare as the care and maintenance of Capital Goods is a deductable expense.

  3. The neoconfederates can take their original intent and shove it up their Smellsbad Caverns too. Obviously, the founding fathers had the original intent that the constitution could be and would be amended by later generations. They did—and that’s it. Story over—unless someone wants to amend again. The crackpot theories that people come up with never cease to amaze me. I think black people should take over the United States and make slaves out of neoconfederates.

  4. For once I agree with RtRev! Barton can do whatever he wants because he’s a True ™ Christian and by definition can do whatever he wants, ’cause his god is a Higher Law. We might as well give up and do the right thing by buying all our social studies textbooks for the ENTIRE STATE from Wallbuilders, the Truthiest Company.

    Right, Rev?

  5. Actually, I find Barton to be offensive and the first I heard of him him was way back. I just ignore him and teach my history students what is correct without any help from him. Besides, they will all fail TAKS if they pay attention to him. Many Christian historians find him laughable at best.

    Just look up Jack T. Chick and you find a real live one there too Doc Bill.

  6. Actually they did not elect him. Chancellors got appointed by the Reichspräsident, the parliament could only get rid of one by a vote of no confidence. The president got elected by the public but Hitler lost to the guy who later made him chancellor. The Reichstag was in a situation where the commies and nazis together could block any initiative while neither had a majorty in the house. The chancellor ruled by emergency decrees that the president had to countersign. Hitler essentially got into office through dirty tricks (and the senile president), then took over the position of president too when the old one died. Combining the two positions he had esentially the power of a dicator even before the parliament abdicated by passing the Enablement Act.