Glenn’s interview with David Barton

October 04, 2012

Writer

Today on radio Glenn talked a little about the debate with David but also about what David calls his ‘most important’ project yet: The Founders Bible. David calls it the Bible that built America - check out the conversation in the clip above.

Full Transcript of story below:

GLENN: Let's go to David Barton. David, where were you? Where were you? Really, it was a night we'll all remember where we were when we saw Obama questioned and taken down for the first time. Where are you last night?

DAVID BARTON: Well, actually excuse me. Last night I was actually flying in from Columbus, Ohio at the time. So I got the replays. I didn't get the live.

GLENN: It was it was amazing. Romney was such a man of honor and clarity.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: There was just no I mean, it was remarkable, I thought.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah. And everything I saw after I landed was exactly that. It was the calmness and it was the competency and the proficiency and, you know, I'm sorry. What you just did with Gore in Denver is great. I've got to say if that were true from a scientific standpoint, the Broncos would be undefeated, the Rockies would be undefeated, and the Nuggets would be undefeated because every team comes into town to play those guys and that would mean none of them could win. So that may be the most ridiculous story I've ever heard, ever.

GLENN: You're a historian, I'm not, but I think you should check on that before you make that bold claim.

DAVID BARTON: I'm sure Patrick Henry had something to say on that because he talked about a lot of stuff but I tell you that's one of the best concessions of defeat I've heard in a long time. That's amazing.

GLENN: David, what do you think, for somebody because there's a lot of Americans that are not on the Romney bandwagon.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: And I think a lot of Americans were like, we've got to lose a candidate or we have this and we have that and, you know, he's not going to be able to fight in the debate. This is the debate that everyone was afraid of.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: This was the RomneyCare debate and I mean, look. He just stomped.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: What do you think is going to happen now with people on our side? Do you think this energizes them and all of a sudden they find themselves going, "I am I am anxious to vote for this guy?"

DAVID BARTON: I think that there's going to be some energy added to the fire, but I think a whole lot of energy is created by Obama himself and by really the crisis in which he's placed on the nation. I don't think there's anyone that doesn't know all the different areas that he is so screwed up, religious liberties are at stake and, you know, that was one of the things that was hit last night was life and religious liberties. I don't think there's many people don't understand that and don't understand the economic side. I think this is going to give some people some more comfort in going forward and say, "Hey, this may be a whole lot better option than what I thought." But the energy level is still high.

GLENN: Anything, anything that you saw that stuck out at you?

DAVID BARTON: Yeah. You know, what I saw was the calmness and the not being shook. The competency. He really acted like a chief executive. He handled all the stuff. He really made a contrast. And there was times when you could see the president visibly shaken.

GLENN: Yeah.

DAVID BARTON: Just, his confidence was gone. And I think that that's the image you want. I mean, I go back to what Ann Romney did. I think one of the most significant parts of what she did at the convention actually was giggling. And I say that because we've always thought of the Romneys as ivory tower, way up there hifalutin New England people and she suddenly became just like a cheerleader, just like the girl next door and it was a really cool effect. I think that's the same kind of psychological effect that it had last night. People are really comfortable with his confidence and, wow, you know, he didn't struggle. He really made the president struggle. And I think that that's part of the takeaway is that they get a confidence, a feel of confidence in what he did last night.

GLENN: I don't know if any I don't know if they've posted it yet up on TheBlaze but I tweeted a picture out today of the Romneys making peanut butter/jelly sandwiches backstage.

DAVID BARTON: I love it. Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, they're real people.

DAVID BARTON: They are. And see, that's not the image that's come through.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

DAVID BARTON: And so all the benevolence he's done and all the stories we're finding out about him, that just changes the whole image of what we've all thought about him for the last four years.

GLENN: So David, let me switch gears. I tweeted last night after it was all said and done to remember to fall down on your knees in thanksgiving.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, I prayed yesterday like never before that the scales would fall from people's eyes, that you'd be able to see who he was.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: And who Obama was. And I mean, I you know, I think this was just, you know I believe in divine providence and divine protection.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: And I think we saw that last night, and we have to give thanks.

Let me let me switch gears here a little bit and talk about your Founders Bible. Because you said to me last week when we spoke off air about the Founders Bible. You said this is probably the most important thing you've ever done.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah. No question in my mind. I think the best way I've heard it described is if you go back historically, the Geneva Bible is the Bible that built America, shaped a generation because it took the Bible but it made it very practical through commentaries.

GLENN: Explain. Explain what the Geneva Bible is. That's the Bible that our founders used. It wasn't the King James Version. They used the Geneva Bible. What was the difference?

DAVID BARTON: The Geneva Bible is what came out of the reformation and it was people saying, wait a minute, I know we've done it this way for 1400 years but look what the scripture says. This is wrong. We're not supposed to be electing kings. We're supposed to be electing leaders ourselves. So that's where we get Republican government. That's why we found out that we should be buying land from the Indians rather than taking it from the Indians.

GLENN: And it was it was the commentary on the side.

DAVID BARTON: It was the commentaries that did it and that's what drove King James crazy. That's why he came out with the King James Bible. It was essentially the same language but he would not allow commentaries in the Bible. And so the commentaries is what was used to build our judicial system, our legal system, our government system, our education system, our economic system. And so the same commentaries the founders made 250 years ago, that's what we've taken to the Founders Bible.

GLENN: Okay. Now, explain this a bit when you say you've taken it from the commentaries. Because you and I have had this conversation that the language of our founders is so riddled with biblical verse that most people don't even know. If you don't know the Bible inside and out, you don't know that that's a quote from the Bible.

DAVID BARTON: That's exactly right.

GLENN: And so you took their writings.

DAVID BARTON: We took the writings. For 25 years we've been collecting their documents and writings. We have 100,000 of their writings. And what we found is they are loaded up with Bible references and Bible verses. And we've been collecting that. And then last year a Bible publisher came and said, "Hey, let's do a commentary on the Bible." And I thought, hey, this is a great time to let the Founders comment on the Bible. And for example, three times John Adams cites Jeremiah 17:9 as why they did separation of powers in the Constitution. Now, I don't think anybody today would choose that verse that they were doing separation of powers, but there's a reason they did that. The same with economic system.

GLENN: Wait, wait. Let's pretend that John Jeremiah, the one you quoted.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah, Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is desperately wicked. Who can know it." And from that they get, you know, that's the depravity of man. Man's going to do the wrong time every time he gets a chance unless there's some type of divine intervention to change his heart and so if that's the case, we better figure on government doing the wrong thing every time. So we need to divide the powers up so that maybe one branch will be righteous while the other two are wicked and maybe there's a way for one to check the others. And so they go into extensive, extensive presentation of why that verse is what drives their idea of separating the powers. And George Washington jumps on that, as does Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and others. So that becomes a very significant verse in shaping their thinking on why do separation of powers.

GLENN: What is the what is the thing as you were putting this together? What is the one place or one area or topic that you think, "Oh, my gosh, if people just knew this today"?

DAVID BARTON: You know, I don't know that there was one. The one area that got me was how applicable all the stuff is to today. When they started talking about types of taxes that are good and types of taxes that are bad, man, I saw our tax code and said we've really screwed this thing up. When I saw what they said about how to help the poor and social programs, I looked and said, man, we've really goofed this thing up. And what was profound most to me was how relevant all of that stuff 250 years ago was to exactly the stuff we're facing today. And quite frankly I may have been most shocked over all the things they had to say about abortion. Because I just didn't realize it was an issue back then. And all of the biblical references on why abortion is wrong, and I

GLENN: How did they wait. How was there abortion? I didn't know that, either.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah, I actually have an 1808 book on abortions in America. Jefferson and the other guys, and their legal codes made abortion illegal because they said it's a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's god. There's nothing in nature that kills its young while still in the womb. And as it turns out abortion was a big issue back then. But the difference was they said it's illegal as opposed to Roe V. Wade saying it's legal. So that's the kind of stuff that shocked me

GLENN: I've never

DAVID BARTON: was how applicable it was to what's going on today.

GLENN: Wow, had absolutely no idea.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: David, the you came under an awful lot attack, huge attack like I've never seen before. I talked to a preacher the other day and I said, have you read David's Bible yet? And he said, I just got a copy of it. And I said, you know, I just thumbed through it and just, you know, start reading some of the stuff in it. It's remarkable.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: He said, I think this Bible is the reason David came under attack. He said, I think that you know, I think this is so important that that's why people tried to discredit you. Not saying that they knew that. But that's why you are you've been just ravaged in the last year.

DAVID BARTON: Well, I really think that this is a new Geneva Bible. This is what will shape this generation or can shape this generation's thinking, and this will last for generations to come because it's timeless truth, of guys that did it 250 years ago. And I do think that that's probably why all of the attacks came is to try to minimize this and discredit this and bring this down before it even happened. And I didn't realize that at the time and I don't think the guys making the attacks realized that at the time, but I think, you know, in a way that both God and Satan had debates back over Job, I think that's probably what was going on at the time was, hey, this is coming out; I've got to do something to knock this down before people start reading it. And I really, I think he's right. I think

GLENN: You and I have been you and I have been ridiculed in the last couple of days because we've talked about divine providence and that, you know, the Lord's will will be done.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: If we stand, if we stand at guard.

DAVID BARTON: Yep.

GLENN: I thank you for standing guard for so long and thank you for your work. If you want to get this, you can get it at WallBuilders.com. It's the Founders Bible, the original dream of freedom, the Founders Bible. Get it at WallBuilders.com. Do it now. Every American should own a copy of this. David, we'll talk again. Thanks so much.

DAVID BARTON: Thanks, Glenn. Bless you, bro.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn’s interview with David Barton

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

Where did all the water go?

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

The cost of secrecy

Transparency is an imperative

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

Or is it about self-preservation?

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Is climate change responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Are the L.A. fires a product of years of mismanagement?

Do you think controlled burns are an effective way to prevent wildfires?