The Problem with the Mercury One/Wallbuilders’ Internship Program

Monday, Glenn Beck devoted some time on his broadcast to graduates of Mercury One’s internship program. The program went from June 5-16 and featured history lessons taught by David Barton.  The segment of the broadcast gave time to the participants to debrief about what they learned. Watch (the embed feature no longer works so try this link):

The comments from students provide a window into the problems with the internship. It appears that these students have a lot to unlearn. Worse, they don’t seem to know it.
For instance at 1:24 into the segment, the second student who spoke, Sonja, said

Mr. Barton showed us the Quran that was actually printed in 1803, I believe, by Jefferson after the Barbary wars, and the thought, the idea that the leaders of the country would not only say, hey, this would be a good idea to learn but they encouraged promoted that to learn about people who were different, to learn, not that they were terrible people, not slandering them, but saying this is who they are, this is what they are about. That is a completely different approach to knowledge and truth than we have today.

My point is not to fault Sonja for her fact problems but to fault her teachers for providing a completely misleading narrative (which Barton has usedGlenn Beck Interns before). Sonja has been misled on two important points.

Jefferson did not print a Quran in 1803 or any other year.

The first version of the Quran printed in America was published in 1806. You can peruse a copy here; there is no mention of Jefferson or the government. The translation from a 1647 French version was originally conducted in 1649 and then reprinted by Henry Brewer for Springfield, MA publisher Isaiah Thomas in 1806 (source). Brewer and Thomas may have capitalized on the interest in Islam during Jefferson’s terms as president since we were at war with several Islamic nations. However, Jefferson had nothing to do with the printing. (Source, source)

The leaders of the U.S. didn’t print a Quran, so they couldn’t have encouraged the public in the manner described.

There was no concerted effort by the government to educate the public in the manner described. While the publisher may have hoped to discourage Islam, I can find no evidence that the publisher and the government acted on such a motive. (Source, source)

Beck Doubles Down on the False Narrative

After Sonja spoke, Glenn Beck compounded the error by suggesting Congress printed the Quran without comment for a purpose. Beck said:

There’s something specific about that struck me that was unusual. It wasn’t Congress or anybody around Jefferson that said, ‘hey, we are going to print these excerpts.’ They printed the entire thing, without comment in it. They just said, ‘you need to read this whole thing.’ That is not what we do now.

First, the government didn’t print the Quran. Second, the printers of the 1806 Quran did include comment which was quite judgmental of Islam, calling the contents of the book “absurdities.”
I challenge Barton or Beck to provide a primary source supporting the claim that Congress or Jefferson had anything to do with the 1806 edition of the Quran. I will apologize and remove this post if they can do that.
Beck titled his segment, Mercury One Arms New Generation of Leaders With Truth-Detecting Tools. Unfortunately, if today’s broadcast is any indication, these students have been disarmed. They won’t be able to be effective because they are now confidently misinformed. Because of the video, we know who is responsible.
I also invite any of the students to contact me about their experience.

Glenn Beck and David Barton Reminisce about Alternative History

Lately, Glenn Beck and David Barton have been pushing their summer internship program. In a brief spot Monday, Beck and Barton claimed education was great until progressives took over in the 1920s. From the article:

Prior to the 1920s, students completed school through eighth grade and each year had to pass a written exam that involved understanding the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, George Washington’s Farewell Address and their state constitution, Barton explained. The older system of education was called “spiraling” because students would revisit the same topics while expanding on them each year.
Today, students learn history in discrete chunks with the “tri-division” method, studying Christopher Columbus in one grade, the Civil War in the next, and so on, Barton asserted. Because students are learning their history piece by piece, they never go back to the same period again and don’t retain the information in a real way.

In response, historian John Fea provided a citation from 1917 which contradicts Barton’s claim.

Surely a grade of 33 in 100 on the simplest and most obvious facts of American history is not a record in which any high school can take pride.

This quote comes from a 1917 article in the Journal of Educational Psychology by J. Carleton Bell and D.F. McCollum. Bell and McCollum surveyed Texas schools and learned that history education wasn’t doing well. The 33% figure is an average of history knowledge scores at a sampling of high schools in Texas. Please note that I said high schools. Contrary to Barton’s claims, students went to high school before progressives took over, whenever that happened.*
The context for the quote is telling. According to Bell and McCollum, some Texas school districts didn’t start teaching history until later in elementary school if at all. Barton’s golden age wasn’t as golden as he described it. Bell and McCollum write:

The final average per cents, of the five high schools are Austin 30, Brenham 33, Houston 33, Huntsville 24, and San Marcos 31. With the exception of Huntsville the schools present about the same general picture—wide variations in the responses to particular questions, but these variations balancing each other. In the elementary schools the final average per cents, are Austin 10, Brenham 18, Houston 12, Huntsville 17, and San Marcos 23. It must be noted that for San Marcos we have only the sixth and seventh grades. Comparison of the results grade by grade shows that Austin and Houston are in the same class and that the other three schools are distinctly in advance, making at least fifty per cent, better showing. Column one, however, shows the reason. In the Austin and Houston schools no work in history is given before the seventh grade, while in the other schools the pupils begin history in the fourth or fifth grade. In view of the fact that pupils who have begun history later make as good a showing in the high school as those who began it earlier (compare Houston with Brenham or San Marcos) it might be argued that the study of history by elementary school pupils is a waste of time. The case, however, is by no means so simple. The high schools of Houston and Austin have the reputation of being very well administered and of having an exceptionally high grade of teachers. If the other cities had as well organized and equipped high schools perhaps their pupils would have made a better showing. Surely a grade of 33 in 100 on the simplest and most obvious facts of American history is not a record in which any high school can take great pride. (pp. 267-269)

Reading the Bell and McCollum article provoked my interest in education before 1920 and so I looked up several reports on education during that time period. None of what I have read so far provides support for Barton simplistic analysis. For instance, Barton makes it seem like education was done one way – students all learned history the same way and all went to college after eighth grade. However, the reports from that era make it clear that there was little uniformity of teaching methodology. For instance, a report on history education dated 1898 says:

In all of our work we have endeavored not only to discover any agreement or common understanding that may exist among American teachers, but to keep in mind the fact that local conditions and environments vary exceedingly; that what may be expected of a large and well-equipped school need not be expected of a small one, and that large preparatory schools and academies, some of them intentionally fitting boys for one or two universities, are in a situation quite unlike that in which the great majority of high schools are compelled to work. We have sought chiefly to discuss, in an argumentative way, the general subject submitted for consideration, to offer suggestions as to methods of historical teaching and as to the place of history on the school programme, being fully aware that, when all is said and done, only so much will be adopted as appeals to the sense and judgment of the secondary teachers and superintendents, and that any rigid list of requirements, or any body of peremptory demands, however judiciously framed, not only would, but should, be disregarded in schools whose local conditions make it unwise to accept them.

A report (The Committee of Ten) dated 1894 says:

The traditional age for beginning Latin is about fifteen and the average for entering college is nineteen.

Nineteen would be old for an eighth grader. The 1892 Committee of Ten (convened by the National Education Association) recommended that all school districts provide instruction through the 12th grade.
Graduating high school students wanting knowledge of history could consult this list of books or attend a college with a good history program (write and ask, I can name several).
 
*Early in American education, many students only went through 8th grade in anticipation of entering the work force. Barton’s contention that students went to school through 8th grade has some truth to it. However, college was not the end result for most of them (on Beck’s audio, Barton claimed students just went on to college after the 8th grade).

Glenn Beck Wants Transparency at Mercury One; Here's How He Can Start

Today, on the second hour of his radio show, Glenn Beck spoke briefly about the charity he founded, Mercury One. Listen:

Transcript:

We’re just going through an audit and I said to, Mercury One, I want the toughest auditors you can possibly find. Now that’s Mercury One, I’m not even on the board of Mercury One but I went to the board and said, ‘you guys should have the toughest audit and I want to see every page ’cause I’m raising most of the money for you. I want to see every page. And if there’s something wrong, I want the audience to know. If there’s something right, I want the audience to know. I think they should publish it on the website. We have to be transparent in everything we do and that means you too.

The audit may be in part a reaction to my recent articles about changes at Mercury One. Mercury One changed their donation allocation policy to avoid designated funds. Now all donations go into a general fund which may be spent as the leadership decides.
naz signAn issue which may have raised the need for an audit is the question about what David Barton did with the $104,000 given to him by Mercury One while Barton served as board chairman. Mercury One gave Wallbuilders (Barton’s charity) $204,000 in 2014 and 2015 combined.  The IRS 990 reporting form for one of those years said Barton used the funds to help people with “unforeseen disasters.” Historically, Wallbuilders has not been engaged in disaster relief.
On transparency, I have asked Mercury One several questions but there has been no response.
If Glenn Beck wants to be transparent, he could start by getting David Barton to acknowledge academic fraud. Over six months ago, Barton claimed on camera that he had an earned degree. As it turns out, the degree was given by a diploma mill.
He could also have Barton admit that he never played Division One NCAA basketball for Oral Roberts University.
If Beck really wants transparency, he could start with Mercury One’s chairman of the board.

Former Mercury One Donors Speak Out About Recent Changes

naz signIn response to my series of articles on the changes taking place at Mercury One, I have been contacted by Mercury One donors. Two such donors, now former donors, agreed to comment anonymously about the changes in focus and donation allocation policy.
Lack of Communication
One source of frustration for the former donors is the lack of communication from Mercury One. Without my posts, these donors would not have become aware that the changes had been made. The former donors said, “We did not receive any notification that restricted funds would be moved to a general fund.” Since the policy changes are buried on the websites, I can understand how donors would feel this way. If Mercury One is serious about going in this direction, they need to alert all donors and display the changes where they can be easily seen.
Reasons Questioned
Furthermore, the reason for the change did not ring true. “The focus of our giving is to support humanitarian initiatives and that is why we could align with and completely support The Nazarene Fund. The statement that Mercury One made concerning donations will be made to one fund because it allows them to give funds more quickly/easily just doesn’t make sense,” claimed the former donors. These individuals said Mercury One portrayed their response to past disasters as being rapid. The donors did not recall any mention of this limitation in the past.
History Museum
One of the reasons declared by the former donors for not giving relates to solicitations for a history museum by David Barton and Glenn Beck (see this post). They said, “We saw the history museum presentation by David and Glenn and will not be giving to this cause. We believe a donation to the museum fund does not effect change in the lives of hurting people but rather benefits Mercury One.”
Financial Statements
Now that donations are not being taken for the Nazarene Fund, the former donors would like a financial accounting. They said, “Another concern we have is that to date we have not received nor have we seen financial accounting on the Nazarene Fund.” In fact, there is very little reporting about funds received and spent on the websites. Donors might be more confident in Mercury One if fund balances were published on the website.
New Donation Allocation Policy
The former donors added, “Then we saw the posting of Mercury One’s new fund allocation policy, which causes us great concern. In our opinion that is not a decision to be made by them, that is a decision that donors should make. Since their organization has decided they will be in charge of placing our monies where they think best then we will not be giving to Mercury One. We are very concerned with the changes we have seen and can no longer support their initiatives.”
Overall, these donors expressed disappointment and confusion about the change of focus and the change in donation allocation.
I have reached out to Mercury One via their website, email and Twitter without response. Other donors who wish to share their experiences should feel free to contact me.

With Changing Focus, Mercury One No Longer Taking Restricted Fund Donations for Nazarene Fund

naz signSince late 2015, one of the flagship projects of Mercury One has been the Nazarene Fund. On the Nazarene Fund website, the purpose of the fund is described:

For several years, ISIS has invaded peaceful communities in the Middle East and painted the Nazarene symbol on the door of people they seek to convert, extort, or murder. While ISIS uses the Nazarene sign to symbolize death, we use the sign to symbolize life. Mercury One is a US based humanitarian aid and education non-profit organization that established and administers The Nazarene Fund. The Nazarene Fund aids in the restoration of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities and their communities who have been targeted by ISIS for their faith.

The Nazarene Fund was born out of Glenn Beck’s desire to help Christian refugees in ISIS held territories: Again, from the website:

In 2014, the Christian community in Syria and Iraq were facing the greatest calamity in its 2000 year history. The Islamic State (ISIS), exploded out Raqqa, Syria, the capital of its self-proclaimed Islamic State. In a lightning strike that surprised the world, ISIS forces captured Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city) and all of the nearby Nineveh plain – the traditional homeland of the region’s Christian Community. What followed was campaign of extortion, murder and displacement not only of the Christians but of other ethnoreligious minorities in the region. By 2015 a population of 3 million people was reduced to 300,000 – most of them displaced from their homes and fleeing to other countries.
In August of that year, Glenn Beck took the stage and the Restoring Unity rally in Birmingham, AL and declared the situation for what it was – genocide. Mercury One donors immediately responded and The Nazarene Fund was launched with a goal of rescuing 400 families.

Recently, however, the focus of this fund has changed. First, consistent with my recent reports, donations to the Nazarene Fund are now going to benefit Mercury One generally. Mercury One doesn’t want to accept donations just for the Nazarene Fund. This message was recently added to the Mercury One page set up to accept donations to the Nazarene Fund:
 
Naz fund donations 3 23 17Second, Mercury One appears to be getting out of the refugee rescue business. According to the Nazarene Fund website, the need is not the same as it was in 2015.
Naz Fund New Focus
I am skeptical that the situation in Syria and elsewhere has improved to the degree implied here.
In any case, donors should be aware that Mercury One doesn’t want to accept restricted donations, even for the Nazarene Fund, and going forward, won’t be focusing on rescuing religious minority families.

Mercury One Clarifies How Donations Will Be Handled; Some Restricted Donations Allowed

Last week, Mercury One, founded by Glenn Beck, announced that all donations would be consolidated into one fund. In the past, Mercury One created various funds to accomplish specific goals. Donations to those funds (e.g., the Nazarene Fund for rescue of refugees) had to be spent on fund purposes. For instance, funds donated to rescue refugees could not be spent on purchasing historical artifacts.
At the time, I took a skeptical view of the changes. In my opinion, charities are more accountable when donors can specify how their funds are to be used. In practice, I think a charity should have an all purpose fund as well as specific funds for specific needs. The balances in these funds should be known to the public.
The Changes Were Changed
Apparently, somebody at Mercury One decided that the initial changes needed to be modified. Today, on the same blog post, the wording of the announcement has been changed. See below for the current announcement. The new material is in bold print:

Mercury One stands for doing the right thing and throughout our five-year history, Mercury One has done just that. While the needs change from season to season, the constant is that Mercury One has been there to respond to those in need. We know that you, our family of supporters and donors, are vital to our mission. One of the reasons we have had so much success with our humanitarian projects and The Nazarene Fund is because people like you have trusted us to be effective and make a real difference in people’s lives. Thank you!
If you have supported Mercury One in the past, or have followed our journey through Glenn Beck, you may know that for each need, we created a separate funding campaign so that we could allocate every penny of your gift to support each specific initiative. It has been amazing to see the outpouring of passion and support for these projects, but it also prohibited Mercury One from immediately distributing funds quickly when a new and urgent need arose.
Beginning in March 2017, Mercury One is streamlining the way we receive and allocate donations. Going forward, all gifts will go directly to Mercury One. We want to be able to respond more swiftly, and to do this, we are consolidating future gifts (unless otherwise specified) to a single account so we can be more nimble and react immediately when a need arises.
Donor intent is very important to us. Any restricted gift made to Mercury One has gone to support that specific cause. Mercury One has no intent of reallocating funds on any active funding campaign where the need still exists. For example, if you gave a restricted gift to Disaster Relief, to Veterans initiatives or to The Nazarene Fund, your gift will still be distributed to support that campaign.
At any point, if a donor sends a restricted gift, Mercury One will honor the intent of the gift. If there are no projects that would fit that gift, then Mercury One will communicate directly with the donor and at the direction of him/her will either redirect the gift to another project or return the gift.
We have been extremely honored to be able to partner with you, our donors, to make an impact in the world, whether it be to support disaster relief, veterans, those in crisis through our grant programs, or assisting Christians and other persecuted religious minorities in the Middle East. Our mission remains constant. We will continue to support humanitarian aid and education initiatives throughout our nation and the world. What is different, is that we will no longer raise funds for single projects nor for a General Fund to support daily operations. What stays the same is that Mercury One will continue to be conservative in our administrative spending and open with our hearts as we provide assistance to those in need.
We thank you for your continued support and partnership in restoring the human spirit.

Looks like a lawyer(s) got involved and crafted some language that is an improvement over the prior post. This approach seems more reasonable and transparent. Donors can submit gifts with instructions and if Mercury One can accommodate the donor’s intent, the charity will do so. If not, the money will be returned. All donations not otherwise designated will go to the general account for use as decided by the charity’s leaders.
Last I checked Mercury One still had a link to the Nazarene Fund. Donors who want to give to that fund should ask what those funds will support. Furthermore, one should not assume that donations made from the Nazarene Fund website will go toward that purpose. I still believe Mercury One should either remove that page or make it crystal clear (not buried in a blog post) on the front page that donations will only go to the purposes of the Nazarene Fund if the donor explicitly designates the gift for that purpose.
 

Mercury One Gave $104,000 to a Wall Builders Charity Which Had Its Tax Exempt Status Revoked

Last year and then again recently, I pointed out that the charity founded by Glenn Beck, Mercury One, gave David Barton’s Wallbuilders $204,000 over a two year period from 2013-2014. The grants are complicated by the fact that David Barton is chair of the board at Mercury One. When I reported this, I neglected to point out that the recipient organization for one of those grants ($104,000 in 2014) was stripped of tax exempt status in 2011 by the IRS for failing to submit yearly forms. Look at Mercury One’s 990 report for 2014 on this grant to Wall Builders:
mercury one 990 Wallbuilders 2014
Notice the employer identification number: 22-3252844 (different than the number for Barton’s Wallbuilders Presentations). This is a federal identification number for a non-profit titled Wall Builders LLC. The address on the Mercury One’s website is the same as David Barton’s non-profit version of Wallbuilders Presentations. The first problem is that the gift is for “unforeseen disasters” which Wallbuilders has no obvious history of doing in a formal manner.
The second problem is that the grant was given to a Wallbuilders which was inactive.  However, tracking the EIN at the IRS, I learned that this organization had its tax exempt status revoked in 2011.
Bartons tax revoked.
Oddly, the address is in NJ* and not Texas as it says on the 990. In any case, this organization appears to be inactive and is unable to accept donations on a tax exempt basis.
Natural questions are: Where did those funds go and how were they used?
 
*322 Glassboro Road in Williamstown, NJ doesn’t appear to be an actual address, but may reflect the fact that Glassboro Road is US Route 322. It isn’t clear why the addresses are different. I asked Mercury One for clarification on the grant to this Wall Builders but did not get a response.
UPDATE: It is possible that the EIN is a mistake. Or perhaps Mercury One gave money to a Wall Builders in NJ (even though no one at the church knew about it when I called, there is one listed at St Matthews Baptist Church on Glassboro Road in Williamstown, NJ) but the wrong address was listed in the 990 form.

Mixed Donation Allocation Signals from Mercury One

Tuesday, I wrote about changes in the donation allocation at Mercury One. The Texas-based charity was founded by Glenn Beck with David Barton as the current chair of the board of directors. After years of allowing donors to focus their giving to a particular cause (e.g., disaster relief, helping refugees or even the general administration of the charity), Mercury One announced on their blog that all donations from now on would go into one fund:

Beginning in March 2017, Mercury One is streamlining the way we receive and allocate donations. Now, all gifts will go directly to Mercury One. We want to be able to respond more swiftly, and to do this, we are consolidating future gifts to a single account so we can be more nimble and react immediately when a need arises.

Despite this posting, Mercury One has not eliminated solicitations for giving to specific causes. For instance, when you land on the Mercury One website, at the very top of the page, there is a button that when clicked takes you to another website soliciting donations for “The Nazarene Fund.”
Merc One with Naz button sm
Up until recently, that fund has been dedicated to rescue and restoration of refugees. I asked Mercury One how much money was left in that fund but I did not get a reply.
Just a few days ago, a donor landing on Thenazarenefund.org and then scrolling toward the bottom of the page would find an image with Nazarene Fund t-shirts and a caption that reads “All proceeds go to the Nazarene Fund.”
Naz Fund Proceeds benefit
Now, the same images are there but with a different caption:
Naz fund proceeds benefit MO
While it is good that the caption has changed, it seems odd that the Nazarene Fund page is still active. Is there a dedicated Nazarene Fund or not? According to the new donation allocation policy, there is only one account. However, having a page advertising specific activities associated with a specific fund implies that donations to that page will go toward the purposes of that fund. If the new policy is truly in effect, then donations made from the Nazarene Fund page could actually go to some other purpose.  The longer this stays up, the more likely it is that donors could question how donations given as a response to this solicitation have been used.

Changes at Mercury One: Should Donors Be Concerned?

naz sign
Nazarene sign used by Mercury One to designate the Nazarene Fund

Mercury One is a non-profit humanitarian organization founded by Glenn Beck about five years ago. The main thrusts of the organization have been education, disaster relief, veteran assistance, and humanitarian assistance to refugees. As a part of Mercury One’s mission, the Nazarene Fund was created to fund the rescue of Christians refugees from ISIS held territories. If the reports of rescues and refugees restored to safe places are accurate, Mercury One has performed a valuable service within a short period of time.
However, there have been some red flags along the way. In the past, Mercury One has reported grants of $100,000 (2013) and $104,000 (2014) to David Barton’s Wallbuilders organization. In 2014, the stated reason for the grant was “to provide help and resources to individuals affected by unforeseen disasters.” (see the 2014 990 on page 82). It isn’t clear at all what disaster relief they supplied to anyone.
Furthermore, what makes the grants of concern is that David Barton is the chair of the board of Mercury One. He oversaw the granting of $204,000 to himself via his position at Mercury One. As I have written in the past, donors who hoped their funds would go to actual disaster relief may be surprised to learn that a large sum of money didn’t go there.
Notice of Donation Allocation
Now Mercury One is changing the way they treat donations. According to a March 13 post on their website, Mercury One will no longer take restricted donations. They want donors to simply give to Mercury One without restriction on how the funds can be spent. Previously, donors could designate funds to humanitarian relief efforts, educational efforts, refugee rescue and resettlement, or for a general fund (to cover administrative expenses). While many charities prefer unrestricted gifts, the rationale given by Mercury One for the change is of concern. The new policy is below:

Mercury One stands for doing the right thing and throughout our five-year history, Mercury One has done just that. While the needs change from season to season, the constant is that Mercury One has been there to respond to those in need. We know that you, our family of supporters and donors, are vital to our mission. One of the reasons we have had so much success with our humanitarian projects and The Nazarene Fund is because people like you have trusted us to be effective and make a real difference in people’s lives. Thank you!
If you have supported Mercury One in the past, or have followed our journey through Glenn Beck, you may know that for each need, we created a separate funding campaign so that we could allocate every penny of your gift to support each specific initiative. It has been amazing to see the outpouring of passion and support for these projects, but it also prohibited Mercury One from immediately distributing funding quickly when a new and urgent need arose.
Beginning in March 2017, Mercury One is streamlining the way we receive and allocate donations. Now, all gifts will go directly to Mercury One. We want to be able to respond more swiftly, and to do this, we are consolidating future gifts to a single account so we can be more nimble and react immediately when a need arises.
Donor intent is very important to us. We have been extremely honored to be able to partner with you, our donors, to make an impact in the world, whether it be to support disaster relief, veterans, those in crisis through our grant programs, or assisting Christians and other persecuted religious minorities in the Middle East. Our mission remains constant. We will continue to support humanitarian aid and education initiatives throughout our nation and the world. What is different, is that we will no longer raise funds for single projects nor for a General Fund to support daily operations. What stays the same is that Mercury One will continue to be conservative in our administrative spending and open with our hearts as we provide assistance to those in need.
We thank you for your continued support and partnership in restoring the human spirit.

A red flag is raised by this paragraph:

If you have supported Mercury One in the past, or have followed our journey through Glenn Beck, you may know that for each need, we created a separate funding campaign so that we could allocate every penny of your gift to support each specific initiative. It has been amazing to see the outpouring of passion and support for these projects, but it also prohibited Mercury One from immediately distributing funding quickly when a new and urgent need arose.

I can’t see a reason why Mercury One would have been unable to take funds designated generally for disaster relief and use them in a crisis as needed. In fact, it appears that Mercury One has a history of responding very quickly to natural disasters (e.g. Texas, West Virginia).  While I can’t be sure, the reasoning that they have been hampered by having restricted funds doesn’t make sense to me.
The Problem with Unrestricted Giving
Restricted fund giving is a means donors have of keeping a charity accountable. To my way of thinking, charities have too few mechanisms for accountability as it is. Removing mechanisms for donors to communicate intent is a step in the wrong direction. In the last paragraph above, Mercury One claims:

We will continue to support humanitarian aid and education initiatives throughout our nation and the world. What is different, is that we will no longer raise funds for single projects nor for a General Fund to support daily operations. What stays the same is that Mercury One will continue to be conservative in our administrative spending and open with our hearts as we provide assistance to those in need.

While they pledge to continue fund humanitarian projects, the organization is not now locked into any specific level of support. Mercury One could fund one humanitarian project and put the rest into educational projects. Furthermore, they promise to be conservative in administrative spending but now there is no limit as there was before when they could only spend money given to the General Fund for admin purposes.
This change of allocation should be a red flag to donors. Two examples of other charities moving from restricted funds to one unrestricted fund come to mind: Mars Hill Church and Gospel for Asia.
In the case of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church, at one point in time, donors could donate to their general operating fund or to a mission fund (they called it the Global Fund). When I discovered that the Mars Hill Church leadership was using restricted mission funds to help build their domestic network of churches, Mars Hill decided to remove the option of designating funds just for international mission work and make all donations unrestricted. While the flexibility of the church leaders to spend money how they wanted was increased, the accountability to donors was decreased. When one gives to an unrestricted fund, one has no control over how the funds are spent. If the non-profit doesn’t make their financial statements available, donors won’t ever know how those funds are spent.
Another example of a charity which promised to honor donor intent but did not is Gospel for Asia. GFA is the target of two class action lawsuits alleging fraud. There are many examples of GFA not following donor intent, but I will mention only one of them – the $20-million gift from Believers’ Church to Gospel for Asia to build a new compound in Wills Point, TX. Those funds had originally been given by donors to go to the mission field. However, it appears that $20-million eventually came back from India to help complete construction of GFA’s Wills Point headquarters. Since these shenanigans have been reported, GFA now implies that all funds are within GFA’s discretion and control.
In practice, as these cases show, restricted fund giving doesn’t guarantee that a charity will honor donor intent. However, at least there is some basis for accountability if a charity strays from that standard.
Museum Fund?
To bring it back to Mercury One, just because Mercury One says unrestricted funds will be used for disaster relief, it doesn’t mean they will. In fact, the charity could use most of the funds for some pet project. For instance, Glenn Beck and David Barton recently have been promoting a history museum. In fact, in a recent broadcast, they described a “museum fund.” With the change in donation allocation, it is not clear that there is going to be a museum fund. In fact, I can’t find a museum fund on the Mercury One website. Watch (see especially 1:40) Beck and Barton solicit donations for a “museum fund.”
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVzVs8Az-Uo[/youtube]
Perhaps the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing at Mercury One. In any case, the newest word as of March 13 is that all donations will be unrestricted permitting the leaders (remember David Barton is board chair) to spend the funds as they please within the broad mission of the organization. That museum could be just around the corner.
Another Red Flag
Despite the posting about a change in donation allocation, Mercury One is still advertising the Nazarene Fund. Today, donors could give to the Nazarene Fund and think their gifts would go to rescue and restore refugees. However, if the donation allocation blog post is correct, it is unclear that a donation to the Nazarene Fund would go to that purpose. I am always suspicious of a charity which markets a fund in a way that makes it seem restricted, but in another part of the website or materials says that the funds are unrestricted. Until Mercury One clarifies things more, I would be cautious and not assume that Nazarene Fund gifts will be used for rescue and restoration of refugees.
 

Post Ted Cruz, Is It Time for Glenn Beck to Reconsider David Barton?

On his show today, conservative pundit Glenn Beck became irate with Ted Cruz over Cruz’s endorsement of Donald Trump. Right Wing Watch gets the hat tip and has some clips. Watch:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNjgAUzUwCI[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BshqMopwv2E[/youtube]
It is must watch TV. Beck nailed Cruz on his endorsement and demanded to know what new information Cruz had which allowed him to endorse Trump. Cruz had none (in fact, Cruz allowed Trump to use his mailing list before the endorsement) In the second video, Beck rails against Cruz and the two parties.
If Beck is this angry over Cruz’s turn around, what must he think of his old buddy David Barton?
Barton believes Christians must put aside their complaints and vote for Trump (link, link, link). Barton believes Trump is God’s choice and that Christians have a biblical duty to vote for him. Barton has been pushing Trump for weeks.
How is it possible for Glenn Beck to excoriate Ted Cruz without comparable ire being directed toward David Barton?
Perhaps this will motivate Beck to really examine the claims Barton makes about historical matters (and even Barton’s own educational status). Beck has a mutual friend who reached out to him in 2012 about Barton’s history. Perhaps, Mr. Beck, you could reach out to that person and reexamine the evidence.