Another example of liberals trying to change history

There"s a couple neat stories today that kind of play right into our theme from yesterday: "You can't rewrite history, but you can write the future." You have a 97-year-old veteran of Dunkirk who wanted to see the movie to see if it was realistic. He said it was so accurate he was moved to tears.

Of course then you have your typical liberals watching the movie claiming it to be not diversified enough. They claim it was an all white film.

So, what are we supposed to do: change history? I mean, here you have this 97 year old man who has lived with this battle for most of his life, and these naive feminists purport to be the experts on  the war.

I'm sorry to say this, but history was not diversified. If you want the future to be more diversified, fine. But the past is what the past is.

If there were women who played key roles in Dunkirk, fine! Tell that story in another movie if you want. But for crying out loud, if there were all white men in the war, it wouldn't be fair to history to have an equal number of men as women as blacks as Hispanics as Muslims in that war.

If they were there, and they played key roles, then show them. But, for the sake of our real history, Dunkirk was a war that featured mainly white men. That's just the way it was back then. To change that history would be to fail our children.

References:

1. Fox News: 97-year-old Dunkirk veteran: 'it was just like I was there again.
2. The Rightly Report: Feminist Flunks 'Dunkirk" as 'Mediocre' Men Only Film

You Cant Rewrite History, But You Can Write The Future

There's a lot of people in this country who try to rewrite history, as though it didn't happen. I think a better strategy would be to tell history as it actually happened, and if you don't like it, or if you don't like parts of it, to do better so the future's history can be written better.

For instance, I have friends who complain every time they see a confederate flag, or anything that acts as a reminder to the Confederacy. You have people in the South removing statues that have been up since the Civil War of people like General Lee.

Whether you like it or not, this is our history. Our history is one of slavery. It's an unfortunate blemish on our history. But it is our history. And it's not like the United States was the only country to allow slavery, as slavery was a problem around the world.

And it's not like slavery only involved black people as our schools purport to teach our children, as there were black slave owners as well. That's a part of our history that is never told, because the people who teach refuse to tell those truths. They only tell the parts that are convenient to their agenda. So, to think of it that way, the Confederate flag should be "offensive" to whites as well as blacks.

I tell my kids, that when they walk by something from the Civil War, a symbol of the South, such as the Confederate Flag, to not look at it as something bad. Instead, look at it as a reminder that the United States was the only country to  ever outlaw slavery, and it sacrificed 500,000 people in doing so. If not the only, at least the U.S was the first.

I tell my kids, that rather than complain that a person would proudly display a Confederate flag on their truck, be proud of the fact that, only in America, can a person do such a thing. One person can display a flag that you decided is "offensive" to one group of people, and you can do better if you choose to -- and I hope you do.

I can give you one more example of how people in this country try to change history. Ludington has a new Maritime museum. I have never gone there, but my wife and friends say they did, and they were upset that, as you walk through it, you'd think it was a shrine to men. They said they ought to make a room for women.

Certainly, if there were women involved in Maritime in Michigan, or the U.S., that they ought to be remembered by history. However, what if there were no women who played a significant role in this history. Are we just supposed to make it up?

You see, this is the kind of thing, I think, that is bad for the future: the retelling of history like this. I don't like it one bit. If you fill a room full of artifacts of women, then you will then have someone go through it and say, "As I walked through the museum it was as though it were a shrine to white people. They should make a room with memorabilia from black people."

That would be kind of hard to do, because not many black people have lived in Ludington. That's not our fault. It's not the fault even of the people who lived here back then. If you fill the museum up of rooms with stuff just for purposes of diversification, then whose history are you telling? Certainly not our history.

Our history is not a history of white people, or black people, or Muslim people, or men, or women. It is a history of us. tell it as it actually happened. Be as fair as you can. But tell it as it actually happened. Tell the history that was written, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, make the future a better history.

I think the most important reason for telling history as it actually happened is to make sure we don't repeat the bad stuff. Let's not go back to slavery. Let's not go back to the pre-American Revolutionary days when 90% of people were so trapped under the rule of government that they had no chance of making anything of themselves.

These things changed in America. So, rather than trying to black out the blemishes of our past, we ought to remind our kids of it every day so as not to repeat them. Let's remind them of the Civil War.

Let's remind them there was slavery. Lets have as many artifacts from the Confederacy as possible. Let's have as many artifacts showing what it was like to live in abject poverty in pre-Revolutionary days as possible. Let's remind our kids of these blemishes on our past so as we don't go back to them.

That would be a much better strategy than complaining that there weren't more white sailors on Lake Michigan, or that there exist today people who proudly display a Confederate flag on their truck.

You may not like parts of our history, but you can't rewrite them. Well, you can if you want, and sadly some people want to. A better strategy is to show history as it actually happened, and know that you can write a better future.

Are kids taught the whole story of American History?

Are our kids learning the truth about our founding in school? Sometimes I have to wonder. There are certain things that people do or say every day that make me wonder if they even have a clue about how and why this nation became what it is today. They don't seem to understand what makes this nation Exceptional.  

Here, I'll give you an example. On Monday Ted Cruse gave a speech announcing his candidacy for president. He talked about the Constitution and the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. The preamble, if you didn't learn it in school, goes like this: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, basically this is an acknowledgement by the founders of our country, declaring independence from Britain, that human rights are bestowed by God via creation, that the natural state of the human being contains God-given rights. It forms the foundation of the founding of this country.

Evidence that this hasn't been taught is when people who do talk about it are mocked and ridiculed. A perfect example comes from a Tweet by Yahoo News journalist Meredith Shiner:

Bizarre to talk about how rights are God-made and not man-made in your speech announcing a POTUS bid? When Constitution was man-made?"

Many people might miss this, especially if they hadn't been taught the true history of our founding. Yet to me this Tweet flat out shows that Shiner, a political reporter, was either not taught about the founding, or slept through that class. But, considering we see comments like this every day, I'm led to think it's simply not taught.

Surely history is taught, but things that don't support the progressive agenda are conveniently left out. Kids are simply not taught the true history of how our nation was founded. How else do you explain why people are so eager to sacrifice their liberties at the expense of moving forward their agenda? How else do you explain ignorant comments by adults who obviously graduated from American schools.

Just think of it this way. You have people like Shiner who are teaching our kids. You have people like this who are teaching adults. If all you do all day is read Yahoo News, then chances are pretty good you aren't going to learn about the true history of America. You're not going to learn it because the reporters teaching it have no clue. 

So when people who talk about the true nature of our founding the way Cruz did, people like Shiner look at them with dumbfounded expressions. Look, Shiner is a graduate of Duke University. She is well educated. But she is not well educated. This is sort of another example of how education does not make people smart, common sense does.

I would love to hear Shiner explain unalienable rights. I would like to see her reaction when I tell her that the idea that people are born with God-given rights is what separates our nation from all others. It's this idea that our Constitution was founded, and why it was written in a way to prevent our government from making any law that would "deny" these rights.

In the preamble only a few of the natural rights were listed. Jefferson didn't want to take up too much space listing them, so he wrote, "among these are..." This is because he knew that the other colonists knew what the other rights were. But, to make sure future generations didn't get confused, they listed all of them in the Bill of Rights.  (It is this truth that makes life so miserable for progressives who wish to advance their agenda, but that's a discussion for another day).

Yes, so our nation was founded on the belief that we are all born with God-given rights. No government can take these rights away, they can only be denied by government. Your right to make decisions you think are smart and some minority person in Washington thinks are stupid can be denied by a law -- but it can never be taken away from you. You can make whatever decision you want, even if it is denied. Of course if it's been denied, and you get caught, you might be punished.

I wonder if Shiner knows this. I wonder what her reaction would be to hearing this truth. She is totally clueless, and it's probably because the American School System failed her. She is probably one of many Americans taught in school that the government is better at solving problems than individuals. She is probably well educated about the theory of man-made global warming. She is probably well educated on political correctness.

She probably thinks, as too many Americans do these days, that her rights come from Washington; that everything she's allowed to do comes from the pen of man. She probably thinks that individuals need to be directed by experts in Washington. She probably thinks superior beings in Washington -- such as Duke or Harvard graduates -- need to act on our behalf to lead us in the right direction, which is whatever direction they think is right.

I wonder what Obama was taught about our history. I wonder what John Kerry was taught about our history. No, actually I don't wonder. I get a pretty good idea by listening to them talk that, even if they were privy to an accurate history, they weren't paying much attention.

The founding fathers risked everything so that Shiner could do what she does. Yet she has no clue. If such men existed today, she might think of them as extremists.

She probably thinks rights are whatever lawmakers say they are. But if that were the case, if this is what the founders thought, then this nation would not exist today. It would not be the same. Because, if that were the case, if rights came from the pen of man, the pen of man could take them away. If they are God-granted, then you always have them.

This reminds me of a story I heard once of a prisoner in a Japanese or German (I can't remember which) war camp during WWII. He was behind bars and had a gun aimed at his head, and he said to the guard, "I am more free than you right now." The enemy guard, laughed and said, "Now what would make you think that?" The U.S. prisoner said, "Because no matter what you do to me, I can still love my country."

Shiner probably wouldn't understand.

Just to make sure I am not off my rocker on this topic, I posted the following on Facebook knowing that some one would argue with me to prove my point. 

Too many kids get through the American educational system without being taught that this nation was formed based on the idea that human rights are bestowed by God via creation, and that the natural state of human beings contains God-given rights. My point is, the truth about our founding is not taught in many of those history books. So kids grow up not appreciating what American Exceptionalism really is

I received two quick responses, which included my nephew:

It's not the kids fault that we teach our kids the minimum requirements for a factory job and that we don't pay teachers enough to care as well as treat every student the same even tho every student is most definitely not the same, And standardized testing is just a joke.

And the whole "Merica" and "God" thing is just stupid.

And a cousin:

I'm confused. What do we need to teach kids about the founding fathers that we don't? 

This last one came with a link to Wikepedia: Separation of Church and State.

Yes, I do believe these comments help to prove my point: our government run school system is not doing a good job of teaching the truth about the founding of this country.  Our nation suffers as a result.

And you're welcome to disagree with me, although the consequence of doing so might prove me right

Further reading:

1. Newsbusters: Yahoo Political Reporter: Cruz Talking About God-Given Rights Is 'Bizarre'
2. RushLimbaugh.com: The Americans Who Risked Everything 
3. The decline of American History in Public Schools
4. What is American Exceptionalism
5. Transcript: Ted Cruse Speech at Liberty University
6. How do you define smart?

When was Jesus born?

Back in 2009 the History Channel did a series on Christmas.  One of the shows depicted the Birth of Christ and how it might have actually occurred.  It also noted that one of the major errors of the story of Christmas was the date that it actually occurred, and it explained why this error was made.

In other words, most evidence suggests that December 25 is not the day Christ was born.  Likewise, most evidence suggests that the year 1 was not the year of the lord.

To be honest, none of this surprised me, as I was taught this at an early age.  I'm certain most children are taught the same, especially in the secular world we live in today, a world where people will do anything to prove Jesus is a fraud.

Yet as a Christian, and as a Catholic, I find that this information has little significance, and in no way proves that Jesus did not exist. Still, I believe it is good to be accurate with facts, especially considering most rulers throughout history believed an ignorant populace benefited the state.

Anyway, one episode discussed when Jesus might have been born. Yet most societies back then used random Roman kings to base their calendars on, and so there was no consistent calendar.  It is partly for this reason, and the fact that most people were illiterate and did not record history, that the actual birth of Christ remains a mystery to history.

Of course another reason why the Birth of Christ remains a mystery to history is because the main emphasis in the early years of Christianity was on the death of Christ, not on the birth of Christ.

However, what we do know is that several hundred years after the Birth of Christ, Christian Priests got together and they thought it would be really cool to have a calendar based on the birth of Christ, as opposed to some random Roman King.

So, since there was no knowledge of the actual birth of Christ, December 25 was chosen as the day to hold the celebration of Christmas.  This date was chosen for no other reason than that it was the date of a chief pagan holiday.  The idea was the celebrating Christmas on this date would be a great way of overriding the old celebration and bringing in the new.

This turned out to be perhaps the #1 most effective and significant public relations strategy in the history of the world, as, in the United States alone, 90 percent celebrate the birth of Christ, including 80 percent of non-Christians.

Of course this should be of no surprise, because, after all, Christianity is the only true religion.  And one must not doubt for a moment that God, or the son of God (the Word), helped the men in charge of the campaign.

So what started out as a cult following grew to become the most significant religion in the history of mankind. This is (was) a huge PR success story.

But I digress.

A scholar determined that Jesus must have been born on year 473, or something like that, of the Roman calendar.  So a week after the Birth of Christ starts the new year. That pretty much put to rest the search for the date of the Birth of Christ.

Eighteen hundred years later, researchers determined that the scholar who chose that year failed to take into account a few specific details mentioned in the Bible. For one thing, Jesus was born during the rein of King Herad, who died in 2 BC.

Therefore, since Herad is mentioned in the Bible for 4 years after the birth of Jesus, then Jesus must have been born in 6 BC.

Another scientist used information about the star of Bethlehem that the three Kings (of course the Bible does not say how many Kings there were) used to find the baby Jesus. The Bible states it occurred in the East. In Jesus's time, the east referred to the Eastern sky in the morning where the sun rises.

So, the search was on to determine what event would have occurred in the Easter sky that might have occurred around 6 BC.

Another account of the Bible states that Jesus was born in a manger, during a time when the Shepherds were watching their sheep. During the time of Jesus Shepherds only watched over their sheep at night, which meant he was born at night.

Also significant, most of the year sheep were not watched. The only time they were was in the spring.  So Jesus would have been born in the spring not winter.

Another scientist determined that other manuscripts of the time make note that the star occurred in the constellation (what was it called?) that was a symbol of of Judaism.

Likewise, Zeus was also mentioned. More significant, the planet that represented Zeus was Jupiter. Thus, this scientist determined that the star of Bethlehem would have been an event involving Jupiter in the eastern sky, at night, and in the spring, and around the year 6 BC.

So, using his computer, he set out to determine when such an event would have occurred, and he determined, according to his computer, that Jupiter would have been aligned in the Easter sky in this particular constellation on April 18, of 6 B.C.

This date lines up perfectly with all the significant historical events described in the Bible.  It was during the rein of King Heran; it was during the spring; it was during the phase of the moon and other things in the sky depicted in Biblical stories.

The experts note that the result of such an alignment in the sky would have made for a remarkable sight, although it would not have

The result of such an alignment would have been a remarkable sight for those who saw it the night Jesus was born.  Still, it would not have been too bright.  This would have made it obvious to those who were looking for it, and not so obvious to those who were not.

This was significant, because the kings (magi, magicians, wise men) had to convince King Herod there was such a sight in the sky the night Jesus was born.  It had to not only have been there, but had to have been not so obvious for un-knowing to have seen.

Merry Christmas.

Hippocratic Oath required pledge not to perform abortions

Image of Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.)
Prior to the ancient Greek philosophy,
it was common for physicians,
to use their knowledge to kill for money.
The Hippocratic oath was an effort,
to change the image of the profession.

Since the days of ancient Greece physicians were required to take an oath, therefore promising to do no harm, including a pledge not to perform abortions.  Since about 400 years before the birth of Christ this has been known as the Hippocratic Oath.

However, beginning in the 1960s, rather than face the issue, most medical-schools dropped the requirement that graduates site the pledge.

Just think, an oath that lasted through all the trials and trivializations of 2,500 years of history was ended over the abortion issue.

Today the pledge is voluntary, and the part about not doing abortion is not a part of it.  Sad.

Reference:

1. Paul, Ron, "Liberty Defined," 2011, 

Progressives succeeded in changing a republic into a democracy

In order for the progressive movement to be a success,
progressives needed to take power away from the individual.

The founders of the United States wanted to form a republic rather than a democracy because they knew that democracies can lead to chaos, and they didn't want the new nation to be chaotic. The founders knew that democracies never work.

W. Cleon Skousen, in his book, "The 5000 year leap: Principles of Freedom 101," reminds us of this.  He said:

"There are many reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislature or decision making processes of government. This has never worked because the people become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democratic mass-participation in the government of the city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny."

The authors note that while a democracy becomes "increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows," a republic "governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely."

James Madison, one of the main authors of the Constitution, knew the limits of a democracy.  A republic, he said...

...derives its power directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.  It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.

The United States was a republic, and considered as such, until the progressive movement of the early 1900s. Early proponents of the progressive movement realized there were essentially two things standing in the way of moving forth their agenda: republicanism and the U.S. Constitution.  They aimed to tackle both these issues with a public relations campaign, or by twisting facts.

To understand this, we must first understand the history of the progressive movement.  Progressives believe that an ideal, or perfect, or Euphoric, world is possible. This is a world where there where every person has an equal share of the profits, where everyone who wants a job has one, and where everyone has health insurance.  We must realize that this is a dream.

To move America forward to this dream world laws must be made, and the people responsible for making these laws are experts in Washington.  Of course, these experts must all be progressives. These experts must make laws for the good of society, or for the good of all, or for the collective.  

The gist of this agenda is the assumption that people, as individuals, are not capable, or not willing, to do what is necessary to move forth the agenda. People, left to their own devices, are selfish, and will not give to charity and will not share the wealth.  So they must be forced.  

So you can see that this would not be popular in an republican America where individualism was taught.  So, these progressives started a campaign to change this view.  

Since a republican government limited their ability to push forth their agenda, the term "republic" was taken hostage.  It was at this time people, mainly progressives, started referring to their progressive programs as liberal, and their progressive programs as democratic.  They did this in order to make them sound more appealing.  They would say things like "this is for the good of society," or "for your own good."

For example, in 1921 socialists in the United States started calling themselves, "The League for Industrial Democracy." It has a much more appealing taste to Americans, and appeared much more likely to suck people in. 

During WWII, Woodrow Wilson added to the confusion when he hailed

"Make the world safe for Democracy."

This strategy worked.  Teachers and journalists prove the effects of this campaign by teaching that America is a democracy.  Even George W. Bush fell victim to this when he hailed that he was encouraging Muslim nations to become democracies.  

The second effort was to make the term socialism appealing withing the borders of the United States.  In order to to this they used the name "progressive" instead of "socialism."  Progressive was a much more appealing term.  Later, as this term lost its appeal, the name was changed to liberal.

Prior to the progressive movement the term liberty referred to the exercise of human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the rights of other people.  Liberal, therefore, which dates from the Middle Ages to about the 1930s, referred to freeing society from the shackles of the state.

In 1930 it was abducted by the progressives/liberals and now means "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." The term made it possible for the progressives to convince people that is was okay to change, or in some cases ignore, the laws of this nation, including the Constitution, in order to push forth their agenda.  

Evidence of the success of this campaign is seen in every day life in America. The influence of government has dangerously expanded far greater than the founding fathers ever envisioned, nearly to the point that presidents such as FDR and Obama have gained near king-like powers.  

Bottom line:  A successful push to destabilizing the meaning of the terms "republic" and "liberal" allowed progressives (i.e. socialists, liberals) to convince Americans to ignore or change the Constitution, thus allowing them to push forth their agenda.