Today telling the truth has largely disappeared from public discourse.  Let’s use basic history as an example.  Learning history in school was the norm during the period 1952-1969, the formative years up through my graduation from college.  I received a detailed education in public schools of our founding and principles, American history, and world history dating back to antiquity.  As part of a Navy family, I went to school all over the country: Virginia, Maryland twice, California, Illinois, and Nebraska.  History teaching was consistent everywhere, including hard truths about slavery here and around the world.  After college, I continued studying history in depth, including the Revolutionary period up to our founding, the Civil War period and Lincoln, and the major world wars in the 20^th century, especially WWII. 

Studying the Founders was particularly insightful and important in terms of really understanding the true nature of America.  The Founders were highly educated and acutely aware of man’s checkered history.  They excelled in extraordinarily challenging circumstances in establishing a new nation based on principles of liberty and opportunity.  Was our Founding flawed by slavery and other pre-modern holdovers from a more primitive era?  It was.  But abolishing slavery at that time was impossible considering the South’s dependence on it as an essential element of its economy.  So, evil as it was, had it not been accommodated, America would not have been created at all and we would likely still be English. 

Still, America’s Founding was and is one of the most extraordinary events in the history of the human race.  It simultaneously threw off monarchy and created a new form of government with the best elements of all the old forms, a unique new governmental system that had never been tried before.  And it worked.  America at 247 years is the longest-lived democracy in the world. 

A broad knowledge of history and our Founding was the expected norm back then for anyone growing up in America.  What passes for history today?  The execrable 1619 project, a complete fiction that attempts to paint the picture that our nation was founded on racism.  Even its author admits it is not history, yet it is being passed off as history to millions of vulnerable young children today, a travesty and a tragedy to deprive the young of today of the truth about our miraculous founding against the longest odds.  It is true that slavery survived the founding.  But the founders’ core principles as outlined boldly in the Declaration itself that “all men are created equal,” created the very foundation for the end of slavery later and the end of racism in 1964 with the passage of the Equal Rights Act.  Readers can learn about the lies of the 1619 project in Peter Woods’ 1620, A Critical Response to the 1619 Project or Mary Grabar’s Debunking the 1619 Project. 

How could such false history have gained such traction in our society?  It is because liars are promoting false history for a political agenda to fundamentally change America into a totalitarian socialist state.  Lying about our history is the key to overthrowing America.  If the majority can be convinced that they are living in an evil country, worse than others and with a system that systematically harms Blacks and others, it will be easier to convince them to throw off our Constitution and replace it with socialism.  Socialism has been tried and the result is always death, killing over 200 million people to date.  Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  We must not go down that path.

Lying about our history is just the start.  Whether it is the mainstream media, the social media giants, academia, Hollywood, or corporate America, these institutions lie about everything.  They lie that climate change is a mortal threat to civilization.  It’s not.  In fact, there has been zero warming for the last eight years.  Has the media reported that? They lie that gun violence is out of control.  It is not.  Americans are safer from guns 2023 more so than at any time in our history.  Your chances of being killed by a gun is lower by orders of magnitude less than your chances of getting hit by lightning.  They lie about abortion involving women’s health when it is really the murder of children in the womb.  They lie that the nation has secure borders as millions illegally enter our country including terrorists and drug runners.  They lie that the rich pay no taxes despite the U.S. having the most regressive tax regime in the world where our richest citizens pay a disproportionate percentage of the nation’s taxes.  They even lie about basic biology, exploiting the sad plight of victims of gender dysphoria.  In recent years there has been a 4000% increase in young females claiming to be the opposite sex.  Is no one in our vaunted institutions — academia or the media — interested in how this could be happening?  They lie about the police being murderous brutes when the truth is that overwhelmingly the police are honest, brave, and fair public servants doing a thankless job to keep our citizenry safe from criminals.

Americans need to demand truth from all our institutions.  If a person, a company, or an institution is dishonest, they must be challenged by the way you relate to them.  How you behave, what you choose to spend money on, the way you consume, what you watch, listen to or support is everything!  If they lie, avoid them.  Do not consume their products.  Money and interest drive the marketplace.  Disney just announced massive layoffs because Americans are staying away in droves from their woke ideology.  The power of the purse can restore truth to the public square.  Each American must seek truth and use the power of his own pocketbook to lift up those institutions, companies and people that tell the truth and to deny attention and money to those who won’t tell. the truth.

Brent Ramsey

| Print|

 Email

To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99

Login

Subscribe / Change Pwd

Here’s the problem with running for President as a Republican — other than the fact you cannot win, and you will not win, not so long as we have the kind of voting process that manufactured 81 million votes for JOE BIDEN.

Running for President demystifies you. A President, in most people’s minds, is supposed to be kind of an FDR, a Truman, a Lincoln or a JFK. In today’s media, even those men (whatever you think of them) could not be who they are in most people’s minds today. The ever-present camera, the Internet, the tweets and everything else would make mystification (even in a rational sense) impossible.

When you’re a Republican today, the media (99.99 percent opposed to ALL Republicans, even RINOs when running for President) is incredibly skillful at demystifying the Republican candidate. You’ll hear only the negatives and none of the positives. You won’t be permitted to see anything positive. Just what happens to poor Nikki Haley. It’s so predictable that it’s tiring. When a woman runs for president on the Democratic side, it’s cool. When a woman runs for president on the Republican side — forget it. It’s over before it starts. You’ll hear nothing but the negatives. And then watch what happens to Ron DeSantis, if he runs. Trump won’t have to smash or smear him. The media will do it, especially if they think he has a chance. It’s not just that they’ll criticize him — they will demystify him. He will suddenly be the guy who cannot win.

Democrats have rigged the Electoral College to their benefit. They’ve done it with mail-in voting, which shows no signs of ever going away. That’s enough right there, but they’re sophisticated in other methods of ballot fraud too, ways we certainly don’t yet know about. But my point is that they don’t even need election fraud. Democrats can write the narrative any way they wish. And for whatever reason, no matter how many Americans claim in polls they “don’t trust the media”, whatever the media tells them seems to have almost mystical (translation: psychological) power over them.

That’s how we ended up with “President Biden.” And that’s how, incredibly enough, we will end up with him again. Unless we end up with something perhaps even more horrifying to contemplate.

The media has wrapped it all up with a grip on people’s psyches. The election fraud hardly even matters. Good luck, Nikki Haley. You seem like a good woman. They’re going to trash you. Unless you fight back like Donald Trump — whose brash style seems to be passe now, even with many Republicans — you won’t stand a chance.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

This past week, the following was sent to all Texas legislators and all daily newspapers in Texas.

Defenders of government schools claim that those schools do a better job of educating students than private schools. And the advocates for school choice claim that private schools do a better job. Both sides can cite numerous studies to support their position. If we are going to claim that either private or government schools are better, we must first answer a crucial question: Better by what standard?

The needs, desires, and interests of students are not monolithic. These vary widely, and what is better for one student may not be better for another. The standard of what is better will vary from student to student. The standard will be unique to each individual.

In the context of the school choice debate, it doesn’t matter whether private or government schools do a better job. The purpose of school choice is to enable parents to decide which school is best for their children. For some, a private school may be better. For others, a government school may suffice. However, this is a decision that parents, not politicians and bureaucrats, should be making.

Unfortunately, much of the debate over school choice focuses on a group. For example, the studies cited by both sides of the debate always focus on the test scores of some group, such as fourth graders. Whether those scores are exemplary or abysmal, they tell us nothing about the individuals comprising that group.

If the focus is on the group, then the needs, desires, and interests of individuals are ignored. This collectivist notion gives rise to the contradictory claims made by the two sides of the school choice debate. It focuses on what is best for one group or another, rather than what is best for individuals.

For example, exemplary scores for a group do not mean that every member of that group is doing well. And if the scores for a group are abysmal, it doesn’t mean that every student is struggling. When we look at the group rather than individuals, we miss what is happening to actual human beings.

The arguments put forth by school choice opponents imply that they know what is best for all Texas students. They believe that they, politicians, and education bureaucrats are the ones who should decide what ideas and values young Texans should be taught. “Give me a child till he is seven years old, and I will show you the man,” St. Ignatius Loyola stated. His words are true. The ideas and values that individuals learn at a young age often shape the rest of their lives. Parents understand this, and they want more control over what their children are being taught.

If we truly want what is best for every individual student, then we must begin by adopting the proper standard. We must adopt a standard that applies to every individual, no matter her age, family income, race, ethnicity, or any other characteristic.

The only standard that applies to all individuals is the freedom to pursue one’s own happiness and to act according to one’s own judgment in that pursuit, so long as one respects the freedom of others to do the same. We have the freedom to choose our barber, mechanic, grocer, and accountant. And we make those choices based on what we believe to be better. We consider our needs, desires, and interests when we make such choices. We recognize and accept the fact that others will choose a different barber, mechanic, grocer, and accountant. It is time that we also accept the fact that others may choose something other than government schools. It is time to enable parents to have the freedom to choose the school for their children through school choice.

Parents know their children better than anyone else. Parents, along with their children, are the ones who should decide which school is better.

FEEL FREE TO SHARE

BRIAN PHILLIPS

Brian Phillips is the founder of the Texas Institute for Property Rights. Brian has been defending property rights for nearly thirty years. He played a key role in defeating zoning in Houston, Texas, and in Hobbs, New Mexico. He is the author of three books: Individual Rights and Government Wrongs, The Innovator Versus the Collective, and Principles and Property Rights. Visit his website at texasipr.com.

“Hell is empty and all the devils are here.”

— William Shakespeare

When has this ever been more true?

Even the Pope is a Communist.

******************

“Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.”

— Ben Franklin

Done. And done.

******************

“A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights he does possess.”

— Ayn Rand

Today, the laws and cultural trends have entirely inverted this truth. Today it’s plausible to say, “A group, as such, has unlimited rights — so long as it’s a protected group. Whites, for example, are not protected (unless members of The Party.) Blacks, Hispanics and (in some cases) Asians are protected. Christians are not protected; Muslims have unlimited protection and may do literally anything they wish. Gays and lesbians have almost unlimited rights, and transgenders have unlimited rights with no inhibitions whatsoever (you may not even criticize a transgender). Democrats are protected; Republicans are not protected unless they go along with the Party, and Trump supporters enjoy no protections whatsoever. You gain no rights through your individuality; you ONLY have rights based on your particular group membership (most of those memberships not being chosen, such as race).”

*******************

“Misinformation” is a meaningless concept when described or condemned by dishonest, totalitarian ideologues.

*******************

“Bad communication ends a lot of good things.”

*******************

Biden Orders Creation Of Interagency Team To Investigate ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’ (says a headline)

“Look! It’s a UFO! Never mind about the annihilation of the country. Just focus on the Martians.”

Biden is the sick joke that is Obama’s legacy.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Countries with greatest (based on 2020 data: Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand, Denmark) – those that are most capitalistic – are the most prosperous and rank also the highest in human wellbeing metrics, such as life span, literacy, and life satisfaction.

Yet the anti-capitalist movement is alive and well, particularly among environmental activists. Recently, climate crusader Greta Thunberg called for downfall of capitalism, blaming it for man-made climate change (as well as for colonialism, oppression, genocide, racism, and social injustice).

Climate change has been harnessed by the anti-capitalist movement as a cause to unite the largest number of supporters, including governments and business. Some governments (including the UK and Canada) have passed laws committing them to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and corporations are complying with ESG goals and plans to abandon fossil fuels.

But is capitalism to blame for climate change and the ills that the anti-capitalists accuse it of?

To answer, we need to understand what capitalism is. The term is used casually today to refer to the dominant mixed economy system, where some elements of capitalism, such as free trade and private ownership of property, are mixed with government control and public ownership. Even corrupt mixed economies where politicians hand out favors to businesses that make political contributions are called capitalism, albeit with the label “crony” attached.

However, capitalism is not a mixed economy, or crony “capitalism” (or any other modified capitalism, such as state “capitalism,” welfare “capitalism,” or “anarcho-capitalism”). In its original meaning capitalism is “laissez-faire:” a system of freedom based on voluntary trade, or as Ayn Rand defined it: “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”

In capitalism, freedom is ensured by individual rights which the government protects (through police, armed forces, and the courts) without playing any role in the economy (“all property is privately owned”).

In capitalism, governments cannot initiate physical force; their sole role is to protect their citizens against the initiation of physical force and fraud by criminals or foreign invaders, through deterrence or retaliation. That rules out capitalism as the cause of colonialism, oppression, and genocide. (Absolute monarchies and other forms of dictatorships that initiate force, whether communist, fascist, or theocratic, were and are to blame).

Capitalism is also not the cause of racism or social injustice. In capitalism, all individuals have the same rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of skin color or social status. Capitalism penalizes racist or other irrational discrimination, say that of a business owner who only trades with people of particular skin color and thus limits his investors, supply chain, labor pool, and customers – and his economic success.

Neither does capitalism cause climate change. Climate has always varied greatly. Human industrial activity has had some impact on the atmospheric carbon levels and the global temperature in the last 150 years, during which there have been only mixed economies and centrally planned countries. With its freedom and protection of rights, capitalism would have encouraged rapid innovations as adaptive solutions to any negative impacts of climate change, whether natural or man-made.

Greta and her fellow anti-capitalists want to take down “capitalism” – the mixed economy – and replace it with a centrally planned socialist economy. We have had a taste of that when governments everywhere expanded their power in the name of fighting climate change: state-mandated net-zero carbon emission targets, “just-transition” to clean energy legislation (in Canada), barring new oil and gas pipelines, banning gas-powered vehicles while subsidizing EVs, mandating ESG reporting, etc.

Although there has been some pushback on such measures by industry leaders, most businesses have quietly gone along, by adopting net-zero targets and plans to abandon fossil fuels. But they should not go along, because if they do, statism will only expand, eventually leading to absolute tyranny where the state dictates every aspect of people’s lives. For examples of industry leaders speaking up, see Terence Corcoran’s Financial Post editorial.

If companies want to stop ever-expanding statism and the problems it has caused (energy crisis, food crisis, war, inflation), they must quit supporting it and defend capitalism and freedom. That includes defending their own freedom to operate and to return to their proper role – what they do best: produce and trade goods and services that our lives depend on, including innovative solutions to energy, pollution, and adapting to climate change.

More business leaders standing up to statism and defending capitalism would affect political change towards freedom for business and the rest of us. More wealth creation and prosperity for all would ensue, deflating the tires of the anti-capitalism movement and accelerating human flourishing.

I would never support state rights over individual rights. But when the federal government starts to show ZERO support for individual rights, it’s time to run to the state for protection, if you can. States like New York, California, etc. will never offer such protection, but states like Florida and Texas will, at least for now. That’s why secession starts to make sense.

The goal isn’t a strong government. The goal is protection of the individual’s sovereignty over his or her life. The federal government of the United States grew too big, too powerful and too concerned with its own welfare over and above the welfare of any actual people. Like it or not, this tyrannical government is now at least as bad as (I would say worse than) the British empire toward the colonists in 1776.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason