I declared war on them, and I now present a decisive victory.

I'm sure y'all remember my massive rant objecting to a significant portion of the content of the "Patriot's History of the United States." Well, it got worse. Seriously.

First - blatant fabrications. I kid you not. They make several claims about the Confederate Constitution "externalizing" the costs of slaveholding by making non-slaveholders pay court expenses for fugitive slave cases. Problem. I have a copy of said Confederate Constitution, and the clause they rant about... doesn't exist. They made it up out of thin air. I checked and re-checked the CS Constitution, especially the areas relating to the judicial branch, and it wasn't there. I suspect most people don't keep a copy of the document, so the authors apparently rightly assumed that they could get away with such deception. Here's a very convenient copy of the Confederate Constitution - make sure you read the key at the top.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm

Second - citing a forgery. This really ticked me off. They claim that President Davis, in response to the Emancipation Proclamation, unilaterally declared on January 5, 1863 that as of Feb. 22, 1863, all free blacks within the Confederacy would be enslaved. Problem - he never made the speech. Here's a copy of his actual January 5, 1863 speech. It's actually a pretty good speech, in my opinion.

http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=94

And here's a copy (courtesy of Harper's Weekly) of his actual response to the Emancipation Proclamation. Racist? Yup, but what do you expect from a slaveholder? But unilaterally declaring all free blacks to be slaves? Uh, nope.

JEFF DAVIS'S MESSAGE.
Jeff Davis has issued his annual Message to the rebel Congress. He speaks of the early determination of England, France, and other European Powers to confine themselves to recognizing the self-evident fact of the existence of a strict neutrality during the progress of the war, but draws from this the conclusion that their course of action was but an actual decision against the South, and in favor of the Union, at the same time tending to prolong hostilities. He denounces the conduct of the Union armies as atrocious and cruel.

HIS VIEWS OF THE PROCLAMATION.
In relation to President Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, he says he may well leave it to the instincts of that common humanity which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries to pass judgment on a measure of which several millions of human beings of an inferior race, peaceful and contented laborers in their sphere, are doomed to extermination; while, at the same time, they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation to abstain from violence, unless in necessary self-defense. Our own detestation of those who have attempted the most execrable massacre recorded in the history of guilty man is tinctured by a profound sentiment for the impotent rage which it discloses. As far as regards the action of this Government on such criminals as may attempt its execution, I confine myself to informing you that I shall, unless in your wisdom you deem some other course more expedient, deliver to the several State authorities all commissioned officers of the United States that may hereafter be captured by our forces in any of the States embraced in the proclamation, that they may be dealt with in accordance with the laws of those States, providing for the punishment of criminals engaged in exciting servile insurrections. In its political aspect this measure possesses great signification, and to it in this light I invite your attention. It affords to our people the complete and crowning proof of the true nature of the designs of the party which elevated to power the present occupant of the Presidential chair at Washington, and which sought to conceal its purposes by every variety of artful grace, and by the perfidious use of the most solemn and repeated pledges on every practicable occasion. He gives extracts from President Lincoln's inaugural, and comments fully upon the subsequent acts by Congress and the Administration.

This. Means. WAR.

I have recently had the immense displeasure of reading Challenge III's history textbook, A Patriot's History of the United States. The title should give a lot away about the book - that, and the fact that it's been endorsed by Glenn Beck. I have been writing down the major historical errors I've found in first third of the book, and I will address them here.

This is gonna be a loooong post.

First off - they refer to Northern colonies as "non-slaveholding" and Southern ones as slaveholding. Minor problem - the colonies all had slaves in 1763, the year that was being discussed. Oops.

Moving forward thirty or so years, we come to the great Adams/Hamilton vs Jefferson/Madison years. The guys who wrote this book defend Adams and the Federalists to a ludicrous degree. Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts? The latter of the two was a blatant violation of the right to free speech and freedom of the press as protected by the First Amendment. The Patriot's History guys, however, say it was "arguably" unconstitional. Arguably? REALLY? That's just pathetic.

Throughout the book so far, the authors repeatedly associate states' rights with racism and attack the doctrine of nullification, never mind that it was and is a critical check on the government's power.

They also defend the position that a president can unilaterally declare preemptive war by citing an incident in which President Jefferson dispatched troops to the Barbary States. Minor problem - the Barbary States had declared war first (so much for "preemptive"), and Mr. Jefferson consistently sought Congressional authorization. There goes "unilateral."

It just gets better, though! According to these poor deluded fellows, the "necessary and proper" clause allows Congress to do pretty much anything. Unfortunately for them, it also states that said "necessary and proper" laws must be made within the Constitution's limits.

Now the REAL fun begins - the "crisis of union" in their words. They EXPLICITLY call secession treason, forgetting that the colonies seceded from the British Empire. I can only assume that this was treason as well. In reality, Constitutionally speaking, using force against a seceding state is the real act of treason. They also fail to mention the fact that Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, John Adams, James Madison, and others explicitly or implicitly stated that secession was a necessary means to secure liberty.

Oh yeah, and a certain Illinois lawyer said the same thing.

Yes, I am referring to Abraham Lincoln. When he came into the picture, this book got a LOT more annoying. My gosh. This is one of most embarrassing Lincoln-worship sessions I have ever read. They attempt to portray him as a champion of black rights. This is new information to me, 'cause last time I checked, he explicitly said that whites were superior, and was a member of the Colonization Society, the purpose of said Society being to free the slaves - then boot them to Africa and Central America. They then claim that in the 1860 election, only Abe stood "squarely against slavery." I nearly gagged when I read that. I'm sorry, but the authors must have come from a different universe, because in this one, Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no intentions to interfere with Southern slavery, and he also supported the Corwin Amendment, which would have made slavery permanent and literally untouchable by the government. Oh, and there was an Illinois law prohibiting the immigration of blacks - guess who voted for it?

As far as Lincoln's Republican party buddies go, the Patriot's History kooks portray them as egalitarian, black-rights free-soil saints. Eh, not so much. They were the same ones who voted along with Lincoln to prohibit black immigration to their states. Their free soil position was not so much a moral opposition to slavery as it was an overt attempt to reserve the territories for free WHITE labor.

To top it all off, in reference to the secession conventions they say, "Given that the South was bent on violating the Constitution no matter what..."

I hope for the authors' safety that they never say something that stupid in front of me.

After 10 long years...

Osama Bin Laden is finally dead. This is undeniably a good thing. But before we get caught up in the excitement caused by killing the Big Bad, we should do two things.

Number one - realize that a monster has been killed. A monster that the United States' government created in the first place. Keep that in mind.

Number two - we need to ask ourselves, "At what price did we stop this man?"

Thousands of United States soldiers dead...



...Iraq and Afghanistan still war-torn and occupied...






...and to top it all off, infuriated radical Muslims.





Obviously, it is a good thing that bin Laden was brought to justice. But always keep in mind the cost, and the fact that were it not for the United States arming him during the Cold War, he would never have become a threat.

Thoughts on schooling

I've recently been reading an excellent book, Weapons of Mass Instruction, by John Taylor Gatto, and it's gotten me thinking about what I've learned. As you probably know, I'm homeschooled, and I love it. Still, I've noticed something odd. The subjects that I know in-depth have not been a major part of our curriculum. Economics, for instance. Last year it was a part of our "official" school, but I knew most of what we learned already thanks to independent study.

Global warming, another subject I know fairly well, has not been in the curriculum at all. Almost all of my knowledge about it came from my own interests and spare time, and doing my own research. Then there's government. Again, it was a subject last year, but most of my knowledge about it was gained independently of the curriculum. Then, of course, there's Abraham Lincoln and the War for Southern Independence. That has never been a subject, but it's my specialty.

I'm not trying to bash our curriculum - I think it's great - but I can't help but notice that my best areas are not taught primarily in "school." This actually, as pointed out by Gatto, is the case with most successful people, whether statesmen or businessmen. School might be a good foundation depending on the curriculum, but it WILL NOT lead to success. Education is the key, not schooling, and there is a difference. What I've come to believe is that education is rarely provided by a school curriculum, rather it is provided by one's own studies and experiences. In fact, from what I can tell, most schools, especially public, are actually designed to SUPPRESS education, and instead create good, pliable, uncomplaining citizens. It's a propaganda machine. I, for one, am glad that we still have the freedom to homeschool!

The Gulf Oil Spill

I know, I know. This is fairly old news. I'd like to share my thoughts on it, though. First, I've noticed a disturbing tendency in articles about the spill. It's almost always in this vein: "Oh, no, the animals! Oh, no, the environment! Oil is evil! Oh yeah, some people got killed in the blast, too. But the ANIMALS!" Please tell me I'm not the only one who finds this disturbing. Why is the massive economic damage ignored? Why are the lost lives drowned out by cries of "OH MY GOSH, THERE ARE PELICANS GETTING COVERED IN OIL!" You know, those are some pretty stupid pelicans. Question: Does anyone actually care about a bird that's stupid enough to land on an oil spill? Natural selection at work.

By the way, I wouldn't be too concerned about the fish. They will be almost completely unharmed by the spill. Also, NOAA estimates that one third of the spill has already evaporated. Go figure.

Something else that bothers me: I have now seen several people attacking our use of oil. Okay, great! Now go get rid of your car and halt all electricity use. Geez. Oh, yeah, and Obama and co., in their infinite wisdom, have decided to halt all future coastal drilling indefinitely. I usually don't say things like this, but only an economic moron would do that. Dang it, there's oil reserves abounding in Alaska, and likely some in Antarctica, but drilling is not permitted in those areas. In fact, I've read that there's oil off the Carolina coast. Wouldn't more drilling provied more, um, JOBS? Yeah, aren't we trying to fix the unemployment problem? Halting expansion of an industry ain't gonna do that.

By the way, global warming caused the Iceland eruption.

We're done for...

I'm sure you already know about this, but the health "care" bill passed. It was a somewhat close vote, and good 'ol Virginia didn't let me down. To nobody's surprise, North Carolina had mostly "Yes" votes. Where does it all end?! Souther States voting FOR this horrible, unconstitutional expansion of government? What has the world come to? Curse the Radical Republicans and their Reconstruction. Oh well. The one positive thing about this is it will help bankrupt the Feds. Once they can no longer keep States restrained with funding, maybe we'll start seeing a secession movement getting somewhere. After all, nullification movements are making real progress, and the next step is a successful nullification of the HEALTH CARE BILL. This bill may have some unpleasant and unforeseen consequences for Washington... I can't remember which State, but one or more has a bill under consideration nullifying the health bill if it passed. Y'know, this bill is sorta like a kidney stone. It sits there for what seems like ages, but inevitably passes. Next up, I guess, is cap-and-trade.

Interview with Thomas Jefferson

Good afternoon, everyone! For anybody from Challenge 1 who was wondering about those questions for Jefferson, this is what it was all about. After completing the time machine and bringing Jefferson up to speed on what has happened since the early 1800s, he has agreed to do this interview, in which he will answer YOUR questions! At least, I hope he will. Anyway, here he comes now. Welcome to the twenty-first century, Mr. Jefferson.

Me: Let's start off on a light note. Brent*, a friend from my homeschool group asks, "What do you think of the future?"

Jefferson: Well, I must say first of all that I am very impressed by the advances in medicine and other sciences. I find it hard to believe the incredible prosperity achieved in just over 200 years. However, I am quite shocked at the overbearing government.

Me: Well, we're the freest country around.

Jefferson: That's rather sad. We didn't fight the British just to install another form of dictatorship, you know. I am also greatly disturbed by the erosion of states' rights. After all, I myself was a proponent of nullification.

Me: Yes, it is really sad. If anyone today talks about states' rights, secession, or nullification you generally get a bunch of angry looks. But on to other questions. Mr. Bowman, my Challenge tutor, asks, "Did you really believe in the Constitution?"

Jefferson: No, not really. I made it perfectly clear that I am an "anti-Federalist," and opposed the Constitution, it being a great expansion of government power. What particularly concerned me were the "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses.

Me: I'm thinking we should have listened to you.

Jefferson: Indeed. However, I still thought that the Constitution could effectively restrain the government, but it appears that I was wrong. I am greatly disturbed at the way so many sections of it have had their obvious meanings changed.

Me: I know, it's pathetic. Anyway, Alex, also from Challenge, asks, "What do you think about the deficit?"

Jefferson: It's horrifying.

Me: If I'm not mistaken, your administration went into debt from the Louisiana Purchase.

Jefferson: Yes, but I believe that would be far easier to pay off than several trillion dollars. Not to mention, that was a vast amount of territory and would help pay off the debt. Would you have turned it down?

Me: Of course not, that would be downright stupid. Now, Christian asks, "What is your religion?"

Jefferson: I consider myself a Christian.

Me: But you reject the divinity of Christ and question a number of biblical events, correct?

Jefferson: Correct.

Me: Then in today's terms, I think you would fall under the "Deist" category.

Jefferson: Well, definitions have certainly changed.

Me: True enough. Now then, Ashley-

Jefferson: Wait, who? You also never stated who "Christian" was.

Me: Both from my homeschool group. Anyway, Ashley asks, "If you could give any advice to President Obama, what would it be?"

Jefferson: Well, if it had to be short, I would say that it all boils down to this: Do not overstep your constitutional boundaries. The same could be said for Congress.

Me: I strongly agree. Now, the last viewer question is another from Mr. Bowman. He asks, "Why did you take a slave as your mistress?"

Jefferson: *Sighs* I cannot believe that this is still being brought up. That was a false accusation made in a newspaper in 1802 by some fellow named James Caller. In his accusation, he included absolutely no evidence, and later changed the details and the number of children supposedly produced. Besides, my moral standards are far above that.

Me: Then why didn't you reply to it publicly?

Jefferson: I felt that if I did, it would give the accusation more credibility than it deserved.

Me: That's interesting. Funny how the press will take a story and run with it. Now, I would like to know how you feel about the wars that America has been in since the War Between the States.

Jefferson: I think that the Second World War was, at least mostly, justified, but World War One and the "wars" after that were most certainly not! Particularly the Korean "war" and afterwards, since Congress didn't once actually declare war. The other wars, there is very little written about them.

Me: What do you think about the War Between the States, and which side would you have fought on?

Jefferson: Absolutely horrific. It's sad that the Union broke apart, but I would have fought for the Confederacy, of course. The precedents set in that war were truly chilling. Unilateral declaration of war, suspension of habeas corpus, and the worst by far, total war, all are disgusting, but unless I'm mistaken, they seem to have become rather common over the past century.

Me: Sadly, that is very true. Now, I would like to know your opinions on the Patriot Act, suspension of habeas corpus, and the war on terror.

Jefferson: The Patriot Act is completely unconstitutional. Congress's powers are enumerated for a reason. Article I, Section 8 lists, specifically, every single power Congress should have. Spying on its own citizens is not in there. As for the suspension of habeas corpus, the Constitution specifically says that it is permitted only in the cases of rebellion or invasion.

Me: But doesn't habeas corpus only apply to citizens?

Jefferson: Most certainly not! The writ of habeas corpus is a natural right that applies to every single human being. Just like everyone has the right to bear arms, to peaceably assemble, and many others, everyone has the right to due process. Unless, of course, they are an enemy soldier captured in combat. The idea that our rights only apply to our fellow citizens is, in essence, saying that the government gives the rights, instead of simply protecting them.

Me: Once again, agreed. Sadly, it appears that we are out of time. There were a number of other things I would have liked to ask you. It has been an honor talking with you, Mr. Jefferson.

Jefferson: Well, it has certainly been a pleasure talking to you as well. Hopefully this will correct your sloppy historians and politicians.

Me: *Laughs* Sloppy indeed! Well, folks, that's all for now. Next time I will be interviewing the "Father of the Country," George Washington! Feel free to leave your questions in the comments.

*Full names have been omitted.

About that paranoia mentioned earlier...

This is how big tefillin are. Bomb, indeed.

Why I Like the Discovery Channel

Given the choice between my three favorite channels, History, National Geographic, and Discovery, I would pick Discovery hands-down. Why? For a lot of reasons.

Reason #1: Bigger variety.
The Discovery channel has a far larger variety of subjects than the other two, from Dirty Jobs to Survivor Man.

Reason #2: Reliably good programs.
With Discovery, you know what to expect. From Mythbusters and Timewarp, you know you'll get lots of explosions and more than likely laughs. From Man vs Wild and Survivor Man, you can expect good information and a lot of "Gross, did he actually eat that?!" It's very consistent.

Reason #3: You actually learn something.
I'm not kidding. You finish an episode of, say, Mythbusters, and you feel like you just watched a really good comedy. You then realize, "Hey, I didn't know that before!"

Reason #4: They're not shoving a freaking agenda down your throat every other show.
This is one of the biggest reasons. On NatGeo or History, nearly every show is throwing an agenda of some kind in your face. The agenda ranges from environmental fanaticism to big-government propoganda to Darwinist lies. With Discovery, of course there's a bias, but it's far harder to detect. They mention evolution a lot, but they don't shove it in your face like National Geographic. There's also pretty much no anti-human lean like on the others. Instead of promoting an agenda, it appears dedicated to proving what they state in one of their commercials: "The world is just awesome." No government propoganda here, folks!

This Man is INSANE.

Yes, National Geographic has inspired yet another post. I was reading an article on some hunter-gatherer tribe in Africa, and came across quite possibly the most idiotic, stupid, loony, and utterly insane idea ever to disgrace the pages of that magazine. The idea was taken from the INSANE man mentioned earlier, Jared Diamond. He is the producer of the poorly-researched Guns, Germs, and Steel, which attributes medieval to Victorian Europe's success solely to those three things. His INSANE idea, however, is far crazier than his claims about Europe. He says-prepare yourself-that agriculture is the worst mistake mankind has ever made. Yes, you read that right. Apparently, Mr. Diamond would not mind not having a sure food supply, effective medicine, modern technology, and an insanely high standard of living, none of which are possible without agriculture. He blames agriculture for warfare, class stratification, disease epidemics, and major famines. Okaaayyy... You gotta wonder about the mental health of goons who claim things like that, but I'll address his claims one by one.

Class stratification: The problem with this claim is that it's so stinking vague. If he means loosely defined "classes" as in, upper, middle, and lower class in terms of income, too bad. It's a fact of life. Some people are rich, others are poor. I believe several countries tried to eliminate classes. What were they...? Oh, yeah, I remember! Soviet Russia, China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, and a bunch of others. That worked nicely, didn't it?
If he means special treatment for the rich and permanent class seperation, I have no clue where he's getting it. In a capitalistic society(another benefit of that "mistake"), you can go from poor to rich with a little luck and a lot of skill. Permanent and semipermanent stratification last occured back in medieval times, and I'm not really sure if that counts.

Disease epidemics: Mr. Diamond is obviously ignorant of one benefit of agriculture that counters this. Most people refer to it as "medicine." We now have cures for almost all infectious diseases, and medicine that helps counter almost everything else. Not possible without agriculture.

Famines: Again, he is obviously clueless to the fact that there has not been a major famine in developed areas for hundreds of years. I think we can all agree that agriculture prevents starvation rather than increases it.

Warfare: I sincerely hope that he's kidding with this one. Indians, people. When European settlers first arrived, the majority of Indian tribes were hunter-gatherers. Funny thing, they still killed each other. I am amazed that anyone can take this guy seriously.