We Lost, but When?

I wrote over a year ago about how history is being changed.  Even as a kid, I realized it was happening with the history of Davy Crockett.  What many of us don't realize is how important our history is.  What we learn of our history basically provides the lens through which we see ourselves.  While so many of us were slow to realize the importance of history, others have known for years.  They planned to change history to fit their world view.  They haven't been very secretive in their plans, it's just that we don't pay attention, or don't take them seriously.  The Obama campaign in 2008 told us that they planned to change history.  Listen toMichelle Obama on the campaign trail, she doesn't speak of making history, she speaks of changing history.  That's not a mistake, that is exactly what they have planned.


So maybe the revision of the Davy Crockett story was a test run?  Just to see if we would buy it?  Well, our education system sure did.  Now, they are going big.  They are going after our founding fathers.  I have felt that Texas is one of our last hopes of regaining our country and our past.  But did you know that right now, today, the Boston Tea Party is being taught in Texas as an example of terrorism.  Now, reading the curriculum, it is possible that this lesson is being taught to teach students to reason, to read the information and see it from multiple angles.  From the British perspective at the time, the Boston Tea Party was terrorism.  Only through reading the causes of the revolution will a student learn that the American Revolution was justified.  But is it being taught that way?  Frankly I doubt it.  If it were, why are parents being denied access to the lessons?  The "Parent's Portal" to the online lesson plans offers information that differs greatly from the lesson plans being presented in class. If this is happening in Texas, what is happening in California?  In New York?  In Oregon?

Take a look at what is happening, and has been happening for over a decade with our knowledge of Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson did own slaves.  That is known.  It has been taught since the textbooks published in the 1880's.  What was taught before, but is no longer being taught is that he spent most of his life trying to abolish slavery.  The Virginia Constitution made it illegal for a slave owner to free his slaves.  After George Washington freed his slaves upon his death, Virginia even closed that loophole.  It was illegal for a citizen of Virginia to free his slaves.  Jefferson worked tirelessly to change that.  Unfortunately that was one of the few instances that Jefferson failed.  For a true view of Thomas Jefferson, through his own words and the words of people who actually knew him, who actually lived in Jefferson's time, read The Jefferson Lies, by David Barton.   Barton uses Jefferson's own words, the original documents to clear up the lies being told about him.  The interesting thing has been the response to the book.  David Barton has been attacked from every directions by scholars pointing out the "inaccuracies" in his book.  Their evidence of his inaccuracies comes from scholars writing more than 100 years after Jefferson's death.  These scholars use each other as references, completely ignoring the primary sources - Jefferson himself and his contemporaries.  One interesting chapter in Barton's book deals with Jefferson's supposed love child with his slave, Sally Hemings.  Remember in the late 1990's when a DNA test was done using genetic material from one of Hemings' known descendants that "proved" Jefferson's affair with his slave.  Interestingly enough this report came out just as the current president, William Jefferson Clinton was being impeached for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, making the point that infidelity in the White House was nothing new.  Coincidentally, a retraction was released a few weeks after the initial report that the DNA tests actually concluded that with a 97% certainty, Hemings' child was NOT Thomas Jefferson's.  The retraction did not receive the front page of Newsweek treatment that the original, erroneous report did.

Thanksgiving is a couple of days away.  While the Thanksgiving story that children from my generation were taught is a little simple and doesn't give the complete story of the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving, students are more likely today to learn the perspective of MSNBC commentator, Melissa Harris Perry who says that "European settlers brought violence, disease, and land theft to the indigenous peoples who were already in this land before it was discovered."
 
So why is it important to the president's backers to smear the reputation of our country's founders?  Their view of the United States is that it was founded by rich white men who were only interested in making themselves more wealthy.  The system is set up to benefit the rich white men.  It is stacked against black Americans, immigrants(whether legal or illegal), women, Native Americans, against anyone not white and rich.  The president himself says that rugged individualism, self reliance, and small government is "part of our DNA" obviously in reference to our founding principles.  But then he goes on, "but it doesn't work, it has never worked" to the applause of his audience.


That is why it is so important, in the president's view,  to change history.  It has worked.  When applied as our founders intended and as they stated in our Constitution, it always works.

We did lose the election earlier this month.  But that defeat actually started when we lost the battle of truth about our history.  To get back, we have to make truth matter again, and make history matter again.

We Lost

Well, the most important election of our lifetime is over.  How many times did you hear both sides use that phrase?  "The most important election of our lifetime."  Now the reality hits.  We lost.  Lots of experts, so-called experts, wannabe experts, everyday people, and conspiracy theorists are weighing in with their opinion of why we lost.  We lost because religious voters stayed home.  We lost because Latino voters didn't like the phrase "self-deportation."  We lost because women want free birth control.  We lost because unemployed welfare moms don't want to give up their Obama-phone.  We lost because of election fraud.  These are just a few of the reasons I have heard from experts of varying degrees of credibility.  I think there is a bigger reason that we lost.  I am afraid that, at least to a very large portion of our population, the truth doesn't matter.

Wednesday morning, the day after the election, a friend posted comments on Facebook about how hateful and mean so many of the comments were.  She then mentioned a Tweet from Tim Tebow on Monday.  Something to the effect of, "don't worry about the early election results tomorrow.  The Democrats will have an early lead.  Then the Republicans will get off work and vote."  She gloated about Tebow being so wrong, and in fact the opposite actually happened.  I'm not a huge Tebow fan, but I do respect him a lot, and that just didn't sound like something he would say.  So I typed "Tim Tebow election tweet" into a Google search. The very first response was about the fake Tim Tebow tweet being re-tweeted more than 17,000 times already.  It took me all of 5 seconds to find the truth and another minute to read the article to make sure it was a credible source.  I didn't want to post on my friend's Facebook timeline, thinking it might be embarrassing to her, so I sent a private message just listing the link that I found.  She responded in minutes, saying she thought it was probably a hoax, but she just likes to argue.  She didn't care about the truth, only about "winning."  She said she votes based on a couple of issues that are important to her and actually did not do ANY research into Romney's stand on these issues!  I changed the subject at that point because she admitted to having absolutely zero interest in the truth, only in arguing.

There were so many WTH!? moments on election evening.  Pennsylvania going to President Obama was one of the big ones.  When he says he plans to bankrupt the state's largest industry, coal, did they not believe him?  Or did they just not care to learn his position?  It's not like it's a secret, if you have enough interest in the truth to look.





But at least he respects the people of Pennsylvania and their beliefs, right?  Well, not exactly.  He says they "bitterly cling to their guns and their religion," specifically speaking about residents of Pennsylvania.


Virginia not only depends on the coal industry, but the military as well.  In the last presidential debate, the president says that the mandatory cuts to the military that would happen on the first of the year came from Congress' suggestion, not from him.  And that if he has his way they will never happen anyway.  Bob Woodward says that Obama was "mistaken."  In interviews for his book, The Price of Politics, the White House Office of Management Director and the Legislative Affairs Director both told Woodward that the idea for sequestration came from the White House and was presented to Senate Majority Leader Reid before being suggested to Congress.  So Woodward gives the president the benefit of the doubt, he was just  mistaken about where the idea originated.  The very next day, the president touts his idea of sequestration to produce a cut in the deficit in an off the record interview with the Des Moines Register.  No talk of a deal to prevent the mandatory cuts to military or Medicare payments to doctors, as he claimed the prior evening.  He lied period.  In spite of his promise to cut their number one industry, coal; and boasting about cuts coming to their number two economic engine, the military, Virginia voted for Obama.  Not only that, the Des Moines Register called the president on his lies and demanded that the off the record interview be made public.  Based on his interview and on the fact that he lied either during the debate or in their interview, the Register endorsed the Republican candidate for the first time in 40 years.  Iowa voted for Obama.

Ohio was crucial for a Romney win.  Obama hit Romney hard about his stand on the bailout of GM and Chrysler.  He said that Romney wanted the two automakers to go out of business.  He said that Romney was in favor of letting the automakers go bankrupt and lose all their jobs in Michigan and Ohio.  These claims led to a pretty heated exchange in the debates.  Finally ending with the president saying "let the people read it for themselves."  And Romney saying "yes, please do."  The editorial is out there and easy to find.  In it Romney does advocate a managed bankruptcy to allow the companies to restructure and provide government guarantees for loans by private lenders.  Did it matter to voters or even to the president that the truth was on Romney's side?  Apparently not.  The day after the debate, fact checkers - even those normally firmly backing the president, said the president was wrong in his debate claims.  But the president was in Dayton, OH repeating his false claims.  And in spite of the Detroit Free Press' endorsement of Romney, both Michigan and Ohio voted for Obama.

The biggest and probably most important lie of all involves the death of Ambassador Stevens, former Navy Seals and CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and State Dept. Information Officer Sean Smith in Benghazi.  This incident, our president's response to it and its aftermath defines who we are as a country.  Do we still have the policy of "no man left behind?"  Initial evidence says not any more.  Hopefully Congress, the press, and the American public are still interested enough to push for the truth about this attack and our White House's response to it.

As Fox Mulder used to say on The X-Files, "the truth is out there."  It's truly not hard to find either.  It matters.  The question is, do we care anymore?  If not, we really have lost.  And we are lost as well.

By the way, did you know Iran fired on a U.S. drone over international waters on the Friday before the election?  Thought not.  It's true.  It's out there, if you are interested in looking.