The history your kids learn is about to change- and not for the good!

What happened to America? What happened to patriotism? Have you noticed that there is not as many American flags flying about these days? Have you noticed that politicians all over America- even local politicians- are trying to kill America from the inside? They are doing it slowly, so you probably don't notice.

Take education, for instance. Did you know only two States are largely responsible for what is taught in the other forty eight? Those states are California and Texas. It may sound far-fetched, but it is most definitely the truth. The reason is simple, if you think about it; those two States are the largest buyers of textbooks. The folks who make textbooks are a business. They don't just produce whatever your school wants to have added- they mass produce textbooks. Naturally, as any other business, they lean towards what their biggest customers want and the rest are forced to go along. It's not personal, it is strictly business.

Of course we all know California is a screwed up State on many levels- financially, socially, politically and morally. They have been screwing up history books for years. Our saving grace has always been Texas. Texas has been a bastion for love of freedom and American values. Because they are so different than California, and because there are multiple companies producing textbooks, our schools have been able to choose the "Texas versions" over the "California versions." It has even been a plus the last few years, since California is so broke, they haven't purchased many new textbooks.

Well, BAD NEWS, folks. The Progressives have penetrated Texas, and the history books are about to be rewritten yet again. This time, it is going to be BAD. The Texas State Board of Education, comprised of only 15 people are about to vote on making some revisions to what will be included- or omitted- from their textbooks. Make no mistake about it- whatever new history books come out of Texas WILL filter out to the rest of the country within a few short years.

Are you sitting down? If not, you might want to, because I am about to let you in on the proposed changes. If you are a true American- regardless of your political alignment- you will be furious. History is history- you shouldn't change it, regardless of what happened. For your reading pleasure (gag):

* Probably the most alarming proposed changed is the removal of the word "American," and in it's place putting the words "global citizen." You read that right. I've been catching heat from the left about my views on global government, but even the left would have to admit that this looks fishy. We ARE Americans, for goodness sake! What is the purpose of this, if not to steal the pride of being an American from our children?

* Strike another one up for those who want to remove God from our culture- they are going to vote to remove all references to Christmas. I know there are those who think religion should be separated from education, but there ARE historical events associated with Christmas. For instance, do you remember WWII, when the Americans and the Germans in the trenches laid down their arms and celebrated Christmas TOGETHER, then resumed fighting after the festivities? This is an important lesson, because it teaches humanity above all, even in the face of combat. How about recent history? The underwear bomber chose Christmas as his day to attack, er, to TRY to attack. Let's not forget the fact that you cannot argue away the importance of God during the founding of this country- His name is all over our founding documents.

* Speaking of religion, while voting on removing Christmas, they will also be voting on including the Hindu holiday of Diwali. You know, because of the huge impact this holiday has made on our society. Note the sarcasm here.

* They will also be voting to remove references to Daniel Boone, General George Patton, and Nathan Hale. Can you imagine why they would want to do this? There must be some reason why they don't want our children to know that, throughout history, there are people who have risked their lives for the freedom of others. Could it be that if our children grow up without people like these to look back on, they will be less likely to rise up for freedom in their own time? That's the only reason I can think of- if you have a less ominous explanation, please share!

* How about removing Columbus Day from the textbooks? I'm not sure how far this one goes. They mention removing "Columbus Day," which is a holiday, but I could gather no insight as to if they were also considering removing the whole historical experience of Columbus. Either way, you have to wonder why.

* They are also considering the inclusion of the cultural impact of hip-hop music. This one I am OK with, as long as the cultural impact of rock and roll is still included. Like it or hate it, hip-hop has made a cultural impact on society almost on the same level that rock music did when it showed up on the scene.

* They are also considering replacing expansionism and free enterprise
with imperialism and capitalism. This one is tricky. When I was in school, I was taught all four of these subjects. They are talking about replacing the first pair with the second pair. Like it or not, we were an expansionist nation at one time. It is part of our history. Why would we hide it? What would be next? Hiding slavery?

Look, every country out there has some history they aren't proud of- just ask Germany. Hiding this history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. You MUST teach the bad with the good. This knowledge isn't dangerous for the fragile little minds of our children- it is a STRENGTHENING. If you know where you came from, you have a better chance of getting where you are going, and without repeating past mistakes.

Good or bad, history happened. You cannot change history, you can only lie about it and hide it. Denial of information is nothing short of being a form of mind control. We need to teach the TRUTH, no matter how painful. Even if history gets in the way of your modern agenda, which I'm guessing is the reasoning here, it must be taught. Period.

In my past writings, I have tried to wake everyone up to the things going on around them- things that will have or is having an impact on their lives. Most people choose to keep their heads in the sand and "go along to get along." Fine- let the government control your every breath. However, this one is impacting your children. It is taking knowledge away from them that will be useful in their futures- maybe even after we are dead and gone. They are our next leaders. What kind of history will they have to look back on to guide them?

By denying our children true and accurate history, we are dooming them to repeat it. Who knows- maybe that is the plan...

I Interview DEAD People on the 2nd Amendment

Today, with the help of modern computers, I was able to interview a few of our founding fathers on the subject of the Second Amendment. As a special guest, I also invited Abraham Lincoln to participate as well, since he seems to be a hero of gun haters, for some reason. After this reading this interview, hopefully you will have a better understanding that the most influential people this country has ever had the pleasure of knowing are AGAINST attacks on the Second Amendment! Enjoy...

JOSEPH TURNER: There is a debate in modern times as to who the Second Amendment pertains to. I ask you- is the right to bear arms a right of the people, or is it a right meant only for the government?

ROGER SHERMAN: Conceive it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.

JOSEPH TURNER: But there are people within our federal government, and even within our society that thinks that personal gun ownership is a danger to everyone.

JOEL BARLOW: The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.

JOSEPH TURNER: So, in your opinion, who all should own firearms?

ALEXANDER HAMILTON: The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

JOSEPH TURNER: Surely you don't mean everyone, right? I mean, you don't think everyone in my neighborhood should be allowed to own guns, right? Maybe just a select few?

PATRICK HENRY: The great object is, that every man be armed. Every one who is able may have a gun.

JOSEPH TURNER: Some will argue that guns are only good for killing. They will say that there is no other reason to have a gun. What do you think of this?

THOMAS JEFFERSON: As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.

JOSEPH TURNER: Another argument is concealed carry is a good idea or not. Some say that the right to carry a gun is a bad thing- that it promotes evil and lawlessness. What do you think?

GEORGE WASHINGTON: The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.

JOSEPH TURNER: So are you saying that carrying a gun on our persons would make us safer from evil-doers?

AN UN-NAMED WRITER OF THE DECLARATION OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS: Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

JOSEPH TURNER: It seems that other countries are pushing us to get rid of private ownership of firearms. Some folks in our very own government agree with this. Instead of outright banning guns, we are faced with regulation after regulation, weakening the right. What do you think of this?

GEORGE MASON: When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.

JOSEPH TURNER: As far as firearms, what makes us different from other countries who would like to see us disarmed?

JAMES MADISON: The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

JOSEPH TURNER: Do you think it is possible that the other countries and the anti-gunners in our own country might be right? Should we consider disarming the citizens?

JOSEPH STORY: One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.

JOSEPH TURNER: So what should we do when the government tries to take our right to keep and bear arms? Most of them think we don't need guns for protection.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON: No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

JOSEPH TURNER: Are you saying we should stand up to the government? In what way do you mean?

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.

JOSEPH TURNER: But it's the government! Don't they know best? Shouldn't we just trust them?

GEORGE WASHINGTON: Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

JOSEPH TURNER: But the government tells us that their actions are for our own protection- are you saying we should be keeping an eye on them? What if they do try to fiddle with our rights and liberties?

PATRICK HENRY: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

JOSEPH TURNER: Don't you think this might make the government a little uneasy?

THOMAS JEFFERSON: What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

JOSEPH TURNER: Are you saying that armed citizens have a way of keeping the government in check? That it is a prevention of sorts to keep government from forcing unjust rule over us?

NOAH WEBSTER:Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.

JOSEPH TURNER: So, if all else fails, and we cannot convince the government to back off our rights, are you saying- as a last resort- we should literally fight?

THOMAS JEFFERSON: The tree of liberty from time to time must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

JOSEPH TURNER: Well, the people in government constantly try to tell us that the Second Amendment applies to militias, not the people in general. Aren't militias nothing but a collection of the people?

RICHARD HENRY LEE, SENATOR IN 1788: A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves- and include all men capable of bearing arms.

JOSEPH TURNER: There are also those who think the Second Amendment no longer applies. Since we now have armed forces, they argue, we have no need for militias, thus no need for private citizens to own guns. What do you think?

PATRICK HENRY:Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

JOSEPH TURNER: It seems like the anti-gunners are backing off of the hunters a little bit, but they still don't think we should have the right to armed self defense. Do you think we have the right to use a gun in self defense?

JOHN ADAMS: To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.

JOSEPH TURNER: So what do you think about all the federal anti-gun legislation? Is Congress actually allowed to make these laws? Are they allowed to regulate guns?

SAMUEL ADAMS: That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

JOSEPH TURNER: Some lawmakers, and our current President, think it is a good idea to limit the number of guns you should buy. In fact, if you have too many guns, there is a good chance that you will be raided and labeled a terrorist or something. How many guns do you think we should have?

GEORGE WASHINGTON: A free people ought to have the right and advantage of being armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which includes their own government.

JOSEPH TURNER: But if I own too many guns, or buy too much ammunition, should I be worried that the government might get involved?

THOMAS JEFFERSON: When the government fears the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny.

JOSEPH TURNER: Now that I understand how important you feel about gun ownership without federal restrictions, what should we be telling the government when they twist the wording of the Constitution just to infringe on our rights?

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

JOSEPH TURNER: Just exactly how important is the right to keep and bear arms anyway?

GEORGE WASHINGTON: Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.

JOSEPH TURNER: Really? Why is that?

PATRICK HENRY: The Second Amendment protects all others.

JOSEPH TURNER: If you could ask everyone to remember one thing, what would it be?

PATRICK HENRY: We should not forget the spark which ignited the American revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonist.

There you have it folks- the true intent of the people who fought for, built and shaped this country! Make no mistake about it- those who aim to take, restrict, regulate or otherwise infringe on this right are WRONG.

And to quote a person who is still alive- a person who actually owns MACHINE GUNS- Ted Nugent: "If guns cause crime, all of mine are defective."

Patriot Signals Distress for Country.

Cynthia Benton, CEO of Cantwell Power Solutions in Ft. Worth, Texas decided to fly the United States Flag upside down (a sign of immediate distress according to the US Flag Code) as a way of showing her fears over the direction the Country is going.

“I think that our country is in distress like the flag code says. We are headed down a path toward socialism. The debt that this president is running up is never to be paid back,” said Cynthia Benton to Fox 4 News in Dallas/Ft. Worth.

Not everybody agrees with Cynthia's decision or the reasons behind that decision.

“Too many of us fought and died for that flag and it’s very offensive flying it upside down,” Barry Leonard said to Fox 4 News in Dallas /Ft. Worth.

Benton is not just blaming Obama and his administration.

“George Bush was not a conservative. I just think Obama is compounding what George Bush started and there’s just no reason for it,” Then added "I just think it will be a sign of solidarity amongst those of us who see that we need to be going in a different direction and take our country back," Cynthia Benton said to Fox 4 News in Dallas/Ft. Worth.

Flying the Stars and Stripes upside down is not a small statement to make. Certainly not one to be taken lightly. In this case however, I do happen to agree with Cynthia's decision. I told her so in an e-mail. Her response:

"Hi, Josh. How great to hear from a fellow patriot!

The only comment I'd like to add for you is that I abhor the thought of offending our military with the upside down flag.

However, I think we need to engage our minds after we have our emotional response and realize the flag is only a SYMBOL.

It is the country and the people who are great. Is a symbol ever greater than that which it represents? I think not. Why not enlist our greatest symbol to help us in a time of dire need.

Thanks again and good luck with your efforts.

Cynthia"

I agree 100% Cynthia! Even if it helps raise the attention of some people to wake up and look at what's going on in the country, it's all worth it!

While others may disagree, Cynthia, you are a True Patriot!

-Josh "JD" Hendrickson