THE GREAT THANKSGIVING HOAX

by Richard J. Maybury

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing thePlymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

* * * * *

This article originally appeared in The Free Market, November 1985

Concerning Strange Bedfellows (repost)

I am reposting this as I have noticed many crazies have once again grabbed the coattails of conservatism.

Concerning Strange Bedfellows

In my daily attempt to shed light on the liberals statist agenda that seeks to convert our fine republic into a socialist doormat for the world, I come across a great many characters with quite a few interesting viewpoints.

Throughout 2009, as President Obama and the liberal congress made it increasingly obvious that the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution of The United States meant nothing to them, a movement began which has been dubbed the “Tea Party Movement.” As the movement grew and gained popularity as a strong attempt to reclaim conservative values based upon the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets, many different viewpoints and, in some cases “fringe” elements have attempted to attach their causes to the coattails of this movement. Let’s examine some of the different schools of thought I come in contact with daily:

Those that contend the President and the liberal-run congress support policies that are socialist in nature, and therefore are not supported by our Constitution. I would say the vast majority of conservatives, myself included, believe this is true.

Those that contend the President and the liberal-run congress are enacting reckless spending policies on purpose in order to cause a catastrophic failure of the free market in order to enact a new socialist government…see Cloward/Piven Strategy. Quite a few are beginning to accept this theory, and I consider it to be a possibility. Whether you believe this is true or not, the problem here is that this thought process begins to lend itself to the conspiracy theorist crowd, which loves to take a small fact or truth, and run with it to the point that it becomes laughable.

The libertarian school of thought has been more widely accepted as of late, and a great many conservatives find themselves having “common ground” with the libertarians’ strict views of limited government and personal liberty. The problem with becoming too cozy with libertarian philosophy is the broad spectrum it encompasses. Some libertarians take limited government and go so far as to desire the abolition of the state completely. This school of thought seems to vilify all government representation as evil and an enemy of individual rights. Their “live and let live” philosophy is a close cousin to pacifism, which is typically espoused by liberal fringe groups…thus, completely perverting the initial belief system 180 degrees, and allowing persons who do not represent conservatism in any way a perceived voice in the discord.

For example, I have made many friends in the last year writing my blog and have utilized facebook as a mechanism for keeping up with these alleged like-minded thinkers. I recently witnessed disturbing articles and videos from some of these self-avowed fellow tea party patriots which were in no way based in conservatism or the Constitution. Everything from anti-war veterans speaking of how evil corporate fatcats forced them to take part in unjust wars to schizophrenic 9/11 “truthers” were included. Needless to say they are no longer on my friend list.

Overall, the Tea Party Movement has done a great deal to fight the statist policies that threaten to bring this wonderful republic to its knees. I am a staunch supporter of it and would march in every event they coordinated if my status as a U.S. Marine allowed for it. My concern in this article is to point out that as this movement continues to grow at such a brisk pace, it will be important to ensure that the leaders of the movement are policing the ranks for those that would misrepresent the principles the movement stands for.

In Memory of The U.S. Constitution...A Eulogy

What can I say about the U.S. Constitution that others do not already know. I am not sure I can find the proper words to describe the pain we are all feeling at it's passing.

Our Constitution had an amazing life even though it was rather short. It was the kind of friend that stands by you when you need somebody to be there. So many times in my life it protected me from tyranny, oppression, and corrupt government influence.

I remember once The Constitution shared with me that it's intent was not to define what rights I had as an individual, but was formed by the people of this nation to tell the government it's limitations in our lives. That was the selflessness and Godly inspired message of our Constitution.

What is it that we remember when we think of The Constitution? I think everyone who knew it very well would agree with me on this. The Constitution was by the people and for the people. It was the kind of constitution that would protect every individual's liberty at all costs. That is what I will truly miss about our Constitution. It could always make me feel in control of my own destiny when I feared the possibility of the government taking it away. It always gave me security that if I put forth the effort, I would be rewarded; and those that did not put forth the effort, would not. That was the trademark of Our Constitution. It always promoted equal opportunity to succeed on our own, rather than equal portions to all as deemed necessary by the government.

The Constitution's death was not sudden. It was a long, painful process that; unfortunately, could have been avoided. Many saw the warning signs of the sickness that took Our Constitution, but few wanted to take the extra effort needed to save it. Our Constitution was too young but as it slowly occurred to me I have realized that Our Constitution indeed lived it's life wonderfully. Our Constitution was well-loved and admired for many years, and it was painful to watch it slowly succumb the past century to the cancer of socialized laws which have created a welfare state in which people now feel entitled to whatever lifestyle they choose, compliments of the government; via the few who are still willing to work for a living. Welfare, Social Security, government healthcare. Ultimately, this is what stopped the "free market" heart of Our Constitution and caused it's death.

I will forever be grateful to have known The Constitution, as there has been no document before and will never be another document like it. I will forever be grateful that I was blessed enough to spend 38 years of my life with it. All the memories I have shared will forever be remembered and cherished. It will forever live in my heart.

The War On Freedom

Reposting this outstanding article from the Canada Free Press. Funny, our media would never print this type of truth about our own nation. Increasingly, we must go outside of the United States media to get logical information.

Political War on Freedom begins by rebranding freedom itself as selfish

The War on Freedom By Daniel Greenfield Tuesday, May 4, 2010

How do you take away the freedom of a free people without putting tanks on every street? You do it by transforming their culture. By turning the very idea of freedom into something ugly and shameful. A foul thing to be associated with extremists and other bad folk that good citizens are advised to avoid. The goal being to convince the people that their freedom is a thing they should be happy to give up, rather than having to forcibly take it away from them.

And so the political War on Freedom begins by rebranding freedom itself as selfish. In this new narrative, freedom is a lie because there is no such thing as freedom in America. The very idea of freedom is an arrogant and privileged entitlement held by “rich white males” and used to oppress “people of color” and all the other officially designated minorities by the Commissars of Political Correctness.

In place of the old fashioned idea of freedom, we have the far more “equitable” system of social justice with its myriad of organizations and departments all created to ensure that everyone does what they’re supposed to, thinks what they’re supposed to, and has as many rights as they’re supposed to.

Newspeak: Freedom becomes Slavery, and Slavery becomes Freedom

As Orwell’s 1984 accurately predicted, in Newspeak, Freedom becomes Slavery, and Slavery becomes Freedom.

As the new liberal narrative would have it, the only people who want the freedom to keep what they earn, write what they think, choose their own health care, elect their own leaders, read what they like and live lives apart from the great machinery of the state—are the White Male Oppressors, (who are simultaneously ignorant clinging to their religion and their guns and yet at the same time are part of a privileged elite). Freedom is clearly a bad thing, then. It’s a symptom of selfishness. And selfish people are the oppressors; the greedy ones who don’t want a welfare state, illegal aliens, impossibly priced products, inaccessible lifesaving medical procedures, recycling bins in every room of the house and all the other wonderful benefits of Socialism.

People who want to be free are no longer Americans. Certainly not Constitutionalists. Instead, paradoxically, they’re the new parasites, the people who refuse to be cogs in the great machine of socialism. The selfish Kulaks who hoard their wheat. The businessmen who make too much money. The hardworking housewife who won’t pay double for a “Green” labeled product. These are the worms in the apple of the socialist state. The people who refuse to contribute to what the government and the alliance of unions, left wing front groups and media pundits label as the Public Good.

The USSR began by portraying independent small farmers as greedy monsters who were responsible for the people starving because they refused to give up their land and join collective farms. Collective farms whose workers had nothing could not even travel without a permit and had to steal the food they grew in order to survive. And so war was declared on the independent farmer. Millions were shot, deported, or imprisoned in labor camps. However, by eliminating the independent farmer, the Communists also eliminated Russian agriculture. The collective farms were an abysmal failure. Within a generation, Russia was stuck importing wheat from the independent farmers of its worst enemy, the United States of America.

By declaring war on American small business, liberals are about to repeat the Soviet experiment in the United States

By declaring war on American small business, liberals are about to repeat the Soviet experiment in the United States. The decline of the US economy is closely tied to the war on small business. To the replacement of the businessman with the speculator, the inflation of the dollar, the destruction of the manufacturing sector and the transformation of the US into a service and sales economy, not that fundamentally different from the rest of the Third World.

But the left’s war on the small businessman is about more than just seizing wealth in order to finance their own operations. That of course is a large part of it. The left has always believed that it must live off the land. And from the French Revolution to their modern day grandchildren, the Communists and Nazis, they have always know that wealth distribution is needed to be able to live off the land. But what they never understood is that their idea of government as a robber baron practices a multi-generational form of economic destruction that there is no full recovery from. It is possible to replace lost gold and silver. But replacing an economic niche when you have wiped out the people who used to fill it, and culturally blotted it out, can be next to impossible.

Yet that is exactly what the left wants to accomplish. Its goal has always been the destruction of the bourgeoisie, the middle class, the people who are living proof that hard work and economic aspiration leads to social mobility and political freedoms. These the left considers banal, selfish and rotten. Their existence a subversion of the left’s own revolutionary ideology, because they have achieved freedom through work rather than ideology. Because they believe that those who work should be the masters of government rather than properly qualified university graduates who have spent five years penning screeds about the unfairness of having to work for a living. And so like the Kulaks, they must go.

The destruction of the economy is not part of the collateral damage from liberalism’s uncontrollable spending or nanny statism. It is the whole point
The destruction of the economy is not part of the collateral damage from liberalism’s uncontrollable spending or nanny statism. It is the whole point.

The Founding Fathers understood that economic freedom was also political freedom. That is why the Boston Tea Party played such a key role in the race toward political independence and self-government. Liberal revisionist historians typically deride the American Revolution as a Middle Class revolution, which of course was exactly the point. Distance and opportunity had made political aspirations possible in America. But economic opportunity had made them meaningful. Thus the difference between the revolt in Haiti and the one in the 13 colonies. Much as Israel’s independence differed from the independence gained by so many other former British colonies in that part of the world.

One cannot have political independence without economic independence on the national level and on the individual level. Where economic independence is compromised, political independence soon follows. And the decline of individual liberties in America can be directly traced to its split between socialism and corporatism, two seeming opposites drawn together by inertia to form one great economic black hole. A situation that the last few years of bailouts and toobigtofails, useless regulatory bodies and political power grabs should have amply demonstrated for anyone.

The War on Freedom, therefore, is geared toward portraying freedom as selfish and greedy. As a dangerous anachronism out of place in the modern day socialist country. There is no such thing as freedom, they will say. Only privilege. The idea that you could believe what you wished, say what you wished, elect your own leaders and make your own economic decisions was all part of the arrogance of the entitled. But now there will be people who will distribute that privilege equally to all, within the parameters of the public good. The public good in their eyes being indivisible from their own good, and that of the system of redistribution that they oversee. And that is how tyranny begins and freedom dies.

Freedom, real freedom, isn’t perfect. It is the freedom to make one’s own mistakes rather than having the state make everyone’s mistakes for them. At the same time. Freedom is not a selfish thing that obstructs the public good, it is the public good, because the public good is best served by individual freedom, not by a collective yoked together in the same of an impossible ideal. The tyranny of the collective has never created its heaven on earth, but it has instead produced no shortage of hells. It is left to the individual to pursue his happiness, and in the process helps others find theirs. The collective has never changed the world for the better. Only individuals have.

Liberalism insists that freedom is a shameful thing. A rebellion against their idea of the public good. Their War on Freedom is in truth a war on the individual. And it is one that we must win, if freedom is to prevail.

Operation 2010!! We Must Begin Now In Our Respective States!!

Congressional Representatives of all parties...it is quite simple...STOP SPENDING money we don't have...STOP STEALING our liberties by passing socialist bills the majority does not want...STOP SUPPORTING the global warming hoax...STOP CORRUPTING the free market for your own financial gain...if you cannot take the oath to SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (requires familiarity with the Constitution) we are coming for you this year...TAKE NOTICE, AMERICA IS WAKING UP!!



All House seats are up for re-election

Contested Senate Seats In 2010 Election

Retiring Senators
Ted Kaufman (D) of Delaware
Kit Bond (R) of Missouri
Sam Brownback (R) of Kansas
Mel Martinez (R) of Florida
George Voinovich (R) of Ohio

Democratic incumbents
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Barbara Boxer of California
Michael Bennet of Colorado
Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
Roland Burris of Illinois
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
Harry Reid of Nevada
Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Chuck Schumer of New York
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Ron Wyden of Oregon
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Patty Murray of Washington
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin

Republican incumbents
Richard Shelby of Alabama
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
John McCain of Arizona
Johnny Isakson of Georgia
Mike Crapo of Idaho
Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Jim Bunning of Kentucky
David Vitter of Louisiana
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
Richard Burr of North Carolina
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
Jim DeMint of South Carolina
John Thune of South Dakota
Bob Bennett of Utah

Concerning Strange Bedfellows

In my daily attempt to shed light on the liberals statist agenda that seeks to convert our fine republic into a socialist doormat for the world, I come across a great many characters with quite a few interesting viewpoints.

Throughout 2009, as President Obama and the liberal congress made it increasingly obvious that the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution of The United States meant nothing to them, a movement began which has been dubbed the “Tea Party Movement.” As the movement grew and gained popularity as a strong attempt to reclaim conservative values based upon the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets, many different viewpoints and, in some cases “fringe” elements have attempted to attach their causes to the coattails of this movement. Let’s examine some of the different schools of thought I come in contact with daily:

Those that contend the President and the liberal-run congress support policies that are socialist in nature, and therefore are not supported by our Constitution. I would say the vast majority of conservatives, myself included, believe this is true.

Those that contend the President and the liberal-run congress are enacting reckless spending policies on purpose in order to cause a catastrophic failure of the free market in order to enact a new socialist government…see Cloward/Piven Strategy. Quite a few are beginning to accept this theory, and I consider it to be a possibility. Whether you believe this is true or not, the problem here is that this thought process begins to lend itself to the conspiracy theorist crowd, which loves to take a small fact or truth, and run with it to the point that it becomes laughable.

The libertarian school of thought has been more widely accepted as of late, and a great many conservatives find themselves having “common ground” with the libertarians’ strict views of limited government and personal liberty. The problem with becoming too cozy with libertarian philosophy is the broad spectrum it encompasses. Some libertarians take limited government and go so far as to desire the abolition of the state completely. This school of thought seems to vilify all government representation as evil and an enemy of individual rights. Their “live and let live” philosophy is a close cousin to pacifism, which is typically espoused by liberal fringe groups…thus, completely perverting the initial belief system 180 degrees, and allowing persons who do not represent conservatism in any way a perceived voice in the discord.

For example, I have made many friends in the last year writing my blog and have utilized facebook as a mechanism for keeping up with these alleged like-minded thinkers. I recently witnessed disturbing articles and videos from some of these self-avowed fellow tea party patriots which were in no way based in conservatism or the Constitution. Everything from anti-war veterans speaking of how evil corporate fatcats forced them to take part in unjust wars to schizophrenic 9/11 “truthers” were included. Needless to say they are no longer on my friend list.

Overall, the Tea Party Movement has done a great deal to fight the statist policies that threaten to bring this wonderful republic to its knees. I am a staunch supporter of it and would march in every event they coordinated if my status as a U.S. Marine allowed for it. My concern in this article is to point out that as this movement continues to grow at such a brisk pace, it will be important to ensure that the leaders of the movement are policing the ranks for those that would misrepresent the principles the movement stands for.


Tomorrow I will go more in depth on Pacifists, as I have some very strong viewpoints on this crowd.

A Sample (My response to the mortgage company bailout)

I don't have a degree in economics, but I understand a few things. The rules of free market capitalism would dictate that there are more than enough investors with the pocketbooks to support the formation of new mortgage/loan organizations. The "new" mortgage companies would buy up the "good" mortgages that are being paid. Individuals with loans which are currently in default would get a little "tough love" lesson in finance and responsibility for actions by being removed from their home, as anyone should be that isn't making their payments.

I would stop making my mortgage payments today if I knew the government would pay my mortgage for me. It's really bad business to take money from Americans who are being responsible with it, and transfer it to Americans who aren't. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that is a bad investment; however, that is exactly what the government has done by bailing deadbeats out with our tax money.