The True Story of Thanksgiving, by Rush Limbaugh.

I'll bet you never heard this in school. I sure didn't.

RUSH: Time now, ladies and gentlemen, for The Real Story of Thanksgiving, as written by I -- by me -- in my second book, See, I Told You So. It's page 70 in the hardcover version. "On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work."

Now, you know the usual story of Thanksgiving: They landed. They had no clue where they were, no idea how to feed themselves. The Indians came out, showed 'em how to pop popcorn, fed 'em turkey, saved 'em basically -- and then white European settlers after that basically wiped out the Indian population. It's a horrible example. Not only is that not true, here is the part that's been omitted from what is still today taught as the traditional Thanksgiving story in many schools. "The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store,' when they got here, 'and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well.

"They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. ... [William] Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. ... Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism,' and it had failed" miserably because when every put things in the common store, some people didn't have to put things in for there to be, people that didn't produce anything were taking things out, and it caused resentment just as it does today. So Bradford had to change it.

"What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering," that happens today and will happen "in the future. 'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote.

'For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.' ... The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?"

Here's what Bradford wrote, the governor of the Massachusetts colony. "'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he?" or an Obamaite, if I can update it. "Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? ... Anyway, the pilgrims found "In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. ... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'

Very few people have heard this story or have had it taught to them -- and the "thanks" was to God for showing them the way. In later parts of the chapter, I quote John Adams and George Washington on their reminisces and their thoughts on the first Thanksgiving and the notion it was thanks to God. It was an entirely different story than is being taught in the schools. It's been muddied down, watered down all these years -- and now it's been hijacked by the multicultural community -- to the point that the story of Thanksgiving is the Pilgrims were a bunch of incompetents and were saved only by the goodness of the Indians, who then were wiped out. And that's what kids are being taught today -- 'cause, of course, you can't mention the Bible in school, and that's fundamental to the real story of Thanksgiving.

Thanks Rush!

Are You Worried About "Quantitative Easing"? YOU SHOULD BE!

Yesterday the Federal Reserve announced that it was planning on injecting ANOTHER $600,000,000,000 (that's 600 billion dollars!, in case you were wondering) into the American financial system by purchasing Treasury bonds. The stated goal is to drive interest rates lower and encourage borrowing. Call it a top-down method of "stimulating" the economy. And you guessed it, they'll PRINT it!

Investopedia defines Quantitative Easing:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quantitative-easing.asp

--What Does Quantitative Easing Mean? A government monetary policy occasionally used to increase the money supply by buying government securities or other securities from the market. Quantitative easing increases the money supply by flooding financial institutions with capital in an effort to promote increased lending and liquidity.

--Investopedia explains Quantitative Easing...Central banks tend to use quantitative easing when interest rates have already been lowered to near 0% levels and have failed to produce the desired effect. The major risk of quantitative easing is that although more money is floating around, there is still a fixed amount of goods for sale. This will eventually lead to higher prices or inflation.

YES it will !!! Our problem is NOT high interest rates, they're already near historically low levels. Our financial problems are many and have political origins, like the government-induced home mortgage meltdown, ObamaCare, the looming threat of tax hikes and over-regulation, increased energy taxes via "Cap and Trade" legislation, forced unionization via "Card Check" legislation, and the list goes on. The ability to borrow money isn't nearly as problematic as the menace of abusive governance.

So what's likely to happen when $600,000,000,000 brand spanking new $dollar bills$ are injected into the American economy?

Inflation. And if we're terribly unlucky, hyperinflation. Think Weimar Republic, Germany, circa 1924.

Our economy will be awash with 600 billion more dollars chasing the same goods and services as before this second round of "quantitative easing." The cost of everything you buy is going to increase, maybe even dramatically. The current fight over extending the Bush tax cuts will seem like a silly side show once that $2.65 loaf of bread becomes $9.12, or a pound of hamburger goes fom the current $3.25/lb. to $13.50/lb..

This sort of inflation is the unkindest tax increase of all due to it's size and scope and the dramatic way that it impoverishes us and diminishes our lifestyles.

Think about it!

.

Are We Still Worthy of Leaders Like This?

Many messages were sent to Washington DC last night, and they all ended with an exclamation point. Those voices sounded a lot like STOP IT!...and...CUT IT OUT, DAMN IT!

On November 2, 2010, America won a reprieve from tyrannical government, but only as long as we stay awake, aware, and active.
When asked by a citizen what form of government the delegates had formed in Independance Hall, Ben Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Well, can we?

Leaders of Franklin's ability are precious and few, and ultimately they are nothing more than a reflection of the society that produces them.

Jim Demint is a leader that we can STILL be proud of!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588612828579920.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook

Welcome, Senate Conservatives
Remember what the voters back home want—less government and more freedom


By JIM DEMINT
Congratulations to all the tea party-backed candidates who overcame a determined, partisan opposition to win their elections. The next campaign begins today. Because you must now overcome determined party insiders if this nation is going to be spared from fiscal disaster.

Many of the people who will be welcoming the new class of Senate conservatives to Washington never wanted you here in the first place. The establishment is much more likely to try to buy off your votes than to buy into your limited-government philosophy. Consider what former GOP senator-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott told the Washington Post earlier this year: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

Don't let them. Co-option is coercion. Washington operates on a favor-based economy and for every earmark, committee assignment or fancy title that's given, payback is expected in return. The chits come due when the roll call votes begin. This is how big-spending bills that everyone always decries in public always manage to pass with just enough votes.

But someone can't be bribed if they aren't for sale. Here is some humble advice on how to recognize and refuse such offers.

First, don't request earmarks. If you do, you'll vote for legislation based on what's in it for your state, not what's best for the country. You will lose the ability to criticize wasteful spending. And, if you dare to oppose other pork-barrel projects, the earmarkers will retaliate against you.

In 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) offered a measure to kill funding for the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." Before the vote, Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.), an appropriator, issued a warning on the Senate floor....(to finish article, click on link)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588612828579920.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook