The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods
“The problem in America isn’t so much what people don’t know; the problem is what people think they know that just ain’t so.” — Thomas E. Woods Most Americans trust that their history professors and high school teachers will give students honest and accurate information. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History makes it quite clear that liberal professors have misinformed our children for generations.
Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. takes on the most controversial moments of American history and exposes how history books are merely a series of clichés drafted by academics who are heavily biased against God, democracy, patriotism, capitalism and most American family values.
Woods reveals the truth behind many of today’s prominent myths….
MYTH: The First Amendment prohibits school prayer
MYTH: The New Deal created great prosperity
MYTH: What the Supreme Court says, goes
From the real American “revolutionaries” to the reality of labor unions, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History is all you need for the truth about America—objective and unvarnished.Edit
About the Author
Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and a master’s, M.Phil, and Ph.D. from Columbia University. Professor Woods is a prolific essayist on historical subjects and is a contributor to five encyclopedias and dozens of popular and scholarly periodicals including The Christian Science Monitor, Investor’s Business Daily, and The New Oxford Review.
Professor Woods is currently a professor of American History at a division of SUNY (State University of New York) and was formerly a teaching assistant at Columbia University. He serves as a lecturer across the country. Woods is associate editor of The Latin Mass Magazine and is the author of The Church Confronts Modernity: Catholic Intellectuals and the Progressive Era.
Professor Woods lives in New York with his wife and daughter.Edit
‘It is not surprising that a history guide written by a professor with an undergraduate degree from Harvard and a doctorate from Columbia made it onto the New York Times bestseller list. What is surprising – refreshingly so – is that a text that challenges the liberal canon has so resonated with the American public . . . Provides a compelling rebuttal to the liberal sentiment encrusted upon current history texts. . . The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History is ultimately about truth . . . This is a book everyone interested in American history should have in his library.’ – Weekly Standard
‘His take on American history is bold, brilliant, thought-provoking, and what is even better, entertaining.’ –Clyde N. Wilson, professor of history, University of South Carolina
‘Knowing our past is essential if we are to preserve our freedoms. Professor Woods’ work heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole. Every American should read this book.’ – The Honorable Ron Paul, MD, US House of Representatives
‘An important work that refutes the misrepresentations of American history that have misinformed generations about their country, its origins, purposes, successes, and failures. Riveting, highly readable.’ – Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the US TreasuryEdit
Table of Contents
- Title Page
Chapter 1 – THE COLONIAL ORIGINS OF AMERICAN LIBERTY
- Suspicion + Dislike = Liberty A formula for freedom
- Love thy neighbor? Colonial quarrels give birth to religious freedom
- PC Myth: The Puritans were racists
- No, the Puritans didn’t steal Indian lands
- Self-government is non-negotiable
Chapter 2 – AMERICA’S CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION
- Colonial tradition or British innovation?
- Fact: The American Revolution was not like the French Revolution
Chapter 3 – THE CONSTITUTION
- Constitution is okay, say states, but we get to bolt just in case…
- It’s okay to own a gun
- Just because it’s not in the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean it’s not a right
- Whatever the states didn’t let the Feds do was left to the states
- War powers: Congress wimps out on its responsibility
Chapter 4 – AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND THE “PRINCIPLES OF ’98”
- Providing for the “general welfare”: The roots of big government
- The Republicans versus the Federalists
Chapter 5 – THE NORTH–SOUTH DIVISION
- You get Missouri, we get Maine
- More rhetorical blows
- Keep slavery out of the territories! (to reserve them for whites)
- States fight over plantations in . . . Arizona?
- It’s about slavery, but it’s not about slavery
- The Kansas “bloodbath”
- The rise of the Republicans
- Fact: Local Southern judge freed Dred Scott
- Lunatic on the loose: Murderer John Brown returns to the scene
Chapter 6 – THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES
- Was there an American civil war?
- The states had the right to secede
- Was the war fought to free the slaves?
- Reality check: Lincoln’s views on race
- Why did the soldiers fight? The soldiers speak . . .
- The rise of total war
Chapter 7 – RECONSTRUCTION
- Lincoln, Johnson, and presidential Reconstruction
- The South’s black codes
- The Fourteenth Amendment and states’ rights
- The first impeachment of a president
Chapter 8 – HOW BIG BUSINESS MADE AMERICANS BETTER OFF
- How government promoted waste and corruption in railroad construction
- How “fairness” crippled American farmers
- The “wicked” Rockefeller
- Andrew Carnegie and the American standard of living
- Herbert Dow: Forgotten American hero
- Antitrust idiocy: Should antitrust laws be repealed?
Chapter 9 – WORLD WAR I
- Propaganda in wartime? It can’t be!
- Starving civilians is against the law
- The Germans strike back
- The sinking of the Lusitania
- The Sussex pledge
- The Germans make one last push
- Why did Wilson favor war?
- The peace conference: The disaster Wilson pretended not to notice
- Opponents say we can’t police the world!
- “Bizarre” and “wild-eyed”: The Wilsonian program
- Setting the stage for World War II
Chapter 10 – THE MISUNDERSTOOD TWENTIES
- Voting for the anti-Wilson
- The truth about the Twenties
Chapter 11 – THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND THE NEW DEAL
- Hoover: A “do nothing” president? If only!
- FDR comes to town
- Let’s help starving people by destroying food!
- FDR’s anti-business zealotry delays recovery
- The consequences of labor legislation
- The disaster of “public works”
- Not so fast, Court tells FDR
- Did World War II lift America out of the Depression?
- The military draft reduces unemployment!
Chapter 12 – YES, COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZERS REALLY EXISTED
- “I have been over into the future—and it works!”
- The Soviet experiment: A model for America?
- Labor unions speak: The merits of the Soviet system
- Lighten up: It’s all for “the good of the masses of the working people”!
- How Stalin starved his own people
- The New York Times reporter who covered up Stalin’s crimes
- Stalin’s show trials genuine, say bootlickers
- Yes, Soviet spies were a problem
- Joe McCarthy was a paranoid idiot, right?
Chapter 13 – THE APPROACH OF WORLD WAR II
- FDR tries to neutralize neutrality laws
- The imperial presidency takes shape: Did FDR break the law?
- The end of neutrality
- FDR tries to draw Americans into war
- Did FDR make war with Japan inevitable?
Chapter 14 – WORLD WAR II: CONSEQUENCES AND AFTERMATH
- FDR and Uncle Joe — How friendly was FDR toward Stalin?
- American presidents send a million Russians back to Stalin
- An atrocity on American soil: Russians drugged and returned home
- Was the Marshall Plan a great success or another failed giveaway program?
- Truman disregards the Constitution
Chapter 15 – CIVIL RIGHTS
- Instead of law, sociology
- From race neutrality to race obsession
- Let’s force those kids together—even if they have to be bused two hours a day!
- The Kansas City fiasco
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Chapter 16 – JFK AND LBJ
- Who was the real John F. Kennedy?
- Lyndon Johnson: A legacy of failure
- How ’60s liberalism discouraged all the right things and encouraged all the …
- Lack of jobs doesn’t explain large welfare rolls
- The Great Society and the Vietnam tragedy
Chapter 17 – THE DECADE OF GREED?
- How was Reagan different?
- Charitable giving during the “Decade of Greed”
- The truth about Michael Milken, the man the media loved to hate
- The myth of budget cuts
- The tax bite
Chapter 18 – CLINTON
- Clinton, a “centrist”?
- “Only unqualified applicants may apply”
- CNN foreign policy
- Balkan Misadventures: How Clinton abused power, abetted Islamists, lied, and …
- “The era of big government is over” — say what?
- Copyright Page
See also Timeline of the History of Computers
POSTED BY: TYLER DURDDN VIA ZEROHEDGE APRIL 30, 2020
Portland already hates cars so what better excuse than ‘safe distancing’ to ban them from 100 miles of city streets? What are citizens to do? Let them walk or ride bicycles, six feet apart, of course! The social distancing police will have a bonanza of new ticketing opportunities. ⁃ TN Editor
The city of Portland, Oregon will ban cars from 100 miles of roadway in order to encourage social distancing for people walking, biking or running during the coronavirus pandemic.
They closures will primarily affect streets along designated neighborhoods which have lower car traffic in general, according to KGW8. Temporary barricades and signage will be installed to alert drivers of the closures.
The plan also includes expanding space for pedestrians along streets that are “narrow or missing sidewalks,” and provide more room with pop-up walking and biking lanes.
In business districts, PBOT said they’ll establish space so customers can line up with enough physical distance, and create dedicated loading zones for pickup and delivery.
The city of Portland has seen a dramatic spike in speeding since the pandemic began and a major decrease in traffic congestion.
“When we reach the point that we can re-open, we want to make sure our transportation system is ready,” announced Portland Bureau of Transportation Director Chris Warner.
A newly released study in the academic journal Annals of Internal Medicine casts more doubt on policies that force healthy individuals to wear face coverings.
Wednesday, November 18, 2020
Image Credit: www.vperemen.com, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
This Danish study proves what many medical professionals have stated all along: Face masks are useless against the spread of a virus. It’s time to pop the Technocrat coup d’etat bubble once and for all. ⁃ TN Editor
Few issues are more contentious in modern American life than mandatory mask orders. And the debate is about to get even more heated.
A newly released study in the academic journal Annals of Internal Medicine casts more doubt on policies that force healthy individuals to wear face coverings in hopes of limiting the spread of COVID-19.
“Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial,” the New York Times reports.
The study is perhaps the best scientific evidence to date on the efficacy of masks.
To conduct the study, which ran from early April to early June, scientists at the University of Copenhagen recruited more than 6,000 participants who had tested negative for COVID-19 immediately prior to the experiment.
Half the participants were given surgical masks and instructed to wear them outside the home; the other half were instructed to not wear a mask outside the home.
Roughly 4,860 participants finished the experiment, the Times reports. The results were not encouraging.
“The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant,” the Times reports.
Dr. Henning Bundgaard, lead author of the experiment and a physician at the University of Copenhagen, told the newspaper the results of his research are clear.
“Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask,” Bundgaard said. “Not a lot.”
The Times notes that the research “did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others”—but adds that the study’s findings are at odds with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which just last week endorsed the view that face coverings protect individuals from contracting the virus.
Two important things should be noted here, however.
The Times is correct that the study “did not contradict” evidence that suggests masks can prevent sick people from transmitting the virus to others. But the Danish study didn’t test for this; as the paper notes, only healthy people were tested in the experiment.
Second, there was never much dispute on whether sick people should wear a mask. From the beginning of the pandemic, public health officials agreed that infected people should wear a mask to reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to others.
“The masks are important for someone who is infected to prevent them from infecting someone else,” Dr. Anthony Fauci noted back in March on 60 Minutes. “When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet. But it is not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is, and often there are unintended consequences; people keep fiddling with the mask and touching their face.”
Fauci would later modify his position, saying he discouraged masks out of concern of a supply shortage. But he was not wrong that mask wearing comes with unintended consequences, such as people touching their faces a lot. (Watch the video below if you doubt this.)
CDC chief Robert Ray Redfield Jr. has gone further than Fauci, declaring in public testimony that “this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine.”
However, Redfield’s assertion is not backed up with scientific evidence. As the authors of the Danish study point out, the World Health Organization “acknowledges that we lack evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2.”
The results of the Danish study undermine the assertion from public health officials that wearing a surgical mask can protect individuals from COVID-19 infection, but that’s unlikely to end the mask debate, which has become one of the most vitriolic issues in America today.
It’s worth pointing out, however, that masks were not a divisive issue until governments began mandating their use.