Archive for the ‘Academia’ Category

Whatever happened to Gov. Tim Walz’s One Minnesota that he campaigned on? Apparently, Gov. Walz is under the illusion that we’re united behind his mitigation plan for the COVID-19 virus. That’s the only conclusion I could reach from this tweet:


Minnesota small businesses aren’t united behind Gov. Walz’s mitigation plan. House and Senate Republicans definitely aren’t united behind Gov. Walz. Kevin Roche has written a blistering attack against Gov. Walz. In that article, Roche wrote this:

What the modelers did do that is very useful, is to run various mitigation strategy scenarios. That is exactly the approach that should be taken. How else do you know what the relative benefits and harms will be of whatever set of mitigation of spread tactics you adopt. And please, look at the PowerPoint slides and note that you get basically the exact same number of deaths regardless of the mitigation strategy. My favored approach, use basic mitigation for the bulk of the population, but isolate the at-risk groups, has the same outcome as making everyone stay at home.

This was posted to show Gov. Walz’s table for determining which stores should be shut which can stay open:

This shows the IHME prediction for Minnesota:

The IHME model is predicting approximately 450 COVID-related deaths. The U of M model predicts 22,000 COVID-19-related deaths in Minnesota. Why is a tax preparing shop in Anoka considered safe but a 1-station beauty salon right next door is shut down? Why is a Walmart store considered safe but a Piggly Wiggly considered unsafe?

Gov. Walz has driven Minnesota’s economy into the dirt with his foolish decisions. He’s never paid a price for his terrible decisions. That’s what happens when you hold a government job. What’s required for Minnesota to prosper is someone with private sector experience. That’s something that Tim Walz doesn’t have. Let’s change that the next time he’s up for re-election.

Ever since Impeachment Committee Chairman Adam Schiff impeached President Trump without citing a crime, we’ve known that it was just a matter of time until some lame-brained leftist Democrat would redeploy the Schiff Standard. That day arrived. The sad part is that it didn’t take long to arrive:

Professor Chris Edelson, assistant professor of government at American University, has penned an opinion column calling for President Trump to resign or be impeachment for his handling of the coronavirus crisis. It is just the latest in a long line of such impeachment theories that reflect a fundamental misconception of the function and standard for the removal of an American President.

Since Chairman Schiff has essentially instituted a whatever-a-majority-of-Congress-says-is-impeachable impeachment standard, it isn’t surprising that people are making up new impeachment charges. As Democrats become more desperate, we should expect these types of frivolous charges to come more often against Republicans. Democrats have shown that they’re a vindictive lot of sore losers. This treachery will become the new normal for Democrats.

If this becomes the Democrats’ new normal, then I pray that voters punish Democrats for being sore losers. Shame on them for not accepting the outcome of legitimate elections. You lost in 2016. A 4-year hissy fit just proves that you’re whiny little children. Whiny little children aren’t fit to govern. That privilege is reserved for adults.

Schiff’s problem isn’t that he’s a whiny little child. Schiff’s problem, along with every other Democrat that voted to impeach or convict President Trump, is that he’s a dishonest SOB. Trusting him is as stupid as trusting this professor. Then again, trusting any Democrat that voted to impeach or convict President Trump on the basis of hearsay testimony is stupid.

Schiff is an annoying SOB. He’s proven that by this:

President Trump said he is seriously considering a pardon for former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn. “So now it is reported that, after destroying his life & the life of his wonderful family (and many others also), the FBI, working in conjunction with the Justice Department, has ‘lost’ the records of General Michael Flynn. How convenient. I am strongly considering a Full Pardon!” Trump tweeted on Sunday.


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff quickly tweeted that Trump should keep his “focus on the current crisis” surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak, adding that “the delay in testing and your failure to lead are already costing us dearly.” “Your attacks on the independence of the justice system and rewarding of cronies who lied for you can wait,” the California Democrat said. “Incompetence kills.”

My message to Professor Edelson is the same as my message to Chairman Schiff. Shut up and go away. Your warped thinking is hurting civilized society. Please stop wasting my time with your stupidity.

Larry Jacobs thinks that Amy Klobuchar has reached her prove it point in the race. After a strong debate performance in New Hampshire, she translated that into a mini-fundraising windfall. Then she finished a strong third place there.

I wrote here that Klomentum has disappeared. She had a disappointing debate performance Wednesday. The RCP average of polls shows her in sixth place for the Democrat presidential nomination. There’s no momentum and she’s campaigning in Colorado 2 days before the Nevada Caucuses. Those aren’t the signs of a confident candidate.

At this point, St. Amy’s campaign is just about finished. Prof. Jacobs, political science professor and department head at the University of Minnesota, notes “This is a state where the DFL, the base of the DFL, are probably more progressive than Amy Klobuchar. So I think there’s a real risk that she’ll lose Minnesota. Amy Klobuchar cannot be everywhere at the same time.” About Super Tuesday, Jacobs said “She’s going to need a good showing. We’re getting very close to the ‘prove it’ point.”

I question whether Sen. Klobuchar will still be in the race by Super Tuesday. She’s in 6th place in Nevada the day before that state’s caucuses:

She’s in 6th place in South Carolina, too:

After that campaigning gets expensive in California, Texas, North Carolina, etc. People are hinting that, at this point, she’s really running for VP but I question that. How appealing is she to Bernie or Bloomberg, the 2 likely ‘finalists’ for the Democrat presidential nomination?

With more information coming out about Tomeka Hart, the foreperson on the Roger Stone trial, it’s time to question Democrats like Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. It’s another classic case of Democrats jumping to conclusions before gathering facts. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Hint: YES! But I digress.

Before illustrating just how two-faced Pelosi is, let’s play a clip of her from this morning’s press conference:

Next, let’s play a short game of Alan Dershowitz’s shoe-on-the-other-foot game. Let’s swap out Roger Stone’s name and swap in Peter Strzok’s name. Next, let’s swap out President Trump’s name and swap in President Obama’s name. I’m betting that the odds of Democrats complaining about President Obama making comments about reducing the prison sentence for Peter Strzok is virtually nonexistent.

I’m not basing this entirely on theory. I’m basing that opinion at least partially on President Obama’s statements prior to the infamous Beer Summit with President Obama, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley. Shortly thereafter, President Obama was asked what he thought of the confrontation. Here’s what he said:

For Pelosi to call for Bill Barr’s resignation is ridiculous. For these DOJ lawyers to make such a harsh recommendation is ridiculous, too. If these attorneys hadn’t quit, they should’ve been fired. Period. Today on Dana Perino’s program, Trey Gowdy, a former U.S. Attorney who never lost a case, said that he never made a sentence recommendation. When asked if he thought the sentence was too much, Gowdy explained the sentencing guidelines before telling Dana Perino that he knew violent criminals who got less than the 7-to-9 years.

In recent days, pundits have started speculating whether Joe Biden’s cheese has slid totally off the cracker. That’s a fair question. It’s equally fair, in my opinion, to ask if the cheese is sliding off of Nancy Pelosi’s cracker. In my estimation, she’s starting to lose it.

Of all the decisions that St. Cloud State has made in the past decade, closing the Aviation program is the worst. While St. Cloud State suffers through another year of enrollment decline, United Airlines bought a flight training academy to build a pipeline for the 10,000 new pilots they’ll need.

According to the Chicago Tribune article, “United Airlines is buying an Arizona flight training academy to help train the more than 10,000 pilots the airline expects to hire within a decade. The academy, currently operating as Westwind School of Aeronautics in Phoenix, will be part of a recruiting program United announced last year, called Aviate, that lets pilots join a pipeline to United with a conditional job offer early in their careers rather than waiting until they rise through the ranks at regional carriers or complete military service.”

Had St. Cloud State kept its Aviation program open, it likely would’ve gotten approached by Delta or some other airline to supply pilots to the airline. It’s fairly common for these airlines to offer bonuses to graduates from these flight academies if they stay with the company 2-3 years. It’s even more common for these airlines to fast-track these pilots through the regional airlines to the major airlines.

That’s before talking about expanding the Aviation program to train people in aerial firefighting for the western states. That’s before expanding the program to train students on drone operations. I’d guarantee that each of these program expansions would increase SCSU enrollment dramatically. That means a new energy for the University. That means a reinvigoration of SCSU, which is essential to the school’s survival.

What’s required is leadership from our local politicians, starting with Dan Wolgamott. Rep. Wolgamott is a member of the House Higher Education Finance and Policy Division. Wolgamott and Sen. Relph are working together on extending NorthStar to St. Cloud, which might create a dozen jobs while costing the state millions of dollars in operational subsidies over the next decade. (Yes, I’m being slightly sarcastic about the jobs number. I’m not sarcastic about the subsidies.) Why can’t they work on something that revitalizes St. Cloud’s economy?

Building a world-class aviation training center in St. Cloud as part of a new and improved SCSU Aviation program would reinvigorate the University and the city of St. Cloud. After losing major employers like Electrolux and Herbergers, St. Cloud needs an industrial-strength shot in the arm economically.

Without legislative leadership, this vision won’t happen. It won’t happen if left up to Gov. Walz. I’m being polite in say that his economic growth vision for Minnesota is lackluster. Thus far, the jury is still out on the St. Cloud legislative delegation. As for our mayor, he’s had the opportunities to reinvigorate the city and failed. Companies are leaving town or going out of business. The University has shrunk during his time in office.

Professor Emeritus John Palmer noted this:

United said last year it expects nearly half of its 12,500 pilots to retire within a decade. Over the next 20 years, Boeing estimates that airlines will need to recruit about 131,000 commercial pilots in North America and 514,000 more throughout the rest of the world.

It is not just United that will need pilots in the next 20 years. After subtracting the 10,000, a 1,000 a year on average, 55,000 new pilots will be needed for the rest of domestic airlines. Worldwide, 240,000 will be needed. Why would SCSU not want to explore how it could re-enter the aviation training market?

Even if it could only attract .25% of the annual market for new pilots that would be over 130 new entering freshman a year and in four years would result in an increase of 500 FTE each year. When the aviation program closed during the Great Recession 100 entering freshman intended to major in aviation and over 180 were admitted to an aviation major. With the strong recovery in the aviation industry, SCSU could serve a societal need and help address it’s enrollment decline by re-entering the aviation training market.

This is from later in the article:

United said the academy, which will be renamed United Aviate Academy in September, will initially produce about 300 graduates each year, but it hopes to expand that to 500. Graduates would be able to work as instructors at flight schools United has partnered with to rack up hours of flying time required to qualify for entry-level jobs with regional carriers, such as ExpressJet, Air Wisconsin or Mesa Airlines. Pilots in the Aviate program hired by the regional carriers would be then eligible for jobs with United.

With industrial demands like this, why isn’t SCSU interested in supplying these needs while rebuilding the University? Better yet, why aren’t our legislators (Relph, Theis and especially Wolgamott) pushing this blueprint?

Saying that Alan Dershowitz unloaded both barrels of the Constitution on the Democrats’ impeachment managers is understatement. They deserved it. The highlight of Professor Dershowitz’s speech came when he said “I’m sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents.”

Perhaps the most controversial part of Professor Dershowitz’s presentation was when he said that “Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power, or an impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using terms like ‘quid pro quo’ and ‘personal benefit.'”


Then there’s this:


My question is this: since I watched every minute of Professor Dershowitz’s presentation, does that count towards certifying me as a credentialed legal bloviator? I know that doesn’t make me a lawyer but I’d appreciate getting a certificate from Professor Dershowitz saying that I’m now qualified to talk about the Constitution and impeachment.

Seriously, the Trump legal team did a great job in putting out the ‘Bolton Bombshell.’ Attorney after attorney dismantled the key components of the Democrats’ case for impeachment. Michael Purpura addressed, for the second time, the justification for not complying with the initial set of compulsory subpoenas, highlighting that the House hadn’t voted to authorize a committee to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

The House didn’t vote on an impeachment resolution until Halloween. The compulsory subpoenas were sent out in early October. Speaker Pelosi held a press conference on Sept. 24, announcing that the House had started an impeachment inquiry. Nixon Judiciary Committee Chairman on impeachment, Peter Rodino, stated that his House Judiciary Committee didn’t have the authority to start the impeachment inquiry until there was a vote of the whole House authorizing that inquiry.

This situation requires a Peter Rodino or a Henry Hyde. Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are partisan Democrat hacks. Rodino and Hyde were gentlemen, statesmen and patriots who felt comfortable working in a bipartisan situations.

A consistent part of Elizabeth Warren’s stump speech is when she criticizes the current system as being rigged against the little guy. She who wields the sword shouldn’t be surprised when they get sliced by that sword. That’s what happened while campaigning in Grimes, IA.

While campaigning in Iowa, Sen. Warren was approached by a man about her student loan proposal. It didn’t finish well. In fact, it was pretty harsh medicine throughout:

“I just wanted to ask one question. My daughter is getting out of school. I’ve saved all my money. She doesn’t have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?” the father asked Warren. “Of course not,” Warren said.

“So you’re going to pay for people who didn’t save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?” he responded. The man went on to say he had a friend who “bought a car and went on all the vacations,” while he worked a double shift. “You’re laughing at me,” the man said, which Warren denied. “Yeah, that’s exactly what you’re doing. We did the right thing and we get screwed.”

A great economist said that “if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you’ll always have Paul as an ally.” Obviously, Sen. Warren’s proposal requires a little ‘Robbing Peter to pay Paul’ action. That isn’t the greatest sin, though.

The problem with Sen. Warren’s proposal is that it doesn’t fix the problem. Ten years after the student loan debt is forgiven, we’ll be right back into the same situation. That’s because people’s behaviors won’t change. That’s because the universities’ behavior won’t change. What incentive do universities have to start being fiscally responsible? After all, it isn’t their money that they’re spending.

The problem is OPM, aka Other People’s Money. In the hands of a bureaucrat or a politician, OPM is as addictive as opium. That’s the simple, indisputable truth. The conversation is a little difficult to hear but here’s the confrontation:

Montclair State University is getting sued for allegedly violating their students First Amendment rights:

On Sept. 10, 2019, Mena Botros and two fellow students dressed in orange jump suits and held up signs voicing their support—as pretend criminals—for gun-free zones. The purpose was to express their belief that laws creating gun-free zones only benefit criminals and harm law-abiding citizens. Despite peacefully expressing their ideas in a common outdoor area of campus, a campus police officer forced them to stop. He told the students that anyone who wants to speak on campus has to obtain permission at least two weeks in advance and that the dean’s office would assign them a time and place to speak. The students, affiliated with Young Americans for Liberty, are challenging the two-week requirement because it unconstitutionally suppresses all speech and because it allows the university to deny or delay a student’s request for permission for any reason.

Nowhere in the First Amendment does it give government the right to schedule free speech events. The text of the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The University will lose this lawsuit because they prohibited students from peaceably assembling on their campus and because their demonstration highlighted a public policy disagreement with the government. Further, the thought that any presentation might be rejected by the powers-that-be flies in the face of the principles of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that government can’t tell people what they can say. Government of any sort can’t tell when people or corporations when they can talk. It’s worth noting that Citizens United “arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections.” The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka McCain-Feingold, prohibited that. Ultimately, the Supreme Court prohibited McCain-Feingold.

The policy, called the Demonstrations and Assemblies Policy, stated that anyone, especially groups or organizations, should give two weeks of advance notice to the dean of students with their “planned objective” of the event. The dean would then review the application and either approve or reject the application or, the suit alleges, modify the demonstration of “any reason …. within any set timeframe.”

According to the text of the First Amendment, nobody has the authority to reject applications to speak freely. Nobody, whether we’re talking about the President of the United States or the Chief Justice of the United States, is allowed to restrict political speech.

Bit-by-bit, people are putting a higher priority on teaching old-fashioned civics. About five years ago, “a coalition of prominent leaders assembled by the Arizona-based Joe Foss Institute launched a Civics Education Initiative.” They started with the premise that students shouldn’t graduate unless they pass the same test that immigrants must pass when they apply for citizenship.

This movement started after it was discovered that “fewer than half knew that John Roberts is the current chief justice of the United States. More than one-quarter thought Brett Kavanaugh was.” When students were asked the term length for U.S. senators and representatives, “fewer than half of college graduates could give the correct numbers.”

While this is disturbing information, there’s more frightening news lurking on the horizon:

As Education Week has reported, the very idea of schools using the citizenship test elicits a “torrent of criticism from leaders who favor the new, broader conception of civics education.” Jessica Marshall, former social studies director for Chicago schools, put it this way: “[The citizenship tests] don’t tell us if young people know how to mobilize their communities to get resources or pass laws they care about.”

It isn’t the job of schools to teach students how to be progressive activists. Back in September, I wrote about Rep. Dean Urdahl’s op-ed (Part I and Part II). In that op-ed, Rep. Urdahl wrote this:

Next session, the MSBA [Minnesota School Board Association] plans to double down on its campaign against civic education. MSBA officials want to no longer have to offer the civics test. This crosses the line from passivity to enmity regarding civics. Testing conveys a message; we care about what we test. Eliminating the test implies MSBA doesn’t think civics is important. In Minnesota, it should not be about the number of tests, but rather, are we testing the right things.

Rep. Urdahl also wrote this:

The failure is measurable. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, the highly respected “Nation’s Report Card,” reports that 75% of our graduates leave high school not proficient in civics. They are failing. A nationwide poll found that two-thirds of Americans can name an American Idol judge, but only 15% can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. One-third of our graduates can’t name a single branch of our government. The Annenberg Study revealed that 37% cannot name one right guaranteed in the First Amendment. There are students who think Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court.

Rep. Urdahl also wrote that MSBA wants school boards, not voters, to have the final say on operating levies:

Over 332 school boards are elected by their communities. These members are trusted and charged with the governance of school property, budget, curriculum, technology, taxes, student achievement and teacher quality – ensuring excellence and equity in all public schools. Therefore, MSBA asks that you honor and trust the work of these local officials by allowing school boards to renew an existing operating referendum, by reducing the current number of mandates, and provide flexibility to meet the unique needs of their schools and communities.

TRANSLATION: Those pesky citizens shouldn’t have a say on their property taxes. We know what’s best. That’s what progressive arrogance sounds like.

Since the DFL controls the House in 2020, it isn’t likely that they’ll say no to MSBA. That means we’ll need the GOP Senate to stop this unaccountability initiative dead in its tracks. Trusting school boards to do the right thing is like giving matches to an arsonist, then expecting him to not set something on fire. That isn’t insanity. It’s stupidity.

It’s also imperative that we elect a GOP majority in the House and maintain the GOP majority in the Senate in 2020. We can’t afford unified DFL state government. We saw what a disaster that was in 2013-14.

These things should be taught until students understand why we adopted this Constitution and why the US is the greatest nation on earth. We should make it illegal to teach political activism in schools. That’s the job of political parties and outside groups. Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for that stuff.

In addition to emphasizing teaching civics, it’s essential to emphasize teaching history, math and science, too. It’s important to de-emphasize the victimology classes, too. Civics classes unite us as a nation. Victimology classes divide us. Let’s work to unite, not divide, this great nation.

Thanksgiving—Historical Truth or PC Myth?
By Ramblin’ Rose

The Left seems determined to destroy our country in Congress, the courts and classrooms. Of those venues, they’ve probably made the greatest gains in our educational system through indoctrination. Anti-Americans are convincing our youth that the history books are lies and “they” have the real truth. Of course, that means that “they” must rewrite our history, declaring all white Europeans were villains that came to this hemisphere for pre-meditated massacres of the indigenous peoples to steal their lands. Later, those of “white privilege” also imported black slaves. This storyline promotes the minority ethnic groups are “victims” whom the Left must dominate for the “abusers” to buy forgiveness (reparations) from their ill-gotten wealth. And the Left gets to rewrite history for their gain.

Eighth graders in Portland, Oregon heard this definition of Thanksgiving… “a celebration of the genocide of the Indians by greedy capitalist Europeans.”

Activists do not only attend Ivy League schools or universities in southern California. Students at Macalester College (a Christian college according to a headline) called Thanksgiving an “unethical” holiday, just like Columbus Day and Christmas break. For those students, Thanksgiving is about violence and oppression.

Several of the 2020 Democrat candidates for the presidency have advocated paying reparations for all the misdeeds of those “white” evildoers committed against their “victims.” If liberals consider the Indians so pathetic, why do sports teams claim Indian names? Why are military armaments named after Indians? Yes, the Left is trying to remove those identities as well. Progressives need the downtrodden to depend on them for survival and provide liberal elitists with power and control.

Many parents assume that teachers are educated persons dedicated to imparting knowledge to the next generation. Yes, BUT… The parents are often too busy to examine the curriculum of the schools that their children attend. Liberals have the opportunity to rewrite history texts that are eagerly printed and distributed by ultra-left publishing companies that are also responsible for mentoring states in writing their teacher licensure exams. The Left have written the tests and determined the “right” answers for the current group of modern teachers.

One goal is to unteach the myth of Thanksgiving. Young learners are eager to learn. Young adults are eager to prove themselves smarter than their parents. The harvest field is ripe.

At Salt River Elementary and Puente de Hozho schools in Arizona, students learn of the traditions of the Native Americans, with emphasis on their identity as indigenous people, harvest and giving thanks. They don’t learn about the Pilgrims. The article stresses the liberal bias with this comment: “Teaching the myth of Thanksgiving is not required in the Arizona state standards for history and social studies. It depends on whether the teachers choose to include it in their lesson plans or the schools’ curriculum includes it.” Thanksgiving is only included in the kindergarten and first-grade lessons along with other holidays, not as a part of the history of this great country.

At first blush, the emphasis on identity and traditions of an ethnic group could be considered commendable until one realizes that requests for recognition of holidays and contributions of other immigrant groups who came and enriched our culture are denied. The response usually follows an argument along these lines. “No, those immigrants came long ago and assimilated into this culture. They have no culture in this country. Those from northern Europe did not add to the history of this country.” (paraphrase and summary to me in academic settings by professional educators)

That is offensive. Liberals are quick to point out that this country is a nation built by immigrants but select which immigrant groups are worthy of recognition—certainly not those of “white privilege” from northern Europe. Others, yes. And, now some claim that the Native Americans have always occupied this land. Apparently, they now refute the arrival of immigrants via the Bering Strait centuries ago. The modern version also has all indigenous groups living in perfect harmony with one another and nature. Truth or myth? History lessons or indoctrination?

Just as the Left refuses to acknowledge Christmas or even utter the word, they are also attempting to change Thanksgiving to “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.”

History professor and author David J. Silverman wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that summarizes the anti-American view of Thanksgiving.

“Contrary to the Thanksgiving myth, the Pilgrim-Wampanoag encounter was no first-contact meeting. Rather, it followed a string of bloody episodes since 1524 in which European explorers seized coastal Wampanoags to be sold into overseas slavery or to be trained as interpreters and guides.

“In 1616, a European ship conveyed an epidemic disease to the Wampanoags that over the next three years took a staggering toll on their population…

“The challenges are undoubtedly stark. The Native American past and present tend to make white people uncomfortable because they turn patriotic histories and heroes inside out and loosen claims on morality, authority and justice. They threaten to tear down monuments and rename buildings. But confronting the dark history of colonialism in Indian country also promises to shed light, cultivate national humility and, most important, signal to Native people that the country values them.” (an aside: What is the new name for Lake Calhoun in Minnesota?)

In his book, This Land is Their Land, Silverman explains the myth.

“The myth is that friendly Indians, unidentified by tribe, welcome the Pilgrims to America, teach them how to live in this new place, sit down to dinner with them and then disappear. They hand off America to white people so they can create a great nation dedicated to liberty, opportunity and Christianity for the rest of the world to profit. That’s the story—it’s about Native people conceding to colonialism. It’s bloodless and in many ways an extension of the ideology of Manifest Destiny.”

“One is that history doesn’t begin for Native people until Europeans arrive. People had been in the Americas for at least 12,000 years and according to some Native traditions, since the beginning of time.

“In 1769, a group of pilgrim descendants who lived in Plymouth felt like their cultural authority was slipping away as New England became less relevant within the colonies and the early republic and wanted to boost tourism. So, they started to plant the seeds of this idea that the pilgrims were the fathers of America.

“It gained purchase in the late 19th century, when there was an enormous amount of anxiety and agitation over immigration. The white Protestant stock of the United States was widely unhappy about the influx of European Catholics and Jews and wanted to assert its cultural authority over these newcomers. How better to do that than to create this national founding myth around the Pilgrims and the Indians inviting them to take over the land?”

History.com provides a timeline related to celebrating historical events to give thanksgiving. One paragraph contradicts the previous statements.

“Archival evidence is slim, but according to a letter from Plymouth colonist Edward Winslow, dated December 11, 1621, the colonists wanted to celebrate their first good crop of corn and barley grown with generous assistance from the native Wampanoag Indians.”

Edward Winslow, one who had been instrumental in organizing the journey to America and one of the men who signed the Mayflower Compact, wrote his historic account of that celebration in 1621.

“Our corn did prove well, and God be praised, we had a good increase of Indian corn, and our barley indifferent good, but our peas not worth gathering, for we feared they were too late sown. They came up very well, and blossomed, but the sun parched them in the blossom. Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the company almost a week, at which time amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.”

Melanie Kirkpatrick, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the author of “Thanksgiving: The Holiday at the Heart of the American Experience,” also focuses on the positive relationship between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Indians. But her statements vary dramatically from the previous exposé.

“…what most consider the first Thanksgiving was celebrated in October 1621 after the pilgrims’ first harvest. The feast lasted for three days and included games and all-around good cheer. It was attended by 90 Wampanoag warriors and 53 Pilgrims, according to Pilgrim Edward Winslow’s account.

“It’s unclear whether the Wampanoag were expected to be there or even invited – although they did bring enough venison to feed the entire party for three days. It’s also likely that this was (at least in the beginning) a tense interaction. The Native Americans were all male warriors. They outnumbered the Pilgrims nearly 2:1, and many of the Pilgrims included women and children, who were not trained for battle.

“Nevertheless, the two groups gathered and gave thanks for the bounty of the harvest, and the rich natural resources of this American continent. There was plenty for which to be thankful. The Pilgrims and Wampanoag had settled on a peace treaty – and the English newcomers had survived the winter largely because the natives had shown them how to plant corn, where to fish, and how to survive in the environment…”

While there was much to be thankful for at that gathering, it was not called “Thanksgiving.”

Although arguments, both historical and liberal, abound, this article highlights some of the salient views of both sides. No, I am not ready to embrace statements about the Englishmen who traveled in a small ship across the Atlantic with their families to exploit the Indians and to teach their women and children how to massacre the savages. I am convinced that those Pilgrims faced an intolerable tyrant in England and were willing to risk all in pursuit of religious freedoms and a better life. I am not convinced that the Indigenous Peoples inhabited North America from the beginning of time and lived in harmony with all other tribes and were committed environmentalists. I believe that there were honorable and courageous Pilgrims and Indians who worked together to live in peaceful harmony—a harmony that was broken by corrupt persons in both societies.

I pray humbly and fervently that stability and unity once again are a reality in this nation blessed by our Almighty Creator.

Happy Thanksgiving—Thanks be to God, to the Pilgrims, to the compassionate Native Americans and for the generations that have worked to make this a great nation.