Month: November 2017

There’s more to Thanksgiving than multi-colored turkeys drawn around the hands of children. There’s also more to the original Thanksgiving tale than cooperation between peoples that saved the lives of a small colony.

The story surrounding the time of Thanksgiving is a testament to the failure of collectivism, and the power that accompanies individual responsibility.

It’s not one you’ll hear in the mainstream — but it’s true, and needs to be spread far and wide.

Pilgrims emigrated from Europe to Massachusetts in 1620. Half of the pilgrims starved to death or went back to where they came from before the first winter was over, partially due to a particularly bad New England winter and partially due to inadequate farming skills.

As the story goes, the day was saved by Native Americans who taught the pilgrims how to plant corn in the spring, and the resulting harvest was bountiful.

TRENDING: Pres. of American College of Pediatricians Sure to Offend Libs With Trans-Gender Kids Announcement

They celebrated with the feast commemorated by modern-day Americans as Thanksgiving.

There’s a lot ignored in that story, like the fact that it was communal farming that utterly destroyed the colony’s fragile, tiny economy.

The goal was to share the results of labor equally while everybody contributed to the greater good.

That plan went badly. Very badly.

As the Independent Institute reports:

“Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food.

“Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort,” the Independent Institute continued. “The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.”

It sounds about right. Those who work tend to want to keep the results of that work. And those who don’t have incentive to work, won’t. Funny how that happens.

RELATED: Hidden Camera Shows Trick-or-Treaters Learning Harsh Reality of “Socialism”

Governor William Bradford complained that the colony was rife with “corruption” and with “confusion and discontent,” according to the Mises Institute, citing Bradford’s “History of Plymouth Plantation.”

People preferred to steal food than to make it, until radical change was instituted.

In 1623, after years of economic hardship, Bradford decided to create a massive change to how the colony would deal with its resources.

Bradford abolished the colony’s little brand of socialism.

Rather than all that was produced going into a general collection and being doled out as needed, each family was given a parcel of land to farm as best they could. Those who had excess could trade what they wanted.

Essentially, Bradford replaced socialism with the free market, and the change was dramatic.

“This had very good success,” Bradford reflected, according to Townhall, “for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many.”

The first Thanksgiving, the real one in which the governor and colonists had something to truly be happy about, would have been in that fall of 1623. Call it whichever feast you like, but harvest celebrations that fall were the first ones to yield enough to forestall worry for the winter.

Really and truly, the actual reason for Thanksgiving’s continued existence — the reason anyone survived to relate the tale — was the triumph of private property and the free market over socialism.

H/T Freedom Works

What do you think about this story? Please share this on Facebook and Twitter and let us know!

What do you think about this early battle between socialism and free market economics? Scroll down to comment below!

A new study has found that boys and girls instinctively prefer toys targeted at traditional gender roles, The Sun reports.

The study found that boys preferred toys like toy soldiers while girls preferred toys like dolls.

The study further noted that girls are more likely than boys to be influenced by what their parents tell them or what they see on television, while boys stuck to aggressive play, regardless of the toys they were given.

According to the Daily Mail, the study was led by a team of psychologists from the City University London, who compiled evidence collected by researchers across the Western world with some of the data reaching as far back as the 1930s.

“Despite methodological variation in the choice and number of toys offered, context of testing, and age of child, the consistency in finding sex differences in children’s preferences for toys typed to their own gender indicates the strength of this phenomenon and the likelihood that it has a biological origin,” the study said, according to The Mail.

TRENDING: Pres. of American College of Pediatricians Sure to Offend Libs With Trans-Gender Kids Announcement

Some might object, saying that lately girls have been reported to occasionally reject domestic toys.

However, according to the study’s research paper, that result has less to do with girls and more to do with the effects of feminism on parents, advertising, and media.

In other words, the study suggests that the girls’ occasional change in behavior is the deviation, rather than some form of “enlightened normal.”

There’s this philosophy that pervades liberal circles. It goes like this, as it has often been asserted to me: “gender is environmental.”

That can mean two things: first, what constitutes gender is instilled in a child by the world around them. Second, that a gender can be a fluid thing.

Well, sorry. No, gender is not fluid. It’s not dictated by environment.

There are, as this study shows, biological constants that dictate parts of human preferences.

That doesn’t mean that your neighbor’s daughter who likes airsoft guns — or the boy who enjoys baking — is wrong in doing so; that’d be silly.

RELATED: Turns Out the Amish Really May Have a Secret to Long Life — Special Gene Mutation

What it does mean is something far more foundational:

Men and women aren’t the same.

What do you think about this story? Please share this on Facebook and Twitter and let us know!

Do you think liberals are doing harm by pushing their “gender neutrality” narrative on children? Scroll down to comment below!

Net Neutrality is a term that basically means Internet providers have to treat all data on the Internet the same. In other words, they can’t charge more for certain sites or slow down access to others. On Tuesday the FCC voted to change the regulations on net neutrality, which could either be a good thing or a bad thing. Democrats are against this decision so, let’s assume it’s a good thing. And speaking of which, in reaction to the FCC liberals have gone into full “doom and gloom” mode claiming it threatens our constitutional rights and will lead to a full ban on abortions. Yeah, they’re like that.

First up we have progressive lunatic NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio with this hot take:

Just a few thoughts on #NetNeutrality – first of all, access to a free and open internet is a fundamental right of every citizen. (1/4)

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) November 22, 2017

“Just a few thoughts on #NetNeutrality – first of all, access to a free and open internet is a fundamental right of every citizen,” wrote de Blasio.

First of all, this isn’t even close to being addressed by the Bill of Rights, which lists and protects our fundamental rights. If our Founding Fathers couldn’t have conceived of modern firearms, as liberals claim, they sure as hell didn’t see Facebook or Pornhub coming. Internet access is no more a right than free HBO.

Oh, and second of all, the Internet isn’t generally free. I know I have to pay for it. If free Internet is my right, where the f*ck does Charter get off charging me money for it?

That’s pretty crazy, but nothing compared to this from the pro-abortion kooks at NARAL:

Repealing #NetNeutrality is a direct threat to reproductive freedom. Without it, our access to information about how to obtain an abortion or other #reprohealth services could be compromised. https://t.co/tp0jkibVe5

— NARAL (@NARAL) November 21, 2017

“Repealing #NetNeutrality is a direct threat to reproductive freedom. Without it, our access to information about how to obtain an abortion or other #reprohealth services could be compromised,” screamed NARAL.

This is linked to a Vice article that says if there are less regulations on Internet providers that abortion will end up being outlawed. You can read it if you want, but I promise it will make your head hurt.

Again, we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution here. While there is no specific amendment protecting legal abortion, the Supreme Court made a strange ruling in the Roe v. Wade case that makes it legal. This decision cannot be overturned, so abortion will remain legal no matter what happens with the Internet. Did you notice how a lack of the Internet through the 70’s and 80’s didn’t cause abortion to be banned? I did.

The other thing that is going on here is the crazy notion that getting rid of net neutrality means the Internet is going to disappear. That is definitely not going to happen for the simple reason that it’s a big source of revenue. The FCC ruling actually means there will be more innovation and more ways to make money. The last thing that is going to happen is no more Internet.

Once again liberals demonstrate how little they understand about everything. This is also more proof that they should not only never have any decision making power but also that their opinions are worthless.

Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter

At some point, every warrior eventually runs out of arrows. His armor wears thin yet grows heavier still. He must lay down his weary helmeted head for rest.

Even Coriolanus was forced to retreat — at the behest of his mother.

Not so Donald Trump.

Not a weary drop of blood pumps through the man’s veins. He wears his thick armor light as skin. His bottomless quiver is never empty.

Fearlessly, President Trump sauntered away from his wife and son into the presence of his enemies. As casually as Clint Eastwood dispatching a horse thief, Mr. Trump laid waste to the media’s carefully choreographed plot to wrest the U.S. Senate away from Republicans and somehow smear the president with an accused child molester.

Would the president throw in with Judge Moore and defend a man accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl he picked up cruising the halls of family court? Would the president place politics above honor and try some wink and a nod? Would Mr. Trump give in and torch Judge Moore so thoroughly as to ensure that Democrats get one seat closer to controlling the Senate after next month’s Alabama election?

“I can tell you one thing for sure: We don’t need a liberal person in there, a Democrat — Jones,” Mr. Trump said calmly, referring to Judge Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones.

“I’ve looked at his record. It’s terrible on crime, it’s terrible on the border, it’s terrible on the military. I can tell you for a fact, we do not need somebody that’s going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad with the military, bad for the Second Amendment.”

But wait! This is a scandal. The jackals were trying to trick Mr. Trump into getting all hung up on the salacious scandal. He missed the banana peel. Instead, he responded by talking about — ISSUES!

Damned ISSUES!

Not only that, Mr. Trump responded by talking about issues Alabama voters care most about. The outrage!

Note how Mr. Trump did not endorse Judge Moore. He simply refused to endorse Democrat Doug Jones. Because Doug Jones is terrible on crime, the border, the military and the Second Amendment.

Sputtering and stammering, the hyenas take another run at their prey. Is Roy Moore a child molester?

“Well, he denies it,” said Mr. Trump, his glamorous family standing behind him, untouched by all the slime, magazine-ready against the autumnal leaves.

“He says it didn’t happen,” Mr. Trump continued, his overcoat flapping carelessly in the wind like a cowboy’s duster. “You know, you have to listen to him also.”

Asked again, from another direction, the president responded with a classically Trumpian line wherein he has but one point to sell you, so he wraps it up in a way that it actually looks like he has three points.

“Let me tell you, Roy Moore denies,” Mr. Trump said. “That’s all I can say. He denies it. And, by the way, he totally denies it.”

Who knows what happens. Maybe Roy Moore loses. Maybe he wins and Republicans kick him out of the Senate and replace him with a less toxic conservative.

The one thing that won’t fly these days is for Democrats to score political points by claiming Mr. Trump is turning a blind eye on a child molester just because he happens to be a Republican.

In this day, this storm, this environment, Democrats are too busy furiously defending themselves for 25 years of sticking up for a rapist and intern molester — all because he happened to be a Democrat.

• Charles Hurt can be reached at churt@washingtontimes.com; follow him on Twitter via @charleshurt.