The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History ePUB

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History ❴BOOKS❵ ✯ The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History Author Thomas E. Woods Jr. –  “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  “The problem Incorrect Guide PDF Ë 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 uite 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 The Politically PDF/EPUB or who are heavily biased against God democracy patriotism capitalism Politically Incorrect Guide to American MOBI :Ê 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.

10 thoughts on “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

  1. murph murph says:

    You could shorten the title to simply incorrectUsually the words politically incorrect announce someone who is proud of having gone against the grain Thomas E Woods is here to show us that a person can be unusually proud of committing all the sins he purports to denounceWoods' aim is to correct the cherished myths of American History that are advanced without evidence by LiberalsPolitical correctnesspeople who disagree with Woods The problem is in order to do this Woods does exactly the same thing If you're going to point out the inadeuacies of the established historical narrative you might want to put some time in research Woods' bizarre characterization of the Civil War as a justifiable assertion of States rights to nullify Federal law is Exhibit A Any treatment of the Civil War that sidesteps or dismisses as Woods does the topic of slavery is so clearly ignorant of the facts as to be a farce You could argue that there was a State's rights dispute but the chief right the southern states wanted was the right to own people Don't believe me? Okay but you'd have to ignore the Mississippi South Carolina Georgia and Texas declarations of Secession for starters It would be fair to argue that there were issues than slavery but to dismiss it? No serious scholar could do thatWoods might be tired of slavery dwarfing all other discussions but that does not give him license to artificially add weight to factors he's interested inIf this was the only misstep in Woods' book it would be fatally flawed Sadly there are many To be true in Woods' eyes all a theory needs is to be out of favor with the people he dislikes There are certainly sacred cows in academia and theories that have gaps inaccuracies or out and out fraud J Ellis I'm looking at you but Woods doesn't bother to tear these down with facts He's sure he's right and so he just screams out his message adding volume instead of clarityIn denouncing the cherished myths of academia he creates his own mythology Those who embrace that mythology may enjoy the book but they will have learned nothing

  2. Justin Justin says:

    Finally an easy way to display my ignorance and political extremism to friends If you want to waste your time and money than this book is for you This book has the same level of truth and scholarship as the crazy ranting homeless man you cross the street to avoid but without the personality Woods' book pays homage to the worst extremism of the right wingers and libertarians Not content to destroy the present Woods' books is a hideous attempt to pervert the past and our understanding of American history If you need a good laugh or are an ignorant buffoon intent on attacking liberals than learning about US history than this book is for you

  3. Celestia Celestia says:

    This book was incredibly eye opening The DC says we are to waste out our days bringing hidden things to light This book helps you to do that The author goes through the span of US history from the Pilgrims to Bill Clinton exposing what the popular myths are So I learned the following the Native Americans were not the first American environmentalists the revolutionary war was was of a return to common law rights of Englishmen rather than a rebellion the Civil War wasn't really about slavery secession of the southern states wasn't treason; they were just exercising the right that New York Rhode Island and Virginia had stipulated when they ratified the Constitution This was the right that they could withdraw from the union if they ever felt the new government became oppressive Lincoln wanted to send black Americans to Africa in his fourth debate with Douglas Lincoln said that he did not nor did he ever want to bring about euality between the white and black races Andrew Johnson was mistreated by the Radical Republicans of Congress he was basically framed or set up to do something dubiously unconstitutional so that his political enemies in Congress could then impeach him the 14th amendment wasn't properly ratified Wilson did not hold Britian and Germany to the same standards of neutrality in regards to their warships before the US entered the war which is part of the reason why the US ended up entering the war Woodrow Wilson was seriously deluded JFK's father who made his fortune as a bootlegger paid someone to write Profiles of Courage and then bought tens of thousands of copies of the books and then stashed them in storage so it would get bestseller status JFK made a deal with the Mafia boss to buy votes so he could win the presidency He philandered with a girlfriend who was also the mistress of this Mafia boss FDR wanted to fight a war with Japan and goaded them into it FDR was chummy with Stalin and thought that Stalin would work with him to create a world of democracy and peace He agreed to give Poland to Stalin but told Stalin not to publicize it because he didn't want to lose the Polish vote in the next presidential election the Marshall Plan did not help Europe to recover economically after WWII free markets did after WWII Russian POWs in the US were tear gassed at Ft Dix and sent back to the Soviet Union after they had begged not be sent back there and after USG officials promised that they would allow them to stay here Operation Keelhaul many Communists existed in the US a guy who won the Pulitzer prize for reporting that there was no famine in the Ukraine during Stalin's reign actually lied There was a massive famine When someone asked the Pulitzer prize committee to revoke his honor they refused a historian who was liberal and socialist changed his ways and returned to his boyhood Catholicism Lyndon Johnson stole his senate win LBJ's war on poverty actually made it worse under Clinton's reign US troops were sent to wars in the world total than in all the other presidencies combined Clinton probably bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Mogadishu to detract attention from his Lewinsky scandal

  4. Nate Nate says:

    The concept behind this book is great There are a slew of historical facts that are so vastly over simplified when you are a kid in history class that they end up effectively being lies Many history books and teachers also present complicated constitutional issues as if they are simple with of course the history teacher's view presented as the one true view The problem with this book is that Woods does these exact same things but he seems to think it's somehow better because he's coming from the conservative angle instead of the liberal He has some great facts in here but they are polluted by the fact that he is a conservative idealogue first and a historian secondThe best example I can think of is comparing his chapter on Reagan and the greed of the 80s to his chapter on Clinton Die hard Clintonistas like to ignore anything bad about the guy and Woods' Clinton chapter is an amusing attack that brings up some of the lesser known bad things about Clinton But while Republicans tend to be just as ridiculous about Reagan his chapter on Reagan and the 80s is just a straight up love fest The intellectually honest and politically incorrect thing to do is bring up the bad things that people on both sides of the fence ignore about their own icons not slam one and raise the other as a SaintAnother great example of his oversimplification of the facts and presentation of his view as historical fact is his comment on Michael Milken Woods goes on a rant about the greed of the 80s states repeatedly that Milken was not guilty of any crime and argues that Milken was convicted on six petty charges what Woods refers to as technicalities In fact Milken pled guilty to six securities felonies and the Judge in his case stated You were willing to commit only crimes that were unlikely to be detected When a man of your power in the financial world repeatedly conspires to violate and violates securities and tax business in order to achieve power and wealth for himself a significant prison term is reuired Apparently this history professor at Ludwig von Mises Institute believes he understands securities laws and the criminal code better than the judge who was actually presiding over the case Milken's story is a politically charged one and the prosecutors in that case did a number of very uestionable things but Milken's story is a complicated web and to present the opinion that Milken was not guilty of any crime as if it's a historical fact is ludicrousSimilarly Woods goes after the religious freedom argument and carries his strict constructionist viewpoint as if it's the only way to go His section on the Constitution is basically Here's a uote from one or two of the founding fathers so that's all the Constitution means and all the attorneys law professors and judges in the world who disagree with me are wrong This area of the law is far complicated than that and legal scholars have disagreed for decades over both a how locked down we need to be to the original words of the founders and b what exactly the two religion clauses mean Woods clearly doesn't get that which is understandable as he's not an attorney or a judge and he is completely unualified to be presenting his oversimplified view of the Constitution as if it is the only true positionFinally his whole discussion of the South is so defensive that when I was reading it I immediately guessed he lived in the South and went to look it up Not only was I right he lives in Alabama he was present at the founding of the League of the South and has contributed to its newsletter The League of the South is a Southern nationalist organization that promotes the independence of the Southern people from the American empire sees opposition to its promotion of the Confederate flag as cultural genocide After seeing him spend an entire chapter devoted essentially to downplaying the effect of slavery and trying to defend the Confederacy somehow I'm not surprisedI wish this book had been written by someone with a critical eye towards both sides of the aisle As it is it's a book with a few fantastic little known facts hidden in a mess of political propaganda and excuses for the Confederacy slavery and Native American exploitation

  5. Robin Damgaard Robin Damgaard says:

    Ron Paul recommends this book Enough said

  6. Sabio Sabio says:

    History is always presented by those in powerAcademics have a vested interest that it is presented their wayThis is a good counter balance

  7. Chris Chris says:

    History is written by the winners looking upon the past through rose colored glassesThis book negates the tintIt has some of the well known open secrets like Jefferson fathered his slave babies and Kennedy had affairs and used ghost writers but he mostly fills the book with the effects of well intentioned programs there's less integration in school districts with forced bussing programs that were meant to diversify the schools the reasons behind certain decisions why the founding fathers preferred a solid constitution rather than England's living document and excerpts of speeches that don't place the speaker in a good light Honest Abe thought blacks should never be jurors never be allowed to vote could never be eual and should always be inferior to whites Lincoln also looked into deporting all blacks immediately following the warAlso in the book are chapters about blatant lying and cheating and vote stealing that were thought to have taken place but were never proven until up to 50 years laterThe part I found most fascinating was where Woods corrects the general misconceptions I was taught about The Civil WarWar for Southern IndependenceWar of Northern Aggression The Civil War wasn't a civil war both in terms of the political end game and the way in which it was waged Civil wars consist of two factions trying to take control of the one government not one government trying to tell 13 other governments they can't leave the voluntary union General Sherman stated that according to what he learned at Westpoint he'd be hung for the atrocities he'd committed for the NorthThe war wasn't about slavery Union General and President and slave owner Ulysses S Grant said that if he thought the war was about slavery he'd resign his commission and give his sword to the Confederates

  8. David David says:

    I started listening to this in an attempt to have balanced opinions and education about American history Unfortunately this is not really a history book It is conservative propaganda and as such leaves out huge parts of the story Most of the book may very well be fact but it is fact in the same way that negative political ads are It presents select examples as proof that a much broader generalization is truth For example since some Native American tribes benefited in the short term from trade with the colonists the prevailing view of early Americans as genocidal swindlers must be false It is this distortion of truth that stopped me from categorizing this as either fiction or nonfiction In addition to this appalling bastardization of the very idea of history the writing is also unnecessarily divisive There are sections called Books You Aren't Supposed to Read that are usually published by Regnery an admittedly biased conservative publisher This invention of an authority that is trying to keep Conservative Truths from people is clear political propaganda Similar to his treatment of fact in general is Woods' treatment of the founding fathers He repeatedly gives a straw man view of a liberal political stance then refuted it with one or two uotes from founders His simplified clumping together of the founders who argued constantly about the way the new country should be run behind one sentence soundbites ignores the complexity of constitutional interpretation and political discourse in general It is not the conservative slant or positions that I take issue with It is the fact that they are not acknowledged by the publisher On the Regnery website it claims that the book presents the truth about America–objective and unvarnished It is the shameless lying that I have a problem with

  9. Oldbluebus Oldbluebus says:

    Addition to my high school curriculum

  10. Alan Alan says:

    This book while unpopular in liberal minded circles provides a lot of insight into some of the significant events in our Nation's history that are often overlooked in most of our high school history books The book describes how far our Nation has fallen from what it was originally intended to be For me at least this is a very discouraging reality I am an admirer of what the Founders originally put forth into this country via the Bill of Rights and the Constitution However many people find that they are of little use in today's Western 21st century 'modern' society Regardless of how you feel on the matter the reality is that the farther this Nation has fallen from the founding principles the worse our condition has become So my review is simply this; I enjoyed this book because it emphasized valid and factual examples of how we have fallen I don't believe the author was intentionally trying to be a 'downer' but he was intending to wave a caution flag in the air for those that are historically illiterate I'd recommend this book to those liberal or conservative that desire to get a better understanding of how we are perpetually failing as a Nation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *