As both a history teacher and a conservative, I have to admit to being quite amused by the foaming-at-the-mouth reaction liberals have had recently to the Texas Board of Education.  It seems that the board has approved changes to the history curriculum adopted for use in the Texas public school system. 

The New York Times, ever the beacon of objectivity and fairness, described the changes as, "put[ting] a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks."

The reason I find this situation amusing is because when you look at the actual changes approved for the curriculum, they demonstrate an effort to undo the revisionist, multicultural, politically correct garbage that has overrun American and world history texts for a generation.  In other words, the left isn't worried about history being rewritten; they're worried about seeing the history they've already rewritten being restored.

Take, for example, the curriculum surrounding World War II.  In history texts today, the liberal narrative is dominant: that the United States interned Japanese citizens because of fear, prejudice and inherent discrimination against a foreign race.  The Texas Board of Education has now required that narrative to include the reality that in addition to Japanese, both Germans and Italians living in the United States during World War II were also interned.

Or consider the treatment of "McCarthyism."  Liberal academics have long used high school and college history texts to portray this era as the lowest example of anti-communist paranoia run amuck.  But the Texas Board has now passed an amendment requiring that any retelling of McCarthyism include, "how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government."

Are these examples of "putting a conservative stamp on history?"  No.  They're simply telling the truth. 

Though it may be inconvenient for the left in trying to carry forth their self-loathing, Americans-as-imperial-racists agenda, we did intern Germans and Italians (the same race) as well as Japanese. 

And though it may be inconvenient for the left in trying to portray all conservatives as paranoid freaks who see communists under their beds, the Venona documents of declassified information did reveal that there were indeed multiple examples of Soviet operatives in high ranking positions of American government. 

Other examples abound.  The left may prefer that free market giants Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek be excluded from school curriculum in deference to John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx, but the reality is that the Texas Board is right to include them in American economics courses.

The left may find that teaching the violence inherent in the Black Panther movement hampers their lopsided retelling of the Civil Rights era, but the reality is that the Texas Board is right to tell students the full story.

And not just the full story, but the true story.  In what I think was the most illuminating example of what's happening in textbooks today, Mavis B. Knight, a liberal Democrat from Dallas, proposed that the Texas curriculum require students to study why, "the founding fathers...barred the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others."

The problem with Ms. Knight's proposal is that it's simply not true.  As the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives pointed out in 1854 while studying this very subject, "At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, [just] not any one [denomination]...The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among [Christian denominations] to the exclusion of others...There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."

An error indeed.  An error fabricated and perpetuated by the modern left whose allegiance to telling the truth about our past extends only to those phrases, figures, events or occurrences that fit their own ideological agenda. 

Ms. Knight is indicative of what the left has been doing to the history textbooks for a generation.  They see the events of the past as mere objects to be manipulated, changed, and rewritten so as to provide a catalyst for the social change they desperately desire. 

But don't take my word for it.  Their current opposition to the inclusion of factual history that they simply don't like, coupled with their continued insistence on trying to include blatantly false propaganda, reveals all you need to know about who is attempting to "rewrite" the pages of our history.

When the one time pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak was stammering through his bizarre press conference announcing that he and his cohorts would support ObamaCare, a friend texted me, "That's all she wrote."  I fired back, "Hardly."

Here's why: if I asked you to name a famous battle of the American Civil War, what would you say?  Most would name Gettysburg, some might mention Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, or even Sherman's March to the Sea.  But left off most everyone's list would be the battle that started it all...the firing on Fort Sumter.  That's primarily due to the fact that though it was the sparking event, the skirmish paled in comparison to the back and forth drama that would unfold over the next half a decade. 

What happened Sunday in the House of Representatives was merely the opening skirmish of a coming war over not just healthcare in America, but abortion, states' rights, and the Constitution itself.

In the days leading up to the vote, several Democrats on Capitol Hill were heard remarking that they just wanted to get this vote behind them and move on with other business.  That might have been possible if they would have voted to kill this unconstitutional monstrosity that is now poised to obliterate state economies.  But they didn't.  Instead, they fired on Fort Sumter.

So where will we see the next offensive in this unfolding war?  Most likely the federal courts will take center stage as the embittered states fight back against the betrayal of their sovereignty and the shattering of their budgets. 

Here in Indiana, for example, the state has reported that the enactment of ObamaCare will open up the government subsidized Medicaid system to approximately 500,000 Hoosiers.  That means half a million more citizens will be receiving taxpayer-funded healthcare.  But who will pay for it?  Well, in order to carry off their outrageous lie to the American people that ObamaCare is going to save us money (the hubris behind such a laughable suggestion is impossible to fully grasp), the Democrats have mandated that the states pick up the tab for this Medicaid stampede.

Someone should tell the teachers' unions who foam at the mouth anytime someone mentions funding cuts to the public school system that they ain't seen nothin' yet.  When a state like Indiana has to pick up a tab that equals billions of dollars to fund the excessive doctor and hospital visits that will soon be "free" to 500,000 more citizens, does anyone expect not to see drastic cuts in other areas, as well as massive tax increases?  Yet teachers unions' continue to support the very Democrats who are forcing this funding Armageddon.

So the states will undoubtedly sue - indeed somewhere between five to ten are already actively pursuing such a strategy.  They will ask the federal courts to strike down multiple provisions of ObamaCare, including the blatantly unconstitutional federal mandate that all citizens purchase healthcare. 

Even the most left-leaning constitutional law experts have had a hard time coming up with a defense of the individual mandate.  About the best they've got is the silly suggestion that such a mandate is permissible under the Commerce Clause.  But at the end of the day, they are forced to recognize that if that be the case, the Commerce Clause must be interpreted to give Congress the ability to force anyone to buy anything (next time GM is in trouble, they could just pass a law requiring you to buy a GM vehicle within a year) - a clearly untenable position to anyone who is sane.

A second battle will manifest at the ballot box as Congressional Democrats face the uncomfortable reality that their president and party leadership have made them walk the plank into a sea of furious, motivated citizens.  In order to secure enough votes for passage, President Obama promised wary lawmakers that their constituents would forget about this issue come election day.  That, of course, is preposterous.  The vote Sunday only guaranteed an explosion of growth for the Tea Party movement.  And it also demonstrated this crystal clear reality: there is a difference between the two political parties...a BIG difference.

Say what you will about past Republican Party indiscretions (and there have been many), but not a single Republican voted for this atrocity.  In fact, Republicans led a courageous effort to thwart the authoritarian Democrats while offering common sense alternatives that actually would help lower health care costs.

So that's what's coming next.  From there, it's too early to tell.  Millions of citizens are preparing to engage in civil disobedience to prevent their tax money from being used to pay for abortions (as ObamaCare did, does, and will always allow), several states are reviving the nullification theory, and Republicans are promising a fight to repeal the legislation.

But this much is clear: Sunday's vote was only the beginning.  Things are about to get very interesting. 

The South is rising again.  Before I go any further, let me clarify.  Sadly, too many in our country possess the superficial and ignorant perception that the only impetus behind southern secession was to perpetuate the abhorrent practice of slavery.  Therefore, when they hear such a phrase, their kneejerk reaction tells them this must be about race.  I assure you, it's not.

When the North invaded the South during the 1860s, it was to deny the southern states the ultimate expression of their sovereignty - the ability to withdraw from a union they had voluntarily joined.  Interestingly, secession was a right that the northern New England states had contemplated using themselves in the 1804 Hartford Convention when they felt the national government had become too oppressive.

Nevertheless, Lincoln's views on government were clearly expressed in his famous "House Divided" speech when he articulated to the south that he would not allow different states to take different sides on different issues.  We would, "become all one thing, or all the other."  With all due respect to Mr. Lincoln, this was a radical departure from the Founders' view of federalism and good government.  And as a consequence, things got really ugly.

So what does any of this have to do with our current situation?  As it turns out, more than you might think.  For instance, in light of our current situation, consider the following words:

"Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? Those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the constitution; who would preserve to the states and the people all powers not expressly delegated; who would make this a federal and not a national Union...And who are its enemies? Those who are in favor of consolidation; who are constantly stealing power from the states, and adding strength to the federal government; who, assuming an unwarrantable jurisdiction over the states and the people, undertake to regulate the whole industry and capital of the country."

Sounds like something you just heard on C-SPAN from Mike Pence, Jim DeMint, or Michael Steele, doesn't it?

In actuality, those were the words of the famous South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne in his epic debate with Senator Daniel Webster in 1830.  To those who say that history doesn't repeat itself, all evidence to the contrary.  For as Americans have lined up and taken sides in the current dispute over the nationalizing of healthcare (the equivalent of 1/6 of the country's economy), it's important for us to note that this is but another chapter in the longest standing argument in American history.

The debate itself began in the oppressively hot Philadelphia summer of 1787 when anti-federalists and federalists locked themselves in a bitter exchange over the appropriate balance of power between the states and the national government. 

It continued in the mid 1800s with the nullification crisis and Civil War.  FDR extended it in the 1930s by his radical revolution of nationalizing virtually every industry he could get his hands on, followed by LBJ doubling down on those efforts some forty years later with his Great Society.  And now in 2010, their heir apparent - Barack Obama - is administering the largest federal government power grab in the nation's history.

There is one frightening reality about this list.  Each of those examples saw the eventual defeat of states' rights and individual liberty.  Patrick Henry, Robert Hayne, John C. Calhoun, the Constitutionalists who opposed the New Deal, Barry Goldwater.despite powerful appeals, they were eventually unsuccessful in convincing the country to halt the massive intrusion of expansive national government.

Will the current Tea Party patriots and other liberty loving individuals eventually meet the same fate?  Perhaps.  But thankfully, Barack Obama and his cohorts are meeting a wall of opposition not seen in well over a century.  To this point, 37 states have taken up legislation to essentially resurrect the nullification doctrine and void the enforcement of the blatantly unconstitutional individual mandate should ObamaCare pass.

It's been a long time since three-fourths of the states in this country have been on the same page regarding anything, much less such a critical issue.

Yes, the spirit of the South is rising again, but this time it's different.  This time it's all over the country.

One of the most serious consequences coming from our society's collective abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethic handed down to us from our Founders is our startling tendency to drift from truth into utter confusion.  While the Biblical worldview provides a solid foundation upon which to build our respect for life, liberty and property, its emerging replacement - moral relativism - offers only the passing whims and fancies of whichever political and cultural fad is currently in vogue.

Take for example what recently occurred at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  The fascinating topic of conversation (please note the sarcasm) was the ethical and policy implications of dolphin intelligence.  In other words, should we grant dolphins some form of human rights that would protect them to a greater degree than other animals?

All of these over-educated folks gave powerful testimony of how the dolphin brain was very large and advanced.  Lori Marino of Emory University pointed out that beyond just size, the dolphin brain is incredibly developed and, "stack(s) up quite well to human brains."

But it was Thomas White of Loyola Marymount University who stole the show and demonstrated just how dangerously confused our society is becoming.  According to ScienceNOW magazine, White "made the argument that dolphins aren't merely like people - they may actually be people, or at least, 'nonhuman persons' as he described them."

Evidently White made the suggestion that since dolphins meet virtually all the criteria that philosophers agree help us define humanity (living, aware of environment, demonstrate emotions), it should logically be accepted that dolphins are people too.  Of course, if this is the criteria that must be met for personhood to be granted, one could make a strong case for apes, baboons, dogs, cats, rabbits, and a whole host of other animals to be put on the same philosophical plane as humans.  Oddly enough, the same geniuses that want dolphins to be protected with personhood rights are the very ones who vehemently deny baby humans in the womb those same rights.

This would be unbelievable if it weren't so predictable.  This nonsense is the logical end to an illogical worldview.  It is exactly what to expect when your culture has torn itself free from any foundational moorings.

The biblical worldview is clear: man is God's crowning achievement in all of creation.  He is a being created in the very image of God, and therefore is to be valued and protected to a much greater degree than other beings in the creaturely realm.  This position of superiority allows him to exercise dominion and dominance over all other living things.  A "person" then is not merely the fulfillment of some philosophical checklist, but rather is a distinction given only to those who bear the image of the Creator.  Sorry Flipper, you don't make the cut.

Now, this reality in no way justifies or excuses unbridled cruelty to animals.  While human beings are the highest form of life, the biblical mandate of stewardship is binding.  It demands that we use those things put under our dominion wisely and appropriately.  Making an argument against dolphin slaughter is therefore completely legitimate and warranted.  But basing that argument on the idiotic proposition that dolphins are people certainly isn't.

Yet that is the direction we are being taken by the towering intellects of pop culture.  They find the notion of a Creator unenlightened and therefore seek to build a cultural worldview solely upon the shifting sands of prevailing popular opinion and totally removed from the concept of a transcendent moral authority. 

But when you begin with the assumption that there is no Creator, the distinction of humanity quickly gets lost in a fog of philosophy.  We blur lines that should otherwise appear clearly visible and get caught up in strange and bizarre arguments that lack any substantive grounding.

The end result is a society that would grant dolphins and apes the unalienable right to life while denying baby humans in the womb the same.  That is the very definition of confusion...tragic confusion.