Does this generation of Americans stand in rightful awe of what was sacrificed on their behalf? The second president issued this exhortation: “Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make good use of it.”

Thomas Jefferson’s accumulated sagacity is equal to that of Adams, his longtime nemesis and friend. Our third president and author of the Declaration of Independence dispensed priceless wisdom on the meaning of ordered liberty, and the dangers of a large and powerful state:

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others … A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned … To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical … I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”

Jefferson echoed the sentiments of Adams on the crucial question of knowledge: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” And on the question of longevity, Jefferson was unfortunately prescient: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Adams believed much the same: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Is this where our constitutional republic stands today – wasted, exhausted, murdering itself? Rising generations are being steeped in a toxic redefinition of the American story. Such lack of reverence for the heritage and law of any land has always been a certain harbinger of decline.

thenewstalkers

One of the progressives who wanted more change than our system then would allow them.  

What is that supposed to mean?  Harry S. Truman was far from being a radical.

I've read Jefferson-does-Palin's nonsense before, so that idea was assumed to be true.  His continued existence is an insult to the human genome.

I never said he was a radical.  He was FDR’s replacement of a real radical(Henry Wallace) as VP on his 1944 ticket.  He was still a progressive.  

Is that really your best attempt to backpedal from your previous statements of abject idiocy?

My cat has coughed up hairballs that are far more intelligent than anything you have ever posted. 

[deleted]

I never said anything other than him being a progressive.  It is only you that brought the word radical into the conversation and only to accuse me of using the term instead of progressive that I did use.  

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

This is so out of context, that it really has no meaning. He was talking about democracy vs. a monarchy. This is the full quote:

“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”

This was in a letter to his wife, concerning all forms of government, which he was concerned about. It is also why we have a democratic republic and not a pure democracy. His concerns were not only his.

The irony here is that this article is talking about knowing our history and messes up one of the most valuable lessons there is from it. Maybe the writer needs to go back to school?

His education is fine.  My quote was Adams to start but ended clearly and obviously with Jefferson’s take on Adams words.  So, what you are questioning is not the words of the author or me but those of the author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson was clearly right.  

The author again has it wrong. It's not that Jefferson is right or wrong. The quote again is taken out of context. This quote is taken from a letter about taxation to a friend regarding the Constitution. It's too long to print here, so I will give you the link. 

founders.archives

Honestly, this writer proves how easy it is to twist history and get the wrong meaning out of our founders, who I do admire, even if they were flawed.

Jefferson was clearly right.  

Jefferson was clearly no infallible human being as evidenced by his ownership of slaves and his long term affair with his own wife's half sister, who bore him many negro children.

He could write flowery prose and talk the talk, but could not walk the walk.

Ironically you are no Jefferson are are rarely correct about anything political, ever.

Honestly, this writer proves how easy it is to twist history and get the wrong meaning out of our founders, who I do admire, even if they were flawed.

He proves how easy it is to twist history when people are poorly educated.

The same is true of mathematics, where our national ignorance seems infinite.

... so that they can use socialism, climate change, and the pandemic to impose their new world order in the USA.

Irrational fear.

Not in the slightest.  It is in fact what the bi coastal progressive elites and the super wealthy there want to do to the rest of us.  They are actively trying to destroy the middle and working class as well as small local business America.  They are an alliance of the super rich, the multinational, the big bankers, the most educated elites, and the non working and new citizen poor against the rest of us.  

You do realize that the only people who talk about the "working class" are communists, right? That everything you wrote there, could have come from Lenin. 

Trump talked about us all the time.  He was no communist.  He recognized what I did not for too long, that the establishment elites, corporate Titans, wall st bankers were using free trade to hollow out the working and middle class across the heartland enriching the coasts and impoverishing the middle. I used to be an avid free trader but now it’s about fair trade.  

And who does Lauren Boebert represent?  Her husband is making millions in energy consulting.

( which she conveniently forgot to report?)

Your preferred hero's including the whole Trump family have duped you like a common rube.

They ARE  the Elite.

You are wrong again.

Find me one speech where Trump talked about the "working class". He would never have said super-rich, because he claimed to be not just one, but one of the richest people in the US. His business was a multinational one, and he borrowed regularly from big bankers. You got me with being educated since although he went to one of the most elite schools, he seemed to have walked away with a very limited vocabulary. He put many small businesses out of business, so so much for caring about small business.

Anyway, you make it sound like it is a crime to have an education while preaching about what we should be learning and without having any real context.

As I said these are the words right out of the communist manifesto. 

hbr

From our analysis of Trump’s speeches, we can identify three pillars of his rhetorical strategy still in use by him today.

Moral absolution for his base of supporters, white workers without college degrees. We established that the word “workers” appeared more frequently in Trump’s stump speeches than references to any other social category (except “donors”), and that these references were overwhelmingly positive. Most important, Trump addressed workers’ concerns about their downward position in the national pecking order by removing blame from them. Previous research by one of us (Michéle) has found that being hardworking, responsible, and providing are the three most salient moral traits of both white and black working-class people. Being unemployed or underemployed is thus, for many in the working class, not only an economic catastrophe but also a moral one. Trump’s rhetoric assuaged that sense of moral guilt.

More specifically, he repeatedly blamed globalization for deindustrialization, thus supporting workers’ self-concepts as responsible, hard-working people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. He also highlighted the structural character of economic transformations in rural and urban America and promised to create “jobs, jobs, jobs” as the key to restoring these workers’ wounded pride and improving their economic situations.

news.harvard

Instead of analyzing Trump’s word choices through traditionally narrow lenses of race or ethnicity, for example, Lamont said they looked at how his rhetoric reinforced a broader theme of exclusion by emphasizing the boundaries that working-class whites perceive between themselves and others, whether racial, ethno-national, educational, socioeconomic, or religious.

“We could immediately see how he was appealing to workers by talking about blaming globalization, saying he was going to give [them] jobs” — and not just white workers, but African-Americans and Latinos too, Lamont said in an interview. “His populist argument was oriented toward appealing to all workers,

Trump talked about us all the time.  He was no communist.  He recognized what I did not for too long, that the establishment elites

Trump.

, corporate Titans,

Trump.

wall st bankers

Who bankrolled Trump.

were using free trade to hollow out the working and middle class across the heartland enriching the coasts

Where Trump has almost all of his US properties.

and impoverishing the middle. I used to be an avid free trader but now it’s about fair trade.

Which Trump made NO EFFORT to mitigate in the 4 years he was in office. 

Irrational fear.

And delusional too.

 The founding fathers whom we all ought to forever revere were right about it and our need to be informed and educated 1776 style.

I think I'll post some passages about Thomas Jefferson from the book "Stamped From The Beginning: The Definitive History Of Racist Ideas In America".  They are rather enlightening. 

I’m sure the progressives who hated the founders and disliked the constitution as outdated and an obstacle to their schemes will vent their hate of 1776 America 🇺🇸 blaming it for not having 2021 morals and ideals immediately then.  

Stop talking about how "great" these people were then. 

We have a constitution , that is all we need.  We dont need to hero worship people who believed racist ideas. 

John, I will disagree with you. These men were great as the put everything they had on the line, to build a new nation and without them, we would not have our country. We are the first nation to break away from the parent nation, and that took great foresight. You can not measure them by today's standards. We don't regard them as gods but look at them in their totality.

Also, these signers of the Declaration didn't own slaves:

John Adams, Samuel Adams, George Clymer, William Ellery, Elbridge Gerry, Samuel Huntington, Thomas McKean, Robert Treat Paine, Roger Sherman, Charles Thomson, George Walton, William Williams and James Willson.

So we erase all history of everything everywhere any of its participants held racist views?  Do we ignore all the accomplishments and inventions, music, literature, art, and enlightened thought of people of the past who didn’t meet the standards you hold people to today?  

To some the only important thing in history is were historical figures nice to blacks. 

why is it of any importance? 

Look, let's get real. At best, and I mean at best, the founding fathers that owned slaves but "opposed" slavery lacked the courage of their convictions.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on the inferiority of blacks. If the most brilliant mind in the colonies thought blacks lacked intelligence, character , and a work ethic, dont you think many of the regularl people would think so too? 

Jefferson allegedly "knew" that slavery was wrong but did absolutely nothing to end or diminish it. In fact he is on record as saying it would be left for a later generation to deal with. He owned an average of 200 slaves at any given point of his adulthood. He needed them to maintain his patrician lifestyle. Later in life he couldnt free them because he was in immense debt due to his careless spending on his home and his hobbies. 

Revere Jefferson, and many of the others, for what they did to create a country and a constitution. NONE of them should be revered for their positions on race. NONE. 

I dont mind hearing in history books that the founding fathers created a constitution and started the USA. But "revering" them as people given what is known about their racism is offensive. 

And hearing about the greatness of the  "founding fathers" just about every day on Newstalkers. ?  Come on. 

Many of the FF wanted to abolish slavery. But they allowed it so some southern states would agree to ratify the constitution.

To some the only important thing in history is were historical figures nice to blacks

No one says it is the only important thing, but yes, it is an important thing. Why wouldn't it be, considering that racial prejudice continued on strongly for 240 years after the Declaration of Independence.   Are you serious? 

what about free blacks who owned slaves?

so what?  In 1830 free blacks owned about 1/2 of one percent of all slaves in America. Whites owned 99.5%

But even more than that, the rationale for African slavery was black inferiority. Racism in America was both created and spread through the rationalizations whites created to justify slavery. 

Name one that owned slaves that wanted to abolish slavery across the country within their own lifetimes. 

Thomas Jefferson & James Madison for starters.

For starters -

Jefferson's image in America would be almost perfect, were it not for 
slavery. But, alas, Jefferson owned slaves throughout his adulthood and 
freed only a handful during his life and in his will.  After the Revolution 
he did nothing to help America solve what was clearly its most serious 
social and political problem. In the words of David Brion Davis, "After 
his return to America" in late 1789, "the most remarkable thing about 
Jefferson's stand on slavery is his immense silence." He failed ever to 
come to terms with the institution on either a personal or political level. Thomas_Jefferson_and_Antislavery_The_Myt.pdf

To the best of my knowledge Jefferson never advocated ending slavery within his lifetime. In fact, he said it would have to be left for later generations to do. 

1. Princeton & Slavery | James Madison

   slavery.princeton

   James Madison,   Princeton alumnus and fourth President of the United States, held contradictory views on   slavery   throughout his life—arguing that   slavery   was incompatible with Revolutionary principles even as he owned over one hundred   slaves   on his Virginia plantation, brought   enslaved   people to the White House, and ultimately sold them for personal profit.

Missouri’s application for admission into the Union as a slave state in 1819 sparked the most bitter debate over slavery of Madison’s post-presidential years. Madison took what was for all practical purposes a pro-slavery position. He denied that the Constitution’s slave trade clause had ever been intended to empower Congress to regulate slavery internally or that the framers had intended to allow discrimination against new states in the matter of slavery. He denied, less plausibly, that Congress’s power to govern federal territories included the ability to ban slavery in them.

Madison, James and Slavery – Encyclopedia Virginia

Madison occasionally condemned the institution of slavery and opposed the international slave trade, but he also vehemently opposed any attempts to restrict its domestic expansion. Madison did not free his slaves during his lifetime or in his will.

List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves - Wikipedia

The third element of Jefferson's hatred of slavery resulted from his 
profound racism. He had little empathy for those who allowed themselves to be reduced to "degrading submissions." He assumed their 
inferiority, based on their race.

Absurdly, he suggested blackness might 
come "from the colour of the blood."Jefferson collected fossils, kept 
track of the weather, and carefully observed plants, animals, soil, and 
people. Surely he was capable of making the casual observation or 
serious scientific investigation necessary to prove or debunk his theory 
on the color of human blood.

His suggestion that blacks might inbreed 
with the "Oran-ootan" was laughable; his assertion that black men 
preferred white women was empirically not supportable. The reverse 
was more likely the case, as he certainly knew. Many white men, 
including his late father-in-law, maintained sexual liaisons with female 
slaves. 

He found the very appearance of his slaves offensive. He could 
hardly stand the "eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, 
that immoveable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other 
race."   He surely "hated" the slave, whom he could not even look at as 
an individual. In his slaves he saw only a monotony of color and 
countenance, punctuated by "a very strong and disagreeable odour."

Jefferson hated slavery because he hated the slave and the Negro and 
because he hated what slavery did to white people. In the end, however, he could do little about it except express his fears about the institution's 
ill effects on the master class and the problem of self-preservation.

What he never understood was that only by striving for justice might he 
achieve "self-preservation." Thus, his hatred of slavery was unproductive and limited to complaints about how it affected whites, to frightened 
letters to close confidants, and to occasional pious pronouncements 
about the evils of the institution. 

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND 
ANTISLAVERY 
The Myth Goes On 
by Paul Finkelman* 

Thomas_Jefferson_and_Antislavery_The_Myt.pdf

At the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson said he would release his slaves if they kept HIS antislavery clause. But the DoI needed to be a unanimous vote, and by having it in, a block of representatives would walk, and so it was strike from the original version. 

I suggest a good reading on Jefferson, called "American Sphynx". He was a flawed but brilliant man. 

Franklin had a few, released them in his lifetime, and then started the first abolitionist society in the US. 

I dont doubt he was brilliant. He was also racist based on his belief that Africans were an inferior race. The anti slavery clause in the DOI wouldnt have freed any slaves, it was an argument against the Crown. 

He [King George III] has waged cruel War against human Nature itself, violating its most Sacred Right of Life & Liberty in the Persons of a distant People who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into Slavery in another Hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their Transportation thither. This piratical Warfare, the opprobrium of infidel Powers, is the Warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. He has prostituted his Negative for Suppressing every legislative Attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable Commerce, determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, and that this Assemblage of Horrors might want no Fact of distinguished Die, he is now exciting those very People to rise in Arms among us, and to purchase that Liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former Crimes committed against the Liberties of one People, with Crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

It has been noted that Jefferson believed in revolution for him and his, but if slaves attempted a revolution it would be "murder". 

That is an opinion of some dude John. Did you ever read Jefferson's antislavery clause?

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.

Jefferson went on to call the institution of slavery “piratical warfare,” “execrable commerce” and an “assemblage of horrors.” He then criticized the crown for

“exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

The removal was mostly fueled by political and economic expediencies. While the 13 colonies were already deeply divided on the issue of slavery, both the South and the North had financial stakes in perpetuating it. Southern plantations, a key engine of the colonial economy, needed free labor to produce tobacco, cotton and other cash crops for export back to Europe. Northern shipping merchants, who also played a role in that economy, remained dependent on the triangle trade between Europe, Africa and the Americas that included the traffic in enslaved Africans .

Decades later, in his autobiography, Jefferson primarily blamed two Southern states for the clause’s removal, while acknowledging the North’s role as well.

"The clause...reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under these censures; for tho' their people have very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

To call slavery a “cruel war against human nature itself” may have accurately reflected the values of many of the founders, but it also underscored the paradox between what they said and what they did. Jefferson, after all, had been tasked with writing a document to reflect the interests of an assemblage of slave-owning colonies with a profound commercial interest in preserving the trade in human beings. One third of the Declaration’s signers were personally enslavers and even in the North, where abolition was more widely favored, states passed “gradual emancipation” laws designed to slowly phase out the practice.

Jefferson himself had a complicated relationship to the “peculiar institution.” Despite his philosophical abhorrence of slavery and his ongoing legislative efforts to abolish the practice, Jefferson over his lifetime enslaved more than 600 people—including his own children with his enslaved concubine Sally Hemings. On his death in 1826, Jefferson, long plagued with debt, chose not to free any of the human beings he claimed as property.

history

As for its removal, this is what the net result was:

Indeed, removing Jefferson's condemnation of slavery would prove the most significant deletion from the Declaration of Independence. The founders’ failure to directly address the question of slavery exposed the hollowness of the words “all men created equal.” Nonetheless, the underlying ideals of freedom and equality expressed in the document have inspired generations of Americans to struggle to obtain their inalienable rights.

So, it might not have freed the slaves, but it would have defined the country better. It also deferred the question to a later date.

At the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson said he would release his slaves if they kept HIS antislavery clause

If Jefferson released his slaves he would have been broke.  He was not the kind of man who would accept anything other than the finer things in life. 

The self-preservation of Jefferson's way of life also depended on 
slavery. Here the image of the wolf is suggestive of the dangers to 
republican values caused by the peculiar institution. The wolf may also 
have been the wolf of gluttony and greed. Jefferson was compulsively 
acquisitive. This behavior violated republican principles, but Jefferson 
seemed incapable of resisting the temptation to acquire things. Slavery 
and the wealth it produced fostered this behavior. Without his slaves 
Jefferson could not have purchased his wine, his paintings, and his 
furniture or built Monticello to house them all. Garry Wills points out 
that while in France "Jefferson went on a buying spree" that "was 
staggering in its intensity. At times it must have looked as if he meant to 
take much of Paris back with him to his mountain 'chateau.' 
" 
When he 
left France, he shipped eighty-six large crates back to the United States. 
His treasures included "sixty-three oil paintings, seven busts by 
Houdon, forty-eight formal chairs, S?vres table sculptures of biscuit, 
damask hangings, four full-length mirrors in gilt frames, four marble topped tables, 120 porcelain plates, and numberless items of personal 
luxury."

In the 1790s Jefferson sold some fifty slaves to pay the debts 
that grew out of his luxurious life-style. "Self-preservation" for Jefferson was at least in part economic. He was dependent on slaves and he 
did not like it, but he did not dislike it enough to do anything about it. 

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND 
ANTISLAVERY 
The Myth Goes On 
by Paul Finkelman* 

Thomas_Jefferson_and_Antislavery_The_Myt.pdf

That is an opinion of some dude John. Did you ever read Jefferson's antislavery clause?

Everything people say about Jefferson today is an opinion. 

Do you think that the author of American Sphinx had a personal point of view? 

About 30 years or so ago Encyclopedia Britannica revised its article on Thomas Jefferson to include the more modern scholarship that Jeffersons views on slavery and race were very problematic, and did in fact damage his theretofore pristine reputation. 

Do you think that the author of American Sphinx had a personal point of view? 

He presented a complex and realistic view of Jefferson. This was well long before Encyclopedia Britannica revised its article.

Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was publicly a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” 1  and a “hideous blot,” 2  he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. 3  Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. 4   These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition. 5  In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans. 6   In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories. 7  But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation.  To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves. 8

monticello

 In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans.

Meaningless. They had more than enough slaves already in America to keep it going as long as they wanted. 

What point are you trying to make John? Jefferson & Madison didn't want slavery. But they knew the southern states would not ratify the constitution had they abolished it from the get go. So they had no choice but to let it stand. They probably hoped it would be abolished in their lifetimes, but were also realistic about it. But then, I never said they would be able to abolish slavery in their lifetimes. Only that they needed it for ratification purposes.

Thomas Jefferson made his living off slave labor. He owned a plantation. 

The belief that he didnt want slavery is a little far fetched. He may have wanted it to end, sometime in the future. 

Maybe he didn't want slavery, but he never "freed" his six children by Sally - nor did he "free" Sally.

The belief that he didnt want slavery is a little far fetched.

I go by facts, not belief John!

I go by facts, not belief John!

You dont seem to understand the facts about this. In his entire life Jefferson made one attempt to end slavery. 

And that proposal would only have effected NEW states into the Union, not the original 13 (of which one was his state of Virginia).  

I really dont even understand what you are basing your argument on. 

You do understand that Thomas Jefferson was racist, dont you?  Or should I post some of his writings about Africans ? 

You dont seem to understand the facts about this. In his entire life Jefferson made one attempt to end slavery.  And that proposal would only have effected NEW states into the Union, not the original 13 (of which one was his state of Virginia).  

Wrong! States like Georgia & So. Carolina would have not ratified the Constitution to begin with had slavery not been allowed. That's what the concern was.

You do understand that Thomas Jefferson was racist, dont you?  Or should I post some of his writings about Africans ? 

That's not relevant to why he allowed slavery to continue.

It is clear that he wanted it gone in the future.  He primarily wanted there to be a country first.  

Also, these signers of the Declaration didn't own slaves:

Unfortunately, the vast majority did and we were stuck with that mentality for far too long. 

The point is that at the time there was no way to to both end slavery and have a United States as we know it.  Jefferson clearly did not like slavery.  He clearly was invested in the concept of keeping the young United States together as one nation.  That he put the country to be first and set in motion the tools to ultimately end slavery later is not to me to be considered a negative.  

That he put the country to be first and set in motion the tools to ultimately end slavery later is not to me to be considered a negative.

Tell me what Thomas Jefferson set in motion.  XX, do you know that Thomas Jefferson was a racist, yes or no? 

He raised Sally Hemmings, his wife's half sister, to become a servant to her own 2 younger nieces,

Thomas and Marthas's daughters Polly and Patsy. 

While in Paris, Thomas began using 14 year old Sally as a concubine.

It's not clear if Sally was pregnant when she returned to the US with the Jeffersons

but she bore her first of 6 more Jeffersons at age 17 in 1790.

He clearly did great things for the country while loving the slavery that allowed him to keep

Monticello in it's glory and Sally in his bed.

He through the Declaration of Independence set the framework for creation of a more perfect Union.  He was not in Country during the constitutional convention due to serving us abroad.  He was not part of the compromises that made the constitution possible.  He set the outlines of what would one day happen when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.  His contributions to the country at its founding and as President of the United States far outweighs any personal shortcomings of his.  I have no doubt that today Jefferson would be called a racist. His taking on of Islamic state terrorism and undertaking the Louisiana purchase and the role in the founding of the country far outweighs other considerations.  

Young Americans are  indoctrinated  into the socialist worldview early and thoroughly, these days, through their two chief sources of information; educational institutions and big media.

I'm not sure this man actually knows any young Americans.

I totally agree.

And you know exactly what about him, his education, history, and family?  

And you know exactly what about him, his education, history, and family?  

I know most young people do not get their information from educational institutions or "big media". 

You really think young people don’t get information from school or from big social media?  

You really think young people don’t get information from school  

No. They don't learn shit in school.  That evidence is overwhelming.

or from big social media?

"Social" media??

So we started this with "two chief sources of informations" and "big media".  We're now to any level of information and social media.  Just exactly how far are these goalposts going to move?  Do I need to make travel arrangements?

In any case, Donner here is using one of the oldest and best formations in the Insane Young Leftists Playbook.  He wants to pretend that people who disagree with his own batshit version of politics must be under the mesmerizing influence of a nefarious Spectre-style cabal, and if they could just get free into glorious enlightenment they would agree with his crazy ass.

This is exactly the tack liberals have been taking for a decade or more, using Fox News as the mouthpiece for said cabal and the Koch brothers as the villains sitting somewhere in secret while maniacally stroking a white cat.

So I'll tell you the same thing I tell them.  People who disagree with this foolishness do so because they have minds of their own, not because they're under hypnosis or living in some pod plugged into the Matrix waiting for the red pill.  They're not being "indoctrinated".  They just see things differently because they've had different life experiences.