Happy Thanksgiving!

 

Happy Thanksgiving!  Hope you all are having a fine and thankful day.  Even though many have fallen on hard times in one way or another... we all still have at least one thing to be thankful for.  I'm thankful to still be alive, I'm thankful for my friends and family, and I'm especially thankful for my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Happy Birthday Marine Corps!

November 10th is a big day for Marines. It's the 236th birthday of the United States Marine Corps.  My dad was a Marine in Vietnam. I believe this day is more important to him than his own birthday.

This is my dad.

Dad when he was in the Marines.

(he's the dark one in the cap, American Indian ancestry on his father's side, he gets so dark when exposed to the sun; I got more of my mother's fair complexion)

I Fought For You: By The Sound Tank

My dad forwarded this to me.

College Has Become a Consumer Fraud

College Has Become a Consumer Fraud
Monday, 17 May 2010 09:59 AM
By: Ronald Kessler

College catalogs are as enticing as brochures for shiny new cars. They promise intellectual stimulation, critical thinking, and preparation for a rewarding life. But like come-ons for underwater land, the claims of liberal arts colleges are bogus.

Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato began the liberal arts tradition of learning in ancient Greece. They advocated systematic reflection and a search for truth. The term liberal arts itself comes from the Latin word liber, meaning free.

Today, colleges impose rigid conformity. Rather than encouraging students to find the truth for themselves, they propagandize, usually with a far-left cast. Rather than encouraging open-mindedness, they promote stereotypical thinking and adherence to preconceptions and dogma.

In short, a college education — at roughly $40,000 a year — has become a consumer fraud.

The corruption of college has taken place over decades. That is why some of the most brilliant and successful figures dropped out of college or never attended in the first place.

Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, left Harvard after two years. Socichiro Honda, founder of Honda Motor Co., left home at 15 and never got a degree, which he said would be “worth less than a movie ticket.”

Henry Ford dropped out of school at the age of 16. Edwin H. Land, who brought the world the Polaroid camera, polarized sunglasses, and 3-D movies, left Harvard University after his freshman year. F. Scott Fitzgerald dropped out of Princeton.

William Faulkner dropped out of the University of Mississippi. Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook from his Harvard dormitory, but after the social networking website exploded in popularity, he quit school and became a full-time entrepreneur.

To placate his parents, Michael Dell enrolled at the University of Texas. He began buying remaindered, outmoded IBM PCs from local retailers, upgrading them in his dorm room, then selling them. Eyeing the burgeoning inventory piling up in their room, Dell’s roommate moved the parts to the door and suggested that Dell move out.

Dell did—and decided to drop out at the end of his freshman year.

Others who dropped out of high school or college include Larry Page (Google), David Geffen (Geffen Records), Steve Jobs (Apple), Richard Branson (Virgin), Ralph Lauren (Ralph Lauren), and Jerry Yang (Yahoo).

In fact, one in five billionaires never finished college. Nine presidents, including George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Harry S. Truman, never earned a college degree.

To be sure, genius will never make its home in a structured learning environment. Thomas Edison rebelled against school and was told by his headmaster he would “never make a success of anything.”Albert Einstein could not read until he was seven. He hated school and dropped out at 15.

One of his teachers told him, “You will never amount to anything.”

But if colleges encouraged the kind of innovative thinking they profess to nurture, they would attract, rather than repel, brilliant minds.

More important, they would stop turning out cookie-cutter graduates who cannot think outside of the box.

Michael Dell and Bill Gates dropped out of college precisely because they wouldn’t — or couldn’t — tailor their thinking to the prevailing wisdom.

“I took one course that was remotely related to business — macroeconomics,” Dell has said. “One of the things that really helped me is not approaching the world in a conventional sense,” he said. “There are plenty of conventional thinkers out there.”

As practiced today, the very heart of the academic approach is flawed. In the political sciences, that approach entails postulating a theory and shoe-horning reality into it.

For example, Myra G. Gutin taught a course on first ladies at Rider University in New Jersey. In her book “The President's Partner,” she sorted first ladies into three categories: ceremonial (Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower), whose role was said to be mostly entertaining; emerging spokeswoman (Jacqueline Kennedy, Pat Nixon), who promoted issues important to them; and activist (Eleanor Roosevelt, Betty Ford).

While such theories give academics something to write about, they distort rather than illuminate the truth. Like racial stereotyping, placing labels on people focuses attention on apparent similarities while shifting attention away from differences.

Instead of promoting conventional thinking, Gutin should encourage students to examine for themselves what each first lady was like. Michael Dell did not come up with his revolutionary concept for manufacturing computers to order by adopting the prevailing wisdom. Thinking outside the box requires looking at the world without blinders.

As a college student, I rebelled against that mind-constricting conformity. After crusading against formal education as an editor of the Clark Scarlet at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., I took my own advice and dropped out after my sophomore year.

My parents were not pleased. They were not exactly strangers to the academic world. My father was an associate professor of microbiology at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons and a professor of chemistry at City College of New York. My stepfather was a physicist at MIT. My mother, a concert pianist and composer, taught at the Juilliard School in New York.

But on the school paper, I had found my passion, investigative reporting. I had written an article exposing rampant discrimination against black students by local landlords. When I called a sample of those who had placed classified ads in the local paper, almost 40 percent admitted they would mind if my roommate was black and said they would not rent to me.

The Worcester Telegram picked up the story, and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination began an investigation.

Rather than regurgitating what my professors told me, I learned I could uncover original information on my own. Rather than using it to write papers that no one would read, I realized I could have an impact on society by exposing the truth.

After becoming a reporter on the Worcester Telegram, I went on to the Boston Herald, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, which I left in 1985. Published last year, “In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes With Agents in the Life of Fire and the Presidents They Protect” is my 18th book.
I have never regretted my decision to drop out of college. Since then, college has become more doctrinaire. At least 90 percent of college professors are registered Democrats. That would not be a problem if they honestly sought to open students’ minds rather than brainwashing them.

While exceptional professors still exist, portraying Republicans as evil, Americans as Nazis, and capitalism as a way to subjugate minorities is the norm in too many college classes. Protected by tenure, professors replicate themselves, blackballing teachers who do not have ultra-liberal views.

If “the truth will set you free,” America is in serious trouble.


Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.

"Separation of Church and State" Misunderstanding

Where did “separation of church and state” come from, and what does it mean?

Most people believe this phrase was in the original U.S. Constitution, but it was actually first expressed in a private letter by Thomas Jefferson. Since then, especially in recent times, it has sadly been misused to slowly, but surely, eliminate Christianity from the public sector—and replace it with an anti-God religion.

The often-misused First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . . ”

This was intended to protect the church from the federal government, not government from the church.

Want a more in-depth answer?  See article below...

from Answers Weekly



Separation of Christianity and State

by Ken Ham, President/CEO, AiG–U.S.
May 3, 2010

Almost all Americans have heard the phrase “separation of church and state.” It has been used as something of a club to “beat down” and eliminate Christianity from public places, including symbols (like crosses), disallow Bible reading and prayer in public schools, and stop the teaching of creation in science classes.

Now, where does the phrase “separation of church and state” come from? It is not a part of the original U.S. Constitution of 1787, as most people falsely believe, or in any of its amendments. In reality, the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state came from a private letter from President Thomas Jefferson, and it has sadly been misused to slowly, but surely, eliminate Christianity from the public sector—and replace it with an anti-God religion.

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was intended to protect the church from the (federal) government, not the government from the church. Therefore, no “national” church or religion is allowed to be established by the federal government.

I will highlight key words of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .

You can see that the “separation of church and state” phrase is nowhere in the Amendment (or the rest of the Constitution). The 1802 letter from Jefferson was sent to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in response to the group’s letter to him. Jefferson was trying to assure the Baptists that the federal government would never be permitted to interfere with the church. In fact, in his letter, Jefferson states:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.1

Today, secular scholars have lifted the Danbury letter out of its entire historical context and have turned the so-called “wall” metaphor completely on its head.

“Separation of church and state” is now used to protect the government from the influence of the church—establishing a policy of freedom “from” religion, which in reality has become “separation of Christianity and state.” This would have been an entirely foreign and unintended concept to the Founding Fathers.

This misrepresentation of the Constitution was witnessed once again as I attended a debate in March, in which Rev. Barry Lynn, a liberal minister, lawyer, and the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, spoke. Not only did he argue for separation, but claimed that government “neutrality” towards Christianity was his group’s aim. Sadly, most Americans (Christians included) have also been duped into believing that the so-called “separation of church and state” requires eliminating the Christian God and creating a neutral situation. But there is no such position as neutrality. Indeed, one is either for Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30)!

The religion of naturalism (atheism) has been imposed on the public education system, and on the culture as a whole. For instance, science textbooks in the public schools now typically define science as naturalism (atheism):

Science requires repeatable observations and testable hypotheses. These standards restrict science to a search for natural causes for natural phenomena . . . . Supernatural explanations of natural events are simply outside the bounds of science.2

In keeping with this pronouncement, these books teach molecules-to-man evolution, based only on unproven natural processes, as fact! In other words, they have eliminated the supernatural and replaced it with naturalism. In reality, they have eliminated the Christian worldview and replaced it with a secular, atheistic one!

Sadly, because many Christians have falsely believed that there can be a neutral position, and have also been duped regarding the so-called “separation of church and state,” they are not prepared to boldly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God as they confront issues like abortion, “gay” marriage, racism, etc. By shrinking back, believers have allowed the secularists to impose their anti-God atheistic religion on the public schools—and the culture as a whole.

Answers in Genesis has launched its “I am Not Ashamed” campaign to challenge Christians to publicly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God. Only then, from the basis of the Bible’s absolute authority, will Christians be able to effectively combat the immorality that plagues our nation.

For more information on AiG’s “I am Not Ashamed” campaign, see our special insert stapled inside this newsletter or go to our new website of IAmNotAshamed.org.


Footnotes

1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, The Library of Congress website.

2. Neil A. Campbell, Brad Williamson, and Robin J. Heyden, Biology: Exploring Life, Florida Teacher’s Edition (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006), p. 38.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/separation-of-christianity-and-state#



Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
 
 
 
If you're interested...

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Draft and Recently Discovered Text

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html


AND...

'A Wall of Separation'
FBI Helps Restore Jefferson's Obliterated Draft

You get the writer's opinion in this article... but some of the facts are very interesting.  For example:

"One of the nation's best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, "contrary to all former practice," Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists "a wall of separation between church and state"; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services "constantly."

Jefferson's participation in House church services and his granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held, cannot be discussed here; these activities are fully illustrated in the forthcoming exhibition. What can be said is that going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would be reported in newspapers throughout the country. A Philadelphia newspaper, for example, informed its readers on Jan. 23, 1802, that "Mr. Jefferson has been seen at church, and has assisted in singing the hundredth psalm." In presenting Jefferson to the nation as a churchgoer, this publicity offset whatever negative impressions might be created by his refusal to proclaim thanksgiving and fasts and prevented the erosion of his political base in God-fearing areas like New England.

Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government."


http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html