Ron Paul’s fellow Republicans haven’t simply castigated him for his foreign policy positions; they have routinely and resoundingly mocked him. What has the Texas Congressman said that is so rationally and morally indefensible? When we move beyond the universe of sound bites that is our contemporary politics and look at Paul’s actual arguments for the views he holds, the answer to this question hits us like a ton of bricks: nothing.

What do Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg all have in common? They all dropped out of college and pursued their interest in computer technology so that today they are among the richest men in the world. They proved that a college degree is not necessary for success in our high-tech capitalist economy. But what they did have was ambition, intelligence, inventiveness, perseverance, and a total commitment to what it was they wanted to do. These facts should be of interest to homeschoolers who have reached that point in their education where they must decide whether or not to go on to college or a university.

As of late, Ron Paul has once again been the subject of relentless criticism courtesy of Republican Party pundits. 

It is his positions on marriage, “recreational” drugs, and current American foreign policy that invite, not just his detractors’ objections, but their ridicule and even their wrath. In all fairness, it is Paul’s statements in the Republican presidential primary debates — a venue, it must be admitted, that is not readily accommodating of the impassioned Texas congressman’s rather unorthodox beliefs — to which his critics speak. However, given that Paul has authored several reader-friendly books in which he elaborates on his views, if the GOP talking heads were really interested in what he thought, it is reasonable to expect that they would turn to these works.

Have you ever wondered why it was that for a couple of hundred years before the Founding of the United States, and for nearly two hundred years after the Founding of the United States the Bible was permitted, even encouraged to be taught in America’s schools?

The 1850 edition of Noah Webster's Dictionary defines "rote" as: "To fix in memory by means of frequent repetition." That certainly is the essence of what we mean by rote memorization. My 1988 dictionary, however, defines "rote" as: "A fixed, mechanical way of doing something." That definition misses the mark of what memorization is all about. The true purpose of rote memorization in education is to create automaticity, so that, for example, when a child sees a letter or group of letters he or she automatically says the sounds. The child does not have to think about it. The response is automatic.