[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

The Discovery Institute has supplied a valuable teaching tool in the form of a list of ten questions, for students to ask their biology teachers when they start to talk about "evolution". Just as innocent requests for fairness and balance!

Jim Easter brings us this guide for those who want to bring this noble crusade to the rest of the academic disciplines, starting with history:

So -- kids, the next time your history teacher starts trying to force-feed you Revolutionary "theory" as if it were "fact", you know what to do!

Ten Questions to Ask Your History Teacher

Q: ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENTS: Why do history textbooks claim that the modern British monarchy originated with the "Norman conquest", in "1066?, when nobody has ever seen a calendar for that year, and there has never been an English king named "Norman"?

Q: WASHINGTON'S BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT: Why don't textbooks discuss the "Civil War," or the fact that all US governmental bodies appear together at that time, instead of branching from a Constitution -- thus contradicting revolutionary theory?

Q: THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: Why do history textbooks claim that the "Revolutionary War" started with a "Declaration of Independence" and quote its words, then claim that a suspiciously old-looking document in Washington D.C is the same document because it contains the same words, -- a circular argument masquerading as historical evidence?

Q: GEORGE WASHINGTON. It is well known that the infamous "cherry tree" story was false, and that "George Washington" never said "I cannot tell a lie" -- that is, if he ever existed. Why do textbooks use drawings or "artist's conceptions" of "George Washington" as evidence that he existed? Why does no single history textbook anywhere point out that there are no photographs - zero! - of "George Washington" in existence?

Q: ALEXANDER HAMILTON. Why do some history textbooks give Alexander Hamilton's year of birth as 1755, and others as 1757? Why do historians refuse to discuss, or even acknowledge, the controversy? Why do many textbooks even claim that this (probably imaginary) figure was killed in a duel with "Aaron Burr"? Take out a $10 bill and see whose picture is on it. Do you think this duel actually occurred, and that the US then decided to put the loser's picture on its currency?

Q: WASHINGTON CROSSING THE DELAWARE. Why do history textbooks all use the same picture of "Washington Crossing the Delaware" -- when historians have been aware for years that the picture was staged? Any idiot knows that you can't get ten guys in a canoe without capsizing, and "Washington" is standing up? Get real.

Q: SILLY HATS. Why do textbooks claim that Revolutionary Fashion can explain the use of Tricorner Hats by the colonists -- even though these hats were not used in the French Revolution, and there are no such silly hats anywhere else in history?

Q: REVOLUTIONARY WAR. Why do textbooks represent the Revolutionary War as having been won through a series of "small victories" when, every time you look at an actual battle the colonists fought against the British, as likely as not they lost? Do you think a nation as magnificently complex as the United States could come about through a random, undirected sequence of military engagements?

Q: GOVERNMENTAL ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of a bunch of middle-aged guys in poofy wigs used to justify Revolutionary claims that we are all descended from a parcel of ninnies who didn't have the sense to be at the beach in July -- when historians cannot even agree on who they were or what their actual hair looked like?

Q: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that the American Revolution is an historical fact -- even though many Revolutionary claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

And remember -- when some liberal revolutionist starts spouting off about imaginary events supposed to have taken place in 1776, all you have to do is look him in the eye and ask "Were you there?".

hxxp://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=21

[Larry Lee]

AMEN AND AMEN!

This is such a great service you're doing for our country, Brother Jeb. The fact is that most of what we think we know about the American disengagement from English royal beneficence is simply LIBERAL myth -- Plain And Simple -- Lies made up by LIEbruls to promote a bunch of nonsense about the unattractiveness of English hereditary authority. Wise Americans know better than to believe any of it.

Having said that, here's one of my favorite myths spread by LIEbruls. It's just so obviously false. Are you ready? Here goes: At the time of the Revolutionary War, patriotic Americans who remained committed to the ideal of royal suffrage ended up fleeing America and finding refuge in the Bahamas and Canada.... uhmmmmm.... CANADA?! Take Off! No American would be so stupid as to emigrate to that barren shield of granitic cold. Ha Ha Ha Ha, Those LIEbruls think we'll believe anything.

[Virginia Day Templeton]

Glory, Brother! This is another reason why the "Constitution" cannot be trusted—for all we know, some egghead history professors invented it in the 1980s. Next time a liberal tries to use the Constitution as an excuse to take away our rights to take away other people's rights, ask him if he's actually seen the document, or, better yet, seen the so-called Founders actually write it.

There's only one history book anybody needs. Which one? I'll give you 1611 guesses, and the first 1610 don't count!

[scotty]

about that george washington one, there wasnt cameras back then? that was pretty blonde of you. and how is he not real. theres documented books about him. and who led the army then in the revolutionary war?

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by scotty

about that george washington one, there wasnt cameras back then? that was pretty blonde of you. and how is he not real. theres documented books about him.

There's doumented books about Evolution, but that doesn't make it true.

and who led the army then in the revolutionary war?

JESUS.

[scotty]

i dont beleive in evolution but george washington was true human. whats there not to beleive. what if people 200 years from now said "JebThurmond" is real? why not? why wouldnt you be real?

[MusicInHerHeart]

Originally Posted by Larry Lee

Having said that, here's one of my favorite myths spread by LIEbruls. It's just so obviously false. Are you ready? Here goes: At the time of the Revolutionary War, patriotic Americans who remained committed to the ideal of royal suffrage ended up fleeing America and finding refuge in the Bahamas and Canada.... uhmmmmm.... CANADA?! Take Off! No American would be so stupid as to emigrate to that barren shield of granitic cold. Ha Ha Ha Ha, Those LIEbruls think we'll believe anything.

It makes perfect sense, actually.

Canada is fairly easy to get to, if you can get through the Appalachian Mountains, and many people had to know how to do that in order to travel on the East coast.

And with the French, who were in control of Canada, paying no mind to who was coming into the region, what better place to hide?

It was not until later on that Americans started distrusting those in Canada, and indeed, it was not until recent years that the general public has deemed the country to be an "evil place."

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by MusicInHerHeart

It makes perfect sense, actually.

Canada is fairly easy to get to, if you can get through the Appalachian Mountains, and many people had to know how to do that in order to travel on the East coast.

Huh? Does your "Golden compass" not know the difference between West and North?

And with the French, who were in control of Canada, paying no mind to who was coming into the region, what better place to hide?

Wait, wait, so now you liberal-bias historians are claiming the French WON the French and Indian war?

It was not until later on that Americans started distrusting those in Canada, and indeed, it was not until recent years that the general public has deemed the country to be an "evil place."

Uh, okay, so when we burned down Toronto in the war of 1812, it was because one of our cows kicked a lantern?

[MusicInHerHeart]

Originally Posted by Jeb Thurmond

Huh? Does your "Golden compass" not know the difference between West and North?

Thank you, I really appreciate you assuming that just because I'm decent with history means that I must support secular trash. I refuse to go see "Golden Compass" because the idea that God should -- or for that matter, can -- be killed, sickens me.
And the Appalachians are on the East coast. Mountain ranges on the western side of the country are the Rockies and Sierra Nevada. Go look at a map sometime, it's quite enlightening.

Wait, wait, so now you liberal-bias historians are claiming the French WON the French and Indian war?

It seems I have forgotten the dates of that war; I had to Google it to remember that it occurred before the [alleged "revolution"]. However, my statement in support of non-patriotic Americans still stands despite my mistake. Thank you for helping me correct my statement.

The British were the ones in control of Canada at the time, which would make the country even more appealing to those wishing to flee the colonies. The people that left are the ones that supported the king's rule of the area; in Canada, they could be assured that they would only find leaders who also supported the king's rule over the colonies.

[MusicInHerHeart]

Uh, okay, so when we burned down Toronto in the war of 1812, it was because one of our cows kicked a lantern?

The real cow you're referring to was said to have started the Great Chicago Fire.

You're missing the point. When do you ever hear a good thing about Canada in your daily life, from the people around you? I understand talking about our neighbor to the north isn't exactly everyday conversation, but it comes up now and then. In my experiences, at least, when Canada does come into a conversation, the people involved can only think of negative things to say about it.

Now, I'll admit I may have been over generalizing and over exaggerating my previous statement, but it was to make the point that 95% of the things I've ever heard about Canada from everyday people is negative.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by MusicInHerHeart

the idea that God should -- or for that matter, can -- be killed, sickens me.

JOHN 3:16 SICKENS YOU?!?!??!

Jesus, aka God, DIED for your sins. DIED. Croaked, kicked the bucket, bought the farm, bit the dust, etc. etc. It's kind of why our symbol is a cross, you know, that thing that God DIED on for our sins?

And the Appalachians are on the East coast. Mountain ranges on the western side of the country are the Rockies and Sierra Nevada. Go look at a map sometime, it's quite enlightening.

And it's even more enlightening if you spin around a couple of times, so that you're so dizzy you can't tell east-west from north-south, latitude from longitude. That's like not knowing the difference between left-right and up-down.

According to your revolutionary THEORY, these "loyalists" of yours walked west across the appalatians, into savage indian terretory, and then walked north through this wilderness, before swimming across the Great Lakes into Canada. See my attached map at bottom, with the supposed refugee route in red.

Instead of just catching a ship to the sunshine and rum of Barbados, or French Louisiana.

Seeing as you've been taught your history by the Texas educational system, the best in the world, you have no excuse for your ignorance.

It seems I have forgotten the dates of that war;

Right, just like you forgot that God Died: John 3:16, and you forgot about the war of 1812, your basic directions, and the basic fact that the same people who promote "evolution" cannot be trusted on their history. When you stand before Jesus on Judgement Day, "I forgot" is not going to save you from the eternal torture of HELL.


Footnote:

Canada is fairly easy to get to, if you can get through the Appalachian Mountains, and many people had to know how to do that in order to travel on the East coast

[Meserti]

Q: ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENTS: Why do history textbooks claim that the modern British monarchy originated with the "Norman conquest", in "1066?, when nobody has ever seen a calendar for that year, and there has never been an English king named "Norman"?

A. the Norman Conquest was led by William the Conquerer, he was the king of the Normans, he conquered England and took the throne thus creating the Modern English Monarchy. 1066 is infact the last time England was successfully invaded.

Q: GEORGE WASHINGTON. It is well known that the infamous "cherry tree" story was faked, and that "George Washington" never said "I cannot tell a lie" -- that is, if he ever existed. Why do textbooks use drawings or "artist's conceptions" of "George Washington" as evidence that he existed? Why does no single history textbook anywhere point out that there are no photographs - zero! - of "George Washington" in existence?

A. cameras were not invented during that time, if there were no cameras then there is definetly no ability to take photos

Q: SILLY HATS. Why do textbooks claim that Revolutionary Fashion can explain the use of Tricorner Hats by the colonists -- even though these hats were not used in the French Revolution, and there are no such silly hats anywhere else in history?

A. Tricorner hats were more a fashion for the British Georgian hats mostly of the colonial areas.

I hope this Enlightens your imbecilic mind.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by Meserti

A. the Norman Conquest was led by William the Conquerer, he was the king of the Normans

Oh, this is rich. now you're saying that all people with the same name have the same king? That there's a king of the Normans, and a King of the Joes....I guess the King of the Jebs must be angry because I've never paid my taxes to him.

A. cameras were not invented during that time, if there were no cameras then there is definetly no ability to take photos

"Through Jesus all things are possible". There is no such thing as "no ability" with Jesus around.

And there were also no cameras when "Twas the Night before Christmas" was written, does that prove the existence of Santa Claus?

And your hat argument makes no sense whatsoever. Where's the missing link between those tricorner hats and modern hats? And where's the missing link between those tricorner hats and medieval hats?

[Meserti]

what on earth are you talking about?

the Normans are a people who used to live in the French province of Normandy. they took the English Throne, it is rather simple.

my hilarious fool, I would suggest you be much more realistic, then you can see the reason of history.

[Brother Thomas]

I truly believe that the revolution did NOT take place. Just like the moon landing, it is a hoax perpetuated by suckular public schools. However, I must ask, where did America come from?

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by Brother Thomas

I must ask, where did America come from?

American was intelligently designed by the LORD.

Does anyone really need to know any more than that?

[bobbob123]

Just to clarify here: The "Normans" are a group of people from "Normandy," a geographic location in France. The "Normans" are certainly not a group of people named Norman. William the Conqueror, did IN FACT, lead the Normans (a group of people from France, not people named "Norman") to conquer the the southern part of the British island in 1066.

Secondly, there is an amazing amount of evidence supporting George Washington's existence. Continental Congress records, archived letters referencing him, his own personal papers. Not to mention army records, land ownership papers and personal property. Also, just because there "are no photographs of a person" does not mean they didn't exist. We don't have photographs of Jesus, Moses, Noah, Adam or any of the Biblical Kings, but we still believe that they existed. Photography was invented in the early 1800s, and was not perfected within Washinton's lifetime.

Thirdly, when the Revolutionary war is described as being won by a series of small victories, it does not describe : "random, undirected sequence of military engagements." They weren't random attacks, they were targeted to have the maximum effect with minimal resources. They were certainly directed, the Continental Army was led by a great many leaders, George Washington, John Burgoyne, Howe, etc (see http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/GENERALS.htm)

Any questions?

[JennyD]

Originally Posted by bobbob123

Any questions?

Yes.

This thread was last posted in back in 2007. It's now 2009.

Do you often go digging back in dead threads in forums so you can find something you think you know something about?

This is a Christian Church forum, not Bob's History Book Chat.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by bobbob123

Just to clarify here: The "Normans" are a group of people from "Normandy," a geographic location in France. The "Normans" are certainly not a group of people named Norman. William the Conqueror, did IN FACT, lead the Normans (a group of people from France, not people named "Norman") to conquer the the southern part of the British island in 1066.

Secondly, there is an amazing amount of evidence supporting George Washington's existence. Continental Congress records, archived letters referencing him, his own personal papers. Not to mention army records, land ownership papers and personal property. Also, just because there "are no photographs of a person" does not mean they didn't exist. We don't have photographs of Jesus, Moses, Noah, Adam or any of the Biblical Kings, but we still believe that they existed. Photography was invented in the early 1800s, and was not perfected within Washinton's lifetime.

Thirdly, when the Revolutionary war is described as being won by a series of small victories, it does not describe : "random, undirected sequence of military engagements." They weren't random attacks, they were targeted to have the maximum effect with minimal resources. They were certainly directed, the Continental Army was led by a great many leaders, George Washington, John Burgoyne, Howe, etc (see http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/GENERALS.htm)

Any questions?

Yes. Were you there?

You see, the problem with making a claim is that you must then support said claim with evidence and logic. Just stating a thing as fact, like George Washington existed because we have paintings of the man, should be met with the same skepticism we reserve for the Muslim who says Buraq existed and took Muhammad up the Heaven and back again because we we have paintings of the beast.

A historical character existed because there exists a painting of it?

After all this time, the atheist still cannot refute the Truth. What an exhausting life it must be to work so hard to constantly try to deny reality.

[MitzaLizalor]

Exhausting would be the least of it! And all the other mumbojumbo they have to twist their heads around, "an image of the moon is not an idol" for example despite God actually explaining what an idol is in exhaustive detail. And then there's their odious "prophet" whose actions utterly refute any connection with actual Prophets in The Bible. When, for example, the socialist teacher starts promoting false religions as culturally significant there's a great opportunity to raise

QUESTION 1 ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENTS .. (#1)

since not only do the desert realms claim magic horses flying up as evidence for their tyrants' right to rule but a whole other raft of demonic hallucinations too! These wretches have the most rotten form of government ever all they seem to do is run around murdering each other which pretty well defines what NO GOVERNMENT looks like. Ask your teacher about that! Do the claims of those leaders, concerning origins of the sharia, stack up?

Point out what God said:

Leviticus 26:3-6 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.

If indeed the mohammedan leaders were following God as they claim, their world would not be like it is. Remind your teacher that in every respect these places demonstrate the exact opposite of what God promised for those who walk in His statutes and keep His commandments. Therefore the clerics and ayatollahs and sultans and princes or whatever they call themselves are lying when they arrogate Divine privilege to themselves which has produced a collapsed society. The the socialist promotion of false religions as culturally significant therefore has no merit and as such is deceptive.

Say to your teacher, "Why are you deceiving me? Either you don't know what it's like in those countries in which case you are lying about having knowledge or you do know but are lying about what goes on there."

Then make a statement of fact: "Liars should not teach!"

This applies to secularist schools. Christian educators do know and tell you The Truth. But be aware that many teachers claiming to be Christians are not Christians at all. Usually in that case they don't even know what's in The Bible. Read it. Don't be afraid to question them. If they are liars they need to be told. Don't be afraid to tell them.

But the first thing is to read The Bible.