http://www.cato.org/

If you are, like myself a person who values civil liberties and individual freedom you are probably concerned about the errosion of our constitutional liberties. And Academic Freedom is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now I ranted for years about how we have idiots like that one Professor Asshole from University of Illinois and this ding-dong from Oregon trying to make it illegal to "use" certain University Degrees. Well I am not taking this crap sitting down.

And I finally found a group who agrees with me.

Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank which is fighting our fight! They are outspoken about the hypocracy and fraud concerning accreditation in higher learning.

And thats just the beginning. This group is truely a bastion of liberty in a sea of oppression.

They are not right or left but they are simply for Freedom. Check this group out. And if it really interests you, become a supporter like I am.

Hi friedns, this is my first time in this site. I've been searching for a PhD in business since already had a MS from a regional accredit university. My probelm is working schedule rotates every week, so I prefer online classes. I was thinking about Northcentral U also but changed my mind when I read topics in this site.

Thank you for your help.

They are going at it furiously over ... female bishops in the Church of England.

DD thread

Just when you started thinking that John Bear was no long relevant in DL, he goes off on a month-long vacation to Sweden and the most interesting discussion taking place at DD involves policy changes in the Church of England.

It may be interesting to note that Jack Tracey actually posted some substantial comments and eschewed his recent habit of posting links without comments, leaving us to guess what he may have intended. Perhaps this signals a return of the engaged, lively Jack circa 2005 instead of the Gus Sainz clone he has morphed into of late.

When he's not writing his gay poetry or bird watching, Alan Contreras--the adjudicated anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator--likes to share diploma mill fairy tales with the public.

His latest effort is getting the sort of rave reviews you would expect the work of a pathological liar to receive--even at DD!

In fact, Hungry Ghost's deconstruction of Anal's fairy story was so devastating I'm just going to copy his post here after the original story.  Very good work HG.  Let's hope the kkklones read and consider every word, and perhaps there will be fewer of them as a result.

Quote:Diploma mills: Lessons from the Galle and Colvin cases

Published: Monday, July 19, 2010, 8:00 AM

by Anal Contreras

Two interesting cases covered by the media in recent weeks have brought some attention to the problem of degrees from diploma mills. The Oregonian's excellent coverage of the Patti Galle case in West Linn brings some helpful visibility to the problem of fake degrees. The Bend Bulletin discovered that Clark Colvin, a Republican candidate for governor, was claiming degrees from two unaccredited degree suppliers. These stories helped show how common the practice of using bogus educational credentials is.

The West Linn case revolved around Galle's acquisition of a so-called "degree" from an entity that does business under the name "Redding University." Some people have trouble grasping the fact that Redding University does not exist, referring to its list of programs and online delivery even while calling it a possible diploma mill. In fact, there is no such thing as Redding University. It's simply a name given by its owner to a business that sells fake college degrees. It has no programs or "nontraditional delivery" mode, let alone faculty.

In the United States, there is no private right to issue college degrees. All degree-granting, including that done by religious colleges and private colleges, is controlled exclusively by governments. That has been true since the founding of the U.S. as a nation, when Harvard University had to get a royal charter, later superseded by a Massachusetts charter, in order to issue degrees, even though it was a religious institution and could teach without that government imprimatur. Degrees, as such, are exclusively controlled by governments and have been for hundreds of years.

A college degree, to be valid in the U.S., has to come from a school that has express written authority to issue degrees given to it from Congress, a state government or a recognized Indian tribe. All degrees provided by U.S. entities lacking authorization from any of these three kinds of government are always fake and always invalid. Use of such so-called "degrees" in Oregon, Washington and many other states is illegal.

The difference between the Galle case (a fake degree bought from a fake college) and the Colvin case is that Colvin acquired two of his degrees from entities that had the legal authority to issue degrees (one operated in Hawaii and one in Switzerland and various small islands) but had no accreditation or national recognition. Under Oregon law, such degrees can legally be used in the private sector provided that they always carry a disclaimer of accreditation. Colvin, having not used the disclaimer, was asked by the state to either use it or voluntarily cease using the degrees. He chose the latter, and dealt with the situation in a prompt and professional manner once he found out the problem.

In order for college degrees to have value, their nature must be protected by law. That's why Oregon law restricts their use to those issued by legitimate colleges. The Office of Degree Authorization exists in part to investigate the use on nonstandard degrees and enforce this law.

For further information see the Office of Degree Authorization website:

Here's the Top 10 sources of invalid degree reports or inquiries received by ODA:

Almeda University
Belford University
Breyer State University
Canyon College
Corllins University
MUST University
Rochville University
Rushmore University
Washington International University

Hungry Ghost Wrote:

AlanContreras Wrote:In the United States, there is no private right to issue college degrees.

I disagree with that statement emphatically and unequivocably.

He seems to think that people require government permission for every private decision and that the public is prohibited from taking any action for which there's no prior authorization.

But here in the United States, that's not how the system works. Liberty ultimately resides with the people and it's the people themselves who are soverign. Power flows from the bottom up, not from the top-down as with absolute Monarchs or the Chinese Party. That's why we have elections to choose government officials and periodically get the opportunity to vote the bastards out. They are our representatives and whatever power they exercise is power that we delegated to them, power that's being wielded in our name.

The people's representatives might indeed vote to pass laws to regulate various matters that are believed to be in the public interest. And in fact, every state does have some kind of regulations on its books regarding higher education.

But that doesn't mean that the right originates with the state, to be distributed down to the sheep-like masses as the enlightened leadership sees fit.

Quote:All degree-granting, including that done by religious colleges and private colleges, is controlled exclusively by governments.

So what about university boards of trustees? Church governing bodies in the case of church schools? Presidents, deans and faculty committees? Owners in the case of proprietorial schools? The "exclusively" in that sentence looks like hyperbole.

Quote:That has been true since the founding of the U.S. as a nation, when Harvard University had to get a royal charter, later superseded by a Massachusetts charter, in order to issue degrees, even though it was a religious institution and could teach without that government imprimatur.

Harvard never had a royal charter and Constitutional religious exemptions didn't exist in Harvard's early years (not least because the Constitution with its Separation and Free Exercise clauses hadn't even been written yet). There was this thing called the American Revolution that happened during those years somewhere.

Quote:Degrees, as such, are exclusively controlled by governments and have been for hundreds of years.

A college degree, to be valid in the U.S., has to come from a school that has express written authority to issue degrees given to it from Congress, a state government or a recognized Indian tribe.

Alan appears to be trying to invent a new and fundamentally misleading definition of "valid".

A degree diploma is a statement by a university asserting the nature and academic legitimacy of a graduate's education. That doesn't depend in any way on Congress, States or Indian tribes. It does depend on the academic credibiity of the university that awarded the degree. That's an academic criterion and it's why accreditation is so important.

Quote:All degrees provided by U.S. entities lacking authorization from any of these three kinds of government are always fake and always invalid.

Which neatly replaces academic criteria of 'validity' with political criteria.

Apparently it doesn't matter whether or not a school's program is academically worthless, provided only that the proper level of government authorized it. Nor does it seem to matter whether or not a school's program is thoroughly impressive and academically world-class. Academic considerations suddenly become irrelevant.

This provides perfect justification for the worst off-shore medical schools that plant themselves on remote islands that agree before they even arrive to give them formal approval and forward their names to the WHO in Geneva. Even Saint Regis University would seem to pass the government-validity test, since it clearly had acquired the approval of the government of a soverign state. That was the argument that its representatives made so determinedly at the time and for which they are ridiculed so mercilessly now.

Educational value devolves into empty formalities.

SayNoToBigots Wrote:July 19, 2010 at 8:59PM

A federal court ruled that homosexual Alan Contreras is an anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator. He was required to take remedial defamation law courses as part of another litigation settlement. He has no credibility on this topic. The Galle case did not "revolve" around her Redding degree, but rather the fact that when she completed her candidate information form she claimed a degree when in fact she had no degree. She originally told the investigator that her degree was from accredited San Jose State. The fact that Contreras cannot ascertain these simple facts, or chooses to skew the story with lies, demonstrates his incompetence and utter lack of suitability for the government position he holds. It's time Oregon taxpayers got rid of useless, incompetent liars and bigots like Alan Contreras.

Contreras Lies Wrote:July 19, 2010 at 10:23PM

Contreras lies about Colvin’s degree. He has a PhD from regionally accredited Golden Gate University.

Contreras lies when he says Harvard had a "royal charter." This is an easily verifiable fact, but he didn't bother to do even perfunctory research. He just makes it up as he goes along, and expects the gullible public to believe him.

Contreras lies when he says “Degrees…are exclusively controlled by governments.” This guy obviously is an idiot. No wonder he needs remedial legal courses. And he claims to hold a law degree? Maybe he should investigate his law school; they obviously aren’t teaching too much law there.

The former Oregon diploma mill statute was held unconstitutional in the Benson case. If anyone was to challenge it, the new one certainly would be found unconstitutional as well. The only time Contreras even bothers to enforce the new law is if the degree holder is a Christian or a conservative. His arbitrary and capricious law enforcement efforts, much like these public fairy stories he circulates, are based solely on his bias and bigotry.

University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs

Quote:Published July 09, 2010 | Associated Press

URBANA, Ill. -- The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral. ...

Quote:Monday, July 12, 2010, 12:00 AM (MST)

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter Monday to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign officials on behalf of a popular, highly regarded professor who was fired for explaining the position of the Roman Catholic Church on human sexual behavior to members of his Introduction to Catholicism class.

“A university cannot censor professors’ speech--including classroom speech related to the topic of the class--merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “To fire a professor for teaching the actual subject matter of his course is outrageous. It’s ridiculous that a school would fire a professor without even giving him a chance to defend himself when he simply taught Catholic beliefs in a class about Catholic beliefs.” ...

ADF attorneys see Howell’s case as part of an ominous trend on campus. Mike Adams’ ongoing suit against officials from the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, and June Sheldon’s lawsuit against officials from San Jose City College demonstrate that professors can be punished for merely expressing their viewpoint, and now, for even teaching the very material that is the subject of a class.

Quote:UIUC Administrator Slurs Catholics

Ruth Watkins    View profile   Jul 19 2005, 10:05 am

A University of Illinois administrator has used the term "Papists" to publicly slur the Roman Catholic religion, and has belittled its religious customs as "dirty."

Melanie J. Loots, UIUC's Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, has been quoted in public internet documents belittling Catholicism and insulting its rites and customs. Loots is the wife of radical socialist UIUC professor George Gollin-Loots, best known for his vicious public criticisms of the Bush administration.

The offensive statements were included in documents posted on the internet by the Loots' daughter, Cordelia Rose Loots, who attends University Laboratory High School, a remedial institution located on the Urbana-Champagne campus. (http://themagnetwomanprophecies.blogspot.com/)

The revelations of public use of the religious slur "Papists" by a public university administrator have shocked Roman Catholics throughout the world. Why does UIUC allow administrators and faculty to attack Catholics and Catholicism with impunity?

Is there a double standard at UIUC? And if so, for whom? Shouldn't, e.g., Jews, socialists, and lesbians be held to the same standards of conduct as everyone else? Why is the university administration singling out Catholics for these vicious, hateful slurs?

Roman Catholics are demanding that University President B. Joseph White, UIUC Chancellor Richard H. Herman, the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, and the Illinois Attorney General, investigate these hateful acts and words, and take appropriate action against the people responsible. Roman Catholics believe they should be free to attend this public, tax-supported institution without fear of cruel, bigoted attacks, and particularly not by university administrators or faculty, individually or acting in concert.

Although this article does not specifically address education issues, it certainly offers another weapon to use in the battle against federal centralization and standardization of higher education.  The feds and the higher ed cartel want to control all higher education and eliminate state approved degrees.  States must fight back against the government monopoly, or face the stultifying uniformity of statist dogma and methodology, all financed by confiscatory taxing schemes.

Quote:The Right To Nullify This Government

by  Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
07/13/2010

Every couple of years the same drearily predictable charade repeats itself.  This time we’re really going to limit government!  Or so they tell us.  We on the Right then dutifully compose our letters to the editor, attend rallies, and vote for candidates without whom, we are breathlessly assured, we shall all revert instantly to barbarism.  And no matter who wins, the federal government grows and grows.  The Right gets a bunch of pretty speeches, and the Left gets the victories.

The passive approach of crossing our fingers and hoping Washington will follow the Constitution has not worked.  The only surprising thing about it is that anyone could have expected it to work in the first place.  It is long past time for those of us who want to confine the federal government to its constitutional limits to try something different.

The time has come to revisit nullification, the quintessentially American mode of resistance against federal lawlessness that Thomas Jefferson urged as an essential ingredient of our political system.  In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson insisted that the states needed a way to defend themselves against unconstitutional exercises of power by the federal government.  Jefferson’s fear was that if the federal government had a monopoly on defining the scope of its own powers, it would be constantly discovering new ones.  Likewise, James Madison urged in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 that the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.  (The reader will not be surprised to learn that Bill Clinton held no White House soiree in honor of the two hundredth anniversary of these documents in 1998.)

These principles were used for honorable purposes throughout antebellum American history.  Virginia and Kentucky used them on behalf of free speech.  The New England states employed them against unconstitutional searches and seizures.  Numerous northern states used them against fugitive slave laws, provisions of which they considered unconstitutional notwithstanding the Constitution’s fugitive-slave clause.  More than six decades after Jefferson penned the immortal words of the Kentucky Resolutions, the legislature of Wisconsin quoted them word for word in defense of its defiance of such laws.

Do American schoolchildren read about any of this?  The question answers itself.  They are about as likely to read that I, Tom Woods, am the king of England.

But all of a sudden, out of the clear blue, nullification is back.  Fiscal conservatives and civil libertarians joined hands in 2005 to oppose the REAL ID Act, which involved the centralization and standardization of identification procedures.  They had no idea how successful they would be.  Two dozen states pledged to defy the law.  Stung by this degree of resistance, the federal government gave up trying to enforce the Act.

Now, states are banding together to devise resistance measures against Obamacare, cap and trade, and a whole raft of constitutionally offensive legislation.  Several states have already instituted Firearms Freedom Acts, which pledge the state to prevent the enforcement of federal gun regulations when the guns in question have never entered interstate commerce.  (Color me skeptical that the recent Supreme Court decision means Americans’ Second Amendment rights are safe forever.)

So far, most conservative radio and television hosts have shied away from the issue.  That’s a shame, to be sure, but it doesn’t change much.  The Tea Party folks are going to nullify with or without them.  Within six months these same media personalities will be huffing and puffing to catch up with what has been going on right under their noses.

But you, dear reader, ought to get in on the ground floor.  The Tenth Amendment Center, for example, is sponsoring a tour of America called Nullify Now! (NullifyNow.com), which will bring these important ideas to major American cities and force them back into the American political discussion where they belong.  My new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, gives you all the ammunition you need to understand and defend nullification as an essential defense mechanism for a free people.  

And my “Interview with a Zombie” YouTube video shows you how the mainstream media will handle the issue, and how we should respond.

The rebirth of nullification is not welcome news to everyone.  MSNBC and the New York Times do not want us to say or do these things.  They like the situation just the way it is: we make lots of noise, and they rack up the victories.  They are happy if we persist in the same failed and flawed strategy that has gotten us exactly nowhere.  I for one would prefer not to give them the satisfaction.

It’s fine to hold conferences, write letters to the editor, and sign petitions.  But at some point it becomes morally (and practically) necessary to do more than just wring our hands about the behavior of the federal government.  At some point we in our states must say: we are not going to do it.  Never did I suspect that the American people would grow angry and politically aware enough to put these great principles back on the table.  Ideas I once covered as a historian I am now discussing as a commentator on current events. This is the healthiest development in American politics I have seen in my life. Everyone reading these words owes it to the cause of freedom to be a part of it. We have been played for fools long enough.

Editor’s Note:
Take the time to explore Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Mike P.

Bear accepts responsibility for starting yet another failed/unscrupulous enterprise:

Quote:I agree with Chip. Wonderful news. In a backhanded way, I bear some responsibility for this operation. During the two years I lived in Tennessee (1986-88], I used to get regular phone calls from Lloyd Clayton, asking for advice on how to start a school. It became clear to me that his interest was far more in the direction of profitability than academics, and our discussions ended. And then there were all those full-page color ads in health and nutrition and new age publications touting Clayton as one of the pioneers of distance and online education. For many years, Clayton's schools had a private deal with Alabama authorities: they would leave him alone as long as he did not accept any students living in Alabama. [Very much like what Kennedy-Western had in California. Wonder if there are other examples?]

Pedophile-pandering internet pornographer Thomas "Chip" White is about to be legislated out of business in California.  Senate Bill 203 has unanimously passed the state assembly's public safety committee and will go to the assembly floor for approval.  The bill expands the definition of “distribute” to include “making available for access or possession over the internet."

Child Pornography Legislation Unanimously Clears Assembly Policy Committee

Quote:6/22/2010

Senator Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach) announced unanimous passage of Senate Bill 203 by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. SB 203 would make it a felony to transmit or share child pornography over the Internet.

“I am heartened to see some consensus on this important issue. Senate Bill 203 sends a clear message to child pornographers that sharing sexually explicit images of children over the internet will not be tolerated in California,” said Harman.

Senate Bill 203 addresses the issue of file-sharing over the internet. Currently, Penal Code Chapter 7.5 relative to child pornography completely ignores peer-to-peer file transfers which are an increasingly popular method of file-sharing over the internet.

“SB 203 goes after pedophiles that enable the “share” function in their peer-to-peer program when they send downloaded images of child pornography. This essentially makes the images available to millions of internet viewers,” said Harman. “We can not forget these children are victims of sexual exploitation. Stopping millions of millions of people from viewing the images will never undo the reprehensible effects of sexual exploitation, but it is a step in the right direction.”

Proof that a suspect made downloaded images available for distribution to others via peer-to-peer file transfer is typically found in a forensic examination of a suspect’s computer. When a forensic examination shows that a suspect possessed a particular image of child sexual exploitation, and finds that the image is located in a “shared” folder and that the “share” function of the particular peer-to-peer program is enabled, that individual has made the image available for distribution. Because measuring peer-to-peer traffic on the internet is so difficult, there is simply no way to tell how many hundreds, thousands, or even millions of users actually received that file.

If enacted, Senate Bill 203 would amend the definition of “distribute,” as used in Chapter 7.5, to include “making available for access or possession over the internet.” SB 203 protects California’s children by ensuring that pedophiles are punished for the distribution of child pornography.

Senate Bill 203 will now go to the Assembly floor for final approval.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1...1580082173

Click on "Look Inside".

On page 10 John Bear determines that "all of these schools have proper accreditation, whether it be regional, national, or international".

Why, for so many years, has John Bear said in public that there is no such thing as international accreditation? Clearly another deceitful lie to his readers.

To my knowledge the Cisco MCNE is the gold standard in IT Certifications. Everyone seems to have the Microsoft MCSE they are like a dime a dozen. The Novel CNE used to be worth a lot but is hardly used anymore.

As for CompTIA's suite, well its ok I guess but its too easy.

Or maybe using Brainbench (which is no longer free but is still cheap) is the better route.

Anyone have any opinions on this?