Dear Drs. Vincent and Forrester,
We are writing this open letter to you because it has recently come to our attention that your Climate Feedback website has published an article making multiple false or misleading claims about an Epoch Times newspaper article (by Alex Newman) that reported on a new peer-reviewed paper we co-authored. Your website’s “fact-check”/”feedback” also made false or misleading claims about our paper.
This means your website is effectively spreading the very misinformation that you purport to be trying to fight. Additionally, because your website is currently one of Facebook’s approved “independent fact-checkers”, anybody who shared or tries to share a link to the Epoch Times article now receives a warning like the following:
We are writing to you to ask you to immediately correct this erroneous “fact-check” and to inform any groups that may have been using your website as an “independent fact-checker” (including Facebook) of the error.
We are also cc’ing and bcc’ing various parties who are either directly affected by the consequences of this “fact-check” or may be more generally concerned about the arbitrariness of the “fact-checks” offered by websites such as yours, and the problem of “who will ‘fact-check’ the fact-checkers?”
We believe the discussion below is of relevance for everybody given the recent trend of the media, social media and internet search engines towards using “independent fact-checkers” like yourselves for down-ranking, suppressing or even deleting content. Therefore, we have chosen to make this an open letter. We encourage people to share our letter and our accompanying “fact-check fact-check” with the public – although we ask people to first redact the e-mail addresses.
The article in question is this one edited by Dr. Lambert Baraut-Guinet: Link here
Dr. Baraut-Guinet claims to have “fact-checked” an Epoch Times newspaper article (Link here) by Alex Newman which compared the findings of our recent scientific review paper (Link here) to the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 1’s recent 6th Assessment Report (AR6, link here).
Baraut-Guinet alleges that Newman made false claims that were “incorrect” and “misleading” in his reporting. He similarly asserts that several other media outlets publishing articles repeating some of Newman’s reporting were “incorrect” and “misleading”. Baraut-Guinet also asserts that our peer-reviewed paper makes “incorrect” and “misleading” claims.
Background to Newman’s article:
Our paper that Newman was reporting on is a detailed scientific review on the complex challenges of establishing how much of a role solar activity has played in northern hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century (and earlier). It was co-authored by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries and was published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). If you don’t have time to read the full article, here is a short press release summary: Link here
The title of our paper is, “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate”, and it was published online in early August. Coincidentally, a few days later, the UN’s IPCC AR6 was published. While the IPCC AR6 had concluded that it was “unequivocal” that recent climate change was human-caused, our findings were much more circumspect and cautious, e.g., from the abstract of our RAA paper:
“For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural). It appears that previous studies (including the most recent IPCC reports) which had prematurely concluded the former, had done so because they failed to adequately consider all the relevant estimates of TSI and/or to satisfactorily address the uncertainties still associated with Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates. Therefore, several recommendations on how the scientific community can more satisfactorily resolve these issues are provided.”
That is, the IPCC was offering a remarkably confident claim about the “attribution” of recent climate change, whereas we were explicitly warning that it was too premature to be drawing such conclusions. Our analysis found an alarmingly wide range of plausible estimates for a solar contribution (in the paper itself we elaborate on how plausible estimates for the solar contribution range from 0%-100% of the long-term warming since the mid-19th century!).
Newman was apparently intrigued by the contrast between the two studies both coincidentally published at around the same time. He interviewed several of us to learn more about our findings. He also reached out to the IPCC for their response, as well as to other scientists who might disagree with our analysis as well as some who might agree. If you read his article, his efforts to carefully and openly present multiple perspectives are self-evident.
If you compare Newman’s ‘balanced reporting’ journalistic approach to the framework you provide at Science Feedback for informative reporting (Link here), it is clear that Newman was taking considerable care to avoid any of the aspects of misinformation that you identify as problematic. In contrast, as we will detail in the attached ‘fact-check fact-check’, Baraut-Guinet’s ‘fact-checking’ of Newman’s article is littered with almost all of the hallmarks of misinformation which your framework warns against.
Yet, ironically, Baraut-Guinet’s “fact-check” is currently being used by Facebook (and probably other platforms) as a justification for censoring Newman’s article.
According to your website’s “About” page “Our first mission is to help create an Internet where users will have access to scientifically sound and trustworthy information. We also provide feedback to editors and journalists about the credibility of information published by their outlets.” Therefore, we hope you share at least some of our concern about the fact that this article by Baraut-Guinet on your website is now promoting misinformation – and as a result effectively misleading editors, journalists and also several of your partners & funders that you list on your website, e.g., Facebook’s “Third Party Fact Checking program”.
We hope that after reviewing the information in this e-mail, you will get Baraut-Guinet to correct his erroneous analysis, update his flawed verdict of “Incorrect” & “Misleading” to “Correct” & “Accurate”, and also to contact the various groups (including Facebook’s fact checking program) who have mistakenly used his flawed analysis to warn them that your website had posted an erroneous “fact-check”.
Different scientific approaches of the IPCC and us
In our “fact-check fact-check” we explain how the approach we took to reviewing the scientific literature in our RAA paper was fundamentally different to that taken by the IPCC. We also explain that our objectives were fundamentally different too.
The IPCC explain on their website that they were set up by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) in conjunction with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) with the primary objective of providing “scientific information that [governments] can use to develop climate policies” (https://www.ipcc.ch/about/, accessed 5th September 2021). As we explain in the fact-check fact-check, the specific climate policies the IPCC are interested in are those that will help the UNEP in arranging international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
On the other hand, our primary objective was “to convey to the rest of the scientific community the existence of several unresolved problems, as well as to establish those points where there is general agreement”.
That is, the IPCC’s scientific assessments are carried out to help governments in implementing the UN’s political goals, while our scientific assessments are carried out to help the scientific community (of which all 23 of us are members) to improve our collective understanding of the causes of climate change.
So, different goals. But, we also used different methods.
The IPCC’s approach is a “consensus-driven” one of trying to identify a “scientific consensus” on each of the key issues. This approach works very well when there is indeed universal scientific agreement on the point. However, it is problematic whenever there is scientific disagreement on a given issue. And ironically, most scientific research occurs when there is ongoing scientific disagreement on the subject. Therefore, this is a surprisingly common occurrence. The IPCC’s general approach to dealing with scientific disagreement appears to be to use “expert judgement” to identify the most “likely” perspective on the subject (ideally one which best suits the UNEP’s aims) and then use “expert judgement” to dismiss those studies which dissent from that perspective.
Several researchers have praised the IPCC for this “consensus-driven” approach as they say it allows the IPCC to “speak with one voice for climate science” (e.g., see Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rödder 2019). This is very helpful for the UNEP’s goals, since it allows the governments to focus on their negotiations without being distracted by scientific disagreements within the scientific community. However, we believe that it is unfortunately hindering scientific progress and the process of scientific inquiry.
For this reason, we explicitly avoided the IPCC’s “consensus-driven” approach and instead chose “…to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement”. As Francis Bacon noted in the 17th century, “if we begin with certainties, we shall end in doubts; but if we begin with doubts, and are patient in them, we shall end in certainties.”
These are different goals and different methods. So ultimately, it is not that surprising that we came to different conclusions on several key scientific questions.
When different scientists come to different conclusions by following different scientific approaches, it is very challenging to decide which one is “factual” and which is not. We appreciate that this can create problems for an “independent fact-checker” like your organization when asked to weigh in on a scientific disagreement. However, as we will discuss later, maybe this is not something that you should even be trying to do.
Science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other. Rather than trying to shut down one side of a given scientific disagreement as “incorrect” and promoting the other side as “correct”, maybe we should be welcoming the fact that scientists are still “doing science”.
Who has been cc’ed and bcc’ed
A major problem with the current set-up of your website is that you purport to provide “fact-checks” or “feedbacks” on articles, but if anybody disputes your “feedback”, the only formal mechanism you currently offer on the website is to submit a comment through your on-line “contact us” form. We were unable to find an e-mail address for Dr. Baraut-Guinet, the editor in charge of the article in question. However, you are currently listed on the Science Feedback website as the Founder & Director (Dr. Vincent) and Science Editor, Climate and Ecology (Dr. Forrester), and we were able to find your e-mails on-line. Therefore, we assume that you are the appropriate people from your website to contact, and that you can contact him.
We have also cc’ed and bcc’ed several people whose professional reputations have been directly attacked by Dr. Baraut-Guinet through his accusations, as well as several people whose reputations have directly or indirectly been used by Dr. Baraut-Guinet to justify his claims.
Specifically, we have cc’ed Alex Newman, since Dr. Baraut-Guinet is (falsely) accusing him of not having carried out his journalistic duties. We have also bcc’ed our 20 co-authors on the research paper in question (Connolly et al., 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-
Additionally, we have bcc’ed Prof. Tim Osborn, Dr. Britta Voss and Prof. Patrick Brown. Dr. Baraut-Guinet has taken quotes from each of them from previous reviews on your website, and copied-and-pasted them the “Scientists’ feedback” for his “fact-check” on Alex Newman’s article.
Your Science Feedback framework claims that the “Scientists’ feedback” is needed before the editor can reach a verdict:
“Process for deciding on a verdict
The final ruling regarding the verdict attributed to the claim is made by a Science Feedback editor based on suggestions by the scientists contributing to the review.”
Therefore, it should have been a warning flag that none of the three scientists listed in the “Scientists’ feedback” section had contributed suggestions specifically about Alex Newman’s reporting. Instead, their ”feedback” was copied-and-pasted from feedback on previous articles or claims.
We appreciate that Baraut-Guinet did include an explanatory note for each of them saying, “[ This comment comes from a previous review…”. But, many casual readers would miss this. Indeed, we have already heard from several friends who independently told us about the article and none of them had noticed this caveat.
At any rate, we have bcc’ed these three scientists to let them know that Baraut-Guinet is using quotes from them on different articles to imply that they had also directly commented on Alex Newman’s article.
We have also cc’ed Jonathan Lynn (Head of Communications and Media Relations of IPCC), the representative from the IPCC that provided statements to Alex Newman for his article, since Baraut-Guinet misleadingly implies in his article that Newman failed to present the IPCC’s position on the various points made. This is factually inaccurate as well as misleading, lacking in context and also a Strawman argument (i.e., 4 of the types of misinformation criticised by your framework), since Newman states clearly in his article that he specifically reached out to the IPCC for comment, and reported the IPCC’s responses. This included a clarifying statement from Prof. Panmao Zhai (co-chair of Working Group 1 AR6), who we have bcc’ed.
Finally, we have bcc’ed multiple people who we know are concerned about how influential “fact-checking” organizations like yours have become and are wondering “who will fact-check the fact-checkers?” We think they will find our “fact-check fact-check” of your fact-checker, Dr. Baraut-Guinet’s article helpful. We suspect they will also be interested to see how your organisation will respond to this problem.
Details on our “fact-check fact-check”
We have attached in both pdf and MS Word format our detailed “fact-check fact-check” on Dr. Baraut-Guinet’s “fact-check” of Newman’s article.
For convenience, we have summarized below the key relevant links:
1. Dr. Baraut-Guinet’s “fact check”/“feedback”: https://climatefeedback.org/
2. Alex Newman’s article in The Epoch Times: https://www.theepochtimes.com/
3. Science Feedback’s “Framework for claim-level reviews” which Baraut-Guinet’s article claims was used for the fact-check: https://sciencefeedback.co/
4. Our peer-reviewed paper in Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics that they were reporting on, i.e., Connolly et al. (2021): https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-
5. Link to the IPCC WG1 AR6 that they were also reporting on: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/
Our immediate recommendations to Climate Feedback
· Recommendation 1: We recommend you correct the existing “fact-check”/”feedback” on Alex Newman’s article. Currently, your website asserts that his reporting was “Incorrect” and “Misleading”. This should be changed to “Correct” and “Accurate” immediately.
· Recommendation 2: Those groups that are using Climate Feedback as a “fact-checker” should be contacted to let them know of your website’s erroneous analysis of this article.
· Recommendation 3: All of your editors should be reminded that your “framework for claim-level reviews” was presumably not to be used as an inspiration for what to do, but rather for identifying misinformation.
However, once this is done, we would also encourage you (and others reading this open letter) to consider whether the very idea of “fact-checking” on science reporting is as good an idea as it might initially seem.
Commentary on whether this plan of “fact-checking” is working
Finally, we think that it is time for society to reflect on whether this recent trend in “fact-checking” is wise. We note that a lot of this trend can be specifically traced back to debates over journalistic approaches to the scientific reporting of climate change.
Specifically, in the early 2000s, some researchers who believed that the IPCC reports offered the definitive “scientific consensus” on climate change were frustrated that journalists would still report the perspectives of scientists who disagreed with the IPCC reports. In particular, the Boykoff & Boykoff (2004) paper argued that the journalistic norm of “balanced reporting” was leading to a ‘false balance’ by implying that the supporters of the IPCC reports and the critics represented a 50:50 split among the scientific community (abstract here; pdf here).
This study (and more generally the argument) was highly influential and convinced many journalists that they had a duty to stop carrying out what they assumed was ‘false balance’ and instead only report on the scientific perspectives they believed were “correct”. That is, on any given scientific disagreement, the journalists would be obliged to find out what the “scientific consensus” was. If a scientific study disagreed with this consensus, it was not to be reported on.
This alternative journalistic approach is often referred to by its supporters as “reliable reporting”, although critics might call it “narrative-driven journalism” (or “ideological reporting” if the critic disagreed with the journalist’s political ideology).
A major problem with relying on this “reliable reporting” approach to journalism is that it effectively requires the journalist to act as the arbiter of an often complex scientific disagreement. When even the scientists themselves are in disagreement, this puts a very heavy burden on the journalist. Nonetheless, over the years, the argument about ‘false balance’ has convinced many journalists to abandon the classical ‘balanced reporting’ approach.
Today, it is very rare to find journalists like Alex Newman who continue to apply the ‘balanced reporting’ approach when covering scientific disagreements. As a result, over the last decade or so, it has become increasingly difficult to find open-minded and honest discussions on these scientific issues in the traditional media.
However, until recently, it was still relatively easy to find those discussions elsewhere by using social media and internet searches. Therefore, social media platforms and internet search engines are now being criticised for still allowing people to find out about ongoing scientific disagreements. As a result, these platforms are being increasingly pressured to actively suppress “misinformation”. Essentially, they are being pressured to adopt the same techniques of suppression described above which were applied to the media.
But, since the original premise of most social media platforms and internet search engines was to allow users to share and search for the information they wanted, if these platforms engage in this suppression, it is an especially draconian form of censorship.
To try and justify this censorship as “reducing the spread of ‘fake news’ and ‘misinformation’”, platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google/Youtube and others have started relying on “independent fact-checkers” such as Climate Feedback. However, as we demonstrated in our “fact-check fact-check”, attempting to “fact-check” on issues where there are ongoing scientific disagreements (as Dr. Baraut-Guinet did here) is very risky – and can easily result in generating misinformation (as Dr. Baraut-Guinet did here).
Therefore, we suggest that it is time for a re-think on the current reliance on “fact-checkers”, and also for journalists to re-think the “reliable reporting” approach.
Personally, we think that a return to encouraging “balanced reporting” would be a good option. However, we note that there was a recent paper by the Danish philosopher, Prof. Mikkel Gerken, which presents several options: Gerken (2020), “How to balance Balanced Reporting and Reliable Reporting”, Philosophy Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/
Gerken describes the above approaches to journalism when it comes to science reporting as follows:
1. Balanced Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report opposing hypotheses in a manner that does not favor any one of them.
2. Reliable Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report the most reliably based hypotheses and avoid reporting hypotheses that are not reliably based.
He agrees that there are valid concerns about both approaches. The first approach can potentially lead to “false balance”, while the second approach can potentially lead to narrative-driven journalism, or even propaganda.
Therefore, he suggests two potential compromises:
3. Inclusive Reliable Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report hypotheses in a manner that favors the most reliably based ones by indicating the nature and strength of their respective scientific justifications.
4. Epistemically Balanced Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report opposing hypotheses in a manner that reflects the nature and strength of their respective scientific justifications or lack thereof.
He favours the 4th option. However, either the 3rd or 4th option rules out the necessity for the 2nd option of suppressing the existence of genuine scientific disagreements, and also avoids the risk with the 1st option of potentially creating a ‘false balance’.
In our opinion, the public are not as prone to ‘false balance’ as the proponents of Option 2 insist. We think that most people recognise that if a journalist provides two competing perspectives on a scientific issue it does not necessarily mean that the scientific community is split 50:50 on it. However, for journalists who are concerned about the risk of ‘false balance’, options 3 and 4 might be suitable alternatives to option 1.
Indeed, arguably, Alex Newman’s approach in his Epoch Times article combines elements of Options 1, 3 and 4.
Importantly, it is only with Option 2 that there is a necessity for “independent fact-checkers” for science reporting. For the other options, the readers are made aware of the existence of differing scientific perspectives and it is up to them to investigate further if they are interested.
Abandoned to the Taliban
Afghanistan is only the latest in a long line of American Allies betrayed. As recently as the 8th of July, U.S. President Biden was adamant that the Taliban would not be able to overrun Afghanistan because Kabul had a well-funded and well-trained military. “The Afghan troops of 300,000 are well equipped – as well equipped as any army in the world – And an Air Force -against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable… I trust the capacity to the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped and more competent in terms of conducting war.” It only took the Taliban five weeks to prove Biden wrong and to expose the hypocrisy of America’s 20 years of “constructive engagement” in Afghanistan.
From Fighting Terrorism to Promoting Perversion
What began as a war against terrorism, targeting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan changed into “nation building” – promoting radical feminism, LGBTQ gay agenda and flying the rainbow flag from the US embassy in Kabul. Many Afghans who had welcomed the Americans as liberators in 2001 grew to resent the promotion of immorality and perversion.
Counting the Cost
How many Billions of dollars did the U.S. pour into Afghanistan? How many American soldiers and other Allied forces, were injured, crippled, or died, in that two-decade war? “For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them…and they shall not escape.” I Thessalonians 5:3
Slandering Their Allies
Considering that the Afghan National Army (ANA) lost over 66,000 men in combat fighting against the Taliban, it is neither honest nor fair to claim that they were not willing to fight to defend their own country! With the US closing their Bagram air base and withdrawing their logistical support, the supply chain, communications and air support essential for the Afghan National Army was terminated and collapse became inevitable. The US left behind vast quantities of high-tech weapons which have now fallen into the hands of the Taliban.
Reliability, Dependability and Credibility at Stake
America’s credibility as a reliable ally has suffered yet another devastating blow. Who can trust a government that has such a long trail of treachery, betraying not only their allies, but their own citizens and troops into the hands of some of the most merciless Marxists and, in this case, Jihadists? “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore, the wrath of the Lord is upon you.” 2 Chronicles 19:2
A Trail of Betrayal
Veteran Angolan Freedom Fighter, Jonas Savimbi, the leader of UNITA, observed: “It is better to be America’s enemy than America’s friend. If you are her enemy, you will probably be bought. If you are America’s friend you will certainly be sold.” I was a guest at Jonas Savimbi’s UNITA headquarters in Jamba in Free Angola. It was 1986. Jonas Savimbi was by no means anti-American. In fact, he loved American history and regularly would be quoting from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. He looked up to America as a city on a hill, an example of Faith and freedom that he hoped to emulate in Angola. However, he was referring to the US State Department and its trail of betrayal.
Jonas Savimbi leaned across the breakfast table and asked: “Do you know why there hasn’t been a revolution in America for over 200 years?” His guests were at loss to know how to answer the question. The UNITA leader answered his own question: “The is no America embassy in America!” Everyone laughed and some squirmed in their seats.
Coup D’état in Iran for Oil
The involvement of American embassies in inciting, fostering and even organising coup d’états and revolutions around the world are well documented. Examples include the CIA Operation AJAX which orchestrated the 1953 coup d’etat overthrowing the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran. Oil companies were heavily involved in financing this street protests and buying of key leaders in Iran.
Coup in Guatemala for Multinational Company
In 1954, the CIA overthrew the President of Guatemala Jacobo Arbenz to establish a dictatorship which favored the American multinational: American United Fruit Company.
Coup in Dominican Republic
The coup d’etat in the Dominican Republic in 1962 was also organized by the CIA. (This was confirmed by the Church Commission in 1975.)
Assassination and Coup in South Vietnam
The 1963 assassination of South Vietnamese leader Ngodinh Dien was orchestrated by South Vietnamese generals who requested CIA’s support to bring about the coup d’etat.
Coup in Brazil
The 1964 coup d’etat in Brazil, including the street protests which ousted President Joao Goulard and replaced him with Brazilian Chief of Staff Humberto Castello Branco, whose forces were supplied with non-American weapons. National Security archives declassified documents confirm that President Lyndon Johnson planned this Brazilian coup with his advisors. The dictatorship managed to survive in Brazil until 1985.
These and many other regime changes are documented in John Jacob Nuttar’s book The CIA’s Black Ops: Covert Action, Foreign Policy and Democracy published in 2000.
Subversion in South Africa
In 1977, South African journalist Aida Parker documented, in the Citizen newspaper, that the American Embassy Reading Room in Soweto was deliberately subversive, stocking books, pamphlets, magazines and films of Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Karl Marx, Che Guevare, Fidel Castro and other Marxist revolutionaries.
I met Captain Eugene (Red) McDaniel of the US Navy and read his book Scars and Stripes – The True Story of One Man’s Courage Facing Death as a POW in Vietnam. After surviving six years of torture in captivity in Hanoi, Vietnam, he became involved the Vietnam war POW/MIA campaign to account for the thousands of Missing In Action Americans abandoned by their government. As Founder and President of the American Defense Institute (ADI) he sought to document the trail of betrayal of American Prisoners Of War or Missing In Action’s abandoned, not just in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, but in North Korea and China after the Korean War and in the Soviet Union after both the First and Second World Wars. He also introduced me to the book Kiss the Boys Goodbye – How the United States Betrayed Its Own POWs.
Deliberate Policy to List Living POWs as Dead
Lt. Col. Philip Corso, who had once served on National Security Council staff under President Dwight Eisenhower, testified to the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA affairs, in 1992, that it was “a deliberate policy” to list as dead many of those American GIs who were known to be captured alive by the North Koreans during the Korean Conflict. Altogether some 8,177 US servicemen were unaccounted for from the Korean War. In 1955 President Eisenhower decided that the unaccounted-for POWs be declared dead. Col. Corso also testified that there were journalists who accepted money from the CIA to report the party line and ignore the reports on American POWs shipped to the Soviet Union. “The fate of our prisoners fell through the cracks. It wasn’t an accident. It was policy.”
Americans Imprisoned in the Soviet Union
Col. Corso also testified that train loads of American prisoners were shipped to the Soviet Union. “None of those boys ever came back!”
A Pattern of Denial and Deceit
Senator Robert Smith (R-NH) concluded: “A large number of American servicemen at the end of the war…left behind were sent to communist China and to the Soviet Union. Internal documents and statements made at the time also show that our government believed that these men were still alive in captivity and until only a few months ago had kept that reality from the American people. It covered up what it knew through a pattern of denial, misleading statements and, in some cases, lies and by doing so with regard to the Korean conflict, it broke its commitment with the people who put on their uniform to fight for the freedoms and protection that we and our allies enjoy today.”
Declassified Soviet Documents Confirm US POWs Incarcerated and Executed in Russia
General Dmitri Volkogomov of the Soviet Red Army testified before the US Senate Select Committee in 1992 that American soldiers who had been POWs of Germany and found themselves on the territory of the USSR at the end of World War 2 were employed in Stalin’s GULAG labor camps and, on many cases, were summarily executed by the NKVD.
American POWs from Korea and Vietnam Sent to the USSR
They had also uncovered files of the interrogation of 49 American pilots who had been captured in North Korea and were held prisoner with 3,000 others near the Russian border. Also, US defectors from the Vietnam War were relocated for propaganda activity, with the agreement of the Peoples Republics of China and Vietnam.
Imprisoned and Executed by Their Allies
Many of the 22,000 American prisoners of war in camps “liberated” by the Soviets during World War 2 were made slaves in Soviet GULAG labor camps. He knew of 119 Americans who were believed to be either spies or collaborationists who were executed. At least six American prisoners from the Korean War were held at special camps in the Soviet Union where they were interrogated and held for eight years and then shot.
Many Records Missing of American POW’s and Executions in USSR
General Volkogomov said that his own father had been liquidated under Stalin and that he has still not found any record of the circumstances. He could not rule out the possibility that there had been even more mass transits of American Korean War and Vietnamese War servicemen to the USSR, but most of those records are still to be located.
American Civilian Enslaved in Stalin’s GULAG
John Noble wrote the book I Found God in Soviet Russia printed in 1959 and I was a Slave in Russia printed in 1961. American born US citizen John Noble was working in a camera factory in Dresden, 1945. He survived the 14 and 15 February 1945 fire-bombing by the RAF and USAAF and then, together with his father, was arrested by the Soviet Red Army occupation forces and incarcerated at the NKDV special camp number 2 located on the former Buchenwald concentration campsite. The Soviet COMESA appropriated the Noble family’s PRACTICA camera factory and stock of quality cameras. In 1950 John was sentenced to a further 15 years in the Soviet GULAG system in Siberia. As John was transferred across the Soviet Union, he saw a message written by American Major Frank Roberts (who was recorded as Missing In Action during WW 2). John Noble ended up at Vorkuta GULAG in the northernmost Urals, in Siberia. Noble managed to smuggle out a postcard which led to the intervention, in 1955, by President Eisenhower and brought about his release.
The GULAG Study Admits Policy of Suppressing POW Reports
The GULAG Study by the Pentagon concluded that American servicemen were imprisoned in the former Soviet Union. After ignoring volumes of documentation for over 50 years, the Pentagon finally admitted that it had been a matter of policy to suppress reports of U.S. POWs and MIAs incarcerated in the Soviet Union and Red China.
American POW’s Were Sent to the Soviet Union
Col. Simpson (USAF) revealed that while serving as an Air Force attaché at the US embassy in Hong Kong, he learned from Russian defectors that had personally witnessed hundreds of American servicemen from the Korean War being transferred by the Chinese to the Soviets at the Chinese/Russian border crossing point at Manchoulai. Simpson had filed a High Priority report to superiors and knew that it reached the hands of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles.
POW Reports Buried by Eisenhower
During the administration of President Ronald Reagan, Simpson’s original report was retrieved from the dark hole it had been tossed into decades before. Col. Simpson said that he had been told by a senior member of the Eisenhower Administration that President Eisenhower had concluded that “nothing could be done” to retrieve the men from their captivity and so the reports were buried.
Betrayed by Their Own Government
Reports have also been unearthed of American soldiers, who had been fighting against the Bolsheviks at the conclusion of World War 1, as part of a secret U.S. military expedition to Archangel, who had fallen into the hands of the Red Army. The government of President Woodrow Wilson suppressed those facts and kept the plight of these American soldiers from the electorate. “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” Galatians 6:7
Commander Jeremiah Denton Tortured in Vietnam
Another person I had contact with was US Senator Jeremiah Denton, who wrote the book When Hell was in Session. In 1965 Commander Denton, piloting an A-6 Intruder jet, was shot down over North Vietnam and captured. Denton was held prisoner for almost eight years, severely tortured as a POW in Hanoi, Vietnam. During a televised press conference, in 1966, he used the opportunity to send a distress message by repeatedly blinking his eyes in Morse code spelling out T-O-R-T-U-R-E.
Resistance Despite Torture
When questioned about his support for the US war effort in Vietnam, he replied: “Whatever the position of my government is, I fully support it. Whatever the position of the government, I believe in it. Yes, sir. I am a member of that government and it is my job to support it and I will as long as I live.” He was severely tortured for that resistance. As the senior member of the U.S. POWs, he was particularly targeted for special treatment by his tormentors.
Exposing the Communist Agenda
Senator Denton set up and chaired the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism which exposed Soviet KGB communist control of the African National Congress terrorist group in South Africa.
Missing in Action in Vietnam
Films like Hanoi Hilton, Chuck Norris’s Missing In Action series and Uncommon Valour depict some of the tortures and abuse which U.S. POWs and MIAs suffered in communist Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The reality, as Red McDaniels and Jeremiah Denton revealed, was far worse.
Betrayal by Rulers
Through America’s Ambassador to Romania, I met Michel Sturdza, former Romanian Foreign Minister, who authored Betrayal by Rulers. Prince Sturdza documents the pattern of treachery that cannot be explained by folly, stupidity, or accident. He indicts U.S. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson as treacherous, not only to their Allies, but to western Christian civilization. FDR and Winston Churchill’s betrayal of millions of Christians in Eastern Europe to Stalin’s brutal Soviet Union at the Teheran conference, at the Yalta conference and at Potsdam were some of the greatest blows against freedom in the history of the world. “Who plan evil things in their hearts; they continually gather together for war.” Psalm 140:2
From 1945 to 1947 over three million Russians, Ukrainians and other East Europeans were forceable repatriated to the USSR by British and American forces in Western Europe. This betrayal of men, women and children into the hands of Stalin’s NKVD was agreed to by Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt at the Yalta conference, but was kept secret for 30 years. Many of those betrayed to the communists had been born in Western Europe, the children of refugees who fled the Red Terror of 1917 to 1923.
Ally Betrayed – China
I also have the book Ally Betrayed: the Republic of China by David Rowe. Dr. Rowe professor of political science of Yale University and a specialist on Far East History, Politics and International Relations. As the leading American authority on China, he documented how the U.S. government betrayed free, nationalist China into the hands of Mao’s brutal Red China. The betrayal of the Republic of China into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party continues to have disastrous consequences to this day. “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Franklin D. Roosevelt
Ally Betrayed – Republic of Korea
Another book by Professor David Rowe on my shelf: Ally Betrayed… The Republic of Korea.
Ally Betrayed – Nicaragua
Another book on my shelf: Ally Betrayed – Nicaragua with the Foreword by U.S. Ambassador Beryl Smith and Postscript by U.S. Ambassador Turner Shelton. It quotes Lieutenant General Gordon Sumner “Nicaragua was subverted from within and attacked from without. The record is quite clear in this regard. The role of the Carter administration in this shabby affair…The Carter strategy of polarization using ‘Human Rights’ as the operative principle has succeeded in destroying the strategic position of the United States and the Caribbean Basin as well as the Western Hemisphere.”
Politics of Deceit and Destabilzation
Nicaragua, a strategic country in Central America was lost as a member of the free world community of the nations and its democratically elected government overthrown by Marxist campaign of sabotage and terrorism which were supported by “the deliberate political destabilization of this freely elected government by the U.S. Administration headed by President Carter in 1979. The politics of deceit adopted by the U.S. Department of State and the massive Cuban support given to the Sandinista Communist terrorists were largely ignored by the U.S. media. The triumph of the Sandinista terrorist movement in Nicaragua encouraged Fidel Castro and Soviets to assist further revolutionary upheavals in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.”
Wall Street and the Bankrolling of the Bolshevik Revolution
Professor Anthony Sutton, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, wrote: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution which documents the shocking links between some New York bankers and many revolutionaries in what became the Soviet Union.
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy
Professor Sutton also wrote the book The Best Enemy Money Can Buy documenting how the Soviet Union and Red China were built up with Western Technology and aid.
Never Beaten by Our Enemies – Betrayed by Our Friends
Prime Minister Ian Smith of Rhodesia declared: “We were never beaten by our enemies, we were betrayed by our friends.” The title of his biography is: The Great Betrayal. The betrayal of Rhodesia to Mugabe’s Marxist Zimbabwe continues to have disastrous repercussions to this day. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:11
President Herbert Hoover, America’s 31st president, spent 20 years researching and writing a monumental documentation of U.S. State Department treachery. The title of his book: Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and its Aftermath. President Herbert Hoover documents the treacherous policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration in betraying the Christians of Central and Eastern Europe into the hands of Stalin’s brutal Soviet Union. “…for with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.” Luke 6:38
Uncomfortable Truths That Expose the Real Agenda of FDR
Hoover’s Freedom Betrayed is a 900-page encyclopaedia of uncomfortable truths that seriously challenge the traditional views of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Herbert Hoover documents that F.D.R.’s foreign policies were not merely disastrous and catastrophic, but treacherous. His shocking exposé has proved to become one of the key historical documents of the mid-20th century, a searing indictment of F.D.R. and the politicians around whom who lied prodigiously to conceal their nefarious agenda. “The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart; His words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords.” Psalm 55:21
The Betrayal of Iran
The Shah’s Story by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, documents the treacherous role of the U.S. State Department under President Jimmy Carter which led to the Islamic Revolution of 11 February 1979 and the end of over 2,500 years of continuous Persian monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. During the last Shah’s 38-year rule, Iran went through a series of economic, social and political reforms which transformed that country into a global power with its national income rising 423 times over. By 1977, Iran’s military had become the world’s 5th strongest armed forces. Iran’s economic growth rate exceeded that of United States, Great Britain and France. The destabilising and betrayal of Iran in 1979 continues to have disastrous repercussions to this day.
No Win Wars
On my first visit to United States of America in January 1988, I heard Col. Oliver North describe how he had time and again been commanded to lead his Marines to take a position in Vietnam, only to then be ordered to withdraw from that position. To then be told to retake that position, which by then was far more effectively defended. They would succeed the second time at greater loss of life. Only to be ordered to withdraw from that position. And then the third time be instructed to retake that same position, which now was further entrenched, with concrete, barb wire and more devastating weaponry. At greater loss of life U.S. Marines would succeed in taking that position a third time, only to be ordered to withdraw from that position again. I remember the horror and shock I felt listening to this first-hand testimony of the criminal short-sightedness, or malicious treachery, of U.S. government officials towards their own armed forces.
Our Creator and Eternal Judge will Bring Injustice to Light
“Woe to her who is rebellious and polluted, to the oppressing city! She has not obeyed His voice, she has not received correction; she has not trusted in the Lord, she has not drawn near to her God. Her princes in her midst are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves that leave not a bone till morning. Her prophets are insolent, treacherous people; her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the Law. The Lord is righteous in her midst, He will do no unrighteousness. Every morning He brings His justice to light; He never fails, but the unjust knows no shame.” Zephaniah 3:1-5
A View Within the Beltway of Washington D.C.
During my 1st visit to America in 1988, I met with a political leader who commented: “You must understand that there is some method in the madness. For every ally we betray we get a whole lot of new restaurants to choose from here in Washington, DC!” There standing on the street corner we looked over and we saw a Chinese restaurant, a Vietnamese restaurant and a Hungarian restaurant. I looked at him to see if this was some kind of sick joke. He gave me a bitterly frustrated look. He grieved that this was a truth spoken in jest. “But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:36-37
A Policy of Appeasing Enemies and Betraying Friends
No wonder our friend Jonas Savimbi had declared many years ago in Angola: “It is better to be America’s enemy than America’s friend. If you are her enemy, you will probably be bought. If you are America’s friend you will certainly be sold.” “So, I sought for a man among them who would make a wall, and stand in the gap before Me on behalf of the land, that I should not destroy it…” Ezekiel 22:30
The Treachery of Globalists Needs to be Exposed and Opposed
Many American people are good people, but they need to be aware that the Deep State, the Swamp, has the blood of many innocents on their hands. And those who will treacherously betray their friends and allies and others who trusted in them, who could even abandon their own military in Marxist hell holes and lie to cover it up, cannot be trusted. “Who will rise up for Me against the evildoers? Who will stand up for Me against the workers of iniquity?” Psalm 94:16
14 July is celebrated in France as Bastille Day. It commemorates the storming of the Bastille and the launch of The French Revolution.
A Time of Turmoil
The French Revolution was one of the most influential events of modern history. The ten-year period from 1789 to 1799 when France went from a Monarchy to a Republic, to a Reign of Terror, to Dictatorship was one of the most tumultuous times in European history.
Myth and Reality
Much myth and romantic legend has been written on what some politicians would like the French Revolution to have been, but the reality was that the French Revolution was a monstrous horror. In the name of “liberty, equality, fraternity or death!” over 40,000 people lost their heads to the guillotine, 300,000 people were publicly executed by firing squads, drownings and other methods of mass murder and ultimately many millions died in the 25 years of war and upheavals that resulted.
The Prototype Revolution
The French Revolution has been the inspiration and model for all socialist and communist revolutions in modern history. As so many today seem entranced by the deceptive promises of communism, it is vital that we look again at what communism really is and why so many rose up in resistance against it. Over 30 years ago, the Iron Curtain fell, Soviet satellites broke free, the Soviet Union collapsed and the world rejoiced in a new birth of freedom. Yet, today, there is an entire generation who are apparently ignorant that they are being lied to and used, to advance a failed and evil system, under the delusion that they are working for a better and more just world. Those of us who fought against communism during the Cold War need to remind the younger generation of the reality which destroys the modern propaganda narrative being taught on so many university campuses and broadcast under the guise of news on the mainstream/lame stream media. Communism is the most malicious and destructive system in the history of mankind. God’s Covenant people have beaten it before and we must defeat communism again. “Who will rise up for Me against the evildoers? Who will stand up for Me against the workers of iniquity?” Psalm 94:16
Lord Acton in his Lectures on the French Revolution observed: “The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult, but the design. Through all the fire and smoke we perceive the evidence of calculating organization. The managers remain studiously concealed and masked; but there is no doubt about their presence from the first.”
Tools of Revolution
The tools of the French Revolution were: dis-information, propaganda, the subversion of language, malice, envy, hatred, jealousy, mass murder and foreign military adventurism as a diversion to distract the masses from the failure of government. These tools have been implemented by more modern revolutionaries: Vladimir Lenin, Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Che Guevare, Patrice Lumumba, Nicolai Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh and Robert Mugabe.
The power mad and disenchanted have continued to sing the praises of the French Revolution, and to attempt to replicate its ideals in revolutions as far afield as Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, the Congo and Zimbabwe. Demonic forces and the Enlightenment ideas of humanist philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire prepared the ground for revolution.
Disenchantment and Degeneration
Historian Otto Scott observed: “French intellectuals, middle and upper classes had grown ashamed of their country, history and institutions. Such a phenomenon had never before arisen in any nation or race throughout the long history of mankind. …a great loosening began; the country slowly came apart… for the first time since the decadent days of Rome, pornography emerged from its caves and circulated openly in a civilised nation. The Catholic Church in France was intellectually gutted; the priests lost their faith along with the congregations. Strange cults appeared; sex rituals, black magic, satanism. Perversion became not only acceptable, but fashionable. Homosexuals held public balls to which heterosexuals were invited and the police guarded their carriages… the air grew thick with plans to restructure and reconstruct all traditional French society and institutions.” (Robespierre – Inside the French Revolution, the Reformer Library, New York, 1974.)
The Role of the News Media
“The heirs of the Enlightenment of the late 18th century… launched the first Revolution in all history against the ideas of Christianity, and Christianity’s God. …the press… was spearhead, font, and fuel for these discussions… the journals were mixtures of politics and smut. They admired agitators extravagantly and never discussed the Church without mention of scandal, nor the government without criticism. They relied heavily on tales of sin in high places and high handed outrages of the court; no name, however highly placed and illustrious, escaped. …through its journals and pamphlets …it could distort, colour, plead, argue, lie, report, and misreport the information upon which the balance of the realm depended.” (Otto Scott, Robespierre)
The Debt Crisis
The French involvement in the American War of Independence against Great Britain created an enormous debt for France. This debt added to the financial crises which had started with France’s involvement in the earlier ruinous Seven Years War against Great Britain and Prussia. The colossal debt added to the financial crises which propelled the French state into bankruptcy.
Side-lined from Recovery
King Louis XVI began his reign wisely. He dismissed the large number of corrupt and incompetent ministers inherited from the court of his father, Louis XV and he appointed an excellent economist, Anne Robert Jacques Turgot as Controller General. Turgot proposed drastic solutions to France’s crises: the cancelation of tax privileges for the nobles, the abolition of industrial monopolies, removal of restrictions on free enterprise, and other bold, practical measures. However, the nobles pressured Louis XVI to dismiss Turgot.
Stop Gap Measures to Stave off Economic Collapse
The young banker Jacques Necker was then given the task of managing the unmanageable bankrupt economy. He bravely tried some short-term measures to stave off the inevitable economic collapse. But when he attempted to move towards adopting Turgot’s free market strategies, the privileged nobles and wealthy middle-class forced the king to dismiss him too. This was in 1781. Louis entrusted one hapless man after another with the financial crises, but all to no avail. France’s international credit rating was plummeting and the country was no longer able to secure loans.
By mid-1788, the government had become paralysed and no longer able to avoid admitting bankruptcy. The king was forced to re-instate Necker and call for a meeting of the Estates-General to be convened in May 1789.
The Estates General
The Estates General consisted of three houses, the first Estate was the Clergy, the second Estate was the Nobles and the third Estate were merchants and the common people. Although the third house had twice as many people as the other houses, each house was understood historically to have only one vote. Louis’ government failed to specify how the three houses of the Estates-General were to function, nor did he provide them with any Agenda or Constitution.
The National Assembly
The commoners in the third house boldly organised themselves as a self-contained National Assembly. The nobles were outraged and convinced Louis XVI to send troops to blockade the hall where the Assembly planned to meet. The third Estate then met on a nearby tennis court and vowed to continue in session until they could complete a new Constitution for the nation. This was outright rebellion against the authority of the king. Yet, on 27 June 1789, Louis ordered the other two estates to join the commoners in a new combined Assembly.
The National Assembly spent most of its time debating the latest philosophical and political theories. The Marquis de Lafayette, who had achieved fame through his involvement in the American war of Independence, espoused the cause of freedom and rallied the liberal wing of nobles around him. The Count of Mirabeau dominated the Assembly through his eloquent campaign for a constitutional monarchy.
The most fanatical extremists gravitated to Maximilien Robespierre who was a strong devotee of the writings of radical philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire. Rousseau wrote that: “It is necessary to have a cohesive force to organise and coordinate the movements of (societies), members.” Rousseau advocated constant agitation for “equality” in order to maintain an atmosphere of fear where individual differences will not be tolerated. Inspired by the defiance of the Assembly and stirred up by revolutionary pamphlets and speeches, mobs began to roam the streets of Paris attacking and murdering royal officials.
France’s financial house of cards collapsed. Capital fled the country and economic depression resulted. A series of events combined to create food shortages and hunger. Agitators panned out across the countryside to destroy the grain stores and terrorise the inhabitants. Hired mobs staged “spontaneous” riots in Paris. The powers of government then collapsed. Everything fell apart with astonishing co-ordination.
In reaction, some of the nobles persuaded the king to seek to reassert royal authority. Soldiers were ordered into the streets of Paris as a show of strength. The appearance of the soldiers inspired mobs to seize whatever weapons they could find and to storm the old fortress of the Bastille.
The French Revolution is officially dated from this point: 14 July 1789. The Bastille had become a symbol of hated tyranny and much legend has grown out of this event. As it so happens, there were no political prisoners at the Bastille at that time, and despite the fact that the Lieutenant Governor of the Bastille, M. De Launay, was guaranteed safe conduct and surrendered the fortress under a white flag of truce, the mob massacred his soldiers, and the governor, cutting off their heads and carrying them on spikes throughout the streets. As body parts of the defenders of the Bastille were paraded through the streets, a mere seven prisoners were found in the Bastille. When the news reached the palace of Versailles, King Louis was astonished: “This is revolt!” He said. The Duc de la Rochefoucauld-Liancourt responded: “No, Sire, it is a Revolution!”
The next day King Louis arrived, simply dressed and with no bodyguards or attendants, and spoke at the National Assembly. He had ordered the troops to leave Paris, so that the people would have no reason to fear their king. Louis assured them that he had confidence in the Assembly. The deputies rose to their feet cheering with great fervour. 88 of the deputies gathered at the Paris City Hall and took turns speaking to the enormous crowd from the balcony. The famous 32-year-old Lafayette was elected General of the National Guard.
While many seemed optimistic for the future, Marie Antoinette was filled with foreboding and burned her private papers. Nobles fled the court and the country, with many settling across the border. On the 17 July the king travelled to Paris to identify with the revolutionary mob. In October a mob marched to Versailles demanding that the king transfer his residence to Paris. On 6 October, the royal family were escorted by the rioters to Paris where they could be under the control of the revolutionaries.
Manipulation of the Masses
Otto Scott observed that: “Paris, like the nation, was divided into the politically active and the passive, between the many confused, disorganised and abstracted and the highly concentrated organised and intent few.” (Robespierre).
Two clubs came to dominate the Assembly at this time: The Cordeliers were led by Georges Jacques Danton and Jean Paul Marat. The Jacobins were skilfully manipulated by Robespierre.
The Origin of the Left Wing
It was in the French Revolution that the terms “left wing” and “right wing” were first coined. Those on the left were the Radicals, who proudly adopted the designation as a symbol of their Revolutionary defiance of Christian tradition which always represented those on the right hand of God as saved, and those on the left as damned. (James Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men: Origin of the Revolutionary Faith.)
The Hijacking of the Church
On 4 August 1789, the Nobles and Clergy renounced their privileges in the name of revolutionary equality. On 2 November 1789, the Assembly voted to confiscate church property and issue new paper money, called Assignats. This sparked off rampant inflation. In July 1790 the Assembly nationalised the Roman Catholic Church by enacting the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The Assembly undertook to pay the salaries of the priests from the National Treasury and to create a French church under the control of the government. Pope Pius VI excommunicated all clergymen who took the new oath demanded by the Assembly. Most of the clergy refused to take the oath and were evicted from their pulpits and parishes. France was divided into 83 Departments (counties).
Declaration of the Rights of Man
The National Assembly produced the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens. Although this was patterned after the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and the American Bill of Rights which had been appended to the United States Constitution, the French Declaration embodied mostly humanistic ideas of the Enlightenment. While attempting to adopt many of the forms of the Biblically orientated Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man failed to recognise the Creator and ignored the Biblical foundations for true freedom. A new Constitution was completed in 1791, with a unicameral legislature elected by “active citizens”. Before Mirabeau died, in April 1791, he predicted that all their well-deliberated efforts at Reform would collapse and be washed away in a bloodbath.
Abolishing the Monarchy
Louis XVI attempted to flee with his family from France on the night of 20 June 1791. When radicals discovered them, they blocked their path and escorted the royal family back to Paris. Danton and Robespierre seized upon this event as an opportunity to proclaim that France was a Republic. As the new Legislative Assembly met, 1 October 1791, the Girondists proposed replacing the just-adopted Constitution and creating a Republic.
Deeply concerned for the fate of the royal family, Austria, ruled by Leopold II, the brother of Mary Antoinette, prepared to invade France. The Assembly declared war on Austria in 1792. The French were soon defeated by the Austrians and the Prussians.
The mob stormed the king’s residence and massacred the royal Swiss guards. The Assembly voted to depose the king and write a new constitution. On 10 August 1792 the municipal government was overthrown and Danton became the self-appointed national dictator. The entire male population was drafted for military service and weapons production entered high gear. In September 1792, terrorist mobs swarmed through the prisons and massacred thousands of prisoners including many nobles who had been arrested for no other reason than that they were nobility.
Killing the King
A new National Convention was called on 21 September 1792 to write a new constitution. In December, the Convention summoned the deposed King, Louis Capet as he was now called. On 21 January 1793 King Louis XVI was beheaded on the guillotine.
Coalition Against Revolution
All of Europe was horrified and a coalition was formed against France. Austria, England, Holland, Prussia, Spain and Piedmont prepared to restore order to France and prevent the exporting of revolution to their own regions.
The Reign of Terror
The Jacobins mobilised the mob to invade the Convention and arrest the 31 leading Girondists. This launched the Reign of Terror, which officially began 2 June 1793. Robespierre established the Committee of Public Safety. A policy of mass public terror was unleashed with Revolutionary Tribunals, in which all “enemies of the Revolution” were summarily tried. Mere accusations were tantamount to verdicts of guilt. The trials were abrupt with no real opportunity granted to the accused to prepare or present any defence. The accused were quickly convicted and carted off to the guillotine.
Killing of the Queen
The Queen, 38-year-old Mary Antoinette, was dragged through the mockery of a trial and guillotined on 16 October. Her son, later recognised as Louis XVII, died as a result of inhuman treatment by his revolutionary jailers.
Twenty-one Girondist leaders, including Madam Roland, were also beheaded shortly after the Queen. The Duke of Orleans who had joined the Jacobins and taken the name of citizen Egaliter, even voting for the death of his cousin the King, was also executed at this time.
Big Bang Social Science
Romantic occultism taught a big bang theory of social science. If one could blow up, or burn down, enough buildings, kill enough people and destroy enough things, you could produce Utopia!
The Reign of Terror spread throughout France. When one city sought to resist, it was destroyed. The revolutionaries set up a pillar outside Lyons inscribed: “Lyons waged war with Liberty. Lyons is no more.” Toulon was subjugated under the leadership of a young artillery officer from Corsica, Napoleon Bonaparte.
War Against God
The Committee of Public Safety launched a vicious atheistic war against Christianity. They invented a new religion which they called the Cult of Reason. At a festival at the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris an actress was enthroned as the “goddess of the French people.” France was renamed “The Republic of Virtue”. Ancient Rome was lifted up as its model. The press and theatres were turned into instruments for state propaganda. Fashions changed to immoral loose Roman robes. Over 2,000 churches were renamed Temples of Reason and hijacked for the promotion of this cult.
A Secular Religion
Historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “In the Revolution a sinister ancient religion suddenly re-erupted with elemental violence… the fanatical worship of collective human power. The Terror was only the first of the mass-crimes that have been committed… in this evil religions name.” (John Wilson, The gods of Revolution.)
The revolutionaries began to turn on one another. Danton was executed 5 April 1794. On 7 May, Robespierre sought to impose a new religion on France, declaring a new calendar to replace the Christian calendar. 21 September 1792, the day the Monarchy had ended, was declared the First day of year one of their revolutionary calendar. Robespierre appointed himself as high priest of the Supreme Being in this new cult.
Reaping What They Had Sown
On 27 July 1794, Robespierre and 20 other of his henchmen were seized and executed by the survivors of the Convention. More than 40,000 victims had been murdered on the guillotine under the Reign of Terror. Over two-thirds of those victims had been peasants, artisans and workers. As Madam Roland was being ushered up to the platform to be guillotined, she faced the statue of the goddess Liberty and cried out: “O Liberty, Liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!”
Unleashing Forces of Destruction
The end of the reign of terror was not the end of the French Revolution. It would be followed by the Directory and by the Dictatorship eventually culminating in Napoleon’s Empire which embroiled all of Europe in ruinous war. Even after the death of Robespierre, the Revolution continued to talk about liberty and equality, to fight against the Christian Faith, and to inspire more communes, voices of virtue and revolutionaries like Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Mao Tse Tung and Robert Mugabe.
The French Revolution was the prototype, which was followed by the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the Cambodian Revolution, the Vietnamese Revolution, the Ethiopian Revolution, the Mozambiquan Revolution, the Angolan Revolution, the Zimbabwe Revolution and many others. In every case they proved that yesterday’s revolutionaries become tomorrow’s tyrants and dictators. “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption.” 2 Peter 2:19
Otto Scott’s Robespierre – Inside the French Revolution is the very best expose of what led up to that cataclysmic event and what really took place during that disastrous revolution. Reading this extraordinary book enables one to understand the revolutionary forces arrayed against Christian civilisation today. It is uncanny the similarities one can immediately recognise to what is happening in our streets, in the media, in education, in entertainment, in churches and in government, available from Christian Liberty Books, Tel: 021-689-7478, Fax: 086-551-7490, email@example.com
Resistance to Revolution
How to Respond to Marxist Bullying Tactics
Marie Antoinette, also available as a PowerPoint.
The French Huguenots, also available as a PowerPoint and translated into Afrikaans.
Reformation or Revolution
Is South Africa Entering the Second Phase of the Revolution?
To listen to a radio interview on The Real Agenda Behind Revolutionaries click here
Fred Schwarz and David Noble’s You Can Still Trust the Communists to be Communists is essential reading for anyone wanting to understand how to negotiate and deal with Marxist revolutionaries like BLM and ANTIFA.
The Agenda – Masters of Deceit DVD documentary is a brilliant expose of how revolutionaries work and how one can resist their unreasonable and suicidal demands.
Jun 21, 2021
Despite the clear evidence presented at trial, the First Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the city of Boston’s censorship of the Christian viewpoint on the public forum, a place designated as a “public forum” by Boston’s written policy and confirmed by its unbroken practice during which it never censored private speech – until Camp Constitution’s application. The Court of Appeals expanded the government speech cases far beyond Supreme Court precedent.
Never has Boston censored any flag until the Camp Constitution’s flag, which is white with a blue square in the upper corner and a red cross. The flag contains no writing. Under oath, the city official testified the flag would have been approved if the application did not refer to it as a “Christian flag.” The word “Christian” on the application alone triggered the censorship. The official said he had never heard of a “Christian flag” until Camp Constitution’s application. This testimony showed that if Camp Constitution had not referred it the flag on the application with the word “Christian,” it would not have been censored.
The city refers to its flagpole as a “public forum” and allows private organizations to temporarily raise their own flags on the flagpoles. The city of Boston’s website even states the goals for flag raising events include, “We commemorate flags from many countries and communities at Boston City Hall Plaza. We want to create an environment in the city where everyone feels included.”
However, the city censored the religious viewpoint of Camp Constitution’s flag, which was to be raised for about an hour on September 17 in observance of Constitution Day, while supporters gathered around the flagpole. The flag was part of the ceremony to honor the Constitution and recognize the Christian Founders.
Shurtleff and Camp Constitution first asked the city in 2017 for a permit to raise the Christian flag on Boston City Hall flagpoles to commemorate Constitution Day (September 17) and the civic and cultural contributions of the Christian community to the city of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, religious tolerance, the Rule of Law, and the U.S. Constitution.
Over the course of twelve years, the city approved 284 flag raisings by private organizations on the city hall flagpoles without denial except for the Christian flag. Other flags raised include the Turkish flag (which depicts the Islamic star and crescent) and the Portuguese flag (which uses religious imagery). City officials have also never denied the “messages” communicated by the “Chinese Progressive Association,” the rainbow flag of Boston Pride, and a “transgender” pink and blue flag. The flags of private community groups include Albania, Brazil, Ethiopia, Italy, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Puerto Rico, and Mexico, as well as of Communist China and Cuba. No flag was ever denied until the city denied the flag of Camp Constitution.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the city of Boston finding that the flags were government speech. The Court wrongly accepted the city’s argument that the Establishment Clause justified its censorship. However, (1) the application form designates the flag pole as a “public forum” open for private speech; (2) the city never censored a flag in the 12-years prior to Camp Constitution’s application; (3) the city approved 39-flags (averaging over three per month) in the year prior to Camp Constitution’s application; and (4) the flags of the foreign countries could not be government speech because under state law it is a crime to raise the flag of a foreign country on city property.
Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “We look forward to the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledging the city’s obvious and unconstitutional discrimination against Camp Constitution’s Christian viewpoint. There is a crucial difference between government endorsement of religion and private speech, which government is bound to respect. Censoring religious viewpoints in a public forum where secular viewpoints are permitted is unconstitutional and this must stop.”
Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.
“…I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing…and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'” Genesis 12:1-3
15 June marks the 806th anniversary of the proclamation of Magna Carta. Magna Carta has been one of the most valuable exports of Great Britain to the rest of the world. Magna Carta has truly blessed all the families of the earth. Magna Carta was the first Statute, the first written restriction on the powers of government.
Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede, 15 June 1215, recognized foundational Scriptural principles: Justice must not be sold, delayed, or denied; no taxes may be levied without the consent of representatives of those being taxed; no one may be imprisoned without a fair trial by a jury of their peers; property must not be taken from any owner without just compensation. Religious freedom is foundational and must remain inviolable, with all “its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired.”
First Bill of Rights
Magna Carta is recognized as the grandfather of all Bills of Rights. Magna Carta was the inspiration for the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the model for the English Bill of Rights of 1689; and for the Bill of Rights of the United States of America.
Greatest Constitutional Document
Lord Denning described Magna Carta as “the greatest Constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”
During the greatest century of Reformation, in the 16th century, there was a tremendous upsurge of interest in Magna Carta and strenuous efforts to apply these Biblical principles of justice and freedom into all areas of British life.
Magna Carta is an important symbol of liberty today. It is greatly respected worldwide by both historians and lawyers, as a potent foundational document for the protection of personal liberties. It has been described as one of the most important legal documents in history. “Do not remove the ancient landmark…” Proverbs 23:10
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, wrote Magna Carta, which declares: “John, by the grace of God, King of England… know ye, that we, in the presence of God and for the salvation of our soul and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs and unto the honour of God and the advancement of the Holy Church and amendment of our realm… by this our present charter confirmed, for us and our heirs, forever; that the Church of England shall be free and have her whole rights and her liberties inviolable…”
The Bible was clearly recognized as the foundational authority for Magna Carta. “You shall do no injustice in judgement. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.” Leviticus 19:15
Magna Carta established the right of Trial by Jury to protect the accused from capricious condemnation by authorities. The high value that Christianity, from its inception, has placed on the individual is in stark contrast to the ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Chinese, Greek and Roman cultures, in which the individual was always subordinate to the state. True liberty, individual rights and respect for human personality found no place in the ancient world.
It was the Christian emphasis on the individual that established the freedoms and rights enshrined in Magna Carta of 1215 and the later English Petition of Rights of 1628, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and in the American Bill of Rights of 1791.
Under God and Law
Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, challenged King James I, that Magna Carta gave the Courts of Common Law the right to provide justice “from the highest to the lowest” because the king was “under God and the Law.” “‘You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above…'” John 19:11. All civil authority is delegated by God and answerable to God.
The Christian Roots of Liberty
Dr. Alvin Schmidt, in How Christianity Changed the World, documents that the freedoms and liberties expressed in Bills of Rights and Declarations of Independence, are extensions of Magna Carta, which is thoroughly Christian. Civic freedoms and liberties could not have occurred had it not been for the Christian values that prompted and shaped the formation of these documents, all of which are extensions of Magna Carta. Magna Carta is revered throughout the world as the cornerstone of modern freedom.
Reaction to Tyranny
Sir Winston Churchill noted in his History of the English Speaking Peoples, that the rights and liberties of English speakers owes more to the vices of King John, than to the virtues of any man. King John was one of the worst kings that England ever had. His cruelty and capriciousness drove the barons of England to mobilize and compel King John to set the royal seal to Magna Carta, or Great Charter.
The sealing of Magna Carta, 15 June 1215, was a splendid victory for the English people. It marked an end to the arbitrary power of any ruler to throw a man in prison without granting him opportunity to prove his innocence. Magna Carta decrees that any man arrested must be tried in court and if it cannot be proved that he has done wrong, he must be set free. “To no one will we sell, to no one deny, or delay, right or justice.” “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.” Proverbs 17:15
Just Weights and Measures
No taxation is legal that is not authorized by those being taxed. Weights and measures must be standardized. “You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement of length, weight, or volume. You shall have honest scales, honest weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin: I am the Lord your God.” Leviticus 19:35-36
A Great Council of nobles and bishops is to advise and guide the king in governing the country. This Great Council soon developed into the English Parliament, which is the model and mother of all parliaments (Exodus 18:21).
Rule of Law
The right of a fair Trial by Jury of one’s peers, the right of having a voice in the running of the government and in determining taxes, the right to a just and uniform standard of weights and measures for money and goods, are just some of the many blessings which have flowed from Magna Carta. “Hate evil, love good; establish justice in the gate… let justice run down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.” Amos 5:15,24
The Authority of the Archbishop
Archbishop Stephen Langton strongly sympathized with the Northern barons who openly rebelled against King John. The Archbishop declared that if John refused to negotiate, then he would excommunicate every man in the Royal Army. The Barons advanced on London, where they were warmly welcomed. By the time they had pursued the king to Staines, Magna Carta included 63 demands. On Monday, 15 June 1215, the Barons met the king in a meadow named Runnymede, on the South bank of the Thames River, halfway between Staines and Windsor. John agreed to the demands, but another four days were spent in hammering out the details of the wording and in making copies of the document. On Friday, 19 June, John fixed the royal seal to Magna Carta.
Enduring Legacy of Liberty
Despite attempts by King John to violate his commitment and the hostility of Pope Innocent III to Magna Carta, the regency of John’s younger son, Henry III, reissued Magna Carta in 1216 and his son, Edward I, reissued Magna Carta in 1297, confirming it as part of England’s Statute Law.
The Dooms of King Alfred
During the time of the Reformation in the 16th century, there was an upsurge of interest in Magna Carta as lawyers and historians traced the principles of freedom in the Great Charter, to Biblically-based laws enacted during the times of the Anglo Saxons, such as The Dooms of King Alfred the Great at the end of the 9th century, which begin with The Ten Commandments, The Case Laws of Exodus and Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. “…It is not good to show partiality in judgment. He who says to the wicked, ‘You are righteous’, him the people will curse; nations will abhor him.” Proverbs 24:23-24
Both James I and his son, Charles I, attempted to supress the discussion of Magna Carta and this led to the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles for high treason. The violation of the Rights of Englishmen as outlined in Magna Carta led to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which ousted James II, welcoming William and Mary to the throne and the signing of the English Bill of Rights in 1689. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” Proverbs 14:34
Charter Rights in America
The colonists in the 13 colonies of North America protested the violation of their chartered rights as outlined in Magna Carta when Parliament failed to provide redress for their grievances. In 1687, William Penn published The Excellent Privilege of Liberty and Property: Being the Birthright of the Free-born Subjects of England, which contained the first copy of Magna Carta printed on American soil. Penn’s comments reflected those of Coke’s, that Magna Carta was fundamental Law. The American colonists quoted extensively from Magna Carta concerning their rights to Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus. The American founding fathers declared that their Constitution was to preserve their rights and liberties as enshrined in Magna Carta. The American founding fathers claimed Magna Carta as foundational for their American Constitution of 1789, which became the supreme law of the land in the USA. In 1976, Britain lent one of the four surviving originals of the 1215 Magna Carta to the United States for their Bicentennial celebrations and also donated an ornate case to display it. A replica is still on display in the United States capital crypt in Washington DC.
From Sea to Sea
William Stubb in his Constitutional History of England, published in the 1870s, documented that Magna Carta had been a major step in the shaping of the English people as a nation governed by laws under God. The British dominions, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Southern Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa, all regard Magna Carta as foundational to their laws and sought to model their Constitutions on its provisions.
Birth Certificates of Freedom
Four exemplifications of the original 1215 Magna Carta remain in existence and are held by the British Library and the cathedrals of Lincoln and Salisbury. At least 13 original copies of the 1215 Magna Carta were issued by the Royal Chancery at the time. These were sent to county sheriffs and bishops who made more copies and ensured that the provisions were understood by the population. The original Charters were written on vellum sheets, using quill pens, in abbreviated Latin. Each was sealed with the royal great seal using beeswax and resin, most of which have not survived. The 63 numbered clauses of Magna Carta were introduced by Sir William Blackstone in 1759 as the original Charters formed a single, long unbroken text. The four original 1215 Charters will be on joint display at the British Library this year, to mark the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.
Lincoln Cathedral’s original copy of the 1215 Magna Carta was being displayed at the World Fair in New York when the Second World War broke out and spent the war years in Fort Knox. Prime Minister Winston Churchill attempted to gift the Charter to the American government, hoping that this would encourage the USA, then neutral, to enter the war, but Lincoln Cathedral refused to hand over the rights to such a precious heritage.
Only one exemplification of the 1216 Charter survived and is held in Durham Cathedral. Four copies of the 1217 Charter exist, three of these are held in the Bodleiam Library in Oxford and one at Hereford Cathedral. The Australian government has a 1297 Charter on display in the Members Hall of Parliament House, Canberra. The National Archives in Washington DC has a copy of the 1297 Charter. (In 2007, a 1297 Magna Carta was sold at an auction for US$21.3 Million, the most ever paid for a single page of text.)
The Church in England played a central role in drafting Magna Carta, initiating the negotiations between the Barons and the king and at least eleven other bishops were present at the signing of Magna Carta, along with its author, Archbishop Stephen Langton. “Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Corinthians 3:17
The Threat from Brussels
For those who think Magna Carta is only a matter of distant interest for historians, Britain’s membership of the European Union is threatening to undermine our Chartered Rights as Englishmen. Brussels is attempting to create a unified European criminal code which would abolish Trial by Jury, Habeas Corpus and other safeguards entrenched in Magna Carta. More influenced by the papal Inquisition and Napoleonic code’s Corpus Juris, if allowed to progress unchecked, an EU prosecutor could issue European warrants, which could violate the foundation stones of our freedoms established in Magna Carta. “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labour in vain who build it; unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.” Psalm 127:1
God’s Law or Chaos
Those who reject God and His Law have no objective basis for justice. If one rejects Creation and the Law of the Creator then social and moral chaos is inevitable. What does secular humanism offer us? “You came from nothing! You are going nowhere! Life is meaningless!” From goo to the zoo to you, from mud to monkeys to man. No ultimate standards of right and wrong. Situation ethics and relativism have led to the lawlessness tearing families and communities apart. We need to return to God’s Law of perfect Liberty. “But he who looks into the perfect Law of Liberty and continues in it and is not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.” James 1:25
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage… For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” Galatians 5:1,13
Once again Old Glory has its time
We’ll wave it and put it on display
At least, those of us who own one
And not all do, I’m so sad to say.
There are some that don’t salute it
And some want to share its place
With flags of some other country
And I think, that’s a disgrace.
Political correctness, out of control
Our Federal Courts, I think, are wrong
When they say, anyone can burn it
And We, the People, must just go along.
Some had to change the old “Pledge”
And add, the “under God” to it
It was just fine, the way it was
But now, those words give some, a fit.
It’s for the pride of our Country
For, those Stars and Stripes which wave
For all Americans. of all faiths
And too, for all of those who Gave.
Once it was loved, and/or respected
In most places, ‘round this Earth
Now there’s some, question its meaning
And just how much, Freedom is worth.
Our prestige around the World
Has dropped to an all-time low
And more people want to burn it
Yes, even here at home, you know.
There’s hope, that we can overcome
And, that all, will once more see
We really are, “Home of the Brave
And, “The Land of the Free”!
So, take our Star Spangled Banner
And wave it proudly and hold it high
Tell all, it stands for, Freedom and Rights
For if we don’t, worse times draw nigh.
Del “Abe” Jones
OUR FLAG DAY
“They’re fighting now about our Flag
Some say that, “It’s alright to burn it!”
But our History’s reached another page
And the time has quickly come to turn it.
We have people marching in the streets
Who wave flags from some foreign land
They want the same Rights as you and I
(Like that’s what, our Forefathers planned?)
Some want a two language Nation
To speak English, and that other one
They want to steal all our identities
And probably will, before they’re done.
We are being sold to the lowest bidder
Our jobs are being outsourced “over there”
They don’t have to Fight, they’ll just buy us
And it seems, nobody seems to care!
We spend billions in foreign aid
“To make the World, a better place!” (?)
They take all those dollars greedily
And then, they’ll slap us in the face.
We went from having money in the bank
To the worst deficit in our history
While the rich keep getting richer
At the cost of those like you and me.
We have seniors, the poor, and young
Who don’t have the basic Human needs
Like food and shelter and health care
And that plants some very bitter seeds.
It seems we care more about others
Than trying to take care of our own
Especially those who hold our purse strings
Most who, hard times they’ve never known.
Thirty-five hundred Warriors killed
With more added each and every day
And thousands more hurt and maimed
While some say, “The price we must pay!”
But those who send them off to War
Are not the ones who pay that cost
It’s not their loved ones sent away
Who might not return, who are lost.
We were misled or led astray
But that’s a whole other story
The real truth, while in waging Wars
There is rarely any Truth or Glory.
We People must all be appeased
And made to think we’re doing good
That, in the end it will all be worth it
(And would be a nice change if it would.)
But the killing of our fellow Man
Has always been the Human way
Usually fueled by greed and power
No matter, what else they may say.
Those who penned our Constitution
Are probably turning in disgust
As our Rights are disappearing
And it’s wrong (?), “In God We Trust!”
Our Independence is being hijacked
By a Government that has gone wild
Who say they know what’s best for us
And treat us all, like some stepchild.
That, “By And For The People!”
Is the way it was always meant to be
But the way things have been going
Takes from, this “Land Of The Free!”
Even when we try to speak our mind
Most of them will turn a deaf ear
Say, “No, we know what’s good for you!”
Or, “That’s not what we want to hear!”
Someday, with a day of reckoning
We will all wonder, “What went wrong?
When we used to be the Greatest Nation
And were Free, and Proud, and Strong!”
JUNE 14, A FLAG’S BIRTHDAY
On the Fourth we Celebrate
The Birth of our Nation
But a Teacher in Wisconsin
Gave the Flag its Occasion.
In Eighteen eighty-five
He had his students Celebrate
The Birthday of our Flag
Which was one hundred and eight.
As more People over years
Observed the Fourteenth as “Flag Day”
In Nineteen sixteen Woodrow Wilson
Proclaimed it so, in May.
Then in nineteen forty-nine
An act of Congress was declared
Signed by President Truman
That since, we all have shared.
“National Flag Day” was born
From those sewn strips of rag
And we should Honor it every day
Old Glory, our Grand Flag.
More than two hundred years ago
Betsy Ross sewed strips of rag –
From those bits of colored cloth
Was shaped “Old Glory”, our grand flag.
Stripes of red and white
For the thirteen colonies –
White stars against the blue
Began waving in the breeze.
It’s gone through minor changes –
With stars added, as we grew –
It’s flown proudly o’er our land
And in some other countries, too.
That symbol of our freedom –
Should be protected, at all cost –
But now our reverence for it
Seems, to be getting lost.
There are some things so sacred
To our great American way
That, those who desecrate it
Should, have a price, to pay.
Even though each buys his own
That flag belongs to us all –
It’s owned by all the people
And we should never let it fall.
THE GOOD OL’ DAYS
They said, “It’s alright to burn it.”
“You can throw it to the ground.”
“You can wear it on your back.
That symbol of the freedom bound.
It’s been through catastrophes –
Flown high in wartimes’ strife –
Men swore they would protect it
And did so with their life.
What makes them so supreme –
The high court of this land
To tell us when those Stars and Stripes
Should fall; when they should stand.
What right do they think they have
To let our flag be set ablaze –
Once, it was loved and respected –
Back there, in the good ol’ days.
Climate elites demand that we meekly and obediently accept their diktats and restrictions
Oil giant ExxonMobil’s 12-member board of directors reportedly has two new members who are climate activists backed by investor “Engine 1.”
Under the headline, “Shareholders tell Exxon to eat sh*t,” G/O Media and Earther “reporter” Molly Taft gleefully ends paragraph 1 with, “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!?” The widely read journalist explained that “The bigger boys in the room [notably financial giant BlackRock] decided to play along,” prompting “panicked” Exxon officials to pause voting, but only after two of the four Engine 1 candidates (of the three endorsed by BlackRock) had been voted onto the board. “Too bad, guys,” Taft gloated.
In truth, the battle to alter ExxonMobil was over before the latest skirmish began. Taft herself reported that Exxon had promised to add “other more climate friendly directors” to its board in an effort to appease a few noisy investors.
Two weeks earlier, Canadian activist Seth Klein had declared it was “time to stop playing nice with fossil fuel companies,” which in his mind are “villains” who “outright lied for decades about the truth of climate change” and work tirelessly to “delay and divert the need for climate action.” The fossil fuel industry, said Klein, “in pursuit of its financial self-interest and preservation, has become expert at preying on our fears, misgivings and desires.”
Preying on our fears? You would think we are trapped in a burning building, or about to be eaten by Godzilla, when this entire climate pandemic is driven by a desire to shave maybe half a degree Fahrenheit off forthcoming world temperatures – based on computer model predictions that are already way above what has been measured by satellites operating in the real world!
But in the same week that once-proud ExxonMobil raised the white flag of surrender to climate mythologists, 61% of Chevron Corp. investors backed a radical proposal to force customers to reduce their “emissions” of carbon dioxide. Chevron investors barely blocked a demand that Chevron report on how significant reductions in fossil fuel demand would affect its business at a time when fossil fuel demand is rising!
On the same day, a Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to slash its “emissions” by 43% by 2030. Earlier, 30% of Shell’s investors had voted to adopt a more ambitious climate (decarbonization) plan put forward by Follow This, a campaign group that also targeted BP and the French oil company Total.
This may appear to be a war on big oil and gas, but in reality the war is against citizens who cherish their vehicles, appliances, jobs, living standards and freedoms. Few of the loudest mouths of the “green” movement have altered their lavish lifestyles, yet the super rich cannot abide “irredeemable, deplorable,” ordinary people enjoying a drive in the country, a warm home in the winter or a flight off on vacation.
Climate elitists are influencing boardrooms not only in big oil but also in big finance and big insurance. In 2019, the European Investment Bank (EIB) announced it would cease financing fossil fuels projects at the end of 2021. In 2020, major U.S. banks joined forces in refusing to finance oil and gas drilling in the tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that President Trump had opened to drilling.
Also in 2020, Lloyd’s of London announced a decision to stop providing insurance to fossil fuel companies by 2030. As Property Claim Services strategist Tom Johansmeyer explained, “Insurers and reinsurers around the world are grappling with issues related to both climate change and the impact of energy transition on their portfolios. Some have made the same commitment that Lloyd’s did, and others are likely to follow.”
Now the International Energy Agency has “demanded” an immediate end to oil and gas exploration – period! Otherwise, these elitists predict a worldwide disaster over “our” failure to limit global temperature’s increase to a maximum 1.5o C by 2050. Not to be outdone, COP26 President-designate Alok Sharma has called for an end to international coal financing. In Sharma’s view, “The days of coal providing the cheapest form of power are in the past, and in the past they must remain.”
As Future Proof founder and editor Tim de Chant sees it, “If global leaders started following the [IEA] report’s recommendations tomorrow, the most significant – and immediate – impact would be the cessation of all new fossil fuel projects starting next year. Countries could continue extracting the oil, gas and coal they’re currently exploiting, but they shouldn’t authorize any new exploration, drilling or mining.”
Another report asserts the world is already too hot to support human life. Scientific American’s Andrea Thompson makes the absurd claim that, “Even in the abundantly air-conditioned U.S., heat currently kills more people than cold, floods or hurricanes.” Bunk. USA Today reported in 2015 that cold kills nearly 20 times more people worldwide as heat, and that, even in the USA cold kills more than twice as many as heat.
Meanwhile, Molly Taft reports, Russia’s national oil company Rosneft has begun a massive project in the Arctic that officials say will produce 25 million tons of oil annually by 2024. Taft describes the project as “dauntingly huge,” as Rosneft anticipates exporting 115 million tons of oil a year by 2030 by building 15 entirely new towns for an anticipated 400,000 employees.
Is it her own “blindness-inducing rage” she feels by adding that “Rosneft has said that oil produced from the Vostok project is ‘environmentally friendly’” because the company plans to power its extraction “with wind turbines”?
What do ordinary people think of these grandiose plans – all made “in their best interest” by the enlightened? Britons are less than enthusiastic about a government mandate to replace natural gas home heating units with heat pumps at a cost of up to US$50,000 per home. Only a few Americans have invested in electric vehicles, and 20% of them bought an internal combustion engine vehicle after turning in their EV – despite the outright bribery (huge subsidies) to “encourage” EV usage.
Noting the high price and low environmental benefits of today’s EVs, Vauxhall CEO Carlos Tavares scoffed at planners hell-bent on eliminating the internal combustion engine. “I can’t imagine a democratic society where there is no freedom of mobility because it’s only for wealthy people, and all the others will use public transport.” Personal mobility, Vauxhall argued, “should be seen as a fundamental right.”
World leaders clearly know human rights interfere with their utopian plans. Without major pushback against these draconian mandates, planners will have little trouble extending their control over just about everyone. It is a small step from banning, or simply refusing to finance or insure, fossil fuel exploration and production and new car manufacturing – to banning, or refusing to finance or insure, individual purchases of just about anything elites decide we should not have. And they’re already doing it.
Just as they lied for a year about the origins of and treatment for the “COVID-19” corona virus “for our own good,” their claims of coming catastrophes from “climate change” (no longer global warming) ring hollow. All their solutions increase their power and wealth at our expense. But we are expected to “eat our broccoli” and accept pandemic plagues while they dine at The French Laundry and fly to climate conferences in private jets.
Who the hell do they think they are? And why are we putting up with their angry, ignorant, offensive demands? Have we all just become spineless worms?
Did it all start with global cooling/warming/climate-change? With the anti-nuke movement? Who came up with all this mish-mash of demands, from cancel culture to climate calamity to Antifa, critical race theory and anti-racism? How have we become enslaved by the spiteful?
We never voted for an all-electric society that bans auto racing, gas appliances,
James Garfield, the 20th President of the United States, served in the Union Army and made the rank of general. While a member of Congress, he gave a speech at the 1st Memorial Day then called Decoration Day observation May 30, 1868 in front of a crowd of 5,0000 at Arlington National Cemetery.
I am oppressed with a sense of the impropriety of uttering words on this occasion. If silence is ever golden, it must be here beside the graves of fifteen thousand men, whose lives were more significant than speech, and whose death was a poem, the music of which can never be sung. With words we make promises, plight faith, praise virtue. Promises may not be kept; plighted faith may be broken; and vaunted virtue be only the cunning mask of vice. We do not know one promise these men made, one pledge they gave, one word they spoke; but we do know they summed up and perfected, by one supreme act, the highest virtues of men and citizens. For love of country they accepted death, and thus resolved all doubts, and made immortal their patriotism and their virtue. For the noblest man that lives, there still remains a conflict. He must still withstand the assaults of time and fortune, must still be assailed with temptations, before which lofty natures have fallen; but with these the conflict ended, the victory was won, when death stamped on them the great seal of heroic character, and closed a record which years can never blot.
I know of nothing more appropriate on this occasion than to inquire what brought these men here; what high motive led them to condense life into an hour, and to crown that hour by joyfully welcoming death? Let us consider.
Eight years ago this was the most unwarlike nation of the earth. For nearly fifty years no spot in any of these states had been the scene of battle. Thirty millions of people had an army of less than ten thousand men. The faith of our people in the stability and permanence of their institutions was like their faith in the eternal course of nature. Peace, liberty, and personal security were blessings as common and universal as sunshine and showers and fruitful seasons; and all sprang from a single source, the old American principle that all owe due submission and obedience to the lawfully expressed will of the majority. This is not one of the doctrines of our political system—it is the system itself. It is our political firmament, in which all other truths are set, as stars in Heaven. It is the encasing air, the breath of the Nation’s life. Against this principle the whole weight of the rebellion was thrown. Its overthrow would have brought such ruin as might follow in the physical universe, if the power of gravitation were destroyed and
“Nature’s concord broke,
Among the constellations war were sprung,
Two planets, rushing from aspect malign
Of fiercest opposition, in mid-sky
Should combat, and their jarring spheres confound.” (From Milton’s Paradise Lost)
The Nation was summoned to arms by every high motive which can inspire men. Two centuries of freedom had made its people unfit for despotism. They must save their Government or miserably perish.
As a flash of lightning in a midnight tempest reveals the abysmal horrors of the sea, so did the flash of the first gun disclose the awful abyss into which rebellion was ready to plunge us. In a moment the fire was lighted in twenty million hearts. In a moment we were the most warlike Nation on the earth. In a moment we were not merely a people with an army—we were a people in arms. The Nation was in column—not all at the front, but all in the array.
I love to believe that no heroic sacrifice is ever lost; that the characters of men are molded and inspired by what their fathers have done; that treasured up in American souls are all the unconscious influences of the great deeds of the Anglo-Saxon race, from Agincourt to Bunker Hill. It was such an influence that led a young Greek, two thousand years ago, when musing on the battle of Marathon, to exclaim, “the trophies of Miltiades will not let me sleep!” Could these men be silent in 1861; these, whose ancestors had felt the inspiration of battle on every field where civilization had fought in the last thousand years? Read their answer in this green turf. Each for himself gathered up the cherished purposes of life—its aims and ambitions, its dearest affections—and flung all, with life itself, into the scale of battle.
And now consider this silent assembly of the dead. What does it represent? Nay, rather, what does it not represent? It is an epitome of the war. Here are sheaves reaped in the harvest of death, from every battlefield of Virginia. If each grave had a voice to tell us what its silent tenant last saw and heard on earth, we might stand, with uncovered heads, and hear the whole story of the war. We should hear that one perished when the first great drops of the crimson shower began to fall, when the darkness of that first disaster at Manassas fell like an eclipse on the Nation; that another died of disease while wearily waiting for winter to end; that this one fell on the field, in sight of the spires of Richmond, little dreaming that the flag must be carried through three more years of blood before it should be planted in that citadel of treason; and that one fell when the tide of war had swept us back till the roar of rebel guns shook the dome of yonder Capitol, and re-echoed in the chambers of the Executive Mansion. We should hear mingled voices from the Rappahannock, the Rapidan, the Chickahominy, and the James; solemn voices from the Wilderness, and triumphant shouts from the Shenandoah, from Petersburg, and the Five Forks, mingled with the wild acclaim of victory and the sweet chorus of returning peace. The voices of these dead will forever fill the land like holy benedictions.
What other spot so fitting for their last resting place as this under the shadow of the Capitol saved by their valor? Here, where the grim edge of battle joined; here, where all the hope and fear and agony of their country centered; here let them rest, asleep on the Nation’s heart, entombed in the Nation’s love!
Camp Constitution’s motto is “Honor the Past….Teach the Present….Prepare the Future.” http://www.campconstitution.net
A viable alternative to Chinese minerals hegemony
The long and winding road to building a Free-World rare-earths supply chain
Prompted by a worldwide chip shortage already impacting automobile production, President Biden in February signed an executive order directing a 100-day broad review of supply chains for critical materials for semiconductors and large-capacity batteries, including rare-earth elements. It builds on analyses, reports and executive orders initiated several years ago by the Trump Administration.
The stark truth that this review should highlight is that the U.S. and its Western allies have been left behind at the starting gate in a race only China seems to have realized was taking place.
Technology metals consultant Jack Lipton has described five steps in a total rare-earth supply chain. Mining comes first, followed by extraction of the rare-earths from mining concentrates and preparation of clean, pre-PLS (pregnant leach solution) mixed rare-earths products. (Actually, there is another step that precedes mining, at least in Western countries – gaining permission to mine – and it is often the most difficult and most time-consuming step of all.)
Mining companies typically perform these two steps, and sometimes the third – separation of mixed rare earths into individual oxides and blends. Specialized smaller companies typically handle step 4, manufacturing chemical products (such as phosphors and catalysts) and individual metals and alloys, as well as step 5, manufacturing rare-earth permanent magnets from rare-earth alloys.
China today controls roughly 80% of the world’s rare-earth production capacity, 43 percent of exports, and nearly 90 percent of refining. No other nation today has a functional complete rare-earth supply chain. This means the U.S. and its Western allies have a lot of catching up to do; Western nations have also failed to develop and carry out strategic minerals strategies.
One reason for these strategic shortcomings has been strong opposition to mining, and especially to the very word “radioactive” (for rare-earth deposits linked to thorium and uranium found in monazite ores) from constituencies opposed to environmentally challenging mining practices.
Energy consultant David Blackmon recently asserted that, “There will be no successful ‘energy transition’ or ‘Green New Deal’ implementation in the United States,” unless companies are allowed to access this country’s own plentiful supplies of copper, nickel, cobalt and rare-earth minerals. Yet, he laments, the most strident proponents of decarbonization and renewable energy are often the most strident opponents of domestic mining of these critical minerals.
Anti-mining sentiments remain strong, especially among environmental pressure groups and professional staff at regulatory agencies. For example, a recent article pointed out that offshore wind turbines that are essential to President Biden’s call for 30,000 megawatts of electricity from offshore wind by 2030 require 63,000 pounds of copper per turbine – 8 tons of copper per megawatt of energy output.
World copper prices jumped in May to an all-time high of $10,440 per metric ton, a number perhaps buoyed by Biden Administration decisions to pause the permitting of two major U.S. copper mines – the Rio Tinto/BHP Group Resolution Copper joint venture in Arizona and the PolyMet NorthMet copper-nickel-precious metals mine in Minnesota. Notably, PolyMet began its quest for permits 17 years ago after leasing mineral rights for the NorthMet deposit in 2000.
This slow-walked approach to energy and materials policy cannot stand if the U.S. is to build reliable, affordable supply chains for critical materials. TechMet Chairman and CEO Brian Menell recently stated, “To remain a leader in the energy and automotive areas, the U.S. must secure adequate supplies of the metals necessary to power the 21st Century’s industrial revolution.”
Menell’s company “builds projects that produce, process and recycle ‘technology metals’ critical for electric vehicles, renewable energy systems and energy storage.” He urged the federal government to work with the private sector to enhance supply chains among partners and allies. He called for “massive funding” to transform the U.S. critical metals industry and ramp up global production to help meet geometrically growing demand.
There is a sense of urgency in Menell’s comments, affirmed by Andrew Miller, product director at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence. Miller told NPR’s Marketplace that, sure, “you can build a new electric vehicle factory in a couple of years,” but “to fund, start and refine the processing from a new raw material facility, you’re looking at five to seven years.” And that’s with fast-track permitting that steamrolls citizen and pressure group opposition.
In a four-part series addressing Chinese dominance in the rare-earths industry, Jamil Hijazi and James Kennedy explained that China built its rare-earth industry as part of a carefully designed nationalistic strategy for world domination, one not motivated by the quest for private profits.
Now, with their market share dominance, “China uses opaque subsidies to eliminate any profit potential for competitors. No profit potential, no competitors, China’s metallurgical monopoly remains secure and uncontested.” Even more daunting, the lack of non-Chinese processing, refining and metallurgical capacity means the world sells China its low value ore-concentrate and China sells back much higher value end products.
Menell points out that China’s rare-earths dominance is “the result of decades of successful central planning, to secure the minerals required to develop technologies across strategic sectors such as energy, auto and defense.”
President Biden’s executive order supporting the concept of resilient, diverse, secure supply chains is certainly admirable. However, Menell says, the United States must make the supply of critical minerals a central part of both domestic and foreign policy.
Menell notes that the Biden Administration also needs to educate the American public that the mining and processing of critical materials can be done with much lower environmental impacts by American companies than by Chinese firms, and that America’s economic well-being depends heavily on an integrated rare-earths value chain.
“The United States cannot afford to be a bystander in the most significant transformation of the global industrial and technological landscape since the invention of the steam engine,” Menell emphasized.
Failure to take bold, ongoing action will doom the USA – and other Western nations – to submission to China’s iron grip on 21st Century technology.
Unchallenged, China could choose to expand its empire southward and eastward, as Western voices are muted by their utter dependence on Chinese “generosity” in supplying materials for smart phones, wind turbines, electric vehicles, defense and aerospace technologies, and more. China could also continue to force U.S. and other Western companies to “share” their most valuable corporate and national security secrets, and even their profits, with their Chinese “benefactors.”
Duggan Flanakin is director of policy research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org). He began his career as chief editor for scientific research at the U.S. Bureau of Mines.