The Weekly Sam: Why the Federal Government Should Get Out of Education by Sam Blumenfeld

Most Americans want less government, smaller government and lower taxes. The only
way to accomplish this is by abolishing federal departments and bureaucracies. As far
back as the Reagan administration, Republicans promised to abolish the Department of
Education. They couldn’t do it then because they lacked a majority in Congress. But
whatever happened to the plan to abolish the Department of Education when Republicans
became the majority? Not only did they forget their promise, but in September 1996 they
passed the single largest increase in federal education funding: $3.5 billion. Who were
the Republicans trying to impress? The National Education Association?
The basic question is: Can good education be provided in the U.S. without the help or
intrusion of the federal government? The answer is clearly yes. In fact, there is ample
evidence indicating that the present decline in educational quality is a direct result of
federal funding which has been used by the educators to fund more and more expensive
educational malpractice.

A little historical background will help us understand why the federal role in education in
America is more of an aberration than a natural development. There is no mention of
education in the U.S. Constitution. However, in 1785 and 1787, while the United States
were still under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress passed the
Northwest Ordinance Acts which provided for the orderly settlement of the Northwest
Territory and encouraged the establishment of schools in the territory by stating:
“Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be encouraged.” The
new states were required to set aside the 16th section of each township to be used for
educational purposes. But there was no requirement that the schools be government
owned and operated.

Seventy-five years later, in 1862, Congress passed and President Lincoln signed the
Morrill Land Grant Act providing each loyal state with 30,000 acres of land for each
Senator and Representative, the land to be used for agricultural and mechanical schools
under a measure proposed by Senator Justin S. Morrill of Vermont. Five years later, in
1867, a federal Office of Education was established. Its purpose was:

“To collect such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the
several States and Territories, and to diffuse such information respecting the organization and
management of schools and school systems, and methods of teaching as shall aid the People of
the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and
otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country.”

It should be noted that the National Education Association had been founded ten years
earlier in 1857 and that its members called for the establishment of a federal department
of education at the founding convention. And it is obvious that in that statement of
purpose was an expansionist view of the government’s future role in education.
After World War I, the NEA began a long range campaign to get federal aid for public
education. From 1867 to 1940–a period of 73 years–the Congress passed about 11 minor
pieces of legislation related to education. The fear of federal control of schools kept most
legislators from voting for federal aid to public education. But resistance was gradually
broken down by such acts as the National School Lunch Act of 1946, the School Milk
Program Act of 1954.

But it was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 passed during the
Johnson administration which opened the floodgates of the U.S. Treasury for the benefit
of the education establishment. From 1965 to 1983–18 years–there were 43 education
acts passed by the Congress, including the establishment in 1979 of a U.S. Department of
Education with cabinet status. In the year 1994 alone, there were about 180 educational
restructuring bills before Congress! The three most important bills enacted were the
Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the Improving America’s
Schools Act, a reauthorization of the ESEA of 1965. All of this legislation was passed
with much Republican help. In short, the Congress launched an avalanche of bills which
virtually amounted to a cultural revolution.

It seemed as if all restraints had been removed on government expansion and intrusion
into education, and the Republican Congress did nothing to reverse the trend. That is
why the federal government has become a government of unlimited power.
We must return to the principle of limited government if we wish to reduce the cost of
government and its unwarranted intrusion in the education of our children. A limited
federal government does only those things that cannot be done by the states or the private
sector. The purpose of taxes is to pay for government not change society.
There is no doubt that the federal intrusion in education has harmed education and
produced the dumbing down effect. Test scores attest to this bizarre phenomenon. Since
1962, SAT verbal scores have declined despite billions of federal dollars pumped into
public education. In September 1993, the U.S. Department of Education revealed that
some 90 million adult Americans have grossly inadequate reading and writing skills,
despite compulsory school attendance. The more federal money Congress pumps into
education the worse it gets. Why? Because educational malpractice is very expensive,
and without federal funding we’d have much less of it.

The simple truth is that federal education programs cost the taxpayers billions of dollars,
and not one of these programs has actually improved education. Claims have been made
that Headstart is a successful program. But research indicates that whatever gains
children make in Headstart are lost by the third grade. Federal education grants subsidize

a liberal academic elite with its secular humanist,
socialist agenda, thus violating the Constitutional prohibition against establishing a state
religion: Humanism.

The Data Collection System of the National Center for Education Statistics threatens
family privacy and freedom. Children are not a “national resource” to be monitored and
controlled for use by the state or industry. They are individuals whose lives belong to
themselves, not to “the economy.”

The federal government has institutionalized educational malpractice by supporting
unsound educational theories and practices which have found their way into the public
schools via the federally funded National Diffusion Network. Federal aid to public
education simply reinforces a socialist, government owned and operated education system
which distorts market values and encourages monopoly union practices.
Meanwhile, the education establishment continues to grow and prosper. In 1982, the
average public school teacher’s salary was $19,274. In 1995 it was up to $37,643., and in
2008 it us up to $47,602. In 1982, per pupil expenditure was $2,726. In 1995-96 the
national average was up to $6,213, and in 2009 it was up to $9,963. In 1984, total
expenditure for public education was $134.5 billion. In 2002 it had risen to $420 billion.

In short, never has public education been more generously supported by the taxpayer and
never have our schools seen more violence, academic disarray, and parental
dissatisfaction than the present. What is even more shocking is that over four million
students must be drugged daily with Ritalin in order to be able to attend class.
Today, well-connected change agents like Mark Tucker are busy imposing on America
the new Human Resources Development System, exuberantly described by Tucker in an
18-page letter to Hillary Clinton when her husband was elected President. Tucker
described his system as “a seamless web of opportunities to develop one’s skills that
literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone–young and old,
poor and rich, worker and full-time student.”

And so, in place of academic excellence, we have Outcome Based Education, Whole
Language, Multiculturalism, Skinnerian Mastery Learning, National Teaching Standards
and Certification, School-Based Clinics, Attitude Assessments, Global Citizenship, and
Socialized Medicine for every student.

What is actually taking place is a cultural revolution engineered by behavioral
psychologists, humanist educators, and socialist change agents using a whole galaxy of
education programs to implement their agenda, financed by the federal government.
And much of this has taken place when Republicans were in control of Congress. And
that accounts for the extreme frustration of conservatives who vote Republican but get
liberal results. When will this change?

The takeover of the White House and the federal government by radical leftists has finally
awakened the American people to what has happened to this country since we started
allowing the federal government to exceed all limits placed on it by the Constitution. But
in order to succeed in restoring the principles of government held by our founding fathers,
we must return to limited government. This can only be done if the American people
realize the potential for tyranny inherent in a government education system.

The most important institution in a socialist state is a government owned and controlled
school system wherein children can be indoctrinated to accept a socialist way of life. And
the best way to prevent this from occurring is to return to the concept of educational
freedom in which the federal government has no role in education.
Local public schools can easily become private institutions governed by local trustees and
supported by tuition fees. This would greatly reduce the tax burden on home owners and
provide more than enough resources to pay for the tuitions of poor families. The costs of
education would decrease dramatically since education would once more become reality
based wherein the fundamental academic subjects would be taught without the added
costs of educational malpractice. Individual intelligence would be enhanced, while
collectivist group-think would be discarded.

Can this be done? Only if America’s conservative leaders demand that it should be done.
The home-school movement has already proven that parents can actually teach better
than our high-priced professionals, that children progress better academically when taught
at home, and that the cost of educating a child at home is less than $1,000 a year.
If Americans want to once more experience what it means to be free, they must burst out
of the high-priced straitjacket imposed on them by the socialist education tyrants. If they
want better education at lower cost, then the prescription for success is simple: get the
government out of education.

This article is from the Sam Blumenfeld Archives. 

James Garfield’s Memorial Day Speech of May 30, 1868



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.”


Get Us Out of the United Nations Support H.R. 7806 by Russ Payne


 Will Rogers has a humorous observation on how lots of us think:   “The problem with the American people is not what they don’t know, it’s what we think we know that ain’t so.” Representative Mike Lee of Alabama has introduced H.R. 7806 , The American Sovereignty Restoration Act to completely Get US Out of The United Nations. The goals of the UN were altruistic, however the implementation of said goals have been less than desirable.
 First of all consider the UN globalist strategy has followed an agenda to bring “peace through force” which has resulted in wars fought by American soldiers and financed with U.S tax dollars. The narrative of the world government movement has been a “monkey on the back” of our independence and freedom since WWII because it attacks the U.S. Constitution. Just as saws and hammers are tools to build with, the UN is a tool to build world government.
  Unfortunately, Eleanor Roosevelt, when she chaired the UN committee that drafted the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, allowed the language in Article 29 that negates all the previous rights granted with the words: “Rights should not be exercised contrary to the principles and purposes of the United Nation.” This completely turns away from the Americanist principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence that human rights come from God our Creator that were written into law in the First Ten Amendments, essentially telling the federal government what it could not do. 
 Over the past 70 plus years Marxism has gradually eroded American sovereignty over ruling constitutional domestic law in many critical areas. The UN is showing its true purpose to so many today. Personal health decisions being taken away has exposed the WHO’s violation of inherent rights during these pandemic years as this global malignancy has rapidly metastasized in the area of health with a compassionate desire to control healthcare all over the world. Blessed with the protection from public scrutiny by the media, this week they are meeting in Geneva at the World Health Assembly to draft a Global Pandemic Treaty with two in-depth amendments that could easily be mistaken for international law proposed by an enemy to control the American people by a foreign enemy power. 
 The Biden Administrations actions this week reveal his position to take personal healthcare away from individuals, ceding these inherent liberties to International Health Regulations (IHR). This would give WHO’s bureaucrats power to replace doctors caring for and advising American citizens. Who of us will trust their liberty to such global power that in the past during the Obama Administration sent thousands of U.S. troops to the Ivory Coast of Africa to help the UN to enforce medical martial law when Ebola was spreading? Do we want annual “lockdowns” to be part of the American way of life? Don’t put your faith in the Senate stopping the new treaty with 2/3 majority. Adding these controls onto IHR will be automatic new powers that will continue the dangerous trend of overriding our Constitution on the way to 100% control of our lives. 
  Global government is rapidly strangling human liberty with force through their concern for our physical health through the World Health Organization. Do not the above facts shed new appreciation for Presidents Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO? It is critical that Americans who have been provoked by invasive control of personal healthcare, realize that the only permanent way to defund the Global Pandemic Treaty and its new IHR is to Get US Out Of the UN. It hasn’t just become a monster to destroy our liberty during the pandemic. It has safely moved its globalist agenda to overrule constitutional law in many areas for decades because the majority of our political leaders have represented their constituents as if they have sworn allegiance to the UN Charter instead of the U.S. Constitution. They must be terminated at the ballot box If this counterrevolution against globalism is to succeed.
 Concerned citizens would do well to inform themselves about all the tentacles of UN controls that have become “assumed powers” that illegally supersede constitutional domestic law at For since its origin in 1958 The John Birch Society has aimed its educational war against this UN “fifth column” that is strangling American liberty at the American electorate to send constitutionalists to office.  Apparently they are slow learners, for it is so obvious that the superiority of the historical foundation of Americanism over the UN peace by force, is like another way of saying that freedom is superior to slavery. Help build a fire of truth under the feet of your Senator’s and Congressmen to be a cosponsor with a true friend of American Independence and liberty, Rep. Mike Lee of Alabama whose bill H.R. 7806 will completely withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations. Be a friend to liberty. Don’t be one of those Americans who think they know the UN is for peace. It ain’t so!

Where There is Unity by James Harrison of Natural Family Strong

 A recent Supreme Court “leak” regarding an upcoming Roe Vs Wade decision has created a wave of activity on the part of our adversaries. But strangely enough and almost unnoticed was an actual Supreme Court decision that was coincidentally released the very same day of the Roe Case leak.  This separate Supreme Court Decision, a seldom seen 9-0 decision, has quietly created some interesting results throughout the fruited plans frustrating the plans of many progressive on the God hating left.

Back to that in a moment but first I mentioned the word coincidental which Webster defines as :

“Occurring or existing at the same time”. For example – the fact that your boss and you went to the same college was purely coincidental or like Joe Biden just happens to be  pumping billions of dollars into a county where his son made millions in questionable business deals – a coincidence for sure, right?

 Speaking of coincidence, it just so happens that a week after this unanimous Supreme Court Decisionthe city of Delaware, Ohio announced that they were pausing their banner/ flag program where one noted alphabet organization was looking forward to flying their colors all over the city in June. 

 It is also noteworthy that prior to this city council decision several local citizens had asked the city of Delaware council to declare a family celebration from Mother’s Day to Father’s Day of 2022. The idea was to honor the traditional family as described in the bible. And of course, the Delaware City Council would not even consider the idea quickly noting several excuses as to why not. Keep in mind this is the same council that encourages the celebration of the sexually challenged and even gave them memorial plagues for their inaugural efforts last year.

In response to the council’s Traditional Family Celebration denial, family friendly citizens then requested of the city council that instead of flying a supposed  “Pride” banner the entire month of June, a Traditional Family banner be displayed. Hopefully this would be done  at least 2 weeks in June.  This Traditional Family display would replace the “pride” banners  and preferably appear at least over father’s day June.

 The city reluctantly took the Traditional Family application which included a banner with the picture of one man, one woman and their children inside of a heart?  To say that the city seemed to have little interest in offering a symbol of the Traditional (aka Natural Family) would be an understatement. They were quite aware that Traditional family banner would have “countered” the Gay Pride banner and rumor had it that the city would likely would have said thanks but no thanks to our request if it were not for… 

   Did I mention that there was a 9-0 Supreme Court decision a couple of weeks ago?  A unanimous decision that said the city of Boston, despite the city’s previous decision against it, would now have to display a Christian flag if so requested.   And folks this was after 5 years of legal wrangling. The fact that the court even considered the case let alone come down with a unanimous decision in favor of Christians was well, dare I say, miraculous in today’s bizarre world.

  And what did that have to do with our little Ole Midwest City council decision?  Well, I’d say most everything! That is because Delaware city has now decided to “pause” all banners pending, wait for it, pending their lawyer taking a good hard look at the Boston Case – Camp Constitution Vs. City of Boston.                 Which means that at present NO banners – yes that means nothing in June for sure – will be on display on the city’s property until further notice.

  Oh and one more thing. As is my want I have been sending emails to a local pastor of a quite large church encouraging him as best he could to encourage his congregation to be salt and light  in the world. To nudge his flock to start attending local magistrate meetings- like the aforementioned City council. 

    Well, before the meeting this past Monday evening a gentleman got up and spoke and gave a passionate speech on how the city should not be displaying the rainbow flag or anything that promotes a perverted lifestyle. His heartfelt appeal was quite impressive and keep in mind this was well before the City’s decision was officially announced.

 After the meeting our Traditional Family group spoke with this gentleman who assured us that he was a Christian and that his church was active in the community.  And what church was that? As you might have already guessed, his church just happened to be the same one I’ve been badgering, oops I mean communicating with over the past few months..  

 As I look back on this experience, I can’t help but be astonished as to how things worked together, like, well like it was some sort of a synchronousor dare I say, providential plan where all the pieces seemed to just snap into place and the perfect time.

James Harrison

Director –


City of Nashua Admits They Were Wrong to Take Down My Save Women’s Sports Flag by Beth Scaer

My husband and I raised the Save Women’s Sports flag on the Citizen Flag Pole on Nashua City Hall Plaza on Saturday, October 10, 2020 with permission from the City of Nashua. It was supposed to stay up until Friday, October 16.

Nashua Mayor Jim Donchess had it removed in less than 24 hours claiming the message “Woman = Adult Human Female” on the flag is offensive and that it violates state law.

In Nashua City Attorney Steve Bolton’s response to my appeal to have my flag put back up, he cited the court case Shurtleff V Boston as justification for the City of Nashua to control which flags can be flown.

Earlier this year, I warned Mayor Donchess and Attorney Bolton, and the Nashua Board of Aldermen repeatedly that the Shurtleff case was being heard at the US Supreme Court and it was going very badly for Boston, which had denied Hal Shurtleff the right to fly a Christian flag on a community flagpole on Boston City Hall plaza. But they ignored me and continued to allow community groups to fly flags on the Citizen Flag Pole.

Last week, the Supreme Court justices voted 9-0 in favor of Shurtleff and said it was viewpoint discrimination to deny him the right to fly his flag when Boston had allowed all other flags requested by others to be flown.

Attorney Richard Lehmann sent a letter on my behalf to Nashua City Attorney Steve Bolton calling out the unconstitutionality of Mayor Jim Donchess having my Save Women’s Sports flag removed from the Citizen Flag Pole based on the outcome of this case and requesting that I be allowed to raise my flag again.

Related9-0 Supreme Court Decision Favors Free Speech, Hal Shurtleff, and Camp Constitution

The City of Nashua’s response was to remove the webpage for the Citizen Flag Pole program from the city website. This is an acknowledgment of wrongdoing by Mayor Donchess and the City of Nashua.

The City had a flag-raising scheduled for June 17 for the Pride flag which has gone up every year on the Citizen Flag Pole since the flag program was instituted in June 2017, but that event also seems to have disappeared. I am awaiting word from my alderman on what is going to happen with the flag program.

Thanks to the ACLU and the Biden administration for supporting Shurtleff’s and other citizens’ right to fly flags with other points of view on city flagpoles.

My favorite quote from the Supreme Court case is this from Shurtleff’s lawyer Matthew Staver:

If the city allows a Black Lives Matter flag, then it will probably have to allow a Proud Boys flag. That’s just what the First Amendment requires.

Today Robert Azzi, board member of ACLU-NH congratulated Shurtleff on winning his case in a Letter to the Editor to the Union Leader and applauded the ACLU-NH’s “unwavering support for the rights of all Americans”.

If Nashua continues the Citizen Flag Pole program and continues to deny me my first amendment right to fly my Save Women’s Sports flag on Nashua’s Citizen Flag Pole, I will be reaching out to the ACLU-NH for their help.


The Weekly Sam: The Sam Blumenfeld Legacy

Hal Shurtleff, director of Camp Constitution and president of the Samuel L. Blumenfeld Literacy Foundation, gives a presentation on the legacy of the late Sam Blumenfeld who was an author, homeschool pioneer, and Camp Constitution instructor.  This presentation took place at the Mass HOPE ‘s annual homeschool convention in Sturbridge Friday April 22, 2022.

CHRIST is RISEN INDEED! – Evidences for the Resurrection by Dr. Peter Hammond

“And declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the Resurrection from the dead.” Romans 1:4

The bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is tremendously important. Death is man’s greatest enemy and it has conquered all men – but Christ. Cities and nations, like people, are born and grow for a season and then fade away. Homes, clothes, even vehicles, wear out and eventually go back to dust, just as do their owners. The Bible describes this universal reign of decay and death as “the bondage of corruption” (Romans 8:21). In science it is recognized as the Second Law of Thermodynamics – the Law of Increasing Entropy. Left to themselves, every system tends to become disordered, to run down and eventually die. All the founders of great religions and movements have died and you can visit their graves. Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Muhammad, Marx and Lenin. They are all dead and decayed in the grave. But Jesus Christ is alive!

So, what difference does that make? You may ask. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is vitally important because it demonstrates Christ’s victory over death, it gives hope to all mankind, it shows that eternal life is available to believers, it points to the ultimate triumph of God over all evil and it provides an indisputable proof that the message about Jesus Christ, as both Judge and Saviour, is true. “Because He has appointed a Day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man Whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” Acts 17:31

The Research of Skeptics
The Resurrection is so important and foundational to Christianity that it has been targeted for the most relentless attacks. Frank Morison, a lawyer, determined to disprove the Resurrection and thereby undermine Christianity. The result of his exhaustive investigations was his conversion to Christ and the publication of his book: “Who Moved the Stone?” which decisively demonstrates the overwhelming evidence for the Resurrection.

A skeptical university lecturer, Josh McDowell, determined to disprove Christianity by investigating evidence against the Resurrection. The result was his conversion to Christ and publication of the monumental: “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” which exhaustively and conclusively presents documentation and evidence upon evidence substantiating the historical truth, factual accuracy, archaeological evidence, manuscript evidence, fulfilled prophecies, transformed lives and other indisputable evidences which support the fact of the Resurrection of Christ from the dead and the truth claims of Christianity.

Thomas Arnold, Professor of History at Oxford University, one of the greatest historians of the 19th Century wrote: “I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair enquirer, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose from the dead.”

Simon Greenleaf, an unbelieving Jew, recognized as one of the most skilled legal minds ever produced, developed the Harvard Law School. He is recognized as the top authority on what constitutes sound evidence. After being challenged by a student if he had examined the evidence for the Resurrection, Simon Greenleaf made a thorough and exhaustive examination of the objective evidence and the testimony of the four Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In his book: “The Testimony of the Evangelists” (Baker, 1874) he concluded: “It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.”

Simon Greenleaf declared that any court of law, if presented with the evidence of the Resurrection, would have to give a verdict in favour of the integrity and accuracy of the Gospel writers and the fact of the Resurrection.

One of the most popular books ever written and most successful films ever produced, Ben Hur, was a result of a skeptical challenge to General Lew Wallace to the authenticity of Christ’s Resurrection and a careful examination of the evidence. As General Wallace was US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at that time, he explored archaeological sites and manuscripts in the Holy Land.

What are the facts? The religious leaders, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who had campaigned and conspired to have Christ arrested and executed on trumped-up charges, had a compelling interest in disproving any claims of the Resurrection. They had presumed that the execution of Jesus would eliminate this threat to their religious power base and silence His supporters. These Jewish religious leaders had great concerns about the corpse of Jesus and they approached the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, for a military detachment to secure the tomb (Matthew 28:62-64).

The Roman governor’s priority in the volatile province of Palestine was to preserve peace and stability. He recognized the political problems that would ensue if anything happened to this religious Teacher whom he had three times declared innocent and ultimately washed his hands in front of the crowd declaring, “I am innocent of this Man’s Blood” (Matthew 27:24). His wife had warned him: “Do not have anything to do with that innocent Man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of Him.” (Matthew 27:19)

Pilate was only too aware that a travesty of justice had taken place and the last thing he needed was a review of his shameful conduct and dereliction of duty in this case. Ensuring that the victim’s corpse remained buried was definitely in Pilate’s political interests as well. “‘Take a guard’, Pilate answered. ‘Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how’. So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.” Matthew 27:65

The Roman Guard
As the chief priests had approached the Roman governor and as the Greek word Koustodia is used to describe the detachment of soldiers, it was evidently a Roman guard. If only a Temple guard had been used, there would have been no need to approach Pilate to issue the order. Additionally, the concern of the guards after the Resurrection to be protected from consequences from the governor (Matthew 28:14) confirms that those guarding the tomb were Roman soldiers. The detachment would have consisted of at least sixteen soldiers with four men placed directly in front of the entrance of the tomb, on duty, at any time. Under Roman military law any guard who deserted his post, or who fell asleep on duty, would face crucifixion. Typically, if Roman soldiers allowed a prisoner to escape they would face the same sentence as the prisoner – in this case crucifixion.

The seal placed on the stone at the entrance to the tomb signified the administrative authority of Rome and only an authorised officer of Rome would be permitted to break the seal. Anyone breaking a Roman seal without permission would be tracked down and executed.

Although the intention of the religious and political leaders had been to ensure that the phenomenon of Jesus ended at the tomb, their extraordinary security measures have only served to confirm the truth that they had murdered an innocent Man and that Jesus Christ was truly the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, “the Firstborn from the dead and the Ruler of the kings of the earth… the One Who lives and was dead and behold, I am alive forevermore.” Revelation 1:5,18.

Christ’s Victory Over Death
“Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning and his clothing as white as snow. And the guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. But the angel answered and said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus, Who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold I have told you’. So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to bring His disciples word. And as they went to tell His disciples, behold Jesus met them, saying ‘Rejoice!’, so they came and held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee and there they will see Me.'” Matthew 28:1-10

Attempts to Avoid the Truth of the Resurrection
To explain away the empty tomb, the enemies of the Gospel have had to resort to some desperate deceptions. The first was to suggest that the disciples had stolen the body. This incredible theory suggests that those same disciples who had slept in the garden, fled at His arrest, denied Him before a young woman, were hiding in fear behind locked doors, could have unitedly overcome sixteen professional Roman soldiers, dared to break a Roman seal, moved a two-ton tombstone, just to steal a corpse! A dead Messiah would have served absolutely no purpose for the disciples. What possible motivation could they have had, even had they possessed the ability to overcome the military, political and logistical obstacles? They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Every one of the disciples suffered severe persecution, most dying as martyrs for the Faith. Would you die for a lie?

Did Jesus Really Die?
Others have questioned whether Christ had really died on the Cross. Perhaps He only fainted? This swoon theory would have us believe that the Roman soldiers, who were professional killers, (the centurion in charge, would most probably have already supervised dozens if not hundreds of executions), had failed to ensure that this high-profile political prisoner was not actually dead. Considering the vicious flogging which the Lord had already endured, the excruciating torture of crucifixion and the spear thrust into His side, with blood and water flowing out, all provide convincing evidence of death.

Yet, those advocating the swoon theory would have us believe that One Who had endured such savage flogging, crucifixion and a spear thrust to the heart, could not only have survived the legendary Roman military efficiency, but that He was revived on a cold slab in a cold tomb. Further that He somehow disengaged from the grave clothes and one hundred pounds of spices, ointments and wrappings which had effectively mummified Him, rolled away the two ton stone, overpowered, or eluded, the Roman soldiers and somehow found and impressed the disciples with His Deity? These suggestions have only to be mentioned in order to be dismissed as unbelievable.

The Empty Tomb
Another desperate attempt to explain away the Resurrection of Christ has been that they went to the wrong tomb. All of them, Mary Magdalene, Peter, John, the other women, all went to the wrong tomb. Somehow neither the Pharisees, nor the Sadducees, nor the Roman soldiers, nor Joseph of Arimathea, whose tomb it was, thought to point out that the tomb was in fact still occupied! However, this theory is also impossible, as the tomb was not in a cemetery, but in a garden privately owned by Joseph of Arimathea. There was no other tomb in that garden.

The Absence of the Body
All that the Roman and Jewish leaders had to do in order to end Christianity forever was produce the corpse of Jesus. But they couldn’t do it. Even when the Apostle Peter stood up on the day of Pentecost and proclaimed: “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Acts 2:36. “And with great power the apostles gave witness to the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 4:33. Many thousands in Jerusalem, including many Pharisees, came to faith in Jesus Christ.

The Crisis of Credibility
To the Jewish religious leaders, this was their worst nightmare, a disaster. The proclamation of the Resurrection of Christ undermined their power and credibility. Thousands of their followers now believed that they had condemned an innocent Man, the Messiah Himself. The new religion of Christianity was undermining the power base and credibility of the Pharisees and Sadducees. If the body of Jesus could have been found, Christianity could be stopped dead in its tracks and the threat to the religious status quo would have ended. Since they desperately needed Jesus’ corpse, the Jewish leaders would have used every means at their disposal to hunt it down and find it – if that was possible.

The Testimony of Eye Witnesses
However, we are not only dealing with the empty tomb and the absence of the body, but the testimony of eyewitnesses. On at least twelve separate occasions Jesus Christ was seen after rising from the tomb. Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18; Mark 16:9); the other women (Matthew 28:8-10); Peter (Luke 24:34); the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35); ten of the disciples (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-24); all eleven disciples, eight days later (John 20:24-29); seven disciples by the Sea of Tiberius (John 21:1-23); to five hundred at one time (1 Corinthians 15:6); to James (1 Corinthians 15:7); to all eleven apostles and others, at the Ascension (Acts 1:3-12); Paul (Acts 9:3-8); and John (Revelation 1:12-18), all saw the Lord bodily raised from the dead.

To explain away the testimony of all these eyewitnesses, enemies of Christianity suggest that these were merely hallucinations, perhaps as a result of hypnosis or hysteria. However, while hallucinations tend to be unique psychological experiences of an individual, we are here dealing with a large number of individuals, who at different times, in different groups, in different places, both indoors and outdoors, on a hilltop, along a roadside, by a lakeshore, all saw the Lord. They saw Him, they ate with Him, they saw the wounds in His hands and in His side.

Far from being gullible, it would appear that His disciples were very skeptical and slow to believe. Thomas declared that he would not believe that Christ had risen unless he personally placed his fingers in the nail prints in His hands and feet and his hand in the wound in His side.

The Transformation of the Disciples
Not only do we have the testimony of the eyewitnesses, but the dramatic transformation of the disciples. The Resurrection of Christ from the dead transformed the disciples’ grief to joy, their cowardice to boldness, their skepticism to faith and their doubt to determination. It turned Saul, the persecutor of the Church into Paul the Apostle of the Church.

The Transformation of History
It also transformed society and history. It changed the Jewish Sabbath into the Christian Lord’s Day. What else could explain the replacement of Saturday as the Jewish day of rest into Sunday as the Christian Lord’s Day? The Resurrection transformed a Jewish remnant into the worldwide Christian Church. Over 2-Billion people worldwide describe themselves as Christians who believe in the Resurrection of Christ from the dead. The very existence of the largest religious movement in the history of the world is another powerful evidence of the truth of the Resurrection.

Prophetic Fulfilment
Jesus Himself had prophesied His Resurrection from the dead. Because of His fulfilment of this, we can be absolutely certain that Jesus Christ is God with us, as He claimed. By His Resurrection we can know that our sins are forgiven through His Blood sacrificed on the Cross of Calvary: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that Whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:14-16

Full Salvation
Because of Christ’s death on the Cross, we can rejoice that our sins are paid for – we are forgiven, justified by faith.
Because of Christ’s Resurrection from the dead, we can rejoice in the prospect of eternal life.
Because of Christ’s Ascension, we can know that He has all authority and that His Great Commission will be accomplished on earth.
Because of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost we do not need to trust in our own abilities, but in His power alone. “Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord.”

Proclaim It to the Nations
William Sangster – the church leader and hymn writer – suffered from increasing paralysis which finally prevented him from even being able to talk. On his last Easter before he died, he wrote: “How terrible to wake up on Easter and have no voice to shout, ‘HE IS RISEN’, far worse, to have a voice and not to want to shout!”

We serve a risen Saviour! Death is defeated. Christ has risen – victorious over death, hell, satan and the grave.

Jesus Christ is the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in Christ, though he may die, yet shall he live, (John 11:25).

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” 1 Peter 1:3

Dr. Peter Hammond | Director
Frontline Fellowship
PO Box 74 | Newlands | 7725 | Cape Town | South Africa
Tel: +27 21 689 4480

Convention of States Collectivist Trojan Horse by Dr. Dan Eichenbaum

As our nation continues to depart from its founding principles, conservatives are desperately searching for strategies to re-establish the checks and balances designed to prevent government tyranny.  As specific problems are identified, solutions are proposed.  If professional politicians are the problem, term limits will get rid of them.  If government spending is the problem, a balanced budget is the answer.  If government overreach is the problem, defund and close government agencies.  If moral decay is the issue, legislate against it.

The Convention of States (COS) agenda promises to resolve all these problems.  Their plan is to invoke Article V of the Constitution in which thirty-four states can petition Congress to call a “convention of states” to propose constitutional amendments.  They contend that each state delegation is restricted to proposing only amendments specified in the state’s petition.  Common suggested amendments are Congressional Term Limits and a Balanced Budget Amendment.  COS proponents claim that the states will control all aspects of the convention and any amendments proposed would still have to be ratified by ¾ of the states to become part of the Constitution.  They claim the process is legal, constitutional, and a perfectly foolproof and safe way to reestablish constitutional rule.

I vehemently disagree. The Article V Convention of States is a Trojan Horse.

Article V of the Constitution is a 143-word run-on sentence that should make English teachers gasp and cringe.  An English teacher so appalled, however, would probably have taught the class how to parse a sentence to understand who does what to whom.  To parse a sentence one must find the subject, verb, and object of the sentence and temporarily put all the rest aside.

Here is the full text of Article V of the US Constitution with highlights for further discussion:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or,on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The simple declarative sentence reads as follows:

The Congress shall propose amendments to this Constitution or shall call a convention for proposing amendments.

Congress, it appears, can take one of two actions with certain triggers:

  1. Congress Shall Propose Amendments itself
    Trigger:  2/3 of both houses deem it necessary
  2. Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments
    Trigger:  Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several states; i.e. 34 states

Option 2 is what the COS folks are talking about.  Based just on this part of Article V, here are the obvious sources of risk:

“Congress shall call a convention”

  • call a Convention – not call a Convention of States
  • “Congress shall call a convention” means that congress calls the convention, determines the agenda, chooses the delegates, and defines the rules of the convention

Article V also specifies the ratification process which contains additional obvious risks.  Amendments become part of the constitution “when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress”.  Once again, Congress controls the ratification process.

The COS promoters claim that the process is safe as the states would control the entire process including making the rules, choosing delegates, and creating the convention agenda.  They also claim that the rules could not be changed by the convention itself once it is underway.  History proves them wrong.

Contrary to the COS narrative, our Constitution was written by a “runaway” convention, even though it turned out well.  After the War of Independence, our country was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which created a central government that was too weak to enforce unified action even when essential.  To remedy those deficiencies, a convention was called with only one specific purpose – to amend the Articles of Confederation.  According to rules, amending the Articles required ratification of any changes by all thirteen states.

The convention convened in Philadelphia, but delegations from only twelve states were present.  Rhode Island refused to attend.  Disregarding the rules, the delegates decided to discard the Articles of Confederation entirely and write a new Constitution.  Instead of requiring agreement by all thirteen states, the new Constitution became law of the land when ratified by only nine of the thirteen states.

The convention that created our Constitution defied and broke every rule under which it was called.  It discarded the Articles of Confederation entirely instead of just amending it and changed the ratification requirements from all thirteen states to just nine. By definition, that was a runaway convention.

Commentary by Phyllis Schlafly on the Article V ConCon

Whether you call it a “Convention of States,” a “Constitutional Convention,” or a “ConCon,” the outcome is the same. It would open up our beloved founding document to attack from all kinds of special interest groups with intentions far less noble than the Founding Fathers.

Here are three concrete reasons Phyllis Schlafly opposed an Article V convention:

  • Congress has ultimate control over the process. The Congressional Research Service confirms that Congress will call the convention, determine the agenda, choose the delegates, and define the rules of the convention.
  • Activist judges will control the outcome of a convention.  The American Bar Association acknowledged that a convention under Article V, like every other part of our Constitution, will be subject to judicial review. With just one lawsuit filed by either liberals or conservatives, this would give unelected judges the chance to control the actual wording of the Constitution through judicial fiat.
  • The Constitution is not the problem. Everyone acknowledges that the real problem with our federal government is not the powers given to it by the Constitution, but the powers the government has usurped outside the bounds placed on it by the Constitution. Why would anyone think that the federal government will suddenly start obeying the rules when we write more of them?

Many other notable constitutional scholars agreed with her. Chief Justice Warren Burger said, “A Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.”

Justice Antonin Scalia avidly opposed an Article V convention.  He called it a “horrible idea.”

Even current proponents of an Article V ConCon like Mark Meckler admit that having one convention will open the door to many more. “There is no way to prevent the cycle [of multiple conventions] from happening because the cycle of it is the cycle of human nature.”

The Convention of States agenda is an organized attack on the Constitution.  It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, enlisting the support of conservatives by promising that a Convention of States will give us the tools we need to re-establish our constitutional republic.

In reality, the Constitution of States program is a dangerous tool that uses our patriotic hearts and desires to bring the fox into the henhouse.

Suddenly, this has become a critically important issue for citizens of North Carolina.  In our state, the Republicans in the state House of Representatives voted to call for a Convention of States.  The Senate has not voted yet, but they could in the short session that starts after the primary on May 17.

It is time to actively call your senators in Raleigh and urge them to vote against the COS resolution and explain why that is so important.

Resist Tyranny and Trust in Freedom!


  •  Eighty supporters of the Right To Life gathered on the sidewalk of U.S. Route One, in the Town of Norwood this evening, to protest Catholic Memorial School giving an award, named after a Catholic saint, to U.S. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh.

     Inside the Four Points Sheraton Norwood, Walsh was awarded the Blessed Edmund Rice Medal—named after the Founder of the Irish Christian Brothers—by Catholic Memorial during the school’s Spring Gala

     A longtime proponent of legal, unrestricted and publicly funded abortion, Walsh once said he hoped to make Boston a “safe city” for abortions, should Roe v. Wade be overturned. NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts award recipient, Walsh was the first Bay State mayor to be endorsed by the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts.

     The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council said “abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”

    I n a demonstration organized by the Massachusetts Pro-Life Coalition—an alliance of nine pro-life organizations—more than 80 supporters of the Right To Life protested peacefully, prayerfully and legally on the sidewalk outside the hotel. The picket lasted from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm.

    The Coalition characterized the demonstration as “a tremendous success, far exceeding the expected turn-out, which indicates growing indignation in the Catholic community over the sycophancy of corrupt Catholic institutions towards pro-abortion political figures.”

    Massachusetts Pro-Life Coalition spokesman William Cotter, the President of Operation Rescue Boston, made the following comment: “Faithful Catholics have lost patience with elite Catholic institutions who prize power, money and celebrity over fidelity to Catholic principles. Catholic Memorial has signaled, clearly, that Christian morality will not stand in the way of the school’s fundraising priorities.”

    “Catholic Memorial has betrayed the Faith which the school professes in its very name. The leadership of CM ought to be ashamed about this scandalous award, but that would require, at least, the vestigial remains of a Catholic conscience.”

    The Massachusetts Pro-Life Coalition, founded in 2017, brings together Operation Rescue Boston; Mass Resistance; the Massachusetts Alliance to Stop Taxpayer Funded Abortions; the Pro-Life Legal Defense Fund; the Boston Church Militant Resistance Chapter; the Boston Chapter of Helpers of God’s Precious Infants; American University Women for Life; the Massachusetts Family Institute; and the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts.

    Contact: William Cotter
    (774) 287-0751

After the Steal, It’s Crazy for Trump Supporters to Support an Article V Constitutional Convention by Janine Hansen

After the Steal,

It’s Crazy for Trump Supporters to Support an Article V

Constitutional Convention

By Janine Hansen, Eagle Forum National Constitutional Issues Chairman,, 775-397-6859

 Because of the 2020 election Trump supporters have lost faith in the operation of our Constitutional Republic. Understandably, we saw massive election fraud, corrupt judges, and a crooked Congress confirming the steal.

 Our Constitutional Republic stands at a crossroads. Now more than ever our activism is critical. BUT, we cannot allow ourselves to be used to further undermine and destroy our U.S. Constitution.

 For decades before her passing, Phyllis Schlafly valiantly fought a dangerous threat to our Constitution, an Article V “convention for proposing amendments” or as we would call it a Constitutional Convention. There are almost no rules for the convention in Article V of the Constitution. Exceptions are: that after 34 states have made application for a Convention that Congress “shall call a Convention” and that the amendments passed by the Constitutional Convention become part of the Constitution when ratified by three fourths of the several states or by Conventions in those states.

 This ratification by the states seems like a safeguard to a run-away Constitutional Convention, but is it? In the original Constitutional Convention, the only national precedent we have, the ratification process was changed from a unanimous requirement in the Articles of Confederation to only nine states required in the New Constitution. In other words, they changed the ratification process in the original Constitutional Convention before they sent it out to the states to be ratified. The Constitution itself in Article V does not prohibit changing the ratification process. Could that happen now? In the political environment in which we find ourselves with no regard for truth or the sacredness of our fundamental constitutional processes like elections, what might we expect?

 If the delegates at the Constitutional Convention felt that they could not get their many new amendments passed by enough states, they could change the number of states required to ratify their multiple amendments. Consider how many Red states there are and how many blue states there are. Are there enough states, either red or blue to equal three fourths of the states that could agree on any amendments? So it is logical in order to achieve the ratification of all the new amendments that the ratification process would have to be changed, lowered as to the number of states required.

 Another important question is: who sets the rules for the Convention? Pro-convention groups like Convention of States claim that “the states would set the rules”. How? Congress calls the Convention sets the time and location and then Congress would set the rules. Does that give you comfort knowing the Pelosi and Schumer would be deciding the rules for a Constitutional Convention and who controlled the gavel?

 Numerous times while in the U.S. Senate, former Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah had a set of rules for a Constitutional Convention passed by the U.S. Senate. These rules always contained a provision that the votes accorded to the states would be according to the Electoral College. In other words, if your state has 8 Congressmen and 2 Senators then your state would have 10 votes out of 538 at the Constitutional Convention. Radical California would have 55 and New York would have 29. Most conservative Red states have much smaller populations and therefore much smaller representation.

 How would the delegates to the Constitutional Convention be chosen? Well there is no guidance in Article V and we don’t really know. Under the “necessary and proper clause” of the U.S. Constitution, it would appear as if Congress would determine how to select delegates. Proponents of the Convention of States claim that the State Legislatures will choose the delegates as in the original Constitutional Convention. Do you have full confidence in your State Legislature to choose delegates who would represent you and stand solidly behind our Constitutional Republic? Having worked in my own Nevada Legislature for decades I would say, they have about as much integrity as the U.S. Congress. That’s downright scary to consider putting our sacred Constitution in the hands of compromised and corrupt politicians who are supposed to fix it. You can bet that the first thing to go would be our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, next our Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and Assembly.