On this day in 1781, British General Charles Cornwallis formally surrenders 8,000 British soldiers and seamen to a French and American force at Yorktown, Virginia, bringing the American Revolution to a close.
Washington instructed the Marquis de Lafayette, who was in Virginia with an American army of around 5,000 men, to block Cornwallis’ escape from Yorktown by land. In the meantime, Washington’s 2,500 troops in New York were joined by a French army of 4,000 men under the Count de Rochambeau. Washington and Rochambeau made plans to attack Cornwallis with the assistance of a large French fleet under the Count de Grasse, and on August 21 they crossed the Hudson River to march south to Yorktown. Covering 200 miles in 15 days, the allied force reached the head of Chesapeake Bay in early September.
Meanwhile, a British fleet under Admiral Thomas Graves failed to break French naval superiority at the Battle of Virginia Capes on September 5, denying Cornwallis his expected reinforcements. Beginning September 14, de Grasse transported Washington and de Rochambeau’s men down the Chesapeake to Virginia, where they joined Lafayette and completed the encirclement of Yorktown on September 28. De Grasse landed another 3,000 French troops carried by his fleet. During the first two weeks of October, the 14,000 Franco-American troops gradually overcame the fortified British positions with the aid of de Grasse’s warships. A large British fleet carrying 7,000 men set out to rescue Cornwallis, but it was too late.
On October 19, General Cornwallis surrendered 7,087 officers and men, 900 seamen, 144 cannons, 15 galleys, a frigate and 30 transport ships. Pleading illness, he did not attend the surrender ceremony, but his second-in-command, General Charles O’Hara, carried Cornwallis’ sword to the American and French commanders. As the British and Hessian troops marched out to surrender, the British band played the song “The World Turned Upside Down.”
Although the war persisted on the high seas and in other theaters, the Patriot victory at Yorktown effectively ended fighting in the American colonies. Peace negotiations began in 1782, and on September 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed, formally recognizing the United States as a free and independent nation after eight years of war.
This is from This Day in History: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cornwallis-surrenders-at-yorktown
October 7, 2017
By Judi Caler
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Joseph Goebbels
In the novel, “1984,” George Orwell’s unsettling prophecy of a totalitarian society, Newspeak was the official language of Oceania. It was devised to limit freedom of thought. New words were invented, undesirable words eliminated, and the remaining words redefined or limited in scope to further the Party’s ideology. If something can’t be said, it can’t be thought, making a diverging thought unthinkable.
So too, the Convention of States Project (COS) uses Newspeak to manipulate people into believing that the convention provided for by Article V of our Constitution is really a “convention of the states” that is controlled from start to finish by State Legislatures.
“Convention of the States” v. “Constitutional Convention”
On September 24-25, 2011, radical leftist professor Larry Lessig, who has ties to George Soros, and salesman Mark Meckler, who now heads COS, co-hosted Conference on the Constitutional Convention at Harvard. That conference kicked off the current push for the Left and the phony Right to work together to promote an Article V Convention.
But the Convention Lobby soon realized that conservatives had been schooled over previous decades by the John Birch Society and Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum to recoil from an Article V convention, also known as a “constitutional convention” or “con-con,” because it could run amok and replace our existing Constitution.
And despite their attempt to win conservative support by focusing state Article V convention applications on supposedly “conservative” issues like a “balanced budget amendment” or “fiscal restraints,” convention proponents were met with resistance from those who understood that State Legislatures have no power to limit the scope of a convention to specific topics or amendments.1 The same ploy was tried and failed in the 1970s and 1980s for the same reason.2
What to do?
Shamelessly, Mark Meckler and his legal operatives turned to Newspeak. Attorney Rob Natelson, the Newspeak guru of the convention lobby, announced in a speech on September 16, 2010, that he was “going to put our concepts on ‘reset'”:
“I hope this is the last time I’ll say [the words] ‘constitutional convention.’… I often have made the mistake of calling it that, but it is a serious mistake because it causes people to misunderstand what the convention is all about. The Constitution gives the convention a specific name – a convention for proposing amendments – and I think we should call it that or perhaps an Article V convention, an amendments convention,or aconvention of the states.”
Thereafter, they adopted the term “convention of the states,” defined it as a convention totally controlled by State Legislators, and claimed that a “convention of states” was the same as an “Article V convention,” and different from a “constitutional convention” or a “con-con.”
As Meckler spins the narrative:
“A constitutional [or plenipotentiary] convention has only been held once in the entire history of the country set in 1787…. they can draft a new constitution from scratch….
“[But] This is an ‘Article V Convention of States for proposing amendments.’… They do not have supreme authority. They do not have the authority to redraft the entire [Constitution]…. So, an ‘Article V Convention of States for proposing amendments’ is a convention that is limited by the instructions from the States as to what they can deal with.” 4Common Sense
In Oldspeak – i.e., the real world of English grammar and common sense – “constitutional convention” and “Article V convention” are synonymous. Any convention dealing with drafting or amending a constitution is a “constitutional convention.” Also, any convention provided for in a constitution is, by definition, a “constitutional convention.”
But in the Orwellian world of COS Newspeak, a “convention of the states” can’t run away, by definition!
That the Newspeak definition for “convention of the states” doesn’t exist in our founding documents doesn’t matter to the convention lobby. It serves to deceive legislators into thinking that an “Article V convention,” unlike a “constitutional convention,” can’t run away and secures legislators’ YES votes on con-con applications.
Recently in Michigan, 32 Representatives responded to a National Association of Gun Rights survey, saying they were opposed to an Article V Convention, most likely because they were concerned they would lose the Second Amendment at a con-con – a very real possibility. After being exposed to COS Newspeak, some of those same legislators decided they could simultaneously support COS legislation asking Congress to call a “convention of the states”!
“It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control,’ they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink'” – 1984, Part I, Chapter 3“Limit” in Newspeak means “expand,” as shown by amendments proposed by COS supporters. Our Constitution already limits the federal government to the enumerated powers. The amendments proposed by Mark Levin, Michael Farris, and the COS simulated convention would legalize powers the federal government has already usurped and strip States of existing powers and rights.
COS recently promoted itself as “the largest Article V grassroots organization…nationwide.” So, a “grassroots” organization in COS Newspeak is one bankrolled with millions of dollars from mega-billionaires! 5
“WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” – 1984, party slogans.Another word trick in COS Newspeak would replace “Delegate” with “Commissioner.” A “delegate” is a representative who has power; but a “commissioner” is a person charged to manage some particular subject-matter and is controlled by his superiors. Accordingly, Meckler told Senators at a February 25, 2015, Nebraska committee hearing that they’ll direct their “commissioners” by text messaging during the convention because legally, commissioners are equivalent to hired insurance agents! 6
What COS Fails to Mention
COS operatives and their coterie of attorneys fail to mention that we have another founding document in addition to the Constitution. That document is the Declaration of Independence which preceded the Constitution.
“It would have been quite impossible to render [the Declaration of Independence] into Newspeak while keeping to the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing so would be…the single word CRIMETHINK.” – 1984,AppendixThe Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2, expresses our founding principles which are above the Constitution: that all men are created equal; that our Rights come from God; that the purpose of government is to secure those Rights; and that, if the government fails to secure our Rights, We the People have the Right “to alter or to abolish” our government and set up a new one.
The convention is the highest form of government, having more power than State Legislatures and Congress put together. So even though the Framers met in convention in 1787 “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation (AOC),” they had the inherent and legal right, as expressed by the Declaration of Independence, to write a new Constitution which created a new government. Moreover, they set a precedent by making the new Constitution easier to ratify than amendments to the AOC.
And with the words “We the People…,” they reaffirmed in our Constitution the founding principles written eleven years earlier. In fact, in Federalist 40, Madison justified writing the new Constitution, which was to replace the AOC, by citing the Declaration of Independence.7
Newspeak, invented by the convention lobby, is believed and repeated in State Capitols across America by too many Republican legislators who have set logic and truth aside to buy the false narrative. They believe that the solution to an overreaching federal government that has ignored our Constitution is to change our Constitution! And that an Article V convention called by Congress can’t possibly run away because it is just a “convention of the states” in Newspeak!
And shame on the heavily bankrolled, self-professed “conservatives” at COS, along with their team of attorneys, “constitutional scholars,” and lobbyists who risk our Constitution by selling a bill of goods to well-meaning and unsuspecting legislators. The same propaganda is used to fool ordinary citizens whom COS claims to “represent.”
A runaway convention can’t be prevented with Newspeak! Americans must educate themselves on this deception and be vigilant. Understand the real remedies our Framers said we must use to prevent federal overreach. Once a convention is called, it will be too late to stop a new Constitution with an easier mode of ratification from being imposed. Our existing Constitution and our Liberty hang in the balance.
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free…it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson to C. Yancey, 1816
1 See Judge Van Sickle’s Article, Part IV, https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/van-sickle03192017.pdf
2 “Constitutional Convention called Redux,” Part 4, Kelleigh Nelson 3-22-2013, para 9: https://freedomoutpost.com/constitutional-convention-call-redux-rexford-g-tugwell-the-newstates-constitution/
3The State-Application-and-Convention Method Of Amending The Constitution: The Founding Era Vision, Robert G. Natelson, See I (pp 9, 10).
4 Red Eye Radio, scroll to 7/6/17, Part 2 @ 51:25: http://www.redeyeradioshow.com/on-demand/
5 While we are unable to determine all the sources of the funding for Meckler’s group; the ultimate source of much of the funding for the push for an Article V convention is the Koch Brothers of Texas.
6Nebraska Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, 2-25-2015, Transcript pp. 47, 52:http://www.legislature.ne.gov/FloorDocs/104/PDF/Transcripts/Government/2015-02-25.pdf
© Judi Caler
Sam Blumenfeld was a critic of the Dr. Seuss books but not because of its alleged racist content but because the books were written for a look-say readers. Here is a newsletter from Sam exposing the whole language fraud:
Sam Blumenfeld wrote a monthly newsletter from 1986 to 1999. His first newsletter concerned multiculturalism. It is more relevant today that when it was first penned:
Sam Blumenfeld rightly condended that Humanism’s infleuence permeates our nation and our culture. This explains how a big city mayor can call himself a proud Catholic, but hold a worldview that is in sharp opposite to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Sam spoke and wrote about it frequently and contended that it was a man centered religion, and that folks like John Dewey believed that the government school classroom was the pulpit for the Humanist religion. Here is a link to a speech he gave on the subject from the 1980’s:
BOSTON, MA – Liberty Counsel has sent a demand letter to the City of Boston to approve a permit to raise the Christian flag on a Boston City Hall Plaza flagpole, next to the American flag, as part of a permitted cultural event sponsored by Camp Constitution. The event will celebrate the contributions of Christianity to American freedom and the rule of law, and will highlight the need for racial reconciliation through Christ. In addition to the flag raising on the steps of Boston City Hall Plaza, the event will include short presentations by clergy members from diverse national and ethnic backgrounds, and a brief history of Boston as “the city set on a hill.”
Camp Constitution’s Hal Shurtleff began the permitting process in July 2017 and offered the City several proposed dates in September. The City stonewalled, and the camp followed up multiple times, only to receive a written denial from the City on September 8:
“I am writing to you in response to your inquiry as to the reason for denying your request to raise the ‘Christian Flag.’ The City of Boston maintains a policy and practice of respectfully refraining from flying non-secular flags on the City Hall flagpoles… According to the above policy and practice, the City of Boston has respectfully denied the request of Camp Constitution to fly on a City Hall flagpole the “Christian” flag, as it is identified in the request, which displays a red Latin cross against a blue square bordered on three sides by a white field…The City would be willing to consider a request to fly a non-religious flag, should your organization elect to offer one” (Emphasis added).
This denial is unconstitutional. The City’s past and current practice (and permit application) provides that City Hall Plaza flagpoles are available for privately-selected flags to be flown upon request of virtually any private association or activity.
Numerous private organizations have raised flags related to their respective events. These events have included ethnic and other “cultural celebrations,” corresponding with the raising of the flags of various countries or causes, and announcements of the same on the CityHallPlazaBoston.com website. Approved flags flown at such events include those of Albania, Brazil, Ethiopia, Italy, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Puerto Rico, and Mexico, as well as of Communist China and Cuba. The flag of the private “Chinese Progressive Association” has been raised. The “Juneteenth” flag has been raised by the private National Juneteenth Observance Foundation. A homosexual rainbow flag has been raised by the private organization Boston Pride. Even a “transgender” pink and blue flag has been raised. Since these are all allowed, the City cannot deny Camp Constitution’s permit request to fly the Christian flag.
“Government officials cannot just cry ‘Establishment of Religion’ whenever Christians seek access to a public forum,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The Free Exercise and the Free Speech Clauses also protect religious expression. There is a crucial difference between government endorsement of religion and private speech, which government is bound to respect. Private religious speech in a public forum where secular viewpoints are permitted does not violate the Constitution. Censoring religious viewpoints does violate the First Amendment. Where the City of Boston allows any other flag by numerous other private organizations, it may not ban the Christian flag as part of a privately-sponsored event,” said Staver.
Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.
Today is the birthday of Uncle Sam Wilson who was born on this day in 1766 in the town of Arlington, MA. As a boy, he witnessed Paul Revere’s famous Midnight Ride and served as a courrier for the Committees of Safety. He and his family moved to Mason, NH where Sam spent his boyhood years. At the age of 22, Sam along with his older brother, Ebeneezer walked to Troy, NY to seek their fame and fortune. Sam started a brick making factory and a meat packing business. During the War of 1812, he had a contract to supply meat for the military. He marked his meat barrels with the initials U.S. and the rest is history.
Campers and staff have visited the Uncle Sam House in Mason, NH. Here is a link to the video “A Walk Through the Uncle Sam House
Camp Constitution was denied a permit to raise the Christian flag on Boston’s City Hall Plaza. Hal Shurtleff, the camp’s director and co-founder, applied for a permit back in late July. After several follow up E-mails, and phone calls, he was finally told by a city official Tuesday (September 5) that the permit was denied without an explanation. Shurtleff, a life-long resident, U.S. Army veteran and a member of Sons of the American Revolution, explained that during one of his follow up phone calls to the city, he was told that it was “his right to fly the flag” and that the city official couldn’t understand what was taking so long to grant the permit.
The event was planned for a Thursday in late September. The ceremony would have included short presentations by clergy members, a brief historical overview of Boston- “the city set on a hill”, and the raising of the flag. Confirmed speakers included Rev. Steven Craft, an instructor at Camp Constitution’s annual family camp and a member of its speakers bureau, and Pastor William Levi, formerly of the South Sudan, and now a U.S. citizen living in Western Massachusetts. Rev. Craft’s topic was racial reconciliation.
Shurtleff mentioned that dozens of organizations including Columbians, Haitians, Ukrainians, Mexicans, supporters of Communist China, Black Nationalists, and Transgenders raise their flags. Shurtleff believes that the decision to deny the permit was ideologically motivated. “Camp Constitution has been setting up information tables on Boston Common for years without a problem. We distribute free copies of the U.S. Constitution, and we have been well received by folks on both sides of the ideological spectrum,” Shurtleff said.
For more information please visit www.campconstitution.net
Rev. Steve Craft
Camp Constitution’s Hal Shurtleff, accompanied by Dr. Punyamurtula Kishore, conducted five presentations in Maine last week and Sunday exposing Agenda 21 in the towns of Waldoboro, Lincoln, Houlton, Presque Isle, and Medway. The Medway presentation was a last minute addition. Camp Constitution made many new friends, and got a chance to visit some old friends as well. Hal received three future opportuntitues to expose Agenda 21 in the state. In addition to the presentations, Hal and Dr. Kishore visited Millinocket to get some video of Agenda 21 and NAFTA in action-closed mills, and empty storefronts and a visit to the Lillian Nordica Homestead to donate some artifacts from Sam Blumenfeld’s Estate. More on that in a future blog. Thanks to all who helped make this trip a success with a special thanks to Mrs. Pat Truman and her family, Jeannette Wheeler, Bob Roy, Phil Merletti, Adrian Villa, Peggy Stanley and Dr. Kishore.
(Sam wrote this article in 2005. A link to the original document is posted below)
Should a child be forced to attend a public school that will turn him into a functional
illiterate? Since no public school will guarantee that a child will be taught to read in a
manner that will help him achieve high literacy, why should a parent send a child to that
kind of school? Indeed, why should compulsory school attendance laws force parents to
do something that wil1 harm their children?
It is assumed by the vast majority of Americans that the issue of compulsory school
attendance is a settled matter, part and parcel of every civilized nation-state, and a
prerequisite of a democratic society. We all acknowledge that a representative form of
government requiTes an educated electorate for its survival.
But what happens when that government’s schools no longer know how to teach children
to read and write, when those schools turn children not into civilized citizens, but into
barbarians? What happens when millions of parents feel compelled to remove their
children from government schools in order to make sure that their children do get an
education? What happens is that the basic premises of compulsory attendance and
government education come into question.
The glaring fact is that despite our compulsory attendance laws, we now have more
illiteracy and more ignorance among Americans than before such laws were enacted. The
first compulsory school attendance law was passed in Massachusetts in 1852 and by 1918
every state in the Union had such a law. Yet, the fact is that these laws have merely
increased the amount of time children spend in school, not the amount of learning or
knowledge they acquire.
The Way It Was
To find out how much better educated Americans were before compulsory attendance
laws and government schools existed, all we have to do is read DuPont de Nemours’
fascinating little book, National Education in the United States ofAmerica, published in
1812. He writes:
“The United States are more advanced in their educational facilities than most countries.
They have a large number of primary schools; and as their paternal affection protects
children from working in the fields, it is possible to send them to the school-master–a
condition which does not prevail in Europe.
“Most young Americans, therefore, can read, write and cipher. Not more than four in a
thousand arc unable to write legi bly–even neatly .. ..
“England, Holland, the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland more nearly approach the
standard of the United States, because in those countries the Bible is read; it is considered
a duty to read it to children; and in that form of religion the sermons and liturgy in the
language of the people tend to increase and formulate ideas of responsibility.
Controversy, also has developed argwnentation and has thus given room for the exercise
“In America, a great nwnber of people read the Bible, and all the people read a
newspaper. The fathers read aloud to their children while breakfast is being prepared–a
task which occupies the mothers for three quarters of an hour every morning. And as the
newspapers of the United States are filled with all sorts of narratives… they disseminate
an enormous amount of information.”
Obviously, back in the very early days of this republic, education was a family affair
closely connected to religious practice. A nation built on Biblical principles had to ba a
highly literate one. In addition, all of this education was achieved without any
government involvement, without any centralized educational bureaucracy, without any
professors of education, or accrediting agencies or teacher certification. And, most
significantly, without any compulsory attendance laws.
The Way It Is
Contrast that happy picture of complete educational freedom and high literacy with the
present situation in which the State has asswned the function of educator, at great
expense to the taxpayer, with all sorts of laws and regulations forcing the population to
patronize a system that is turning out functional illiterates by the millions.
According to an article in the Spring 1989 issue of Education Canada, published by the
Canadian Education Association:
“It is currently estimated that one million Canadians are almost totally illiterate and
another four million are termed ‘functionally illiterate.’ In the United States these figures
are estimated respectively at 26 million and 60 million.”
Both Canada and the United States have had compulsory attendance laws for decades.
The purpose of these laws was to make certain that every child was educated. The laws
were particularly aimed at the children of the poor, and yet it is they who have suffered
the most at the hands of government education.
Even Secretary of Education Cavazos, in 1989, admitted in the frankest terms that the
government education system was failing the American people. In his sixth annual report
card on American schools, he repeated the well-known litany of failures that still plague
American education: declining SAT scores, declining interest in math and science,
declining literacy, and a soaring dropout rate in Washington, DC. He said that we were
still wallowing in a ”tide of mediocrity,” and that “we must do better or perish as the
nation we know today.”
Has anything changed since 1989? Yes, it has all gotten worse. In fact, it was an
alarming report on American literacy issued in 2007 by the National Endowment for the
Arts that informed Americans that the reading problem had deteriorated further since
Secretary Cavazos issued his own alarming assessment. The chairman of the
Endowment, Dana Gioia, stated:
‘This is a massive social problem. We are losing the majority of the new generation.
They will not achieve anything close to their potential because of poor reading.”
The Endowment report revealed that the number of 17-year-olds who never read for
pleasure increased from 9 percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 2004. Almost half of
Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 never read books for pleasure. Why? Because
reading has become a painful, tortuous exercise that they wish to avoid.
The simple truth is that literacy is not at all difficult to achieve, provided the schools use
the right phonetic teaching methods. Indeed, the home-school movement has already
proven that parents can actually do a better job of teaching reading than our high-priced
It has also been shown 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.
So why do we need compulsory attendance laws? We need them so that the ruling liberal
elite can dumb down the population and make sure they can’t read. For proof of this,
listen to the words of Professor Anthony G. Oettinger of Harvard University, given in a
lecture to an audience of Telecom executives in 1982:
“The present ‘traditional’ concept of literacy has to do with the ability to read and write.
But the real question that confronts us today is: How do we help citizens function well in
their society? How can they acquire the skills necessary to solve their problems?
“Do we, for example, really want to teach people to do a lot of sums or write in ‘a fine
round hand’ when they have a five-dollar hand-held calculator or a word processor to
work with? Or, do we really have to have everybody literate–writing and reading in the
traditional sense–when we have the means through our technology to achieve a new
flowering of oral communication?
“What is speech recognition and speech synthesis all about if it does not lead to ways of
reducing the burden on the individual of the imposed notions of literacy that were a
product of nineteenth century economics and technology? ..
“It is the traditional idea that says certain forms of communication, such as comic books
are ‘bad.’ But in the modem context of functionalism they may not be all that bad.”
I doubt that there are any parents in America who send their children to school to learn to
read comic books. If anything, they want their children to be taught to read and write in
the traditional manner. They don’t consider learning to read as a “burden imposed on the
individual.” Rather, if taught in the proper phonetic manner, learning to read becomes a
joyful experience for children eager to expand the use of their minds and language.
Although the compulsory attendance laws were enacted to make sure that everyone
learned to read, their new application by the likes of Professor Oettinger and his liberal
colleagues is to make sure that the population can be controlled and manipulated by
schools that serve the agenda of the ruling elite.
There is no longer any need for compulsory attendance laws since the ruling class no
longer believes that literacy is for everyone, the poor and the rich. In reality, the
compulsory attendance laws are the linchpin in the plan for a socialist world government.
Such laws have been used by every modern dictator to control the people and mold the
minds of the children. Such laws are not only not needed in a free society, but ultimately
lead to its demise.