KATYN – UNRAVELLING ONE of THE MANY SECRETS of THE SECOND WORLD WAR by Peter Hammomd

KATYN – UNRAVELLING ONE of THE MANY SECRETS of THE SECOND WORLD WAR

This article can be viewed as a PowerPoint presentation on Slideshare.

The audio lecture can be downloaded from SermonAudio.com.

The video of this presentation is available on www.FrontlineMissionSA.org Video Gallery.

One of the most extraordinary mysteries, conspiracies and disinformation campaigns has finally been exposed, implicating numerous prominent heads of state in the atrocities and subsequent cover-up scandals. A complex edifice of deception has been thoroughly dismantled by patient and persistent perseverance and pressure.

Mission to Poland
On a Mission to Poland in 1990, I saw a monument for the victims of the Katyn Forest Massacre in 1940, I questioned whether they did not mean 1941? “Surely you don’t believe the Russian propaganda?” they challenged me. I did not know what they were talking about. The Polish Christians were most agitated over my ignorance on this matter.

A Lesson in History
They explained that although Great Britain and France had declared war on Germany, 3 September 1939, ostensibly because Germany had invaded Poland, so Russia also invaded Poland in 1939. “Of course most history books omit that fact.” The Katyn Forest is deep in Soviet territory, closer to Moscow than Warsaw, they pointed out. Over 22,000 Polish prisoners, including over 8,000 officers, were murdered in cold blood by the Soviet NKVD in the spring of 1940. When this crime was discovered, Stalin’s Soviet Russia was an ally of Great Britain and the United States of America. Therefore they found it more convenient to attribute this Russian atrocity to their German enemies.

Judicial Fraud
The Polish Christians informed me that the British, Americans and French chose to participate in judicial fraud at the Nuremberg Trials by indicting the German Army with what were plainly Communist atrocities committed by Soviet Russia.

Missing Polish Prisoners of War
In December 1941, the head of the London based Polish government-in-exile, General Wladyslaw Sikorski enquired of Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, what had become of Polish prisoners of war captured by the Soviets during their invasion of Poland in September 1939. Stalin assured Sikorski that all Polish POWs had been released. He opinioned that some might have moved to Manchuria.

Mass Graves Exhumed
In 1943, a German intelligence officer, Rudolph von Gersdorff, serving with the Abwehr, received reports about mass graves of Polish military officers near Katyn. A ditch 28 m long and 16 m wide was found which contained the bodies of 3,000 Polish officers piled up in 12 layers. This was only the first of many such graves to be unearthed. German soldiers unearthed numerous mass graves of many thousands of Polish officers who had been massacred in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk. German news reports claimed that this was yet another evidence of the war crimes and atrocities committed by the Communist commissars of the Soviet Union. When the German government announced the discovery of the mass graves in the Katyn Forest, the London based Polish government-in-exile requested an investigation by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Stalin immediately severed diplomatic relations with it and claimed that the victims had been murdered by the Nazis.

Investigation
The German government brought in a European Commission of 12 forensic experts and their staff from Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Croatia, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and Hungary. Even Polish, American and British Prisoners of War were included in the investigation. The reports of these neutral investigators confirmed that the victims were indeed Polish officers, NCOs and intellectuals who were victims of Russian forces in the summer of 1940. When the Polish government-in-exile insisted on bringing the matter before the International Red Cross, General Sikorski died in an aircraft crash in July 1943, an event that was described as“convenient to the allied leaders.” Numerous books and documentary films have been made of “The Assassination of General Sikorski.”

The Burdenko Commission
The Soviets hastened to orchestrate an alternative Soviet version of the now disclosed massacre, to claim that the Polish POWs had been massacred, not by the Soviets, but by the Nazis. Nikolai Burdenko, the President of the Soviet Academy of Medicine, presided over a commission appointed by Stalin to investigate the incident. Burdenko claimed to have interviewed more than a hundred eyewitnesses who swore that the Nazis had massacred the Polish POWs in autumn, 1941.

The Nuremberg Trials
At the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945-1946, the German military was proclaimed guilty of shooting Polish Prisoners of War in the Katyn Forest. So the Soviet version of the Katyn Massacre moved from war-time propaganda into school history books: The Germans shot Polish Prisoners of War in Katyn Forest in 1941.

Duplicity
The Polish-Soviet crisis threatened Western-Soviet relations and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Franklin Roosevelt were torn between their commitment to their Polish ally and the demands of Stalin. In private, Churchill agreed that the atrocity was most likely carried out by the Soviets. According to Edward Raczynski, Churchill admitted on 15 April 1943, during a conversation with General Sikorski: “Alas, the German revelations are probably true. The Bolsheviks can be very cruel.” However, on 24 April 1943, Churchill assured the Soviets: “We shall certainly oppose vigorously any investigation by the International Red Cross or any other body…” Classified UK documents concluded that Soviet guilt was “a near certainty”, but the alliance with the Soviets was deemed to be more important than the moral issue. The official version parroted the Soviet propaganda and the censors suppressed all contradictory accounts.

Cover-up
The British Foreign Secretary pointed out several inconsistencies, and near impossibilities, in the Soviet version. Churchill’s post-war account of Katyn skirts over the Katyn Massacre by referring to the 1944 Soviet Enquiry which attributed guilt to the Germans adding cryptically: “belief seems an act of faith.”

Suppressed
When US Navy Lieutenant Commander George Earle produced a report concluding that the massacres were committed by the Soviet Union, President Roosevelt ordered Earle’s report to be suppressed. When Earle formally requested permission to publish his findings, the President issued a written order forbidding it. Earle was reassigned and spent the rest of the War in the remote island of American Samoa.

Reports Destroyed
Two senior American Prisoners of War, Lieutenant Colonel Donald Stewart and Colonel John van Vliet, taken by the Germans to Katyn for investigation, submitted a report, after their release in 1945, that the Soviets were definitely responsible for the Massacre. George Marshall’s Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Major General Clayton Bissell, destroyed the report. During the 1951-1952 Congressional Investigations, General Bissell defended his action before Congress arguing that it was not in the US interest to antagonise the Soviet Union which was America’s ally.

Embarrassed
The Americans and British were embarrassed by the Soviet inclusion of the Katyn Forest Massacre in the indictments against the German military at Nuremberg. Soviet General Roman Redenko, at the Nuremberg Tribunal, stated that“One of the most important criminal acts for which the major war criminals are responsible was the mass execution of Polish Prisoners of War shot in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk by the German Fascist invaders.” Katyn was: “The worst massacre of Prisoners of War in history.”

Hypocrisy
For sheer bare-faced hypocrisy, this accusation was classic. All present at the trial, including the one making the accusation, knew that this was judicial fraud and farce.

Censorship
The Black Book of Censorship in the People’s Republic of Poland expressly stated: “Any attempt to burden the Soviet Union with the responsibility for the deaths of Polish officers in Katyn Forest is forbidden.” Further evidence that everyone knew who was really responsible, was that even the most simple memorial erected in Poland such as Katyn 1940, was confiscated by police and destroyed. The Polish practice was to erect memorial crosses on All Saints’ Day. These were always dismantled by the police. If Katyn had really been a Nazi atrocity, it would not have been a taboo subject in Communist-controlled countries. Not only did the Soviet Union forbid any monuments to be erected to victims of the Katyn Massacre, but the British government also objected to plans to build a Katyn monument in the UK.

Disinformation Campaign
In the 1960s, the Soviets launched a Disinformation Offensive to side-track the persistent accusations of Soviet atrocities and massacres throughout Eastern Europe. A village in Belarus, Khatyn, whose name is very similar to Katyn, was chosen as a site for a memorial to commemorate the victims of Nazi atrocities. Apparently, 149 Khatyn villagers had been massacred by Ukrainian and Belarus soldiers fighting for the Nazis in March 1943. This Khatyn Memorial became an obligatory stop for all foreign visitors. This Disinformation Campaign scored its major success in 1974 when US President Richard Nixon was brought to Khatyn to remember the Polish victims of the Nazis! From this time all Soviet publications displaced Katyn with Khatyn, including in Polish encyclopedias and historical dictionaries.

Facts are Stubborn Things
Every Soviet leader had to deal with the persistent Polish charges of the Katyn Forest Massacre. The Polish Solidarity movement in the 1980s used underground printing presses to expose the Soviet duplicity and print the facts about the Katyn Forest Massacre.

Gorbachev’s Glasnost
Mikhail Gorbachev launched a historical commission in 1987 to create a new Soviet version of what had actuallyhappened at Katyn. Gorbachev’s Politburo proposed in 1988 to build a memorial to the victims of the massacre“executed by Hitlerites in Katyn” alongside a memorial to 500 Soviet POWs supposedly also killed at Katyn by the Germans – a myth created by the Burdenko Commission with absolutely no evidence that it ever happened at all. Gorbachev also offered the Poles “a simplified procedure” for relatives wishing to visit the sites where their loved ones lay buried.

One of the Worst Crimes Ever
However the Polish historians tenaciously exposed the Russian responsibility, and the Catholic church in Poland labelled the Katyn Massacre “one of the worst crimes in the history of mankind.”

Exposure
Gorbachev’s trusted advisor, Valentin Falin, reported that Polish historians subverted the Soviet Commission by producing their own evidence exposing the 1944 Burdenko Report as spurious. Without waiting for the Soviet Commission’s response, the Poles began publishing the facts. The problem stubbornly refused to go away. Even the communist puppet government of Jaruzelski was forced to admit that “the liquidation of the Polish officers was the responsibility, of the USSR.”

Admission
On the symbolic date of 13 April 1990, 47 years after Berlin radio had announced the discovery of the massacre site, Gorbachev handed over two boxes of evidence to the Poles. The documents made clear that the Katyn Massacre was the work of the head of the NKVD, Lavrenty Beria. Gorbachev attempted to convince the Poles that more than 20,000 Polish nationals had been executed by the secret police chief without any authority from the Soviet Politburo!

Deception Rejected
This limited confession and further attempts at deception only enraged the Polish people further. An investigation conducted by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Soviet Union in 1991, and later by the Russian Federation, confirmed Soviet responsibility for the massacres. However, the Russian Federation later tried to diminish the number of deaths to 1,803 Polish citizens. They also refused to classify the action as a war crime, or as an act of genocide. They declared the investigation closed on the grounds that the perpetrators of the massacre were already dead.

Finally the Truth Comes Out
In October 1992, Boris Yeltsin, who had replaced Gorbachev, lowered the Soviet flag, abolished the Soviet Union and handed over “newly found” secret documents from the Soviet Politburo to Polish president Lech Walensa. The Politburo order dated 5 March 1940, was entitled, Question of the NKVD. In it, Beria informed Stalin that 14,736 Polish officers, officials, police officials, gendarmes and other intellectuals were being held in prison camps in occupied Polish territory and that 18,632 similar people were being held in camps in the Western Provinces of Ukraine and Belarus. Beria requested permission to shoot them all.

Stalin’s Order
Stalin’s “in favour” and bold signature are scrawled at the top of Beria’s question. Five other Politburo members also signed and approved the execution order. The document was labelled Top Secret. Of the total killed, about 8,000 were Polish military officers taken prisoner during the September 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland. Another 6,000 were police officers, with the rest being Polish Intelligentsia arrested for being “bourgeois”. The Katyn Forest Massacre was justified by Stalin’s Politburo as necessary to deprive a potential future Polish military of its leadership. Since Russia intended to keep the Eastern portion of Poland, he was determined to deprive it of a large proportion of its military and intellectual elite.

Cold-Blooded Mass Murder
Those who were murdered, in the first batch alone, included: an Admiral, 2 Generals, 24 Colonels, 79 Lieutenant Colonels, 258 Majors, 654 Captains, 17 Naval Captains, 3,420 NCOs, 7 Chaplains, 20 University Professors, 300 Physicians, hundreds of lawyers, engineers and teachers, more than one hundred writers and journalists and over 200 pilots. Altogether during the massacres, the NKVD murdered 14 Polish Generals. Vasili Mikhailovich Blokhin, the Chief Executioner for the NKVD, is reported to have personally shot and killed 7,000 of the condemned, from the Ostashkov Camp, over a period of 28 days in April 1940.

A Legacy of Deception
Further documents revealed that every Soviet chairman since Joseph Stalin had signed out the Politburo’s Katyn file and was well aware of the Russian complicity in this crime. In a Memo dated 20 March 1959, to Chairman Khrushchev, Interior Minister Alexander Shelepin reported: “The Committee of State Security… has held, since 1940, case files and other materials regarding prisoners and interned officers, policemen, gendarmes, military settlers, landowners, etc., persons from former bourgeois Poland who were shot in the same year. In all, on the basis of the decision of a special Troica of the NKVD, USSR, 21,857 people were shot… the entire operation was carried out on the basis of the decision of the Central Committee of 5 March 1940. Since 1940, no information from these files was released to anyone. All of the files, numbering 21,857, have been stored in a sealed location. To Soviet organs, all of these files represent neither operational interest nor historical value. It is also doubtful that they could be of any real value to our Polish friends. Quite the contrary, any unforeseen incident may lead to revealing the operation with all the undesirable consequences for our state. This is especially so because, regarding those shot in the Katyn Forest, there is an official version supported by an Investigation carried out on the initiative of the Soviet state in 1944, by the Burdenko Commission… which concluded that all of the Poles liquidated there are considered to have been killed by the German invaders. The conclusions of the commission became firmly established in international public opinion. It seems appropriate to destroy all of the records regarding the persons shot in 1940, in the above mentioned operation.”

Evidence Destroyed
Shelepin’s recommendation to purge the records was carried out with these over 21,000 case files destroyed. However, the Politburo Execution Order and Memo from Beria remained in the official record. Files later released from Gorbachev’s time included advice from advisors, that should the truth of the Katyn Forest Massacre come out,people could be convinced that the Soviet Union was no better than, and may have been worse than, Nazi Germany during the war and that the Soviet Union bears no less responsibility for the war.

Polish Deportations
Polish historians point out that during the 1930s, hundreds-of-thousands of Poles living in the Western areas of the Soviet Union were marked out for persecution by Stalin – either execution, or deportation to Central Asia. The Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939, was followed by more waves of arrests and mass deportations to the East. When the Katyn Forest Massacre took place, hundreds-of-thousands of Poles, mostly the better-educated and economically active citizens, were already in exile in Siberia, or in labour camps in Central Asia. They were herded there in horribly overcrowded freight trains and at least one out of every five of them died during transportation to the Soviet concentration camps.

Oppression
Between 320,000, to possibly up to 1 million, Polish citizens were deported to the Soviet Union. Of one group of 12,000 Poles incarcerated in Delstroy, near Kolyma, in 1940, only 583 survived by 1942. Over 570,000 Polish citizens were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps by the Soviets during the war. Polish prisoners were subjected to lengthy interrogations between October 1939 and February 1940. These interviews were a selection process to determine who would live and who would die. According to NKVD reports, if the prisoners could not be persuaded to adopt a pro-communist attitude, they were declared “hardened and uncompromising enemies of Soviet authority” and condemned to death.

Further Massacres
When Germany launched Operation Barbarossa in the summer of 1941, the NKVD concentration camp guards massacred thousands of Polish prisoners before fleeing eastwards to avoid the German advance.

The Betrayal of Warsaw
When the war was reaching its end and the Red Army was at the very gates of Warsaw, radio broadcasts from Russia urged the Polish citizens to rise up in revolt! The Soviet Army was then ordered to stand by and render no assistance as the Germans crushed the Warsaw Uprising. Stalin said that it was better that all resistance in Poland be crushed before Soviet occupation.

South Africa’s Support Remembered
The Polish Christians in 1990 reminded me that only the South African Air Force had flown in weapons and aid to the Polish underground during the Warsaw Uprising. I was surprised. I had read that the RAF had done so – but that was another lie. It was actually the SAAF, but because of apartheid, historians had expunged South Africa’s role and replaced it with the RAF. The fact that history books could be re-written to conform to politically correct dictates is disturbing.

Never Liberated
Polish citizens strenuously objected to any suggestion that they had been “liberated” by the Soviets. “The Soviets never liberated anyone!” they insisted. The first act of the Soviets on occupying Poland was arresting all leaders of the underground army and government. Polish Christians pointed out that most of the atrocities attributed to the Germans were actually communist atrocities committed by the Soviets and conveniently blamed on their enemies. Polish relatives of the victims continued to urge the European Court of Human Rights to rule on the crimes of the Stalin regime.

Putin’s Perspective
To Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the Katyn Forest Massacre is an inconvenient truth which taints Russian war-time heroism. Putin’s chief military prosecutor, Alexander Savenkov, issued a ruling on Katyn on 11 March 2005, in which they acknowledged that the NKVD Troika found 14,542 Polish citizens, held in NKVD camps, guilty of committing state crimes and made a decision to shoot them in the spring of 1940. Putin’s representative claims that these Soviet officials “abused their authority,” but that no criminal cases could be opened against them because the guilty parties had since died. The Polish claim of genocide was rejected and although they agreed to hand over 67 of the 183 volumes of evidence, two-thirds of the remaining evidence was to remain classified.

Outrage
The Polish parliament was outraged and demanded that Russia’s Katyn archives all be declassified and that Russian courts rule that the Katyn Forest Massacre was an act of genocide. Communists throughout the world would prefer the truth about Katyn to be buried, but Christians in Poland, and throughout Eastern Europe, determined to exhume the secrets and expose the true nature of Soviet Communism.

Pressure
Human Rights societies continued to pressure the Russian government, until in November 2010, the Russian Duma approved the declaration blaming Stalin and other Soviet officials for having personally ordered the Massacre of Polish Prisoners of War. This was only after the disastrous plane crash of Polish leaders, enroute to Katyn for the 70thAnniversary Commemoration.

Death Flight
On 10 April 2010, an aircraft carrying Polish President Lech Kaczynski, his wife and 87 other politicians and high-ranking army officers, crashed near Smolensk, killing all 96 on board the aircraft. The passengers were to attend a ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Massacre. The Polish people were convinced that they were the victims of a communist terror campaign which assassinated their president and senior leaders on the eve of the most important and solemn anniversary of this massacre. Many observed that it was like the assassination of General Sikorski in 1943. In the furore following the death flight of the Polish government, the Russian Duma finally acknowledged Russia’s guilt for the Katyn Forest Massacre.

War Crime
In 2011, the European Court of Human Rights declared admissible two complaints of relatives of the massacre victims against Russia concerning the inadequacy of their investigations. In a ruling on 16 April 2012, the court found that Russia had violated the rights of victims’ relatives and described the Massacre as a war-crime. It has taken 77 years, but facts are stubborn things.

“They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity…” 2 Peter 2:19

Dr. Peter Hammond
Frontline Fellowship
P.O. Box 74 Newlands 7725
Cape Town South Africa
Tel: 021-689-4480
mission@frontline.org.za
www.FrontlineMissionSA.org

Sources:
Katyn: The Untold Story of Stalin’s Polish Massacre, by Allen Paul, Scribner, 1991
Katyn and the Soviet Massacre of 1940: TruthJustice and Memory, by George Sanford, 2005
Katyn: A Crime Without Punishment, by Anna Cienciala, Jael University Press, 2007
Class Cleansing: The Katyn Massacre, by Victor Zaslavski, Telos Press, 2008
World War II Behind Closed Doors, by Laurence Rees, Random House, 2010
Katyn: Stalin’s Massacre and the Triumph of Truth, by Allen Paul, Northern Illinois University Press, 2010

An audio CD of this message, as presented to The Reformation Society, is available from: Christian Liberty Books PO Box 358 Howard Place 7450 Cape Town, South Africa, Tel: 021-689-7478, Fax: 086-551-7490, Email:admin@christianlibertybooks.co.za, Website: www.christianlibertybooks.co.za

See also:
How Propaganda Changes Perceptions and People
Dealing with Deceit
The Greatest Killer
Death By Government
Communist Liberation – Myth and Reality
The Heart of Communism
The Heart and Soul of Karl Marx
Farms and Freedom Under Fire in South Africa
Lessons from the Rwandan Holocaust
Security and Survival Handbook

The Weekly Sam: The Benefits of Private and Home Schools

Sam Blumenfeld was a fixture at homeschool conferences.  Here is a lecture Sam gave to a group in the early 1990s on the benefits of private Christian and home schools.

Please visit and sign up for the Blumenfeld Archives  http://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/http://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/ Help us spread Sam’s work for and wide.  Consider a donation to Camp Constitution via our PayPal account accessed from our website’s homepage  https://campconstitution.net 

  Camp Constitution’s Report for the 1st Quarter of 2019

Camp Constitution’s Report for the 1st Quarter of 2019
 
YouTube Channel:  We reached one million views in early March, and average over 1.200 views per day with close to 4,500 subscribers. Debbie Bacigalupi’s class on Agenda 21 from last year’s camp is one of the top performers with  50,000 views.  We are converting many of Sam Blumenfeld’s audios from the archive and uploading them on our channel. 

The Sam Blumenfeld Archive:  475,000 visits.  34,000 Alpha-Phonics downloaded, and 4,500 Alpha-Phonics Instructions Workbook downloaded.  Thanks to the efforts of our webmaster Eric Conover, we wrote a foreword to the “Alpha-Phonics” where we suggested that viewers make donations and provided a link to our PayPal account.

Podomatic:   We are usually in the top 10 for the “conservative right” category which has about 160 shows.  We had 316 downloads of our radio show, and over 1,800 visits

Facebook Page:   We have over 1,800 people who like our page, and reach an average of 400 per week. 

Speaker’s Bureau:   We had nine speaking engagements where we conducted power point presentations on Agenda 21, the plastic bag ban, the U.S. Constitution, and the Dangers of an Article V Convention.  These presentations were conducted in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, and Virginia.  We booked approximately 12 engagements over the next few months

 Information Tables:    We had information tables at several events including the Homeschoolers of Maine’s Annual Convention where we participated in a workshop. 
 
 Camp Constitution Press:  Thanks to one of our supporters, we reprinted ElementaryCatechism on the U.S. Constitution with a foreword by Ruth Harper.  We recently found an unpublished manuscript by Sam Blumenfeld entitled School-Induced Dyslexia and How It Deforms a Child’s Brain, and plan to put it in print over the next few months.

Camp Constitution Book Sales:    We raised approximately $1,000 from our sale of donated books on Amazon and Facebook, and had numerous books donated to us over the past quarter.  We updated our on-line book store or shop and will be adding to the inventory over the next few months. 

Camp Constitution Media:  We attended and videotaped  the annual Lobby Day at the Massachusetts State House hosted by the Massachusetts Family Institute, a presentation on the life of Joseph Warren by historian Christian Di Spina sponsored by the Sons of the Revolution, and a press conference we sponsored with Professor Willie Soon, and Joe D’Aleo, co-founder of the Weather Channel.

Article V Convention:    With Norman Tregenza’s help, we organized a group of people to testify in favor of a New Hampshire resolution to rescind its state’s Article V application.  While the resolution was tabled, we got word that it has a good change of passing it next year.  We distributed literature on the problems of an Article V Convention at the Pennsylvania State House, and gave a presentation on the subject to a well-attended group in Virginia.  We sent out E-mail alerts to our supporters around the country, and on our  Camp Constitution Radio Show  and the radio shows we guest host, we interviewed experts on Article V including Robert Brown and Joe Wolverton.

Camp Constitution in the News:   Thanks to Professor Soon’s influence in the “climate realism” community, a letter to the editor I wrote on Boston’s plastic bag ban, was turned into an article and published on approximately 15 on-line sources including the Heartland Institute, CFACT and Canada Free Press. It also appeared as a front page story in a Boston newspaper.   Our Agenda 21 Cable TV interview in Rutland, Vermont was covered by several media outlets.  Our lawsuit against the City of Boston generated an article on World Net Daily, and the New Boston Post.

 Radio and Cable TV: In addition to our weekly radio show, we guest hosted three radio shows, and appear as regular guests every other week on the Dianna Ploss Show which airs on WSMN-AM 1590 Nashua, NH. We were interviewed on several cable TV and on-line shows.
 
Special Projects:   The documentary Unsustainable is under production and we will have several our instructors participating in the program including Debbie Bacigalupi, Professor Willie Soon, Lord Christopher Monckton, Tom DeWeese, Dave Kopacz and me.  Since we will be at our annual family camp, the documentary’s director, James Jaeger will film the interviews at camp. 

      And, we are busy promoting, planning and scheduling activities and classes for what we hope will be our best family camp in our history. 
 
       How can you help? Here are a few suggestions:
       
       1, Pray that God will continue to bless our efforts.
 
        2, Become a donor.  Donations can be made via our PayPal account accessed  from our website          http://www.campconstitution.net
 
     3, Attend our annual family camp or, if you can’t attend, help sponsor a worthy young person or family.
 
     4, Sponsor a camp speaker and/or host a “What is Camp Constitution Presentation.”

     5, Subscribe, view and share our videos on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN7ME18Q1xiqcrPEn5h5FbA
 
      Thanks to all of you who make our camp program possible.
 
       Hal Shurtleff, Director
      Camp Constitution

The Weekly Sam: Sam Blumenfeld and Dr. Seuss

Sam Blumenfeld was a critic of Dr. Seuss whose real name was Theodor Giesel.  Sam would explain that his children’s books were designed to introduce as few words as possible.  I received a daily trivia E-mail asking which Dr. Seuss book only had 50 words.  Here is the answer:

 I do not like green eggs and ham, or different words—those I can’t stand! When Theodor S. Giesel, better known as Dr. Seuss, wrote “The Cat in the Hat”, he challenged himself to use a limited amount of words after reading a “Life” magazine article about illiteracy rates. After its success, his publisher, Bennett Cerf, bet the children’s author $50 that he couldn’t write a book using only 50 words. It was this bet that catalyzed the creation of “Green Eggs and Ham”, which has since become Dr. Seuss’ best-selling title. Though Cerf allegedly never paid his dues, Giesel won in the long run with over 200 million copies of the book being sold worldwide.”

Sam explained that by the time a child is three years old, he has a 2,000 word vocabulary that he has learned all on his own.   Books authored  by the likes of Dr. Seuss artificially stunt the growth of children’s vocabulary.

Visit and share the Sam Blumenfeld Archives:    http://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Camp Constitution Supports the President’s Commission on Climate Security

Mr. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute asked Camp Constitution to be one of the many organizations and individuals that endorsed the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security. We are honored to be a part of this project.

The Honorable Donald J. Trump
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, DC 20500
Via e-mail
Dear President Trump,

The undersigned organizations and individuals write to express our strong support for
the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security. It is our understanding that
this commission, which is being planned and would be directed by Dr. William Happer
of the National Security Council staff, is currently being considered by your senior
White House staff and relevant Cabinet secretaries and agency heads. The commission
would consist of a small number of distinguished experts on climate-related science and
national security. It would be charged with conducting an independent, high-level
review of the Fourth National Climate Assessment and other official reports relating to
climate and its implications for national security. Its deliberations would be subject to
the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committees Act.

In our view, an independent review of these reports is long overdue. Serious problems
and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists
only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the
reports. Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission
will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2
concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have
predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative
impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions
scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface
temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has
actually occurred. An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is
the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many
climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific
method.
The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed
energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of
trillions of dollars over several decades. Given the magnitude of the potential costs
involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on
trust, as has been the case for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent. In
contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and
exhaustive adversarial review. We suggest that climate science requires at least the
same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new
airplane.

We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public
campaign against the proposed commission. We find this opposition curious. If the
defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they
should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been
raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the
scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand
critical review.

We further note that opponents of the proposed commission have already stooped to
making personal attacks on Dr. Happer. Many signers of this letter know Dr. Happer
personally and all are familiar with his scientific career. We know him to be a man of
high capabilities, high achievements, and the highest integrity.
It has been reported that some officials within your administration have proposed an
internal working group as an alternative to an independent commission subject to
FACA. Insofar as an internal working group would consist of federal career scientists
reviewing their own work, we think this alternative would be worse than doing
nothing.

Although an independent commission of distinguished scientists would have high
credibility, we do not mean to imply that its report should be the end of the
matter. We therefore suggest that the National Academies of Science and Engineering
would be appropriate bodies to conduct an initial review of the commission’s report.
Mr. President, you have made a number of comments in recent years expressing doubts
about the global warming consensus. Many of the signers of this letter have been
similarly skeptical. Without prejudging the results, we think that a review of climate
science produced by an independent, high-level commission would be a fair test for
your views (and ours): either it would provide a sound basis for revising your views or it
would confirm your views and confound your critics.

For these reasons, we urge you to create by Executive Order a President’s Commission
on Climate Security. Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Myron Ebell, Director, Center for Energy and
Environment
and Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Tim Huelskamp, Ph. D., President and CEO
and Joseph L. Bast, Founder and Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute
Adam Brandon, President
FreedomWorks
Tim Chapman, Executive Director
Heritage Action for America
Thomas Pyle
President
American Energy Alliance
Thomas Schatz, President
Citizens Against Government Waste
Craig Rucker, President
and Marc Morano, Publisher, CFACT’s Climate Depot
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
Steve Milloy, Publisher
Junk Science
James L. Martin, Founder and Chairman
and Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, President
60 Plus Association
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, Chairman
and Kenneth Haapala, President
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Robert L. Bradley, Jr., CEO
Institute for Energy Research
Craig D. Idso, Ph. D., Chairman
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change
Tom Harris, Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Eunie Smith, President
Eagle Forum
Rick Manning, President
Americans for Limited Government
Craig Richardson, President
Energy and Environment Legal Institute
Phil Kerpen, President
American Commitment
Mario H. Lopez, President
Hispanic Leadership Fund
Al Regnery, Chairman
Conservative Action Project
Bill Walton, Chairman
CNP Action, Inc.
Jennifer Fielder, CEO
American Lands Council
Tom DeWeese, President
American Policy Center
Andrew Langer, President
Institute for Liberty
David T. Stevenson, Policy Director
and Clinton S. Laird, Advisory Council
Caesar Rodney Institute
Rob Roper, President
Ethan Allen Institute
Kory Swanson, President and CEO
John Locke Foundation
Paul Gessing, President
Rio Grande Foundation
Jason Hayes, Director of Environmental Policy
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Kathleen Hartnett White, Senior Fellow and Director,
Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment
Life: Powered, a Project of the Texas Public Policy
Foundation
Daniel Turner, Founder and Executive Director
Power the Future
John Droz, Jr., Founder
Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions
Alex Epstein, Founder
Center for Industrial Progress
Mark Mathis, President
Clear Energy Alliance
Mandy Gunasekara, Founder
Energy 45 Fund
Peter Ferrara, Chief Consultant
and David Wallace, President and Founder
FAIR Energy Foundation
Mark Anderson, Executive Director & Host
and Karla Davenport, Co-Owner & Producer
Affiliations of the individuals listed alphabetically below are given for identification
purposes only. Academic affiliations have been placed in parentheses to make this
doubly clear.
Peter F. Alexander, L. A., Landscape Architect Planner
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph. D., (Professor, University of Pennsylvania)
Charles R. Anderson, Ph. D., President and Principal Scientist, Anderson Materials
Evaluation
Dennis T. Avery, Co-author (with S. Fred Singer) of Unstoppable Global Warming:
Every 1,500 Years
Timothy Ball, Ph. D., Author of Human Caused Global Warming
Joe Bastardi, Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell.com, Author of The Climate Chronicles
Charles G. Battig, M. S., M. D., Policy Adviser, The Heartland Institute
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph. D., Founder and National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the
Stewardship of Creation
Denis Beller, Ph. D., Lt. Col., USAF (ret.), (Research Professor, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas)
Edwin X. Berry, Ph. D. (Physics), Climate Physics, LLC, Montana
Joseph Bevelacqua, Ph. D., CHP, RRPT, President, Bevelacqua Resources
Mark J. Block, CEO, Mother Nature’s Trading Company
Karl Bohnak, Chief Meteorologist, WLUC, Marquette, Mich.
Vice Admiral Edward S. Briggs, U. S. Navy (ret.)
William Butos, Ph. D., (Ferris Professor, Emeritus, Trinity College)
Mark L. Campbell, (Professor, United States Naval Academy)
Alan Carlin, Ph. D., Senior Analyst (ret.), Environmental Protection Agency,
CarlinEconomics.com
Mark J. Carr, Channel Design Group
Jeffrey A. Casey, Ph. D., President, Rockfield Research, Inc.
Dr. Ian Clark, P. Geo., (Professor, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences,
University of Ottawa)
Dr. Imelda Connolly, Connolly Scientific Research Group
Dr. Michael Connolly, Connolly Scientific Research Group
Dr. Ronan Connolly, Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES)
Donn Dears, B. S., (Engineering), Senior Executive, General Electric Company (ret.),
Author of Clexit for a Brighter Future
Paul deWitt, M. A., U. S. Navy (ret.)
David Deming, Ph. D. (Geophysics), (Professor of Arts and Sciences, University of
Oklahoma)
James D. Derbonné, Aerospace Engineer for Mercury, Apollo, Space Shuttle, and Space
Station Programs, NASA (ret.)
Harold H. Doiron, Ph. D. (Mechanical Engineering), Chairman, The Right Climate
Stuff Research Team, Engineer, NASA (ret.)
Becky Norton Dunlop, Former Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Former Virginia
Secretary of Natural Resources
George S. Dunlop, Former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources
and Environment, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works
John Dale Dunn, M. D., J. D., Policy Adviser, The Heartland Institute
Robert W. Endlich, M. S. (Meteorology), Principal, Cruces Atmospheric Sciences
Forum, Lt. Col., USAF (ret.)
Vincent J. Esposito, Sc. D., former Westinghouse Vice President, (Adjunct Professor,
University of Pittsburgh)
Bruce M. Everett, Ph. D.
Peter Felker, Ph. D., Los Angeles, California
Neil L. Frank, Ph. D., former Director, National Hurricane Center
Patrick Frank, Ph. D., (SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University)
Gordon J. Fulks, Ph. D. (Physics—University of Chicago)
Terry Gannon, Ph. D., Climateintro.com
Grace Germany, NASA (ret.)
Ivar Giaever, Ph. D., Nobel Prize Winner in Physics 1973
Leo Goldstein, M. Sc., President, Science for Humans and Freedom Institute
Laurence I. Gould, Ph. D., (Professor of Physics, University of Hartford)
Prof. Dr. Hermann Harde, (Helmut-Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany)
Larry Hart, Hartco Strategies
Howard Hayden, Ph. D., (Professor Emeritus of Physics University of Connecticut)
Thomas Hayward, Admiral, U. S. Navy (ret.)
Dennis Hedke, Consulting Geophysicist, Hedke-Saenger Geoscience, Ltd.
Tom Hennigan, (Associate Professor of Organism Biology and Ecology, Truett
McConnell University)
James H. Hollingsworth, M. A.
Mark L. Hopkins, BSEE, J. D, MLB
William B. Howard, B. S.
Christopher C. Hull, Ph. D., Senior Fellow, Americans for Intelligence Reform
Jon P. Kahler, M. S., Retired Meteorologist
Richard A. Keen, Ph. D., (Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of
Colorado)
Hugh Kendrick, Ph. D., P. E., Former Director, Plans and Analysis, Nuclear Reactor
Research, U. S. Department of Energy
Sheryl Kaufman, Corporate Chief Economist (ret.), Phillips Petroleum Company
Madhav Khandekar, Ph. D., Scientist (ret.), Environment Canada
William L. Kovacs, J. D., Former Senior Vice President for Environment, Technology,
and Regulatory Affairs at a major trade association
Hans U. Kurr, Simultaneous Interpreter (ret.), United Nations
Gary Kyle, (Professor of Physics Emeritus, New Mexico State University)
David R. Legates, Ph. D., (Professor, University of Delaware)
Jay Lehr, Ph. D., Science Director, The Heartland Institute
Jonathan A. Lesser, Ph. D., President, Continental Economics, Inc.
Floy Lilley, J. D., Special Projects, Mises Institute
Anthony R. Lupo, (Professor, Columbia, Missouri)
Robert Lyman, Energy Economist, ENTRANS Policy Research Group
Matthew Malkan, Ph. D., Los Angeles, California
Martin J. Mangino, Ph. D., (Virginia Commonwealth University)
R. Timothy McCrum, J. D., Member of the DC and Supreme Court Bars, Washington,
D. C.
Michael McKenna, Former Trump Transition head for Department of Energy, FERC,
and NRC
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph. D., Past President, American Association of State
Climatologists
Dennis M. Mitchell, CPA (ret.), Qualified Environmental Professional
Deroy Murdock, Contributing Editor, National Review Online
Miles J. Novy, M. D., (Emeritus Professor and Senior Scientist, Oregon Health Sciences
University)
Dennis G. Ortega,
James M. Peacock, Aerospace Engineer (ret.) for Apollo, Sky Lab, and Space Shuttle
Programs, NASA, U. S. Air Force Research and Development
Charles W. Pennington, M. S., MBA, Vice President, NAC International (ret.)
Charles A. Perry, Ph. D., Climatologist
John W. Peterson, Burke, Va.
Brian Pratt, Ph. D., (University of Saskatchewan)
A. G. Randol III, Ph. D., Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and
Environment
Allen Rogers, CEO, ALR Consulting
Bernard Rosenbaum, Senior Engineer (ret.), Propulsion and Power Division, NASA
Johnson Space Center
James H. Rust, Policy Adviser, The Heartland Institute, (Professor of Nuclear
Engineering (ret.), Georgia Tech)
Gary D. Sharp, Ph. D., Scientific Director, Center for Climate and Ocean Resources
Study
Hal Shurtleff, Director, Camp Constitution
Willie Soon, Ph. D., Solar and Atmospheric Physicist
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. (Meteorology), (University of Alabama Huntsville)
Charles N. Steele, Ph. D., (Herman and Suzanne Dettwiler Chair in Economics,
Hillsdale College)
J. Eldon Steelman, Ph. D. (Electrical Engineering)
Ted Stout, D. C.
Szymon Suckewer, Ph. D., D. Sc. (Habilitation), (Professor Emeritus, Princeton
University)
Michael C. Sununu, S. B. (MIT)
Daniel Sutter, (Professor of Economics, Troy University)
Brendon Swedlow, Ph. D, J. D., (Associate Professor, Northern Illinois University)
Thomas Tanton, Energy and Environment Legal Institute
Mitchell Taylor, Ph. D., (Adjunct Professor, Lakehead University), Former Member of
the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group
Nancy J. Thorner, Lake Bluff, Ill.
David H. Tofsted, Ph. D. (Electrical Engineering), former Senior Research Physicist,
U. S. Army Research Laboratory, White Sands Missile Range
Cecil Joe Tomlinson, Senior Principal Engineer (ret.), Boeing Company
Brian Gregory Valentine, D. Eng., U. S. Department of Energy, (University of
Maryland)
Donald R. van der Vaart, Ph. D. (Trinity College, Cambridge), P. E., J. D., Former
Secretary, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Phil Volker, President, ERF/WMG Companies, Inc.
Lance Wallace, Ph. D. (Astrophysics), EPA Office of Research and Development (ret.)
Anthony Watts, Meteorologist and Publisher, Watts Up With That?
Steven Weismantel, Connecticut Climate Realists
Chuck F. Wiese, Meteorologist, Weatherwise, Inc.
Adam Wildavsky, S. B. (MIT), Senior Software Engineer (ret.), Google
David Wojick, Ph. D.
George T. Wolff, Ph. D., Principal Scientist, Air Improvement Resources, Inc.
Thomas H. Wysmuller, Meteorologist, NASA (ret.), Founding Member of the Right
Climate Stuff Team
Benjamin Zycher, Ph. D., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Maine’s Governor Janet Mills Refuses to Sign Homeschool Week Proclamation Which Has Been Done By Every Governor Since 1988

Maine’s Governor Janet Mills has refused to sign a proclamation to acknowledge the first week of May as Homeschool Education Week even though every governor has signed the proclamation since 1988.  Her reason:  It isn’t justified since there aren’t a sufficient amount of homeschoolers.  It is estimated that there are over 6,000 homeschooled students in Maine, 12,000 parents. and several thousand others who volunteer their time with homeschool support groups.   The Governor’s claim that a proclamation isn’t warranted due to the few numbers of homeschoolers is at best disingenuous.  Her very first proclamation was given to Mr. George Smith:    http://www.georgesmithmaine.com/articles/georges-outdoor-news/february/2019/governor-mills-honors-me-proclamation

Camp Constitution interviewed Mr. Isiah Larey of Homeschoolers of Maine at their well-attended annual convention in Rockport on Saturday explaining  the petition his group created  urging the Governor to reconsider

 

 

The petition reads:

Readers are encouraged to sign the petition and share it with other.

 

 

Call to Action: Sign Myron Ebell’s Letter to President Trump Urging the Creation of a President’s Commision on Climate Security

Dear Cooler Heads and Allies,

You are invited to sign the joint letter pasted below to President Trump urging him to appoint a President’s Commission on Climate Security.  The details are explained in the letter.  The deadline for signing is Thursday, 14th March by 12 noon EDT.

You may sign as an organization or as an individual.  Organizations and the person signing on their behalf will be listed first and organization logos will appear on the left margin of the letter.  Individuals will be listed after all organizations.

Please follow the instructions carefully.  Just replying to me with “I’m on” will not do it.

Please send the information requested by hitting Reply All to this e-mail or, which is the same thing, by addressing Myron.Ebell@cei.org andRichard.Morrison@cei.org.  You will receive confirmation by return e-mail within a day that your e-mail has been received and that you are listed on the letter.

The letter will be sent to President Trump at the White House, to several key staffers in the White House, and to the signers at the same time.  It will then be released to the media and the public.  All signers are invited to post the final joint letter on their web sites, send it around, and publicize it.

The deadline for signing is 12 Noon EDT on Thursday, 14th March.

Thanks, Myron.

 For Organizations:

____Yes, please sign my organization to the joint letter to President Trump in support of creating a President’s Commission on Climate Security.

 Name of Organization:

 Name of person:

 Title:

 E-mail address:

 For Individuals

___­­_Yes, please sign me on to the joint letter.

____I understand that any affiliation listed will appear in parentheses.  For example: Isaac Newton (Trinity College, Cambridge).  There will be a note that affiliations are for identification purposes only.  But if you don’t want to list an affiliation, then you may want to put something else like: Truth or Consequences, New Mexico;

Name:

Title or degree optional:

(For example: Professor, Ph. D., State Senator, former Member of Congress, etc.)

Affiliation or other ID:    

 

 E-mail address:

 Deadline: 12 Noon EDT, 14th March 2019.

 Send to: Myron.Ebell@cei.org and to Richard.Morrison@cei.org.

DRAFT

 Dear President Trump,

The undersigned organizations and individuals write to express our strong support for the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security.  It is our understanding that this commission, which is being planned and would be directed by Dr. William Happer of the National Security Council staff, is currently being considered by your senior White House staff and relevant Cabinet secretaries and agency heads.  The commission, consisting of a dozen or so leading atmospheric scientists, would be charged with conducting an independent, high-level review of the fourth National Climate Assessment, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, and several other official reports on climate science and would be subject to the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committees Act.

In our view, an independent review of these reports is long overdue.  Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports.  Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred.  An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method.

The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of trillions of dollars over several decades.  Given the magnitude of the potential costs involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on trust, as has been the case for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent.  In contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and exhaustive adversarial review.  We suggest that climate science requires at least the same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new airplane.

We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission.  We find this opposition curious.  If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised.  On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review.

We further note that opponents of the proposed commission have already stooped to making personal attacks on Dr. Happer.  Many signers of this letter know Dr. Happer personally and are familiar with his scientific career.  We know him to be a man of high capabilities, high achievements, and the highest integrity.

It has been reported that some officials within your administration have proposed an internal working group as an alternative to an independent commission subject to FACA.  Insofar as an internal working group would consist of federal career scientists reviewing their own work, we think this alternative would be worse than doing nothing.

Although an independent commission of distinguished scientists would have high credibility, we do not mean to imply that its report should be the end of the matter.  We therefore suggest that the National Academies of Science and Engineering would be appropriate bodies to conduct an initial review of the commission’s report.

Mr. President, you have made a number of comments in recent years expressing doubts about the global warming consensus.  Many of the signers of this letter have been similarly skeptical.  Without prejudging the results, we think that a review of climate science produced by an independent, high-level commission would be a fair test for your views (and ours): either it would provide a sound basis for revising your views or it would confirm your views and confound your critics.

For these reasons, we urge you to create by Executive Order a President’s Commission on Climate Security.  Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

Myron Ebell

Director, Center for Energy and Environment

Competitive Enterprise Institute

1310 L Street, N. W., Seventh Floor

Washington, DC 20005, USA

Tel direct: (202) 331-2256

Tel mobile: (202) 320-6685

E-mail: Myron.Ebell@cei.org

Stop continental drift!

 

The Weekly Sam: Should Christians Support Education Without God? by Sam Blumenfeld

 

Back in 1849, when the organized Protestants of Massachusetts
debated whether or not to support the public school movement, which was
then being heavily promoted by the Unitarians, they decided in favor of
support, but with well-expressed conditions. They wrote:

“The benefits of this system, in offering instruction to all, are so many and so great
that its religious deficiencies,–especially since they can be otherwise supplied, do not
seem to be a sufficient reason for abandoning it, and adopting in place of it, a system
of denominational parochial schools ….It is however a great evil to withdraw from the established system of common
schools, the interest and influence of the religious part of the community. On the
whole, it seems to be the wisest course, at least for the present, to do all in our power
to perfect as far as it can be done, not only its intellectual, but also its moral and
religious character.

“If after a full and faithful experiment, it should at last be seen that fidelity to the
religious interests of our children forbids a further patronage of the system, we can
unite with the Evangelical Christians in the establishment of private schools, in which
more full doctrinal religious instruction may be possibleBut, until we are forced to this results, it seems to us desirable that the religious community do all in their power to give an opportunity for a full and fair experiment of
the existing system, including not only the common schools, but also the Normal
Schools and the Board of Education”.

I don’t believe that any Christian can doubt that there has been a “full
and fair experiment” of public education for the last 150 years and that its
fidelity to the religious interests of Christian children has been proven to be
decidedly negative. In fact, thousands of Christian parents, without
knowledge of what was written in 1849, have already taken their children
out of the public schools and either decided to homeschool them or place
them in Christian schools. Their responsibilities as Christian parents have
led them to make the necessary decision for the sake of their children’s
spiritual well being.

But what is disturbing is that most Christians still patronize a system
that is undermining the religious beliefs of their children. One wonders what
must happen before these parents realize the harm they are doing to their
children by keeping them in the public schools.
The simple fact is that the present government education system has
as its foundation an anti-Christian philosophy known as secular humanism.
All one has to do is read the Humanist Manifestos I and II to confirm the
truth of this assertion. Humanist Manifesto I was written in 1933 by young
Unitarian ministers who believed that the spiritual power of orthodox
religion was in decline and should be replaced by a rational, man-centered,
non-theistic religion. They wrote:

“Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science
makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values ….
Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the
end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. .. .
Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the
fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and
direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of
human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions,
their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be
reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the
modern world.”

Humanism is the only religion in America that has as its purpose and
program the reconstitution of the institutions, rituals, and ecclesiastical
methods of other religions. This is an overt declaration of war against
Biblical religion. Forty years later, Humanist Manifesto II states:
As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. [W]e can
discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species …. No deity will save
us; we must save ourselves.

In the January/February 1983 issue of The Humanist magazine, a
young scholar by the name of John J. Dunphy expressed exactly what the
aim of humanists is in education:

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in
the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the
proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the
spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must
embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for
they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey
humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level-­
preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an
arena of conflict between the old and the new–the rotting corpse of Christianity,
together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent
in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy
neighbor” will finally be achieved.”

The humanist war against Christianity is going on everyday in the
classrooms of America. But the real battle is being fought in the courtrooms
of the nation. In March 1987, U.S. District Judge W. Brevard Hand ruled in
Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County. Alabama that
the public school curriculum was based on the tenets of secular humanism,
and he thereby ordered that humanist textbooks to be removed from the
schools. Five months later this ruling was overturned by the Eleventh
Circuit Court which stated that “none of these books convey a message of
government approval of secular humanism.”

In other words, humanists are free to teach their dogma in the public
schools as long as the government does not convey a message of
approval. But that is the argument used to keep Christianity out. It is said
that the mere inclusion of anything Christian in a public school curriculum
automatically implies government approval.

The notion that public schools are neutral when it comes to religion is
belied by the strong prejudice against Christianity as openly expressed by
such humanists as John Dunphy. What we have is not neutrality but
warfare. Until Christians recognize that the government schools are
establishments of religion, and that education is fundamentally a religious
activity, we shall not be able to deal realistically with our educational crisis.

The message for Christian parents must be loud and clear: putting a
child in a public school violates God’s commandment as given in
Deuteronomy 6 to educate a child in the love and admonition of the Lord.
There is no substitute for a godly education. In place of God, the public
schools offer evolution, sex education, death education, multiculturalism,
transcendental meditation, situational ethics, drug education, and other
forms of humanist teachings. These are the programs that are creating the
new nihilist, amoral barbarians that are devastating the lives of thousands
of parents. There is hardly a Christian family that has not lost a child to the
satanic culture that grows in the public school environment.
If Christians wish to restore America as a nation under God, they shall
have to educate their children in schools that revere Him .•

(This was a speech made by Sam in the late 1980s.  Please visit his archives  http://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/ 

And please consider a donation to Camp Constitution to help keep Sam’s archive on line and expand its reach.  Donations can be made via our PayPal account accessed via our homepage www.campconstution.net