AOC says America should lead the world In committing national economic suicide and sending living standards back to 19th century by Paul Driessen

     29-year old ex-bartender and freshman U.S. Representative (D-NY) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez received thunderous environmentalist and media acclaim when she introduced her Green New Deal resolution in the House and Ed Markey (D-MA) submitted it in the Senate. It was quickly endorsed or cosponsored by scores of House and Senate Dems, including many who want to run against President Trump in 2020.

But within days the GND was subjected to rigorous analysis (and ridicule) by energy experts, President Trump, Republicans, conservative pundits and even some Democrats. Their disdain is well-founded.

Asserting yet again that “manmade climate change” poses an “existential threat” to people and planet – with only a dozen years before total disaster strikes – the Green New Deal demands that the United States convert to 100% “renewable” energy within ten years. It also proclaims an equally urgent need to abandon free enterprise capitalism in favor of 100% socialist economic and “social justice” policies.

In the energy arena, AOC’s GND requires that fossil fuels, nuclear power and even waste-to-energy and large-scale hydroelectric facilities be eliminated from the US energy mix. Coal, oil and natural gas leasing and development on federally controlled Western lands would be banned, as would exports of those fuels.

Internal combustion cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats would be replaced with electric versions, or eradicated. Airplanes would be replaced by high-speed rail. And every house and building in America would be gutted, rebuilt or retrofitted with “state of the art efficiency” technologies. That’s for starters.

The original “draft” resolution (since replaced on AOC’s website) even called for getting rid of “farting cows” – to prevent methane from increasing above its current minuscule 0.0017% of the atmosphere. So “bugs not beef” in our diets – and no more cheese, milk, yogurt or Baskin Robbins.

In the “social justice and fairness” arena, the Cortez-Markey GND provides that every American would get government-guaranteed jobs, with “family-sustaining” wages and pensions; free college or trade school; “healthy organic” food; “safe, affordable, adequate” and energy-efficient homes; and support for ethnic and economic “communities” that “historically” were harmed “first and most” by “dirty energy.”

Saturday Night Live could not have crafted a better parody of energy, economic and scientific reality.

But Ms. Cortez is determined to have her GND brought up for a vote in the House, where Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) worries about the spectacle that would ensue. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is equally determined to have a vote. Mr. Markey is outraged; he claims Republicans just want to sow discord within the Democratic party, portray Dems as favoring extremist policies and sabotage the plan.

Meanwhile, Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) threatened to call police on a reporter who was “harassing” him merely by asking for his views about the Green New Deal.

Ms. Cortez has no such qualms. When asked whether implementing her GND would require “massive government intervention,” she replied: “It does. Yeah. I have no problem saying that.” Moreover, she added, we shouldn’t point fingers and say China or India or Russia isn’t doing anything like this. We shouldn’t “hold ourselves to a lower bar.” We should “choose to lead” the world in this transition.

Lead the world in economic suicide, environmental degradation, plummeting living standards, shorter life spans and societal upheaval would be a more accurate description of her GND.

But at least Democrats and environmentalists have now made clear what they will do to America’s energy, economy, jobs, transportation, infrastructure and society if they regain control of the House, Senate, White House, Deep State and courts.

What they are not doing, discussing or even thinking about is how they intend to get achieve their energy-climate-socialist nirvana … how many trillions of dollars it would cost … how many millions of good jobs would be eliminated before their promised job-creation programs theoretically kick in … and exactly how they plan to deal with the enormous human and environmental impacts.

AOC says don’t worry about the price tag. Just tax the rich more and borrow trillions more. Whether the cost is $1 trillion per year or $40 to $100 trillion in total, that is an ignorant, cavalier response. Either way, she must provide the numbers, calculations and wherewithal – transparently and with full debate.

But on environmental matters, Ms. Cortez and her cosponsors have no clue what they are talking about.

America has over a century of coal, oil and natural gas that we should use. We have vast quantities of limestone, copper, iron, and rare earth and other strategic metals that would be essential for the wind turbines, solar panels, biofuel operations, massive backup battery arrays, and thousands of miles of new electricity transmission lines that their Green New Deal envisions. Is there a snowball’s chance in Hell that they would open highly mineralized Western and Alaskan lands for exploration and mining?

Their intransigence on those resources means giving up bonuses, rents, royalties, taxes and millions of high-paying jobs. Billions of dollars in revenues to government will be replaced by billions of dollars in subsidies from government. America won’t even be able to manufacture GND energy systems because we will not have either the reliable, affordable fuels to operate factories nor the necessary raw materials.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue to use fossil fuels, emit greenhouse gases, surge ahead of us economically – and sell us trillions of dollars of Green New Deal energy systems. Those that come from China might even have grid-hacker-friendly portals built right into their motherboards.

Shuttering nuclear and hydro power plants – and converting our transportation and shipping systems from gasoline and diesel – would mean the USA will need twice as much electricity as it generates today. Closing waste-to-energy facilities would add to those demands – and to landfill requirements.

Energy journalist Ron Bailey estimates that the GND would require installing some 154,000 offshore wind turbines, 335,000 onshore wind turbines, 75 million residential photovoltaic systems, 2.75 million commercial solar systems, and 46,000 utility-scale solar facilities sprawling across millions of acres. My guess is that it would require a lot more than that – plus millions of Tesla-style battery arrays.

Manufacturing and installing all those units … and the transmission lines to connect them … would require removing hundreds of billions of tons of rock, to reach and extract tens of billions of tons of ores, to create billions of tons of metals, concrete and other materials. That would be expensive, fossil fuel-intensive and habitat destructive. If it is done overseas, as most of it is today, it would involve virtually no health, safety, environmental, human rights, child labor or fair-pay protections. That is not acceptable.

One would hope their commitment to environmental protection and “social justice” would make GND supporters stalwart advocates for reform. Amendments to the GND or stand-alone bills should require that that all future wind turbine, solar panel and battery components and raw materials be “responsibly sourced” under tough US standards addressing all these issues – or we don’t import them.

There’s more. Contrary to claims by GND advocates, electricity rates would likely skyrocket – to at least the 38¢ per kWh families and businesses are already paying in Germany and Denmark. That’s four times as much as Americans now pay in states where coal, gas, nuclear and hydro generate most of the electricity. Those rates are job killers for factories, hospitals, schools and businesses.

They also literally kill people, by making it hard for poor families and pensioners to afford adequate heat in wintertime. And just imagine countless stranded electric cars, trucks and buses clogging highways, especially during snow storms, as their batteries go dead … and hundreds of people die of exposure.

GND advocates seek a total, virtually totalitarian transformation of the US energy and transportation system, economy, buildings, industries, employment base, living standards and individual freedoms. They are using American citizens as guinea pigs in this grand experiment.

They need to tell us what resources will be required … how and where they will get them … how this scheme will work. That’s not likely to happen – because they don’t have a clue, and don’t care. They also can’t prove climate fluctuations and weather events are unprecedented and caused by fossil fuels.

So let’s have those House and Senate votes on the Green New Deal. Let’s see who stands where on this.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.


The Weekly Sam: A Review of Sam’s Book “The New Illiterates”

The latest phonics reading program promises to make a reader out of
your child. All you need is the program ($199 plus tax: plus shipping and
handling), various manuals and workbooks, a blackboard, flashcards, a record
player, a cassette player, a VCR, a computer, and a nuclear reactor. Well, okay,
so I exaggerate a bit–but we do have a tendency to make simple things rather

A good antidote to this irksome tendency is The New first
issued in 1973, and every bit as relevant in this 1988 edition [The Paradigm
Company, Box 45161, Boise, Idaho 83711]. No one knows as much about
America’s reading problems, or the solution, as Sam Blumenfeld. With skill and
erudition, he has devastated the “look-say” reading establishment. And he has
produced a true phonics program without all the distractions and frivolities
which characterize some of the products on the market. (I have taught, and am
teaching, my children to read using Mr. Blumenfeld’s so I am
not exactly an unbiased observer when it comes to praising his works.)

There are some 25 or 30 million functional illiterates in our fair land,
and, as Mr. Blumenfeld notes, “no professional educator has stepped forward to
accept responsibility for having helped create this state of affairs. It is assumed
by virtually everyone that all of this ‘just happened’ and that no one’s to blame.
Certainly none of the educational leaders of the last fifty years is to blame. After
all, no one’s been fired.” (preface) The powers that be among the educrats
would like us to believe that these folks are illiterate because they have minimal
brain damage, perceptual retardation, and a host of various and sundry learning
disabilities. Rather than attributing illiteracy to genetic deficiency in the
learner, Mr. Blumenfeld identifies it as “the inability of about half the children
taught to read via Dick and Jane to acquire an adequate sight vocabulary that can
take them beyond the controlled reading materials of the third or fourth
grades.” (pg. 72) Even the dread “dyslexia” is simply “a fancy medical term
coined especially to describe the perfectly normal, intelligent youngster who
can’t learn how to read by the whole-word method.” (pg. 108)

One of the strengths of Mr. Blumenfeld’s book is that he does not just
describe the current Situation, but he places it in its historical context. Present
problems are traced back to such scoundrels as Horace Mann in the 19th
century and John Dewey in the 20th. We learn that in the 1830’s in Boston was
a major philosophical battle concerning the nature and methods of teaching.
Mann and his disciples opposed the traditional and conservative educational
practices of the Boston schoolmasters. Mann is quoted as saying, “I am satisfied
that our greatest error in teaching children to read, lies in beginning with the
alphabet.” (pg. 147) Thus, Mann declared that the alphabetic method, which
had been used for thousands of years in cultures which had an alphabetic
language, was in error, and English, an alphabetic language, should be taught as
if it were an hieroglyphic language. This ranks as one of the worst educational
decisions ever made in America. Mr. Blumenfeld comments that in Mann’s
time, there “was a climate of revolt against traditional academic discIpline, and
for many refonners the alphabet seemed to symbolize that discipline.” (pgs.

Despite the labors of Mann and his cronies, most American children were
taught to read via McGuffey’s readers and Webster’s spellers. Thus, throughout
the 19th century, most American children were not intellectually crippled by
the “look-say, whole-word” method. It was not until the 20th century that the
“second wave” of proponents made this method virtually universal, led by the
terrible trio of Francis Parker, G. Stanley Hall and Dewey. For these champions
of progressive education, the look-say method was perfect. It kept the students
sufficiently passive so that they could work toward their real goal, a new social
order. “The theory behind progressive education was that life adjustment, or
the development of the proper social spirit, was really the primary purpose of
education and that the traditional academiC approach in which the tools of
learning were first mastered was not appropriate for the new age of social
consciousness.” (pg. 156)

Thus, a foreign method of the teaching of reading was thrust upon the
children of America–“we have forced millions of children to read as if the
alphabet had never been invented. And we have seen an entire educational
system perverted to accommodate the illogic and confUSion of a defective
teaching method.” (pg. 214) The second half of this book is a phonics primer,
so that parents can teach their children how to read. It’s short, it’s simple, and
it works.

A final word from Mr. Blumenfeld. “When one begins to think of the
incalculable damage done to the young minds of America through defective
teaching techniques, one can scarcely contain one’s anger. (Rudolph) Flesch
was accused of writing in anger by his critics. as if anger were an inappropriate
reaction to gross pedagogical malpractice which has had a ruinous effect on the
literacy of millions of children … If it bothers you to see children suffering and
failing needlessly because of defective teaching methods obstinately adhered to
against all criticism. you will become angry … While researching this book I
have been amazed at the coolness of the leading members of the sight­
vocabulary establishment, the detached way in which they have been able to
catalog and discuss all of the things that were wrong with normal children who
couldn’t learn to read by way of an outmoded method discarded by the deaf. If
there is one thing these teachers have lacked it is humility. and a teacher
without humility is no teacher at all. Their stupidity has only been excelled by
their pride and their greed.” (pg. 21)


Boston’s Unconstitutional Secret Policy

Boston’s Unconstitutional Secret Policy

Feb 4, 2019

BOSTON, MA – Liberty Counsel has filed a brief regarding the city of Boston’s censorship of a Christian flag which Camp Constitution requested to fly on a public forum, but the city denied the request.

The city regularly extends to other civic and cultural organizations the freedom to raise their flags on the city hall flagpoles to commemorate whatever events are important to the organizations. The city’s application policy refers to the flagpoles as a public forum.

However, when Camp Constitution asked the city in 2017 for a permit to raise the Christian flag on Boston City Hall flagpoles to commemorate Constitution Day (September 17) and the civic and cultural contributions of the Christian community to the city of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, religious tolerance, the Rule of Law, and the U.S. Constitution, city officials denied the permit based on a secret, unwritten and unconstitutional “policy” of refusing religious flags. In the lawsuit, Shurtleff and Camp Constitution seek an injunction requiring the city to allow the Christian flag-raising event, that it denied in 2017 and 2018, to coincide with the observance of Constitution Day.

Liberty Counsel’s Assistant Vice President of Legal Affairs, Roger Gannam, previously showed the trial court that the city’s denial and secret “policy” are unconstitutional because the permit guidelines promise “to accommodate all applicants seeking to take advantage of the city of Boston’s public forums.” The city admitted in a court filing that its official policy is to make permit decisions based on whether the city approves the “message” of the applicant. The case is now before the court of appeals.

“The city’s blatant discrimination against Camp Constitution’s Christian viewpoint is an unconstitutional censorship and insult to the First Amendment,” said Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver. “Boston’s rich heritage has a focal point of liberty and free speech at America’s founding, and that cannot be denied,” 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. Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.

Fighting Agenda 21 Property Rights Network Conference Call 2 with Tom DeWeese

Last week I had the honor to participate in the Property Rights Network Conference Call hosted by our good friend Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center.  Here is his message with a link to the call below.

The second Property Rights Network training call was a huge success with several hundred people tuning in. The focus of this call was to provide local activists with tools and strategies they need to effectively fight local Agenda 21/Sustainable policies on the local level. Two of the most effective grassroots activists in the nation were featured

Hal Shurtleff
Hal has been on the front lines, confronting elected officials and NGO activists, training local grassroots leaders, and conducting hundreds of presentations on Agenda 21, from Maine to Michigan. He hosts his own radio show and You Tube channel through which he provides vital training and background information. And he has made Camp Constitution a national force in the fight. He shared many useful tactics to help you fight at home!

Dan Titus
Dan is an author and publisher and has created some of the most effective tools to present to elected officials to teach them about the threat of imposing Agenda 21 policies. He works tirelessly against the creation of the unelected agencies, boards, bodies, and commissions that are the tools for enforcing Agenda 21. He’s even succeeded in getting one city in the People’s Republic of California to ban Agenda 21. Dan will share with us he new effort called “America: Don’t Be Like California,” an effort to warn other States about the consequences of these failed policies that have ruined California. His insights will give you many ideas on how to fight at home in your own community.

I am determined to make strong progress this year against Agenda 21 in cities across the nation. To do that will take an educated and dedicated force of grassroots activists. This call was a major step forward in achieving that goal. Together we can win this fight and restore our property rights, our culture, and our system of representative government.

A link to the program on Camp Constitution’s Podomatic page
Links mentioned on this conference call:
Camp Constitution –

iAgenda21 –

grindall61 YouTube Channel –

American Policy Center –

Local Activist –

The Weekly Sam: The Benefits of Cursive Writing by Sam Blumenfeld


The teaching of handwriting has a low priority among educators these days. They believe
that handwriting is passé and that in the future everyone will be using word processors to
do their writing. But have you noticed how easy it is to make errors when writing an email?
Parents can be quite confused by the subject of handwriting. So, whenever I lecture at a
homeschool convention on the second R,  I always ask by a show of hands if parents think
that handwriting should be taught. Usually the response is unanimously positive.
-So you agree that teaching your child to write is an important part of your homeschooling
curriculum. – The next question I raise is: -If you believe that handwriting should be formally
taught. do you believe that your child should be taught manuscript – also known as ‘ball and-stick’ – first or cursive first? – Most parents assume that ball-and-stick should precede
cursive, because that’s the way they were taught in school. Besides, it is supposed to be
easier that way.

But then I tell them that when I was in primary school in the 1930s, like their grandparents,
we were all taught cursive handwriting, or what was then known as “penmanship,” · using
pens dipped in real ink. That was before ballpoint pens were invented. We were actually
taught in the first grade that there was a correct way to hold a pen so that we would be
able write with ease and facility without tiring. Thus, in those ancient days, an important
part of the primary curriculum was the development of good handwriting, and we were
given plenty of drill to make that possible.

This surprises most parents who assume that print script always preceded cursive writing.
But when I tell them otherwise, I then must explain why cursive should precede print
script and not vice versa. If you teach a child to print for the first two years, that child develops writing habits that will become permanent. Thus, when you try to get your child to switch to cursive in the third grade, you will find resistance to learning a whole new way of writing. That child may continue to print fur the rest of his or her life. Some children develop a hybrid handwriting consisting of a mixture of both print and cursive. That seems to have become the dominant form of writing in America. And there are those children who develop a good cursive
hand writing because they’ve always wanted to and practiced it secretly on the side.
Thus, experience clearly indicates that if you teach ball-and-stick first, your child may never
develop a decent cursive handwriting, while if you teach cursive first, your child can always
learn to print very nicely later on. In other words, cursive first and print later makes good
developmental sense.

An important and frequently overlooked benefit is that cursive helps a child learn to read.
With ball-and-stick it is very easy to confuse bs and ds. But with cursive, a b starts like an
I, and a d starts like an a. The distinction that children make in writing the letters in cursive
carries over to the reading Process. In addition, in writing print script, the letter ‘S may be all
over the page, sometimes written from left to right and from right to left. In cursive, where
all the letters connect. the child learns directional discipline. This helps in learning to
spell, for how the letters join with one another creates habits of hand movement that
automatically aid the spelling process.

Of course, your child should also be taught to print. That can easily be done after your child
has developed a good cursive handwriting. Another important benefit of cursive first is if
your child is left-handed. A right-handed individual tilts the paper counter-clockwise in order
to give one’s handwriting the proper slant. With the left-handed child, the paper must be
tilted in an extreme clockwise position so that the child can write from the bottom up. If the
paper is not tilted clockwise, the left-handed child may want to use the hook. form of
writing. This usually happens when the child is taught ball-and-stick first with the paper in a
straight up position.

If you consider good handwriting or fine penmanship a desired outcome of your home
teaching, then you must teach cursive first. There are several good cursive programs
available on the market. The Abeka program from Pensacola Christian College is probably
one of the best currently available.
I am often asked if Italic is a good way of teaching a child to write. Italic script is more in
the class of calligraphy than handwriting, and therefore takes longer to learn and requires
more skill than a standard cursive handwriting. So, simply learn this simple principle:
cursive first. print second.

(The above came from the Sam Blumenfeld Archives:


We must hope Dr. Soon is right … And the global warming apocalypse is not nigh. Real-world evidence certainly supports him. Jeffrey Foss, PhD


Everyone has heard the bad news. Imminent Climate Apocalypse (aka “global warming” and “climate change”) threatens humanity and planet with devastation, unless we abandon the use of fossil fuels.

Far fewer people have heard the good news. The sun has just entered its Grand Minimum phase, and the Earth will gradually cool over the next few decades.

Why should we all hope Earth will cool? Because nobody with any trace of human decency would hope the Earth will actually suffer catastrophic warming.

Many of us believe in the threat of global warming, but live in the hope that we can switch to “renewable energy” before it is too late. But this is a false hope. Despite our best efforts over several decades, renewables such as wind and solar energy still meet only 2% of global energy needs, while hydro adds only 7% or so.

So avoiding the alleged Climate Apocalypse by relying on renewable energy would require surviving on less than 10% of our current energy requirements. But that is impossible. It would also be really catastrophic: billions could die.

Our global economy runs on energy, and over 80% of it is still fossil fuels, with nuclear and other non-renewables providing another 10%. If we switch to renewables tomorrow, 90% of our energy will be lost, and the global economy will sink like the Titanic. Keeping nuclear power would merely add a second lifeboat as the great ship sinks. Even if the energy loss were spread out over decades, the final result would still be the same.

Humankind could not produce enough food, clothing and shelter. Jobs would vanish. Massive starvation, disease and death would result. Hard physical labor would once again become the norm. Even though life could be maintained for some portion of humanity, liberty and happiness would be lost.

Let’s stop pretending. The prescribed cure for Climate/Global Warming Apocalypse is far worse than the purported disease. If we don’t use coal, oil and natural gas for energy, many of the 7 billion of us now alive must die. Those who survive will be impoverished and enslaved, toiling and scavenging for food by day, and fearing the darkness by night – except for the privileged few who still have money, energy and power.

The sudden and dramatic growth of human life, liberty, and happiness since the industrial revolution was achieved by replacing muscle power with coal and oil power. Before that, Hillsdale College professor of history Burt Folsom points out, only the wealthy could afford whale oil and candles. Everyone else had to go to bed early, and often hungry, when the sun went down, sleeping to recover enough energy to work – only to repeat the daily cycle yet again. Freedom of thought and travel had little real worth when we were too tired to think or walk.

The petroleum age saved whales from the brink of extinction – and brought cheap kerosene to the masses, so that they could read at night, bringing light into their lives and their brains.

The premature switch to renewable energy recommended by the false prophets of Climate Apocalypse is really just one step in an industrial counter-revolution devoutly desired by those discontented with modern life in free market democracies – and ready to erase our hard-won prosperity and freedom.

The Climate Apocalypse global warming bad news is rewarded by big money from the government and servile amplification from traditional big news media – while the good news of global cooling is silenced and unheard, stifled by both traditional media and most of today’s social media platforms.

We should all be suspicious of the motives of those who push this bad news, and welcome those who push back. Dr. Willie Soon is one scientist, although by no means the only one, who has the courage to stand up to big money, big government, big (pseudo) science, big media and big environmentalism to spread the good news. It’s high time we all heard it.

The good news from Dr. Soon and his fellow solar scientists is that the increase in global temperatures since 1800 was caused by two centuries of increasing solar output – not by human use of coal and oil.

But then solar output began to fall around 2000, in a repetition of a well-known 200-year cycle of solar activity, and global warming stopped. That’s more good news that too few people know. The purveyors of Climate Apocalypse have no explanation for this two-decade failure of their prophecy, which fortunately for all of humanity shows the superiority of solar science over apocalyptic warming foretold by computer models, hysteria and headlines – but not by real-world evidence.

Finally, solar science says we should expect steady but manageable global cooling until about mid-century, when solar activity will recover and temperatures begin to warm once again. Once again, this will be due to solar activity, and not to fossil fuels or carbon dioxide emissions.

In the best news of all, that means humanity’s successful pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, and better living standards and healthcare needn’t be stopped by Climate Apocalypse – or its prescribed cure. The only thing we have to fear is the fear of Climate Apocalypse itself.

Equally important, a warmer or cooler planet with more atmospheric CO2 and plentiful, reliable, affordable fossil fuel and nuclear energy would be infinitely preferable to a cooler planet with less CO2 and only expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent wind, solar and biofuel energy.

At the very least, humankind has an historic opportunity to witness a crucial test between two scientific hypotheses of enormous consequence. The next decade or two will reveal whether Earth warms or cools.

Surely all right-minded people must hope that it cools – and that the fear-mongering of imminent global warming apocalypse cools as well.

I might add that no one should wish the current severe Chicago-style polar vortex cold on anyone. I extend my sympathies and prayers to all who are now suffering from the cold. But be of good cheer in the knowledge that this cold-snap at least puts the lie to vastly worse climate scare global warming stories.

I also wouldn’t wish on anyone the “Green New Deal” energy reality of February 1, 2019 – when wind power provided 1.5% of the energy that kept lights on and homes warm in America’s Mid-Atlantic region, solar provided zero, and derided and despised coal, natural gas and nuclear power provided a whopping 93% or that energy! Imagine the cold, misery and death toll under 100% pseudo-renewable energy.

Dr. Jeffrey Foss is a philosopher of science, Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, Canada, and author of Beyond Environmentalism: A Philosophy of Nature.


High School Students in Massachusetts Lobbying in Behalf of Climate Change Legislation on School Time and the Taxpayer’s Money

       Recently,  Massachusetts State Senator Paul Feeney made a Facebook posting thanking students  from Attleboro High School along with their teacher for their lobbying efforts:
     Loved having students from Attleboro High School to the State House today. These students are engaged in a 2030 project class with Mr. Brian Hodges and have been working hard on climate change issues and a strategy to affect change locally. Today, they took to the halls of the State House to meet with myself, Representative Jim Hawkins and others to lobby on behalf of “An Act to Promote Green Infrastructure and Reduce Carbon Emissions” filed by Representative Jennifer Smith Benson.
     These students were prepared, articulate and passionate. I’m thrilled that they got to witness me sign on to the bill while they were in my office. Following their presentations, we all went down to the Senate and House chambers for pictures and of course, A #SenateSelfie !!!!!!”
      I E-mailed the members of the school committee suggesting to them that using public school students to lobby on behalf of legislation was illegal and unethical.  I received a reply from the chairman of the committee Mr. Steven Withers:
      “Mr. Shurtleff- thanks for you email and bringing this to my attention. That being said, I don’t see an ethics violation here.
      I E-mailed  Mayor Paul Heroux asking his for his input.  Here was his reply:
     “Well the fence. I think that public employees lobbying on public Time for something that is an advantage to them should be prohibited. But I think that bringing students to the state house to learn about the process is a completely different thing.
      I did agree with Mayor Heroux that bringing students to the state house to “learn about the process” is proper.   I would have made a stop at the State House Book Store and made sure they all picked up a copy  of the Massachusetts Constitution.
  I wonder what would be their reply would be if  the teacher used the students on school time to lobby for bills promoting the repeal of gun laws, or bills promoting the Pro-Life agenda.   It appears that it is okay for students to hear just one side of the climate change issue, and then lobby on behalf of legislation that favors the agenda of their teachers and politicians.
      In my “letter to the editor” that I just sent off,  I offered to provide credentialed speakers on the subject of climate change that differs from what the students are learning.  We will see if I they call, but  to paraphrase  Howie Carr, a popular Boston-based talk show host when my phone doesn’t ring, that would be the high school not calling.”
  Hal Shurtleff, Director
  Camp Constitution
Senator Feeney’s facebook page

Boston Plastic Bag Ban Gets Camp Constitution National Attention


  Thanks to Professor Willie Soon, and his contacts in the climate realist community,  my opposition  against the City of Boston’s plastic bag ban has received national attention.  Two weeks ago, I submitted a letter to the editor of several Boston newspapers spelling out the reasons why the recently enacted ban was not only unconstitutional but also not environmentally friendly.  The owner of the “Boston City Paper,” Paul Feeney, ran the letter as a front page story.  We decided  to create a flyer that can be used anywhere in the U.S.  Mark Affleck, Camp Constitution’s newspaper editor, did an excellent job creating the attractive flyer from the copy I sent him.  We also created a short video on the subject. (Links to the flyer and video:

I sent Professor Soon the  letter, and he forwarded it to Paul  Driessen who is the senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and author of articles of books on energy, the environment. and human rights abuses.  Mr. Driessen, with input from Michael Lee Greer, did some editing, and converted the letter into an article. with links to the flyer and video.  Mr. Driessen then  forwarded it to his contacts.  Within a few days, it was published by  organizations including the Heartland Institute, Canada Free Press CFACT, and wattsupwiththat

Camp Constitution has received an excellent response both locally and nationally. A number of people have contacted us.   A man from Alexandria, VA contacted us, and said that he download the flyer and  is passing them out to people at his local Trader Joes.  A lady from Ventura Beach, California called us and said that she visited our website after seeing the article, and will talk to her group about starting a Camp Constitution in her area.  A man who owns six restaurants in Boston contacted us and asked to help with lifting the ban.   In addition, Boston’s only conservative city councilor will sponsor a bill to lift the ban.  Not all were happy about the letter, however.  a local group in my neighborhood worked together to discredit me, and our efforts to expose the truth, but it only generated more support for us.

     If a ban has been enacted or being considered in your town or city, please use the PDF and video posted above as educational tools, and consider hosting a Camp Constitution speaker to address the reason behind the bans:  the implementation of Agenda 21.  Texas has overturned the bans, and we can either stop or overturn bans in other parts of the country.

The Weekly Sam: An Interview of Dr, Moise Tshombe

In 1964, Sam Blumenfeld visited Dr. Moise Tshombe while he was in exile living in Madrid, Spain.  Sam was the founder of the American Friends of Katanga.   Here is a link to the interview of Dr. Tshombe, a victim of the Pro-Communist policies of Western nations and the United Nations which used mainly white soldiers to subjugate the Province of Katanga.


Hidden in Plain View by Jane Aitken

We respond to those who claim the origins of new urbanism are merely a ‘theory’

     Next time someone tries to sell you on the philanthropic aspect of “workforce housing”, you might attempt to educate them on the deeper motivation for it and how it fits into the “big picture”.

This Town of Bedford document clearly shows that 2009 was the year town officials created a workforce housing sub-committee in order to capitulate to the state’s new “workforce housing law”. Worse yet, it revealed the unholy alliance between government and corporations, the proliferation of “public-private partnerships”, and the subjugation of local and county governments to unelected regionalists.

Some will continue to repeat propaganda that we are spreading a “conspiracy theory”, but take a look at page 11, and you will see the proof.

     Other than the Bedford Planning Dept, the rest of what you see here are entities from outside Bedford and private developers. This sub-committee consisted of two Planning Board staff and the remaining seven, who can’t be said to represent our own taxpayers’ interests, were representatives from the Southern NH Planning Commission (SNRPC), Manchester Chamber of Commerce and NeighborWorks of Greater Manchester (seriously – Manchester?) all of whom are in on the agenda to “urbanize” Bedford. The final two representatives are shown to be Robert Cruess, engineering consultant and then-president of TF Moran, and Dick Anagnost, developer, and himself the chairman of the private “Workforce Opportunity Council”. Did both stand to reap financial benefits from the local zoning changes they were promoting? You be the judge.

As for SNHRPC, it is one of 9 unaccountable, unelected regional boards, all of which claim to have no authority, but seem to be ever-present when it comes to overriding the wishes of the people at the local and county levels. No vote was taken by the public on the decisions made by this sub-committee, that we are aware of.

To further elaborate, these so-called “public-private partnerships” (the latest euphemism for the alliance between corporations and government) are alliances that were formerly known as “crony capitalism”. But traditionally, there is yet another name for when government and corporations merge…

     When developers partner with government, and are allowed to profit by it, so long as they do what the government tells them to do, it’s called “fascism”.

“New Urbanism’s” founder Andrés Duany summed it up nicely when he said:

“…fascism, say what you like, but it’s efficient”

In addition, another quote of Duany’s reveals his commitment to mega-cities as part of a global government. He said the following regarding the political structure of the country and that it should be based on the importance of cities:

    “…Miami, Florida and then the US, then the United Nations” 

     We have stated before that we believe NH’s Workforce Housing Law to be an unconstitutional effort to dictate where and how people should live and to wrest power from local governments. Where in the US or State Constitutions does it allow federal and state governments to tell local governments what kind of housing they must provide? What’s next, assigning housing based on what they think are our needs? Check the next census for questions such as “How many bedrooms do you have”. Think we’re kidding? See this screen shot which was taken from the year 2000 long form version.

So, what you have just read might indeed be a conspiracy, but it’s definitely not a theory.

Are you starting to see the big picture, Bedford?

Photo credit: Congress for the New Urbanism

(This article originated in the Bedford, NH Patch and written by Jane Aitken

Jane Aitken is a Bedford NH resident who started teaching in 1970 when she had just barely turned 21. As a self taught oil-on-canvas artist, it was only natural that she would become an art supervisor for grades K-12, a job which she did for 10 years. She also worked in grades 1 and 2 classrooms for the next 23 years or so. During one of the school reform initiatives of the 1990s Aitken and her colleagues lost “lifetime job tenure”. In order to continue with their contracts, teachers had to attend many teacher training sessions in order to become “recertified”. The courses were nothing but lessons in social engineering. She chose computer courses whenever she could because it seemed a way to accumulate some actual useful information. Aitken then became IT certified with a specialization in graphic design. She also fixes hardware, assists others with the purchase and set up of various devices, and tutors them on usage. Today she uses her talents as an activist to support many causes, not the least of which is taking back the educational system from the corporations and NGOs and those who misuse our schools for political agendas. She was for 6 years Ed Naile’s sidekick on CNHT’s “Taxpayer Radio” which was heard right here on WLMW 90.7 FM, home of Girard at Large.