Sam Blumenfeld was involved in the creation of the South Boston Heights Academy in the mid 1970s. Here is a link to a class he taught on the history of the alphabet at the academy:
Please visit and sign up for the Sam Blumenfeld Archives:
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/
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Myron Ebell, Director, Center for Energy and
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
Tim Chapman, Executive Director
Heritage Action for America
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
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
Tom Harris, Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Eunie Smith, President
Rick Manning, President
Americans for Limited Government
Craig Richardson, President
Energy and Environment Legal Institute
Phil Kerpen, President
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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,
Michael McKenna, Former Trump Transition head for Department of Energy, FERC,
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph. D., Past President, American Association of State
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
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
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
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,
J. Eldon Steelman, Ph. D. (Electrical Engineering)
Ted Stout, D. C.
Szymon Suckewer, Ph. D., D. Sc. (Habilitation), (Professor Emeritus, Princeton
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
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 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.
Camp Constitution has been converting Sam Blumenfeld’s audios from the Sam Blumenfeld Archives and converting them to YouTube videos and uploading them on Camp Constitution’s YouTube Channel. Please follow the link to the YouTube playlist, view, share and subscribe to the channel.
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.
____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:
____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;
Title or degree optional:
(For example: Professor, Ph. D., State Senator, former Member of Congress, etc.)
Affiliation or other ID:
Deadline: 12 Noon EDT, 14th March 2019.
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.
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
Stop continental drift!
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
“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
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
Camp Constitution’s YouTube Channel recently reached over one million views. We started the channel in July of 2010, and despite the excellent content, we received a modest amount of views over the years. But that changed in the summer of 2016 when we were able to dedicate more time promoting the channel. Within a short time, we were averaging well over 1,000 views a day.
Our most viewed videos are Professor Willie Soon’s first class at the 2017 camp, close to 150,000, several by Mrs. KrisAnne Hall, and the class conducted by Debbie Bacigalupi at last year’s camp which has received close to 50,000 views. Our content includes classes, and activities at our annual camps, presentations of our speakers at various events, Camp Constitution Radio shows, on the spot interviews, and events which we attend. We have created playlists of our instructors, our annual camps, and topics such as Agenda 21, and the U.S. Constitution.
My thanks to all of you who have helped us reach this milestone. Please continue to introduce our channel to your friends, neighbors, fellow Liberty activists. One of the most effective ways to introduce out channel to new potential viewers is to copy and paste links to our various videos in the comments sections of on-line articles.
Here is a link to our channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/CampConstitution If you haven’t already, please subscribe, view, share, and promote our channel.
Hal Shurtleff, Director
Camp Constitution has made Rescue Mission Planet Earth A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21 available in a PDF format to help expose Agenda 21. This book was published in 1994 when it was still fashionable to use the term “Agenda 21.” Written by “the children of the World” with a little help from the United Nations, it is nothing more than blatant propaganda.
Here are a few excerpts:
“The greatest challenge of both our time and the next century is to save the planet from destruction. It will require changing the very foundations of modern civilization-the relationship of humans to nature.” Mikhail Gorbachev (pg 7)
This is the same man who said “I am a Communist, a convinced Communist! For some that may be a fantasy. But to me it is my main goal.”
And next to Comrade Gorbachev’s quote, we find this from Citizen Al Gore:
“As chairman of the Space Sub-committee in the Senate, I strongly urged a Mission to Planet Earth, a worldwide monitoring system staffed by children…designed to rescue the global environment”
Evidence of Agenda 21’s hostility to the family:
“Q There’s a lot in Agenda 21 about women playing a critical role in population, but aren’t men usually the problem?
A Yes – there’s a lot of male authority but not much male responsibility in relation to child bearing. Men are not burdened with the problem of giving birth, they tend to exploit children – sending them to work instead of investing in their education. What can children do? They should challenge their parents not to have any more children until they can look after them properly.
Dr Nafi, Sadik, Executive Director, UN Population (pg. 32)
On the same page we find this quote from the lyrics of a song written by Paul Simon:
“The earth groans every time it registers another birth.”
“Q Agenda 21 chapter 5 on population is very weak. How did this happen?
A It happened because very powerful lobbies did not allow the Summit to talk about the population. There was a coming together of views of the Vatican with the anti-abortion lobby in the US and some other developed countries who did not want to talk about the other side of population which is consumption.” Shridath Ramphal, co-chair, Commission on Global Governance (pg. 33)
Hostility to the American Rancher:
“LESS MEAT Soil degradation is sometimes caused by overgrazing. In the USA, 85 %’of the soil lost is directly attributed to the creation of livestock for consumption. In addition, 50% of the fresh water resources is used to irrigate pasture and food crops for cattle. Switching to a vegetarian or reduced meat diet would definitely bring environmental advantages. (pg. 54)
The use of Non-Government Organizations to implement Agenda 21:
“NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are charities and pressure groups formed by ordinary people, independent of governments and political parties, e.g. Greenpeace, World Wild Life Fund and Amnesty International. They have a wealth of expertise and energy vital to the making the agenda work. We hope that many will work with young people on the Rescue Mission. (pg. 66)
Implementation of Agenda 21 locally:
“LOCAL POLITICS Local authorities, as the level of government closest to people, have a vital role in educating and mobilizing the public to get behind the goals of Agenda 21. Agenda 21, chapter 28 Every local authority should prepare a Local Agenda 21 to link the interests of local people in business, public services and ordinary citizens”. (pg. 69)
The Mass Media’s involvement in the promotion of Agenda 21:
“Congratulations on a first-rate job …. As a result of your work, thousands of young people and adults will learn about Agenda 21 and understand our commitment to sustainable development. ” Vice President Al Gore “Rescue Mission, which is both marvelously illustrated and impressively written by children, is a positive step …. It breaks down Agenda 21, an extremely complicated subject, into language and images that children can. understand and that parents can appreciate.” The Nature Conservancy ” … explains in clear language the nuts and bolts of the global agreement… includes wonderful drawings, poems, and stories … It’s full of solid information that is easy and fun reading. ” USA Today
Here is a link to the book on Camp Constitution’s website: http://campconstitution.net/files/2019/rescue-mission-planet-earth-agenda-21.pdf
Camp Constitution is offering this book as a free resource but would appreciate donations that would be used to help us expose, and defeat Agenda 21. Donations, monthly or one-time, may be made via our PayPal account accessed from our website’s homepage http://www.campconstitution.net
| Camp Constitution recently hosted a press conference at the Massachusetts State House to refute the climate change narrative. The local corporate media, a.k.a. fake news, was given plenty of advanced notice of the event. E-mails, phone calls, and paper copies of the news release were hand-delivered to the members of the state house press. We had two of the nation’s, if not the world’s, leading expert on the subject on hand: Professor Willie Soon, and Joe D’Aleo , co-founder of the Weather Channel. While we had local independent press, Ted Tripp of the Boston Broadside, and Dianna Ploss of WSMN-AM who did a live feed, not one member of the corporate press would walk down two flights of stairs to our conference. As the conference was going on, I went up to the press room to remind the members of the press conference who we had downstairs and that they should be attending the conference. But they failed to show. So, after the conference, we visited them.
Here is a link to the press conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c_qjBJxLXM&t=153s And a link to our visit to the press room: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6QZXTJuqk
During Joe D”Aleo’s presentation, he showed the results of a worldwide poll taken which listed the participants major concerns. Climate change was on the bottom of the list. That is due to the efforts of the likes of Professor Soon, Joe D’Aleo, and countless others that have the courage to speak the truth. It is our job to help these men, and their colleagues by introducing people to their work. Please share our videos far and wide. Post them on the Facebook pages of the newspapers, TV and radio stations and on the pages of local and national politicians. Host presentations on this subject in your community.
Finally, help Camp Constitution continue to grow. Consider a monthly or one-time donation which can be done via our PayPal account accessed from our website’s homepage: http://www.campconstitition.net