campconstitution

How the 1918 Flu Pandemic Affected the Small Town of North Andover and the Nearby City of Lawrence by Ted Tripp Sr. Political Reporter Boston Broadside April 2020

How the 1918 Flu Pandemic Affected the Small Town of North Andover and the Nearby City of Lawrence

Ted Tripp Sr. Political Reporter
Boston Broadside April 2020

In 1918 the country was fighting a war in Europe and the newspapers were filled with stories of Allied progress, military battles and the fate of local residents.

Against this backdrop, North Andover, a town of about 6150 at the time, began the year like many others. A coal shortage had driven up prices and caused concerns about the affordability of heating public buildings, the textile mills and even private dwellings. In June, Johnson High School graduated 19 seniors with 6 going on to higher education. One student, Charles M. Tucker, to the delight of school officials, was accepted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The class poem that year was “America the Beautiful,” by Katharine Lee Bates.

The Board of Health was complaining that its $700 budget had been cut by $100 from the previous year. It had actually hoped for additional funds to address the issues of infant mortality and milk inspection. Board members noted that the entire budget had to pay all their expenses, including those for “any person ill at any hospital with any contagious disease, the expense of our citizens in the Tuberculosis Hospitals, the expenses of placarding and fumigating, the expenses incident to the free distribution of diphtheria antitoxin, vaccine, and diphtheria and typhoid examinations, and the salary of the Slaughtering Inspector.”

Much of the summer saw citizens raising money for the war effort by selling Liberty Bonds. On the agricultural side, the town’s Moth Department noted that residents could purchase arsenate of lead for insect control at the low price of 12 cents/pound. On August 24th the Stevens and Osgood Mills began their annual 10-day shutdown for equipment maintenance and workers’ vacations.

School started Wednesday, September 4th, with several new teachers because some teachers were lost to other districts where men went off to war. Early September also brought a lot of excitement with the Red Sox travelling to Chicago to face the Cubs in the 1918 World Series.

Unknown to the residents up to this time, of course, the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 had already started. It had begun in March at Fort Riley, Kansas where over 500 soldiers had contracted the so-called Spanish Influenza. Also, at the end of August, many sailors in Boston had become sick with the grippe, as the flu was commonly called at the time, and the overflow of patients had to be sent to the Chelsea Naval Hospital. Finally, in September hundreds of soldiers at nearby Camp Devens became ill and scores were dying every day.

Although there had been several stories in the newspapers about the sickness, area residents first heard about the severity and extent of the problem on September 23rd when the Lawrence Telegram published three front-page stories: “Local Soldiers Ill at Camp Devens,” “Spanish Grippe on U.S. Transport” and “No Abatement in Grippe Epidemic.” Front-page stories about the epidemic continued for about a month, although news about the War always – always – took the headlines no matter how many died from the flu.

On September 26th, at the urging of state officials, the Lawrence Board of Health closed all public, private and parochial schools and theaters until at least October 7th. By noon the next day, Lawrence had reported 279 cases of influenza or the flu. Up to this point, North Andover only had a handful of non-serious influenza cases. This was about to change.

On October 1st, the Lawrence Telegram reported in a front-page article that Lawrence health officials “Have the Situation Under Control.” They were badly mistaken.

Also on October 1st, the Board of Health and selectmen in North Andover closed Johnson High School and the eight elementary schools until further notice. Also ordered closed were the Stevens Library and Red Cross Center. The Methodist Episcopal Church and St. Paul’s Church suspended Sunday services.

By October 2nd, the North Andover Board of Health had reported 50-60 cases of influenza, but only a few were serious. Still, Boston’s Cardinal O’Connor decided to close a two-week mission which had just begun at St. Michael’s (Catholic) Church.

The next day, Massachusetts health officials reported 8000 new Spanish Influenza cases with 151 deaths statewide, in just the previous 24 hours. They urged but did not require that all churches across the commonwealth be closed. Influenza cases were still increasing throughout the area.

On October 4th, the North Andover Board of Health urged the pastors at all five local churches to suspend their services on the upcoming Sunday. That Sunday, October 6th, Rev. George W. Haley cancelled masses at St. Michael’s – the first time in 50 years a pastor had done so.

By October 7th, two of the town’s three primary physicians, Dr. F. S. Smith and Dr. J. J. Daly, had become ill with influenza and were unable to help others who were sick. On the same day, North Andover reported the deaths of Mabel England, 17, Ernest Kennett, 27, and William Thomson, 32, all from the epidemic.

The North Andover Board of Health thus put out an urgent call across New England to all physicians for help, but since many towns were struggling with influenza problems of their own, no doctor was available. Then a stroke of good luck came along. The U.S. Public Health Service realized just days earlier that there would be a physician shortage and, with an emergency $1 million grant from Congress, set out to hire 1000 doctors and 700 nurses from around the country to help where most needed. Thirty physicians from Indiana who volunteered were pressed into service and sent to Boston. One of these, Dr. William Conner, although “fatigued from his trip,” immediately reported to North Andover. When he came he pronounced that “He was all ready to fight.”

By October 10th, over 200 cases of influenza had been reported in North Andover and they were increasing at the rate of 30 per day.

This would turn out to be the high point in the epidemic. On October 11th, the North Andover Board of Health would for the first time report fewer cases than the day before.

On Monday October 14th, North Andover health officials reported there were only 15 new cases over the weekend and none were serious. Also, the Lawrence Telegram, for the first time in weeks, had no stories on the front page about the influenza epidemic. As quickly as the epidemic had hit, it started to rapidly decline.

Tent City in Lawrence to treat 1918 influenza victims – Lawrence History Center

Even though the worst was over, caution was still the rule. The North Andover schools would not reopen until Monday, October 28th, thus being closed for a total of four weeks. Some churches would not resume Sunday services until early November.

Dr. Fred Smith, the school physician, reported that there was a recurrence of the flu in the schools in December, but it was a “milder type” and no deaths were reported.

The official tally for 1918 flu in North Andover was 312 cases of influenza with 18 deaths. Another 14 died of pneumonia, which at that time was difficult to distinguish from influenza deaths. Some of these could have easily been caused by the Spanish Influenza. All this was out of a population of about 6150.

The consensus was that North Andover had been lucky with so few deaths, particularly compared to Lawrence where over 2000 had perished from the epidemic. The town’s Board of Health said: “That our death rate was surprisingly low, was due in a very great measure to the untiring faithfulness of Dr. Conner. The Town of North Andover is rightfully thankful that so able a man as Dr. Conner could help in the time of its great need.” Dr. Conner was the physician from Indiana who had volunteered to come east and help fight the epidemic.

Dr. Conner was obviously helpful, but the real reason North Andover got off easy was probably more due to its rural nature and the suspension of public gatherings. Conversely, Lawrence was much harder hit because of its crowded conditions and high population — about 92,600 or 12,200 more people than today — and the refusal of its Board of Health to close the city’s “saloons.” It was not politically possible to shut down the saloons or bars because many of the male mill workers congregated there after their shift and during the day many merchants conducted their business in such places.

One of the more interesting aspects of researching the influenza epidemic is how the area newspapers of the day treated the health problem. The front pages still allocated a majority of the space to the war in Europe, even during the worst of the Spanish Influenza crisis.

The simple answer for this distribution of news is twofold. First, the war was big news and soldiers were dying at a fairly high rate, including many local residents. Entire communities were committed to support the effort with the involvement of many of their citizens. Second, deaths due to illness, and particularly from contagious diseases, were still fairly common at the time.

North Andover in that era recorded about 100 deaths a year. The 1917 listing by cause reported: heart disease – 13; pneumonia – 10; apoplexy – 9; carcinoma – 8; phthisis [tuberculosis] – 7; old age – 3, diphtheria – 2; typhoid – 1. Although there was no separate listing for influenza, some of the pneumonia deaths could have easily been caused by the common flu. Note that the communicable diseases that are rare or unheard of today still took lives at the time. Also, the Board of Health that year reported “placarding” 14 houses with notices of a contagious disease present.

A similar situation existed in Lawrence, but worse. While over 2000 died from the 1918 epidemic, deaths from flu were common due to the crowded living conditions. For example, in 1917 Lawrence reported 1391 deaths due to influenza and in 1919, 1280 deaths. What made the difference in 1918 was the high rate of infection and the high death rate, both in a very short period of time.

Overall, the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 killed more than 550,000 Americans and an estimated 20-50 million people worldwide.

1918 Public Health Notice

Rules to Avoid Respiratory Diseases
(By the Surgeon General of the U. S. Army)

1. Avoid needless crowding – influenza is a crowd disease.
2. Smother your cough and sneezes – others do not want the germs which
you would throw away.
3. Your nose, not your mouth, was made to breathe through – get the habit.
4. Remember the three C’s – a clean mouth, clean skin, and clean clothes.
5. Try to keep cool when you walk and warm when you ride and sleep.
6. Open the windows – always at home at night, at the office when practicable.
7. Food will win the war if you give it a chance – help by choosing and
chewing your food well.
8. Your fate may be in your own hands – wash your hands before eating.
9. Don’t let the waste products of digestion accumulate – drink a glass or
two of water on getting up.
10. Don’t use a napkin, towel, spoon, fork, glass, or cup which has been
used by another person and not washed.
11. Avoid tight clothes, tight shoes, tight gloves – seek to make nature your
ally not your prisoner.
12. When the air is pure breathe all of it you can – breathe deeply.

This article originally appeared in the Boston Broadside  Please visit their website:  http://www.bostonbroadside.com/

Yes, our 12th Annual Family Camp is still on, and we are accepting registrations–http://www.campconstitution.net

 

 

The History of Pandemics By Nicholas LePan

The History of Pandemics

Pan·dem·ic /panˈdemik/ (of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world.
As humans have spread across the world, so have infectious diseases. Even in this modern era, outbreaks are nearly constant, though not every outbreak reaches pandemic level as the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) has.

Today’s visualization outlines some of history’s most deadly pandemics, from the Antonine Plague to the current COVID-19 event.

 

A Timeline of Historical Pandemics

Disease and illnesses have plagued humanity since the earliest days, our mortal flaw. However, it was not until the marked shift to agrarian communities that the scale and spread of these diseases increased dramatically.
Widespread trade created new opportunities for human and animal interactions that sped up such epidemics. Malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy, influenza, smallpox, and others first appeared during these early years.
The more civilized humans became – with larger cities, more exotic trade routes, and increased contact with different populations of people, animals, and ecosystems – the more likely pandemics would occur.
Here are some of the major pandemics that have occurred over time:

Note: Many of the death toll numbers listed above are best estimates based on available research. Some, such as the Plague of Justinian, are subject to debate based on new evidence.
Despite the persistence of disease and pandemics throughout history, there’s one consistent trend over time – a gradual reduction in the death rate. Healthcare improvements and understanding the factors that incubate pandemics have been powerful tools in mitigating their impact.

 Wrath of the Gods
In many ancient societies, people believed that spirits and gods inflicted disease and destruction upon those that deserved their wrath. This unscientific perception often led to disastrous responses that resulted in the deaths of thousands, if not millions.
In the case of Justinian’s plague, the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea traced the origins of the plague (the Yersinia pestis bacteria) to China and northeast India, via land and sea trade routes to Egypt where it entered the Byzantine Empire through Mediterranean ports.
Despite his apparent knowledge of the role geography and trade played in this spread, Procopius laid blame for the outbreak on the Emperor Justinian, declaring him to be either a devil, or invoking God’s punishment for his evil ways. Some historians found that this event could have dashed Emperor Justinian’s efforts to reunite the Western and Eastern remnants of the Roman Empire, and marked the beginning of the Dark Ages.

Luckily, humanity’s understanding of the causes of disease has improved, and this is resulting in a drastic improvement in the response to modern pandemics, albeit slow and incomplete.
Importing Disease

The practice of quarantine began during the 14th century, in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Cautious port authorities required ships arriving in Venice from infected ports to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing — the origin of the word quarantine from the Italian “quaranta giorni”, or 40 days.

One of the first instances of relying on geography and statistical analysis was in mid-19th century London, during a cholera outbreak. In 1854, Dr. John Snow came to the conclusion that cholera was spreading via tainted water and decided to display neighborhood mortality data directly on a map. This method revealed a cluster of cases around a specific pump from which people were drawing their water from.

While the interactions created through trade and urban life play a pivotal role, it is also the virulent nature of particular diseases that indicate the trajectory of a pandemic.
Tracking Infectiousness
Scientists use a basic measure to track the infectiousness of a disease called the reproduction number — also known as R0 or “R naught.” This number tells us how many susceptible people, on average, each sick person will in turn infect.

Measles tops the list, being the most contagious with a R0 range of 12-18. This means a single person can infect, on average, 12 to 18 people in an unvaccinated population.
While measles may be the most virulent, vaccination efforts and herd immunity can curb its spread. The more people are immune to a disease, the less likely it is to proliferate, making vaccinations critical to prevent the resurgence of known and treatable diseases.
It’s hard to calculate and forecast the true impact of COVID-19, as the outbreak is still ongoing and researchers are still learning about this new form of coronavirus.
 Urbanization and the Spread of Disease

We arrive at where we began, with rising global connections and interactions as a driving force behind pandemics. From small hunting and gathering tribes to the metropolis, humanity’s reliance on one another has also sparked opportunities for disease to spread.
Urbanization in the developing world is bringing more and more rural residents into denser neighborhoods, while population increases are putting greater pressure on the environment. At the same time, passenger air traffic nearly doubled in the past decade. These macro trends are having a profound impact on the spread of infectious disease.
As organizations and governments around the world ask for citizens to practice social distancing to help reduce the rate of infection, the digital world is allowing people to maintain connections and commerce like never before.
Editor’s Note: The COVID-19 pandemic is in its early stages and it is obviously impossible to predict its future impact. This post and infographic are meant to provide historical context, and we will continue to update it as time goes on to maintain its accuracy.
Update (March 15, 2020): We’ve adjusted the death toll for COVID-19, and will continue to update on a regular basis.

 Camp Constitution  thanks Visual Capitalist for  granting us permission to repost this article.  Here is a link to the organization   https://www.visualcapitalist.com

 

Greening Our Way to Infection The ban on single-use plastic grocery bags is unsanitary—and it comes at the worst imaginable time by John Tierney

The COVID-19 outbreak is giving new meaning to those “sustainable” shopping bags that politicians and environmentalists have been so eager to impose on the public. These reusable tote bags can sustain the COVID-19 and flu viruses—and spread the viruses throughout the store.
Researchers have been warning for years about the risks of these bags spreading deadly viral and bacterial diseases, but public officials have ignored their concerns, determined to eliminate single-use bags and other plastic products despite their obvious advantages in reducing the spread of pathogens. In New York State, a new law took effect this month banning single-use plastic bags in most retail businesses, and this week Democratic state legislators advanced a bill that would force coffee shops to accept consumers’ reusable cups—a practice that Starbucks and other chains have wisely suspended to avoid spreading the COVID-19 virus.

John Flanagan, the Republican leader of the New York State Senate, has criticized the new legislation and called for a suspension of the law banning plastic bags. “Senate Democrats’ desperate need to be green is unclean during the coronavirus outbreak,” he said Tuesday, but so far he’s been a lonely voice among public officials.The COVID-19 virus is just one of many pathogens that shoppers can spread unless they wash the bags regularly, which few people bother to do. Viruses and bacteria can survive in the tote bags up to nine days, according to one study of coronaviruses.

The risk of spreading viruses was clearly demonstrated in a 2018 study published in the Journal of Environmental Health. The researchers, led by Ryan Sinclair of the Loma Linda University School of Public Health, sent shoppers into three California grocery stores carrying polypropylene plastic tote bags that had been sprayed with a harmless surrogate of a virus.
After the shoppers bought groceries and checked out, the researchers found sufficiently high traces of the surrogate to risk transmission on the hands of the shoppers and checkout clerks, as well as on many surfaces touched by the shoppers, including packaged food, unpackaged produce, shopping carts, checkout counters, and the touch screens used to pay for groceries. The researchers said that the results warranted the adaptation of “in-store hand hygiene” and “surface disinfection” by merchants, and they also recommended educating shoppers to wash their bags.
An earlier study of supermarkets in Arizona and California found large numbers of bacteria in almost all the reusable bags—and no contamination in any of the new single-use plastic bags. When a bag with meat juice on the interior was stored in the trunk of a car, within two hours the number of bacteria multiplied tenfold.
The researchers also found that the vast majority of shoppers never followed the advice to wash their bags. One of the researchers, Charles Gerba of the University of Arizona, said that the findings “suggest a serious threat to public health,” particularly from fecal coliform bacteria, which was found in half the bags. These bacteria and other pathogens can be transferred from raw meat in the bag and also from other sources. An outbreak of viral gastroenteritis among a girls’ soccer team in Oregon was traced to a resuable grocery bag that had sat on the floor of a hotel bathroom.

In a 2012 study, researchers analyzed the effects of San Francisco’s ban on single-use plastic grocery bags by comparing emergency-room admissions in the city against those of nearby counties without the bag ban. The researchers, Jonathan Klick of the University of Pennsylvania and Joshua Wright of George Mason University, reported a 25 percent increase in bacteria-related illnesses and deaths in San Francisco relative to the other counties. The city’s Department of Public Health disputed the findings and methodology but acknowledged that “the idea that widespread use of reusable bags may cause gastrointenstinal infections if they are not regularly cleaned is plausible.”

New York’s state officials were told of this risk before they passed the law banning plastic bags. In fact, as the Kings County Politics website reported, a Brooklyn activist, Allen Moses, warned that shoppers in New York City could be particularly vulnerable because they often rest their bags on the floors of subway cars containing potentially deadly bacteria from rats—and then set the bag on the supermarket checkout counter. Yet public officials remain committed to reusable bags.
A headline on the website of the New York Department of Health calls reusable grocery bags a “Smart Choice”—bizarre advice, considering all the elaborate cautions underneath that headline. The department advises grocery shoppers to segregate different foods in different bags; to package meat and fish and poultry in small disposable plastic bags inside their tote bags; to wash and dry their tote bags carefully; to store the tote bags in a cool, dry place; and never to reuse the grocery tote bags for anything but food.
How could that possibly be a “smart choice” for public health? Anyone who has studied consumer behavior knows that it’s hopelessly unrealistic to expect people to follow all those steps. If the Department of Health actually prioritized public health, it would acknowledge what food manufacturers and grocers have known for decades: disposable plastic is the cheapest, simplest, and safest way to prevent foodborne illnesses.
Instead, leaders in New York and other states are ordering shoppers to make a more expensive, inconvenient, and risky choice—all to serve a green agenda that’s actually harmful to the environment.

The ban on plastic bags will mean more trash in landfills (because paper bags take up so much more space than the thin disposable bags) and more greenhouse emissions (because of the larger carbon footprints of the replacement bags). And now, probably, it will also mean more people coming down with COVID-19 and other illnesses.

John Tierney is a contributing editor of City Journal and a contributing science columnist for the New York Times.   This  essay originally appeared in City Journal  city-journal.org.

Boston Censorship Continues by Liberty Counsel

News Release from Liberty Counsel

Feb 5, 2020

BOSTON, MA – Liberty Counsel filed a notice of appeal after the same lower court federal judge sided with the city of Boston’s censorship of the Christian viewpoint from a public forum. Liberty Counsel represents Hal Shurtleff and Camp Constitution.

After the close of discovery, the undisputed facts agreed to by the city show Boston has allowed nearly 300 flag raisings by private organizations on the city hall flagpole, which the city designated as a public forum for private speech.

The city refers to its flagpole as a “public forum” and allows private organizations to temporarily raise their own flags on the flagpoles. However, the city censored the religious viewpoint of Camp Constitution’s flag, which was to be raised for about an hour while Camp Constitution supporters gathered below the flag to celebrate Constitution Week. The flag was part of the ceremony to honor the Constitution and recognize the Christian Founders.

Never before had Boston censored any flag until the Christian flag, which is white with a blue square in the upper corner and a red cross. The flag contains no writing.

Shurtleff and Camp Constitution first 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.

Liberty Counsel immediately filed an appeal to the federal court of appeals.

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The city of Boston’s open censorship continues against Camp Constitution’s Christian viewpoint. There is a crucial difference between government endorsement of religion and private speech, which government is bound to respect. Censoring religious viewpoints in a public forum where secular viewpoints are permitted is unconstitutional.”

Liberty Counsel is a 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.

Today is the 47th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. And the slaughter of the preborn continues by Pastor Matt Trewhella

 

Dear Friends of the Preborn,

Today is the 47th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. And the slaughter of the preborn continues.

What is shocking is that during this time – not one governor, not one legislature, not one mayor, not one common council has defied the Federal government and interposed on behalf of the preborn. All have complied. All have complied with cold-blooded, brutal murder. Stunning.
But who is responsible for this slaughter continuing unabated for so many years? No doubt the pulpits in America carry the brunt of the cause, but let me submit to you another egregiously guilty party. I submit to you that it is the pro-life movement itself.

For example, National Right to Life and certain Republican politicians heralded (with news stories nationwide) their “aggressive 2015 agenda to outlaw all abortions past 20 weeks.” Seriously? This is precisely why the slaughter has continued for years now – nibbling at the edges of abortion rather than demanding total abolition. And until we act differently than we’ve acted in the past nothing will change.
Let me explain something to you about politics – if you offer politicians something less than what is needed and necessary – they’ll take it! What is needed and necessary for the preborn is immediate and total abolition of abortion. Why? Because the threat to their lives is immediate.

For decades now pro-life groups have nibbled around the edges of abortion. They spend huge amounts of money and people volunteer huge amounts of time – only to have a federal court trample their nibblings. Then the whole process starts again – with the same outcome once again. Many have wearied and left the field of battle because of it.

Consider the cozy arrangement the pro-life groups and the Republicans have created for each other. The pro-life groups offer legislation which nibbles at the edge of abortion – this assures their continued existence as yet another measure will have to be introduced and fought over the following year and the year after that etc. The Republicans, who like to pay lip-service to the preborn and see value in having them used as political footballs, are more than happy to accommodate the worthless legislation proposed by the pro-life groups. This gets them votes.

“Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers? -Job 31:15

So useful has this been to the Republicans, for example, that every four years they stampede pro-lifers into voting for their presidential candidate under the mantra that “if the Democrat wins – they will get to appoint Supreme Court justices and Roe v. Wade will remain in force.” Yet, the historical reality is that seven of the nine justices that made up the court that ruled on Roe v. Wade were Republican-appointed. And, during the next forty years, the Republican-appointed justices outnumbered the Democrats 7-2 or 8-1. Yet abortion remains legal via Roe v. Wade.

Bottom line: the pro-life organizations provide cover for the Republicans, and the Republicans provide cover for the pro-life organizations. They both win. The one who loses is the helpless preborn whom they both disingenuously claim to care about.
So what do we do?

First, we need to understand that there is no federal solution to the slaughter of the preborn. The federal government is the problem. They used raw judicial power to impose it upon our nation and they have upheld this evil through raw judicial power ever since.

Second, state legislators and governors need to be prodded to end their cozy relationship with pro-life organizations who seem more interested in prolonging their existence and filling their coffers off the bloody backs of the murdered preborn than they are in abolishing this killing.

Third, state legislators and governors need to know that we have their backs if they do what is needed and necessary and protect the preborn. We need to assure them that we will give of our substance and our very lives to support them – doing whatever is needed both publicly and privately to support them for making a stand.

Fourth, we need to demand that our state legislators and governors give total interposition for the preborn – total abolition of abortion. Frederick Douglas, a well- known abolitionist during slavery times understood how important it is to “demand” and to offer nothing less than total abolition. Douglas wrote: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those who they oppress.”
Here in Wisconsin state officials need to uphold our state statute 940.04 regardless of what the piece of paper detailing the Supreme Court opinion says.

Fifth, we must offer nothing less to our state legislators and governors than total abolition. Why? Because if we continue to offer less (these laws which nibble at the edges of abortion), our state officials will take it. We will never see the preborn protected until we demand that they are protected.
We have been taught that it is “wise” to take what we can get. We therefore feel weird about standing strong and resisting lesser actions than total abolition. We can only act differently than we have in the past if we look at the reality of what has been done and realize – if we continue to take what “we can get” – the preborn will continue to be slaughtered as the same cycles repeat themselves for another 40 years.

As for us here at Missionaries to the Preborn, we will continue to try and rally the lesser magistrates to do what is needed and necessary. We will also continue to speak up for the preborn in public places and outside the deathcamps themselves – trying to save some while we prod the state magistrates to do what is needed and necessary and use their lawful authority to protect the preborn.
Thank you for your support. May He be glorified in the earth!
Pastor Matt Trewhella        (This article was originally written in 2015 and posted on the website of Missionaries to the Preborn  Here is the link:  read:http://missionariestothepreborn.com/2015/01/22/on-this-42nd-infamous-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade/?fbclid=IwAR1kAp1n4pfB4rsR-UeEDtS2bl9e95t5gqKqmoTIukgXRbnDQRdzN1Lotwg

History of the Mission
Missionaries to the Preborn was founded in September of 1990 in the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. After reading Earl Parvin’s book, Missions USA, Rev. Matt Trewhella realized that although Christianity affirms the humanity of the preborn child and affirms that abortion is murder, not one of the over 400 Christian missions operating in America had targeted the preborn child as its people group. Missionaries to the Preborn is the first Christian mission in America dedicated to the ministry of our preborn neighbor.
Since the mission began, six of the eight abortion clinics in Milwaukee have closed down, fourteen Abortionists have stopped murdering babies, nearly 700 babies have been rescued from death, and scores of people have been converted to Christ, including parents of the babies, government officials and prison inmates.

Do we really face a climate cat–astrophe? by Duggan Flanakin of CFACT

Do we really face a climate cat–astrophe?
Must we put up with yet another eco-cataclysm fabricated and exaggerated by ruling elites?
Duggan Flanakin

One day I will write a book: 111,111 ways our saviors have proposed to save the planet from the coming climate-driven catastrophes and extinctions. Meanwhile, here’s one you may not have considered.
At my cat-loving daughter’s house the other day, I ran across one of her books – How to Tell If Your Cat Is Plotting to Kill You (by Matthew Inman). A little later, I saw this headline: “Hollywood Celeb Emma Thompson: Eat your pets to survive ‘climate crisis.’” My first thought? “Emma must have read this book!” But I read the article and did other research. It turns out that Ms. Thompson has repeatedly warned the world that the supposed climate crisis means we must expect “crop failures, water contamination, damaged houses, and ruined lives.” She now says we may even have to eat our own pets in order to survive the coming climate apocalypse.

That means it’s not just a crisis. It’s turning into a bona fide cat-astrophe! A furr-ocious cat-aclysm rooted more in dog-ma than in science or actual weather and climate evidence! But a rallying cry nonetheless.
Despite what Ricky Gervais said at this year’s Golden Globe ceremonies about Hollywood types being “in no position to lecture the public about anything,” Emma certainly thinks she knows what she’s talking about. She has won two Oscars! And two Golden Globes! And in 2018 Queen Elizabeth named her a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire! So she is now officially Dame Emma.
Moreover, as of December 2019, she even has an award named after her, though perhaps not one she will brag about. In its inaugural competition, the London-based climate policy NGO, the Global Warming Policy Forum (www.TheGWPF.com), announced that it is naming its annual World’s Greatest Climate Hypocrite Awards “The Emmas,” after Dame Emma.

Noting how she had flown first class across the Atlantic to attend a climate protest in London, then jetted back the same way, champagne glass in hand, GWPF director Dr. Benny Peiser said her “shamelessness” and “lack of self-awareness” have “propelled her to the very top of the field. There are brass-necked business people and sanctimonious politicians aplenty, but none can match our Emma; she really is a worthy first winner of our prestigious new award.”

Former President Barack Obama won the eco-hypocrite prize in the Politician category, while Richard Branson took home the Business class laurels. But at least Dame Emma flew commercial. Leo DiCaprio is notorious for taking private jets and limousines to lecture us lesser mortals about how we must reduce our living standards to save the planet, while former VP Al Gore prefers private jets and SUVs to do so.
But don’t get your dander up about Emma. Turns out she is rather late to the game.
Back in 2017, the online journal PLoS ONE published a report on research by UCLA scientist Gregory S. Okin: “Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats.” In the USA alone, Okin asserted, 163 million dogs and cats have a hugely detrimental impact on the environment, from the food they consume to the waste they produce. Okin found that US dogs and cats “consume as much dietary energy as 62 million [human] Americans” – and are responsible for 25-30% of the environmental impact of meat consumption in the USA. If these four-footed friends were a separate country, Catdoggia would rank fifth globally in meat consumption. Getting rid of dogs and cats, Okin gushes, would be “the environmental equivalent of removing 13.6 million cars from the road.”

Some cat lovers might note that his analysis emphasizes canines and conclude that the world is once again going to the dogs. The ever-grumpy Garfield certainly isn’t happy about that. Indeed, back in 2013, utilizing a 3-year U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funded study, researchers found that previous estimates that cats kill hundreds of millions of birds a year were very low. Cats actually kill between 1.4 billion and 3.7 billion birds annually, they reported, plus between 6.9 billion and 20.7 billion mammals – mainly mice, shrews, rabbits and voles. Not even wind turbines wipe out that many birds (and bats) annually: see here, here, here and here.

Then there is top New Zealand economist and self-styled environmentalist Gareth Morgan, who created a foundation to promote his cat-killing ideas. Morgan demanded that New Zealand register and neuter all cats, raise the bar for “allowing” cat ownership, encourage citizens to cage-trap loose cats and turn them over to local authorities, euthanize all unregistered cats, fine all registered owners (!), and require that those same local authorities “dispose” of cats for free.
It’s been reported that Morgan is the local hero of the New Zealand Mouse and Rat Protective Society. But even Morgan is a piker.

Writing in the German leftist Neues Deutschland (New Germany), Katharina Schwirkus argued that, “In addition to their disgusting excretions, pets are also bad for the climate – because they eat meat and thus contribute to the emission of carbon dioxide” (and methane, we would add). Schwirkus says the ecological footprint of an average German cat is as large as that of a human Egyptian.
“If you want to do something good for the climate, you shouldn’t buy a dog or cat,” she insists. “The breeding of four-legged friends should be stopped in the long term…. [T]he romantic picture of pets must finally be deconstructed. Children should be made aware from a young age that it is absolutely selfish to keep a dog or a cat in a city.” People needing “comfort animals” will not be happy.

Meanwhile, according to “ethicist” William Lynn, writing in The Conversation, in 2015 the Australian government declared a war on feral cats, with a goal of killing over 2 million felines by 2020 via shooting, trapping, and “humane” poison. Lynn argued that there was no scientific basis for the government’s estimate of 20 million feral cats in Australia, nor for killing a tenth of that alleged number.
He instead argues that individual animals have a moral value, and that cats are themselves victims of human ecological errors. Lynn also questions the moral legitimacy of climate extinctionists who advocate for lethal management, which he says rests “on the assumption that individuals don’t matter – but ecosystems do. He concludes by saying “it is human beings [not cats] who bear direct moral responsibility for the ongoing loss of biodiversity in our world.”

(If you need some amusement and a break from the endless asserted and predicted climate catastrophes … that don’t involve cats … check out this 50 years report, other recap articles like this one, the outdated but enlightening and entertaining WarmList, and the WUWT Climate Craziness of the Week section.)
It is those same certain human beings – certainly not cats – who are spreading irrational fears about human-generated, plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide somehow, recently replacing the Sun other power natural forces in driving climate and weather fluctuations. Those climate crisis proponents insist that any climate and weather different from what most of Earth and humanity may have experienced over the last 50-250 years is unprecedented and will be cataclysmic.

They trumpet and bemoan the alleged coming climate extinction crisis – and produce massive volumes of “studies” and scare stories – telling everyone else what we must do to save the planet, while they the wannabe ruling elites tour the planet first class or in private jets, stay in five-star resorts, and demand that we eliminate just about everything that brings joy to the world of regular human beings.
Ricky Gervais is right. They are in no position to lecture us about anything. So enjoy your cat, dog, steak, car, overseas vacation and whatever else helps you enjoy your short sojourn on this wonderful planet.
Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)

SPLC officially Designated as a hate group by Mark Sahady

 

Super Happy Fun America is pleased to announce the formation of the Super Happy Fun America Law Center. Hate crimes against patriotic Americans are on the rise ever since Democrats were elected as the majority in the House of Representatives. We aim to expose the hypocrisy, lies, and intolerance of the left against all things traditional. The Super Happy Fun America Law Center monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media, and the public.
Visit the Super Happy Fun America Law Center at http://shfalc.org

Climate alarmist banks go carbon-colonialist Africa must move forward without them, using fossil and nuclear energy to build prosperity Paul Driessen and David Wojick

Africa has the world’s lowest electrification rate. Its power consumption per capita is just 613 kilowatt-hours per year, compared to 6,500 kWh in Europe and 13,000 in the United States, African Development Bank (AfDB) President Akinwumi Adesina observed in July 2017. That’s 9.4% of EU and 4.7% of US electricity consumption. It’s equivalent to Americans having electricity only 1 hour a day, 8 hours a week, 411 hours per year – at totally unpredictable times, for a few minutes, hours or days at a stretch. It’s actually even worse than that. Excluding significantly electrified South Africa, sub-Sahara Africans consume an almost irrelevant 181 kWh of electricity per capita – 1.4% of the average American’s!  In Sub-Saharan Afria, over 600 million people have no electricity, and over 700 million rely on wood, grass and dung for cooking and heating. The region is home to 16% of the world’s population, and 53% of those without electricity. By 2050, its urban populations could increase by 600 million.

Determined to transform the “dark continent,” the AfDB launched a $12-billion New Deal on Energy in 2017 and a Light Up and Power Africa initiative in July 2018. It frequently emphasized that access to sufficient supplies of reliable, affordable modern energy – including fossil fuels – is critical for the continent’s social and economic development. Without energy, it is impossible to create jobs, increase productivity, reduce inequality, improve people’s health and wellbeing, or end poverty.

The bank’s lofty goal for its energy New Deal is 100% access to electricity in urban areas, and 95% in rural areas, by 2025. In July 2017, Mr. Adesina told the African Union Summit he was excited that “Japan has answered our call” to “adopt a balanced energy mix” that includes “its ultra-super critical clean coal technologies” that remove sulfur, nitrogen oxides and particulates, while greatly reducing CO2 emissions.
In 2018, the bank approved seed money for a Nigerian coal project and geared up to finance a 350MW coal plant in Senegal. It also initiated plans for a $2-billion coal-fired power station in the Kenya’s port city of Lamu, after the IMF, World Bank and other western lenders rebuffed Kenya.  But then Mr. Adesina and the AfDB caved in to carbon colonialist pressure. The bank now says almost nothing about coal or even natural gas. Its new themes include: responding to global concerns about climate change, gradually adopting a “low-carbon and sustainable growth path,” significantly reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and transitioning to “green growth” and “clean renewable energy,”

In September 2019, the bank announced that it planned to begin scrapping coal-fired power plants all across Africa, build “the largest solar zone” in the world, and pull funding for the Lamu power plant. “We’re getting out of coal,” Mr. Adesina said. “Coal is the past, and renewable energy is the future.” So the AfDB has joined the World Bank, Goldman Sachs and other Multilateral anti-Development Banks in caring more about climate alarmism and avoiding criticism from the likes of Greta, the perpetually aggrieved and angry Grinch of Christmas 2019 – than they do about safeguarding the lives, livelihoods, health and living standards of hundreds of millions of electricity-deprived Africans.

This 180-degree flip-flop is delusional, dysfunctional and disingenuous. For many, it will be lethal.
First, there is nothing “green,” “clean” or “renewable” about wind and solar energy. The vast amounts of land and raw materials, mines and factories required to build wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and transmission lines – to harness widely dispersed, insufficient, intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar energy to benefit Sub-Saharan Africans – are anything but clean, green, renewable or sustainable. In fact, trying to meet those needs would require millions of turbines and billions of solar panels.

Second, The AfDB cannot possibly achieve its Energy New Deal or Light Up and Power Africa goals with wind and solar. It will never reach 100% or even 25% access to meaningful electricity that way. No country has ever built or sustained a modern economy this way – and countries that have tried to by mandating wind, solar and fossil-fuel-free economies are paying a terrible price. Headlines tell the story.  Germany’s green suicide: Industrial job losses top 80,000. German wind industry faces extinction. 340,000 German families have pricey electricity cut off. British steel faces insolvency; British families are already deeply in debt to their energy suppliers, before winter even sets in. Meanwhile, the fossil and nuclear-based US economy added another 266,000 jobs in November and wages also grew.

Third, there is no evidence to support claims that temperatures, droughts and weather anywhere in Africa are unprecedented or due to carbon dioxide from fossil fuels – or from wood, grass and dung fires. They and other climate changes have been common throughout history, and an energy-rich, prosperous Africa will be far better able to deal with future changes than a poor, energy-deprived continent could.

Fourth, China, India, Indonesia and other countries are not going stop building coal- and gas-fired power plants – and emitting enormously more CO2. Why should Africa and the AfDb go down a different path?
Finally, banishing fossil fuels (and nuclear), and focusing on pseudo-renewable energy will mean millions of children and parents will continue to suffer and die needlessly every year from diseases of poverty and energy deprivation. This eco-manslaughter at the hands of climate activists and banks must not continue.
Africans have a fundamental human right to more than the few light bulbs, cell phone charging stations and one-cubic-foot refrigerators that can be supported by a wind turbine and solar panel economy.

Thankfully, Botswana, Tanzania and other countries recognize that their continent is rich in coal, oil, natural gas, hydro and uranium. They intend to utilize those resources, take charge of their destinies, develop their economies and improve their people’s lives – by building coal- and gas-fired power plants, hydroelectric facilities, and pebble bed modular or other nuclear power plants. They will also install wind turbines and solar panels in distant villages until electrical grids bring 24/7/365 power to the villages.
No single solution will work everywhere. But “under no circumstances are we going to apologize” for developing Africa’s oil, gas and coal fields, Equatorial Guinea energy minister Gabriel Obiang Lima has said, adding it is “criminal” for any non-African to suggest that Africa should ignore any resources it has.

“Energy is the catalyst for growth,” says Gwede Mantashe, South Africa’s new Mineral Resources and Energy Minister and national chair of its African National Congress. Africa has long exported its oil and gas to the rest of the world, while remaining energy-deficient itself, he noted during a recent Africa Oil Week conference in Cape Town. That is no longer tenable. His new Integrated Resources Plan includes coal and nuclear, and all forms of energy, as appropriate to a given time and situation.  South Africa’s trade unions now see that solar and wind will not create jobs or prosperity; they promote coal power for inland areas where coal is plentiful, and nuclear for coastal regions where water can cool reactors. Zambia, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana and Rwanda all appear prepared to join SA in going nuclear – and Zambia has a new Zambian Atomic Energy Agency (ZAMATOM), headed by Dr. Roland Msiska; it has begun building a nuclear center and preparing for a new generation of small modular nuclear reactors.

“I am tired of being lectured by people in rich countries who have never lived a day without electricity,” says Nigerian Sam Bada. “Maybe they should just go home and turn off their fridge, hot water, laptops and lights. Then live like that for a month and tell us, who have suffered for years, not to burn coal.”  Energy deprivation perpetuates economic deprivation – and creates breeding grounds for terrorist groups in weakened African nations. Recent Islamic State attacks underscore this growing danger. Meanwhile, too many banks lack the moral decency to stand up for fossil fuels or nuclear, or question climate alarm doctrine. If they continue to balk, China could well step in – and gain greater influence and expanded control of Africa’s raw materials in the process. It would be much better if Africa stood up for itself.

Every new power plant generates electricity, jobs, better living standards, and more tax revenues to build more power plants, transmission lines and prosperity. Every country can do this, just as China, India and other nations have already. There’d be no better holiday gift than to banish Greta the Grinch from Africa.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow https://www.cfact.org/    and author of books and articles on energy, climate change and economic development. David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science and logic in public policy.

Greta, COP 25: A Report by Debbie Bacigalupi

Debbie Bacigalupi, an expert on Agenda 21, and an instructor at Camp Constitution’s annual family camp, attended COP 25 Madrid with media credentials.  In this interview with Hal Shurtleff, Camp Constitution’s director and host of Camp Constitution Radio, Debbie gives a report on the event:

a link to our Podomatic version in MP3:   https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/shurtleffhal/episodes/2019-12-16T12_41_13-08_00

Please subscribe to our YouTube Channel, and follow our Podomatic page

The Dangerous Winds of Trying to Prevent Climate Change by Duggan Flanakin

  The dangerous winds of trying to prevent climate change
Inconvenient facts show why wind energy is not renewable, sustainable or climate-friendly.

Wind turbines continue to be the most controversial of so-called “renewable” energy sources worldwide. But, you say, wind is surely renewable. It blows intermittently, but it’s natural, free, renewable and climate-friendly.
That’s certainly what we hear, almost constantly. However, while the wind itself may be “renewable,” the turbines, the raw materials that go into making them, and the lands they impact certainly are not. And a new report says harnessing wind to generate electricity actually contributes to global warming!
Arcadia Power reports that the widely used GE 1.5-megawatt (MW) turbine is a 164-ton mini-monster with 116-foot blades on a 212-foot tower that weighs another 71 tons. The Vestas V90 2.0-MW has 148-foot blades on a 262-foot tower, and a total weight of about 267 tons. The concrete and steel rebar foundations that they sit on weigh up to 800 tons, or more. And the newer 3.0-MW and even more powerful turbines and foundations weigh a lot more than that.

Citing National Renewable Energy Laboratory data, the U.S. Geological Survey notes that wind turbines are predominantly made of steel (which comprises 71-79% of total turbine mass), fiberglass and resin composites in the blades (11-16%), iron or cast iron (5-17%), copper (1%), aluminum (0-2%), rare earth elements (1-3%) and other materials. Plus the concrete and rebar that anchor the turbines in the earth.
It takes enormous amounts of energy (virtually all of it fossil fuels) to remove the overlying rock to get to the ores and limestone, refine and process the materials into usable metals and concrete, fabricate them into all the turbine components, and ship everything to their ultimate locations. Petroleum for the resins and composites – and all that energy – must also be extracted from the earth, by drilling and fracking, followed by refining and manufacturing, again with fossil fuel energy.

Wind turbine transportation logistics can be a deciding factor in scheduling, costing and locating a project, Wind Power Monthly admits. The challenge of moving equipment from factories to ports to ultimate industrial wind power generation sites has become more formidable almost by the year, as the industry has shifted to larger and larger turbines. Offshore turbine sizes (up to 10 megawatts and 650 feet in height) present even more daunting logistical, maintenance and removal challenges.
Back in 2010, transportation costs totaled an average 10% of the upfront capital cost of a wind project. Transporting the nacelles (housings for the energy-generating components, including the shaft, generator and gearing, to which the rotor and blades are attached) typically required a 19-axle truck and trailer that cannot operate using renewable energy and which a decade ago cost about $1.5 million apiece. Those costs have continued to escalate.
Highways and city streets must often be closed down during transport to wind farm sites hundreds, even thousands, of miles away – to allow nacelles, 100-foot tower sections and 150-foot blades to pass through.
Transmission lines and transformers add still more to the costs, and the need for non-renewable materials – including more steel, copper, aluminum and concrete. To get wind-generated energy from largely remote locations to cities that need electricity and are eager to cash in on the 2.3 cent per kilowatt-hour production tax credit, the U.S. is spending $47.9 billion to construct transmission lines through 2025.
Of that, $22.1 billion will be spent on transmission projects aimed at integrating renewable energy into the existing power grid, without making it so unstable that we get repeated blackouts.
On top of all that, wind turbines only last maybe 20 years – about half the life spans of coal, gas and nuclear power plants. Offshore turbines last maybe 12-15 years, due to constant corrosion from constant salt spray. Then they have to be decommissioned and removed. According to Isaac Orr, policy fellow at the Center of the American Experiment, the cost of decommissioning a single turbine can reach half a million dollars. Then the old ones have to be replaced – with more raw materials, mining and smelting.

Recycling these materials also consumes considerable energy, when they can be recycled. Turbine blades are extremely hard, if not impossible to recycle, because they are complex composites that are extremely strong and hard to break apart. A lot of times, the blades just get cut up in large segments and dumped in landfills – if they can find landfills that want them. The massive concrete bases often just get left behind.
All these activities require incredible amounts of fossil fuel energy, raw materials, mining lands and waste products (overburden, mined-out rock and processed ores). How much, exactly? The wind energy industry certainly isn’t telling, wind energy promoters and environmentalist groups certainly don’t want to discuss it, and even government agencies haven’t bothered to calculate the amounts.
But shouldn’t those kinds of data be presented front and center during any discussion of what is – or is not – clean, green, free, renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly energy?

We constantly see and hear reports that the cost of wind energy per kilowatt-hour delivered to homes and businesses are becoming competitive with coal, gas, nuclear and hydroelectric alternatives. But if that is the case, why do we still need all the mandates, feed-in tariffs and other subsidies? And do those reports factor in the huge costs and environmental impacts presented here? Amid all these terribly inconvenient facts about wind energy, it shouldn’t be too surprising that a new study destroys the industry’s fundamental claim: that wind energy helps prevent global warming. Harvard professor of applied physics and public policy David Keith and his postdoctoral researcher, Lee Miller, recently found that heavy reliance on wind energy actually increases climate warming! If this is so, it raises serious questions about just how much the U.S. or other nations should rely on wind power.

As the authors explain, the warming is produced because wind turbines generate electricity by extracting energy out of the air, slowing down wind and otherwise altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere.” The impact of wind on warming in the studied scenario was 10 times greater than the climate effect from solar farms, which can also have a warming impact, the two scientists said. The study, published in the journal Joule, found that if wind power supplied all U.S. electricity demands, it would warm the surface of the continental United States by 0.24 degree C (0.43 Fahrenheit). That is far more than any reduction in warming achieved by totally decarbonizing the nation’s electricity sector (around 0.1 C or 0.2 F)) during the 21st century – assuming climate models are correct about the amount of warming that carbon dioxide emissions are allegedly causing.

“If your perspective is the next ten years, wind power actually has – in some respects – more climate impact than coal or gas,” says Keith, a huge wind power supporter. But, he added, “If your perspective is the next thousand years, then wind power is enormously cleaner than coal or gas.” Of course, his analysis assumes significant warming that has yet to occur, despite increasing use of fossil fuels by China, India, Indonesia and other countries. It also assumes the world will still be using increasing amounts of coal and natural gas 100 to 1,000 years from now – a highly dubious proposition. And it ignores every point made in this article, which clearly explains why wind energy is not really cleaner than coal or gas.
Maybe, my friends, the answer is not blowing in the wind.

Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow http://www.CFACT.org