Skinning Babies to Treat Baldness
From Matt Staver at Liberty Counsel:
Sandra Merritt’s undercover journalism revealed horrors like that of Nazi Dr. Mengele’s gruesome experiments. Sandra’s videos revealed that Planned Parenthood was selling butchered baby parts, so that the children’s skin and organs could be used to treat “baldness,” among other things.
Instead of investigating the people participating in this gruesome human organ trafficking scheme, then-CA Attorney General Kamala Harris launched a criminal investigation into Sandra.
Now Sandra faces up to 10 years in prison and hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments, thanks to Kamala Harris’ attempt to hide the abortion industry’s crimes. Sandra’s case is the longest and most expensive case in Liberty Counsel history.
Lest you think this butchery is somehow justifiable because it “saves lives,” consider this — some of the baby body parts Sandra documented were being used to treat “baldness.”
Advanced Bioscience Resources was named in the investigation as a buyer in Planned Parenthood’s unlawful baby parts sales scheme. In sworn testimony before the court, witness Albin Rhomberg revealed the gruesome truth — the babies weren’t being butchered to save lives, but to treat baldness.
They were scalping the babies and taking their scalps and grafting them on to immune-suppressed mice, and then using various pharmaceuticals on these humanized mice to test the effect upon preventing or, I suppose you might say, treating baldness.
Not too dissimilar to the H.G. Wells horror story and ensuing Marlon Brando film, The Island of Dr. Moreau, these laboratory researchers are creating human-animal hybrids, not to save humanity, but for the vanity of a full and luxurious head of hair.
A recent University of Pittsburgh taxpayer-funded study, titled “Development of humanized mouse and rat models with full-thickness human skin and autologous immune cells,” explains just how “humanized mice” are created.
According to the Pitt study, babies were scalped and flayed like butchered animals. The entire “full thickness of human skin” from 18-20 week gestation babies’ heads and backs was sliced from their bodies. To put the baby’s age into perspective, 18-20 weeks gestation is 4.5-5 months gestation — right about the time most expectant mothers start having baby showers. Instead, these children were being prepared for slaughter, their skin sewn onto the back of a living rodent to create “humanized rat models.”
Babies were also carefully butchered for their livers, thymuses, spleens, and other organs, which also were grafted on to the mice and rats to further “humanize” them.
Skin from dead babies is also being used to treat scarring on adult skin.
Baldness, it turns out, isn’t the only vanity these gruesome researchers are working on. Several studies published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) show that the skin sliced from aborted babies is also being grafted on to rats to prevent visible scarring.
In a study titled “The fetal fibroblast: the effector cell of scarless fetal skin repair,” researchers noted with glee that aborted baby skin can prevent scarring when sewn above and below the outer layers of rats, and therefore is a candidate for treating or preventing injury and surgery scars on adults.
What will history say about a nation whose citizens paid for children to be murdered, and for those dead children’s bodies to be used to help those citizens look younger, prettier, and have full heads of hair and be visibly unscarred by life?
What will history say if we allow the woman who exposed that evil to spend 10 years in prison for revealing the truth?
We need your financial help to save Sandra from prison. Some of the most powerful people in the world are trying to punish Sandra Merritt for exposing the abortion industry’s demonic underbelly. In punishing Sandra, they hope to not only continue their baby killing, and their Nazi-like experimentation, but also to silence any and all who might dare expose baby butchery ever again.
We cannot allow that to happen. Praise God, a special Challenge Grant has been established that will DOUBLE the impact of every donation. But the Challenge Grant won’t chip in unless you do. Please, help us defend Sandra and the unborn with your generous gift today.
Finally, please pray that our country abandons its wicked ways.
“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).
Mat Staver
Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
TAKE ACTION
Make a recurring monthly gift and let the Challenge Grant DOUBLE THE IMPACT OF YOUR REGULAR GIFT!
Demand Congress PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. Tell them to VOTE No on the extreme LGBTQ and abortion bill — HR 15. And don’t forget to sign the petition.
Sources:
Lane AT, Scott GA, Day KH. Development of human fetal skin transplanted to the nude mouse. J Invest Dermatol. 1989 Dec;93(6):787-91. doi: 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12284423. PMID: 2584745.
Lorenz HP, Lin RY, Longaker MT, Whitby DJ, Adzick NS. The fetal fibroblast: the effector cell of scarless fetal skin repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995 Nov;96(6):1251-9; discussion 1260-1. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199511000-00002. PMID: 7480221.
Osburn, Madeline. “University of Pittsburgh Uses Taxpayer-Funded Aborted Babies for Medical Research.” The Federalist, May 7, 2021. Thefederalist.com/2021/05/07/university-of-pittsburgh-uses-taxpayer-funded-aborted-babies-for-medical-research/.
The Weekly Sam: Darwin Versus Intelligent Design By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
Back in 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1981 Louisiana law which
mandated a balanced treatment in teaching evolution and creation in the public schools.
The Court decided that the intent of the law “was clearly to advance the religious
viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind,” and therefore violated the First
Amendment’s prohibition on a government establishment of religion. In other words, the
Court adopted the atheist position that creation is a religious myth.
In speaking for the majority, Justice William J. Brennan wrote: “The legislative history
documents that the act’s primary purpose was to change the science curriculum of public
schools in order to provide an advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the
factual basis of evolution in its entirety.”
The learned Justice seemed unaware that some of the world’s greatest scientists were and
are devout Christians and, that dogmatic atheism, not religion, is destroying true science.
Also, though his job requires him to uphold the Constitution, Justice Brennan willfully
ignored the historical fact that, to the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, an
“establishment of religion” meant a state church, such as they have in England with the
Anglican Church, which is the official church of England.
Belief in God is not the same thing as establishing an official government-sponsored
religious denomination. Belief in a supernatural being who created mankind is not an
establishment of religion.
What exactly is the Theory of Evolution? For the answer, we must go to the source:
Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, published in 1859. In his book,
whose racist subtitle has been suppressed in modern editions for obvious reasons, Darwin
claimed that the thousands of different species of animals, insects, and plants that exist on
earth were not the works of a Divine Creator who made each of the “kinds” in its present
immutable form, as described in Genesis (e.g., frogs produce frogs, not princes), but are
the products of a very long natural process of development from simpler organic forms to
more complex organisms.
Thus, according to Darwin, species continue to change or “evolve,” through a process of
natural selection in which nature’s harsh conditions permit only the fittest to survive in
more adaptable forms. However, while controlled breeding can produce varieties inside
the dog species, from Chihuahuas to Great Danes, dogs are still dogs. “Survival of the
fittest” is incapable of turning one species into another. Whatever external conditions we
may provide for a dog, these will not change its basic dog DNA.
Darwin also believed that all life originated from a single source – a kind of primeval
slime in which the first living organisms formed spontaneously out of non-living matter
through a random process – by accident.
The first false idea in Darwin’s hypothesis is that non-organic matter can transform itself
into organic matter. Although this belief in “spontaneous generation” was common at the
time, Pasteur and others have conclusively disproved it. Life does not arise from non-life
at the macro level, and at the micro level all the laboratory experiments that claim to
produce “building blocks” of life have failed to do so, in spite of all the hype to the
contrary. See the book Icons of Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Wells for some eye-opening
debunking of this and other myths still taught in your local school’s textbooks.
Justice Brennan called evolution “factual,” which simply indicates the depth of his
ignorance. There is no factual basis to evolution. The fossil record shows no intermediary
forms of species development. We’ve never seen it happen, either. No scientist has been
able to mate a cat with a donkey and get something in between. And modern genetics has
shown us that we need complex “programs” to grow from a single cell into a human
being. But mutations, which destroy information, can’t add more complexity to
succeeding generations. So neither Darwin’s simplistic belief in the inheritance of
acquired characteristics nor our newer knowledge of genetics provides any way
species-to-species evolution could ever happen.
The enormous complexity of organic matter precludes accidental creation. There had to
be a designer.
There is now a whole scientific school devoted to the design theory. William A.
Dembski’s book, Intelligent Design, published in 1999, is the pioneering work that
bridges science with theology. Dembski writes:
“Intelligent design is three things: a scientific research program that investigates the
effects of intelligent causes; an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its
naturalistic legacy; and a way of understanding divine action. It was Darwin’s expulsion
of design from biology that made possible the triumph of naturalism in Western culture.
So, too, it will be intelligent design’s restatement of design within biology that will be the
undoing of naturalism in Western culture.”
Dembski proves that design is “empirically detectable,” because we can observe it all
around us. The birth of a child is a miracle of design. The habits of your household cat
are a miracle of design. All cats do the same things. These are the inherited
characteristics of the species. The idea that accident could create such complex behavior
passed on to successive generations simply doesn’t make sense. The complexity of design
proves the existence of God. Dembski writes:
“Indeed within theism divine action is the most basic mode of causation since any other
mode of causation involves creatures which themselves were created in a divine act.
Intelligent design thus becomes a unifying framework for understanding both divine and
human agency and illuminates several long-standing philosophical problems about the
nature of reality and our knowledge of it.”
So why are the courts and the schools so fanatically opposed to even allowing children to
know there are arguments against evolution? Because evolution provides the perfect
“scientific” excuse for keeping the God of the Bible out of public education. It’s not the
idea of design per se that worries them; it’s Who the Designer is. That’s why the media
are showing increasing support for the “life came from outer space” theory and even the
“life came from intelligent aliens who seeded our planet” theory. Evolution is tottering,
and the search is on for any Designer except the real one.
So, while what the Intelligent Design movement has to say can be helpful, let’s just
remember that the real issue is not whether there was a Designer or just a bunch of
Random Accidents, but whether the God of the Bible created the universe just like it says
in Genesis or not.
The Untold Story- The book entitled The Transfer Agreement: The Controversial Haavara Agreement between the Nazi Regime and the Zionist Movement as a rescue operation. A Review by Dr. Maria Perez
The Transfer Agreement
A story that largely has gone untold, The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Zionist Rescue of Jews from the Third Reich to Jewish Palestine recounts the controversial Haavara Agreement between the Zionist movement (as a rescue operation) and the Nazi regime for expediency to achieve an objective.
Some stories largely hidden in the dark recesses of history fairly cry out to be told, and this overview is about one: the dramatic Zionist rescue of Jews from the Third Reich to Jewish Palestine starting in in 1933. The Third Reich, as a result, transferred some 60,000 Jews and $100 million (almost $1.7 billion in 2009 dollars or $2.3 billion in 2022) to Jewish Palestine. In return, Zionists agreed to halt a Jewish-led worldwide anti-Nazi boycott that had threatened Hitler’s regime in its first year.
Ultimately, the transfer (Haavara) agreement saved lives, rescued assets, and seeded the infrastructure of the Jewish state. This book chronicles the anguish underlying that agreement and documents one question: When will the Jewish people not be compelled to make such heart-rending choices?
Indeed, when will all people similarly confronted be freed from the desperation of such choices?
Was the Haavara Agreement madness…or genius? Clues lie within the folds of myriad details.
Jews were first to recognize the threat posed by Hitler and first to react. The Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Supreme Muslim Council all endorsed the Hitler regime. The United States, England, France, Italy, Russia, Argentina, Japan, Ireland, Poland, and dozens of other nations signed friendship and trade treaties, knowingly contributing to Germany’s economic and military recovery.
Hitler was unique: especially, he was organized. Among Hitler’s enemies, none were so well organized as the Zionists. While world leaders increasingly recognized the Hitler threat, they hoped it would not arrive. Zionists recognized Hitler’s threat—and had always expected it to come in some form. Those factors ultimately determined events of the era and the transfer agreement.
The Nazis had promised that upon assuming power, they would rebuild Germany’s economy, dismantle its democracy, destroy German Jewry, and establish Aryans as a master class—in that order.
With Hitler’s installation, Nazi atrocities intensified. Midnight home invasions by Brownshirts forced Jewish landlords and employees to sign papers at gunpoint favoring tenants or employees in disputes. Leading Jewish physicians were kidnapped from their hospitals to the outskirts of town and threatened with death if they did not resign and leave Germany. Dignified Jewish businesspeople were driven from their favorite cafes, savagely beaten, and sometimes forced to wash streets.
As these atrocities intensified, the American Jewish Congress released a statement: “The time for caution and prudence is past; we must speak up like men; how can we ask our Christian friends to lift their voices in protest against the wrong suffered by Jews if we keep silent?”
At the time, opinions were conflicted about anti-Nazi boycott movements—working to Hitler’s advantage because the Jewish-led worldwide anti-Nazi boycott was one weapon Hitler feared.
Many Jewish organizations believed in the power of Jewish boycotts: a weapon that Jews were ready and willing to use in emergencies to dissuade anti-Semitic forces.
Every implementation of a worldwide boycott set in motion atrocities in Germany against German Jews, however. German medical and judicial societies immediately expelled their Jewish members. In German cities, local SS contingents surrounded Jewish stores, smashed windows, and lobbed stench bombs. Frequently, police demanded that stores owned by Jews close.
The Jewish community in Germany reacted with terror. Prior outbursts had been sporadic, unorganized acts of intimidation and violence against individual families and businesses. The boycott against Jews of the 1930s, however, would become a systematic economic pogrom that would plague every German Jewish business and household. No one would be spared. What professional could survive if he could not practice? What store could survive if it could not sell?
So it was that as the worldwide Jewish boycott was organized against German goods, the German government instituted a boycott against German Jews. This anti-Jewish boycott, violent or disciplined, would be disastrous for Germany’s fragile economy at the time, and virtually everyone in Germany with realistic business sense knew it.
The anti-Jewish boycott in Germany created economic vacancies that eventually would be filled by unqualified rank-and-file Nazis. In Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors had been Jewish before the Zionists’ boycott.
The Nazis essentially launched war against Jews, mobilizing all Germany. The Jews would launch their own war against the Nazis, mobilizing all the world. Anti-Hitler/Nazi boycotts, protest marches, and meetings were now in store. Germany was to be isolated politically, economically, and even culturally until she cast off the Nazi leadership, to be taught another bitter lesson.
The Zionist Solution
In the eyes of Zionists, the outrages of Hitler were nothing unexpected. Zionist ideology predicted periodic Jewish oppression in even the most enlightened lands of the Diaspora. Anti-Semitism had been part of Jewish life in Europe since the Jews’ emancipation in the mid-19th century, when Jews were permitted to emerge from the ghettos and participate in society with other Europeans—but on a less equal footing.
Zionists therefore saw Hitler’s rise as simply the latest anti-Semitic episode. German Jews were not impoverished peasants or lower-class merchants who owned few valuables. German Jews were solidly middle class, owning lands, homes, furnishings, and stock shares. They were lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, artists, and civil servants. They owned department store chains and commercial banks.
These men and women who’d had no place in the German Reich would find an indispensable place in the new Jewish nation. Behold: Israel was waiting within the borders of the Third Reich.
Here was a turning point for Zionism. The Movement’s task was to maneuver to the forefront of the international Jewish response and interpose Zionism and Palestine as the central solution to “the German Jewish problem.”
One of the primary founders of Israel, Theodor Herzl, detailed a blueprint for building the Jewish state that would organize the withdrawal of all Jews from Europe—a feat that carried an obvious appeal, even an unintended justification, for anti-Semites. That political arrangement was promised in 1917, when England issued its Balfour Declaration, committing Turkish Palestine to a Jewish homeland, should the Allies win World War I.
Nazi leadership, of course, relished the prospect of Jews’ expulsion, though the concurrence was clearly perverse: the Nazis sought Jewish cultural destruction and the Zionists a Jewish renaissance.
In response to Hitler’s anti-Jewish policies, Zionists organized a worldwide anti-Nazi boycott at the beginning of Hitler’s reign. Many Jewish organizations believed that was the only effective restraint against Nazi policies.
German leaders realized this anti-Hitler/Nazi boycott threatened to kill the Third Reich in its infancy, either through utter bankruptcy or by promoting an imminent invasion of Germany by its neighbors. Nazis realized that if they were to survive, the boycott would have to be ended.
Every revelation of an atrocity against German Jews, however, propelled the need for the Zionists’ countering boycott.
In a feat of truly divergent thinking, Hitler then proposed linking the purchase of German goods to the settling of German Jews in Palestine: by cultivating orchards in Palestine and using the Jewish national homeland as capital, the anti-Nazi boycott could be broken. The Zionist movement would not only be obliged to refrain from—and oppose—any boycott on German goods; it also would be obliged to sponsor German exports aggressively.
Moreover, the systemic aggress against German Jews would create vast pools of blocked German marks that Germany could use to pay debts. Every German pipe sold, chemical purchased, and pound of foreign currency earned contributed toward another dunam (measure of land area used in Israel and other parts of the former Turkish empire) and another citizen for Eretz Yisrael, the Holy Land, the territory of which include biblical Israel. At the same time, every economic or diplomatic knife slashed at Hitler merely lacerated hopes for a Zionist solution. The plan carried abundant political and financial incentives for the Third Reich.
Jews around the world were now having to choose between fighting Hitler or building Palestine: preserving the old or securing the new. The transfer agreement is the point at which Zionist and Nazi philosophical spheres first touched. German Jews could settle in Palestine if they brought German-manufactured goods with them, thereby breaking the economic boycott against Germany.
As German Zionists had conceived the idea, this massive influx of liquidated Jewish capital would not only bring the first wave of Jewish citizens’ money to Palestine; it would also deliver the investment capital needed to establish the Jewish state.
To Nazis, the territory of Palestine was a convenient dumping ground—in a sense, a remote, self-run concentration camp. To Zionists, this territory was the Promised Land, destined to be a Jewish state.
Palestine was now the crucial gateway to expanding German exports throughout the emerging Middle East market, including Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and North Africa. The Reich deemed this market essential if certain strategic raw materials Hitler craved for war were to be acquired via bilateral trade agreements.
Agreeing to the transfer, the German government felt sure, would trigger the breakup of the anti-Nazi boycott—because the Zionist movement would now essentially be in the German export business.
German Jewish wealth and immigrants would be transferred in a flow wholly dependent on the purchase of German merchandise and commodities.
Through liquidation of their assets, Jews would achieve independence for the first time in 2,000 years.
Those who rejected the anti-Nazi boycott in favor of the Zionist solution questioned whether Jews could ever win such a war…and if they did, would the battles only continue from generation to generation?
After praying for supporters and allies of the Jews for decades, Zionists finally realized that the opportunity to transfer would come not from friends but from foes, as Herzl had predicted.
After forty years of struggle to create a Jewish state, a sudden, spectacular turning point was reached.
For 40 years, there had never been enough money, land, or men; so long as those essentials were lacking, the Jewish state would never be.
But in an office on August 7th, 1933, all this changed. A few men working with telegrams, letters of introduction, images, and the power of prejudice and pretense, glimpsing an opportunity for salvation in the abyss of Nazi injustice, managed to help arrange that miracle.
Henceforth, when Jews were threatened, as they often had been and likely always would be, they would have a nation of their own to come home to: to enter not as a refugee or stranger, but as a full citizen.
The price of this new nation would be the abandonment of the boycott war against Nazi Germany. Whole branches of Judaism would wither, but the trunk would survive.
18th Zionist Congress opens in Prague
In August 1933, a week-long 18th Zionist Congress began, with each Jewish group bringing its own notion of whether such an agreement might represent a betrayal of the Jewish people or a daring move to save German Jews and create a national wellspring for Eretz Yisrael.
We now can see that God used the Zionist Movement in 1933 to bring about the transfer agreement—at the very end of the conference: delegates had spent the whole week disputing the agreement, discounting it, and then—only at the last minute—approving it.
Many future leaders of the new nation of Israel attended the congress in Prague. Clearly God was at work, preparing the Jewish people’s future well before 1948.
On September 3rd, 1933, at 4:30 pm, the final session of the 18th Zionist Congress began for 300 delegates from around the world, plus alternates. Each had one vote.
Those who understood the power of the transfer agreement knew in their hearts that the Jewish state would rise from the anguish and ashes of German Jewry. Indeed, German Jewry would be only the first wave of immigrants.
While it’s always the last key on the ring that opens the door, the passage of the transfer agreement was truly a miracle, confirming that God uses people, situations, and circumstances to bring about His greater purposes. What the devil had meant for evil, God utilized for good to save many of His people.
Most everyone at the 18th Congress had seemed to be against the agreement…until everyone was for it. God, the master chess player always strategizing seven steps ahead, changed men’s hearts to bring about His will and purpose: deliverance for His people 15 years before the nation Israel was founded.
Some compared the Zionists’ confrontations with Hitler to the biblical confrontations in which Moses engaged with the Egyptian Pharaoh, when the question was about freeing stubborn, reluctant people from their captivity—and from their cattle, goats, and possessions. Was Moses to refrain from negotiating with Pharaoh? If he had, the Jews never would have made the exodus to Israel with the possessions they needed to establish themselves.
Hitler was a new pharaoh, the Transfer people argued, and German Jews were descendants of the enslaved people who had been so reluctant to depart from Egypt. As in Pharaoh’s day, without negotiation, there would be no freedom—no Israel.
God, hard at work on a reconstruction project amid all the chaos, was accomplishing an excellent thing.
4 Biblical themes in this story
- God can use for good what the devil intended for evil—such as the Nazi Regime.
- God is always thinking about tomorrow: the nation of Israel was birthed well before its 1948 founding.
- God sets the stage for His future agenda, even using and changing the hearts and minds of adversaries.
- When God is doing great work, bumps along the way can be expected: conflicts, opposition…no easy journey.
For years, Nazi leaders had cooperated with Zionists—not out of sympathy with Jewish nationalism, but simply to effect the removal of Jews from Germany and break the anti-Hitler/Nazi boycott.
Jewish Palestine’s rapidly expanding economy brought worker and commercial opportunities. More doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, hoteliers, restauranteurs, and entrepreneurs were needed. Several thousand German Jews who came to Israel on limited capitalist certificates filled many niches.
Fifteen years earlier, the nation of Israel hadn’t existed. Few could visualize what was to come into being, but one small group of men foresaw it all. Nothing would stop them—no force was too great to overcome. These men were instrumental in the creation of Israel, each leaving a fingerprint on the most controversial undertaking in Jewish history: the Transfer Agreement that paved the way for the state of Israel.
Was it madness…or genius?
Works Cited
Black, Edwin (2022). The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Zionist Rescue of Jews from the Third Reich to Jewish Palestine. Washington: Dialog Press.
The dramatic Zionist rescue of Jews from the Third Reich to Jewish Palestine. Washington: Dialog Press.
A Report on Camp Constitution’s 16th Annual Family Camp
Camp Constitution’s 16th annual family camp ended last Friday. For the fifth year in a row and we hope for the foreseeable future, the camp took place at the Singing Hills Christian Camp in Plainfield, NH. “This may have been our largest turnout in our camp’s history with attendees coming as far as Frankfurt, Germany, Cape Town, South Africa, Florida and Texas” said camp director and co-founder Hal Shurtleff
Returning instructors included Professor Willie Soon, one of the world’s top atmospheric scientists, who attended with his family, Pastor David Whitney of the Institute on the Constitution, Rev. Steve Craft who serves at the camp chaplain, Mrs. Catherine White of the Constitution Decoded, and author and host of the Liberty Sentinel program, Alex Newman. Alex had to leave Tuesday due to the fact that his wife is expecting but he gave three classes on Monday and even did an episode of his show which runs on a number of platforms including Frank Speech https://frankspeech.com/shows/sentinel-report-tv-show-alex-newman
Our guest instructors were Mrs. Julie Wilkerson who played the abortion nurse in the movie UnPlanned: The Abby Johnson Story and author Dr. Felecia Nace. Dr Nace attended out 2020 camp and was the guest speaker at this year’s Ladies “Spring Fling”. For the tenth year, Mr. Mert Melfa served as our videographer and uploaded videos of our classes and activities. A link to our 2024 Family Camp YouTube playlist: https://studio.youtube.com/playlist/PL7jnzBzBiNYBuAEivmEE9B-L1wy4ZKTEc/videos
We start our day with an optional run and/or swim at 6:30. Wake up is 7:00 and morning devotions and flag-raising at 7:50. As he has for the past few years, veteran camper Franklin Soon plays “Reveille” on the trumpet followed by the firing of our cannon: https://youtu.be/vlj4Kz-TV3w?si=KqfpCG8-wvJYbGOz
After a hearty breakfast, the camp conducts three 45-miniute classes
During the first class, Head Counselor Chris Kalis conducts room inspection where we look for cleanliness, as well as a Patriotic and Christian theme. Chris will give the room points towards the room inspection contest where the occupants of the winning room get treated to free pizza on Thursday after campfire. The Girls of Room 11 in Mountain View were the winners. The daily inspection results are posted in the camp’s daily newspaper, “Camp Constitution Journal” distributed in the evening. The paper, edited Mark Affleck, also has articles written by campers about the daily activities and classes. A link to PDF versions of the paper: https://s3.amazonaws.com/camppictures/CampArchive/index.html
Monday afternoon, we offered an optional martial arts training class taught by Mr. George Dewhurst of Alton, NH.
Over the years, we have been blessed with talented campers and staff and this year was no exception. From Mrs. Paulie Heath, our campfire director who is a Christian recording artist to the Soons-Emily, Ben, and Franklin to Josh Viliniskis, to Mrs. Catherine White to new campers Elayna, Alise and Christie Uhl from Wisconsin to Jonathan Cohler, a world-renowned clarinetist, our ears were treated to some incredible music. These talents are showcased at our evening campfires, where in addition to music and singing, attendees tell “Dad” jokes, skits, and recite poetry. Campfire ends with a devotion and the playing of “Taps.”
Our junior campers -ages 5-12- also attend classes taught by Mrs. Edith Craft, Mrs. Kathy Mickel who also serves as our nurse, Mrs. Jessica Whitworth, and Mrs. Roberta Stewart. On Thursday, the Junior Campers have a parade through camp:
For the second year, Mr. Keith Hanson and his team at Critical Dynamics taught the optional firearms training on Tuesday afternoon. We had a number of first-time marksmen on hand.
Mr. Chris Kalis who drives all the way from Michigan, also serves as recreational director. He runs the afternoon program which includes volleyball, basketball, “steal the bacon” a chess tournament, and our annual wiffleball game between “The Shurtleff All Stars” and “The Kalis Barnstormers.”
Wednesday afternoon, we had an optional field trip to the Precision Museum in nearby Windsor, Vermont where we learned about our nation’s role in the Industrial Revolution.
On Thursday afternoon, Junior campers were entertained by Alan “Spunky” Bellanger:
The camp has both a pond and a pool which are popular with the campers:
On Thursday evening, the camp held its closing ceremony where the Super Camper and Super Staffer awards along with and our new “Willie Soon” Award for Instructional Excellence. are presented. Mrs. Jessica Whitworth was awarded the Super Staffer award, Professor Willie Soon was awarded the first “Wille Soon Award.” Campers Ben Soon and Elisabeth Krutov were the Super Campers, and Jonathan Larson and first-time camper Alise Uhl were the runner ups. Super Campers win a free tuition for next year’s camp. Junior camper program director Mrs. Edith Craft presented certificates of completion to our junior camper camp program
(Ben Soon, Jonathan Larson, Elisabeth Krutov and Alise Uhl)
Here is a link to pictures and videos of activities of our camp:
Thanks to all of you who through your prayers, financial support, promotion, and participation have made this camp and Camp Constitution possible, and a special thanks to Mr. Phil Lee and his staff at Singing Hills.
Next year’s camp will run from Sunday July 13 to Friday July 18 and returns to Singing Hills Christian Camp in Plainfield, NH.
Couldn’t make it to our annual family camp, consider attending our 3rd annual weekend family retreat which runs from Friday September 27 to Sunday September 29, and held at Camp Sentinel in Tuftonboro, NH. A link to the application: https://campconstitution.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Family-Weekend-Release-form-2024.pdf
A Runaway Slave and First Republican Platform
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Weekly Sam: Are Compulsory School Attendance Laws Good for America? By Samuel Blumenfeld
Should a child be forced to attend a public school that will turn him into a functional illiterate? Since no public school will guarantee that a child will be taught to read in a manner that will help him achieve high literacy, why should a parent send a child to that kind of school? Indeed, why should compulsory school attendance laws force parents to do something that wil1 harm their children? It is assumed by the vast majority of Americans that the issue of compulsory school attendance is a settled matter, part and parcel of every civilized nation-state, and a prerequisite of a democratic society. We all acknowledge that a representative form of government requires an educated electorate for its survival. But what happens when that government’s schools no longer know how to teach children to read and write, when those schools turn children not into civilized citizens, but into barbarians?
What happens when millions of parents feel compelled to remove their children from government schools in order to make sure that their children do get an education? What happens is that the basic premises of compulsory attendance and government education come into question. The glaring fact is that despite our compulsory attendance laws, we now have more illiteracy and more ignorance among Americans than before such laws were enacted. The first compulsory school attendance law was passed in Massachusetts in 1852 and by 1918 every state in the Union had such a law. Yet, the fact is that these laws have merely increased the amount of time children spend in school, not the amount of learning or knowledge they acquire. The Way It Was To find out how much better educated Americans were before compulsory attendance laws and government schools existed, all we have to do is read DuPont de Nemours’ fascinating little book, National Education in the United States of America, published in 1812. He writes: “The United States are more advanced in their educational facilities than most countries. They have a large number of primary schools; and as their paternal affection protects children from working in the fields, it is possible to send them to the school-master–a condition which does not prevail in Europe. “Most young Americans, therefore, can read, write and cipher. Not more than four in a thousand are unable to write legibly–even neatly. “England, Holland, the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland more nearly approach the standard of the United States, because in those countries the Bible is read; it is considered a duty to read it to children; and in that form of religion the sermons and liturgy in the language of the people tend to increase and formulate ideas of responsibility. Controversy also has developed argumentation and has thus given room for the exercise of logic. “In America, a great number of people read the Bible, and all the people read a newspaper. The fathers read aloud to their children while breakfast is being prepared–a task which occupies the mothers for three quarters of an hour every morning. And as the newspapers of the United States are filled with all sorts of narratives… they disseminate an enormous amount of information.”
Obviously, back in the very early days of this republic, education was a family affair closely connected to religious practice. A nation built on Biblical principles had to be a highly literate one. In addition, all of this education was achieved without any government involvement, without any centralized educational bureaucracy, without any professors of education, or accrediting agencies or teacher certification. And, most significantly, without any compulsory attendance laws. The Way It Is Contrast that happy picture of complete educational freedom and high literacy with the present situation in which the State has asswned the function of educator, at great expense to the taxpayer, with all sorts of laws and regulations forcing the population to patronize a system that is turning out functional illiterates by the millions.
According to an article in the Spring 1989 issue of Education Canada, published by the Canadian Education Association: “It is currently estimated that one million Canadians are almost totally illiterate and another four million are termed ‘functionally illiterate.’ In the United States these figures are estimated respectively at 26 million and 60 million.” Both Canada and the United States have had compulsory attendance laws for decades. The purpose of these laws was to make certain that every child was educated. The laws were particularly aimed at the children of the poor, and yet it is they who have suffered the most at the hands of government education. Even Secretary of Education Cavazos, in 1989, admitted in the frankest terms that the government education system was failing the American people. In his sixth annual report card on American schools, he repeated the well-known litany of failures that still plague American education: declining SAT scores, declining interest in math and science, declining literacy, and a soaring dropout rate in Washington, DC.
He said that we were still wallowing in a ‘tide of mediocrity,” and that “we must do better or perish as the nation we know today.” Has anything changed since 1989? Yes, it has all gotten worse. In fact, it was an alarming report on American literacy issued in 2007 by the National Endowment for the Arts that informed Americans that the reading problem had deteriorated further since Secretary Cavazos issued his own alarming assessment. The chairman of the Endowment, Dana Gioia, stated: ‘This is a massive social problem. We are losing the majority of the new generation. They will not achieve anything close to their potential because of poor reading.” The Endowment report revealed that the number of 17-year-olds who never read for pleasure increased from 9 percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 2004. Almost half of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 never read books for pleasure. Why? Because reading has become a painful, tortuous exercise that they wish to avoid.
The simple truth is that literacy is not at all difficult to achieve, provided the schools use the right phonetic teaching methods. Indeed, the home-school movement has already proven that parents can actually do a better job of teaching reading than our high-priced professionals. It has also been shown that children progress better academically when taught at home, and that the cost of educating a child at home is less than $1,000 a year. So why do we need compulsory attendance laws? We need them so that the ruling liberal elite can dumb down the population and make sure they can’t read.
For proof of this, listen to the words of Professor Anthony G. Oettinger of Harvard University, given in a lecture to an audience of Telecom executives in 1982: “The present ‘traditional’ concept of literacy has to do with the ability to read and write. But the real question that confronts us today is: How do we help citizens function well in their society? How can they acquire the skills necessary to solve their problems? “Do we, for example, really want to teach people to do a lot of sums or write in ‘a fine round hand’ when they have a five-dollar hand-held calculator or a word processor to work with? Or, do we really have to have everybody literate–writing and reading in the traditional sense–when we have the means through our technology to achieve a new flowering of oral communication? “What is speech recognition and speech synthesis all about if it does not lead to ways of reducing the burden on the individual of the imposed notions of literacy that were a product of nineteenth century economics and technology? . “It is the traditional idea that says certain forms of communication, such as comic books are ‘bad.’ But in the modem context of functionalism, they may not be all that bad.”
I doubt that there are any parents in America who send their children to school to learn to read comic books. If anything, they want their children to be taught to read and write in the traditional manner. They don’t consider learning to read as a “burden imposed on the individual.” Rather, if taught in the proper phonetic manner, learning to read becomes a joyful experience for children eager to expand the use of their minds and language.
Although the compulsory attendance laws were enacted to make sure that everyone learned to read, their new application by the likes of Professor Oettinger and his liberal colleagues is to make sure that the population can be controlled and manipulated by schools that serve the agenda of the ruling elite. There is no longer any need for compulsory attendance laws since the ruling class no longer believes that literacy is for everyone, the poor and the rich. In reality, the compulsory attendance laws are the linchpin in the plan for a socialist world government. Such laws have been used by every modern dictator to control the people and mold the minds of the children. Such laws are not only not needed in a free society, but ultimately lead to its demise.
The Blumenfeld Archives
FLAG DAY “I pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic …” – A Republic is where the citizens are co-kings! – American Minute with Bill Federer
FLAG DAY “I pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic …” – A Republic is where the citizens are co-kings!
Thirteen Stars and Thirteen Stripes.
It was on JUNE 14, 1777, that the Second Continental Congress selected the FLAG of the United States.
Our founders were in the midst of fighting an eight year long war to come out from under the dominion of the most powerful globalist king in world history.
After the Revolution, on JUNE 14, 1783, General George Washington sent a “Circular Letter” to the thirteen Governors of the newly independent states. He stated:
“I am now preparing to resign …
Before I carry this resolution into effect, I think it a duty … to make this my last official communication, to congratulate you on the glorious events which Heaven has been pleased to produce in our favor …
The Citizens of America are from this period to be considered as the actors of a most conspicuous theater, which seems to be particularly designed by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity …
Heaven has crowned all its other blessing, by giving a fairer opportunity for political happiness, than any other nation has ever been favored with …”
Washington continued with a warning:
“According to the system of policy the states shall adopt at this moment, they will stand or fall;
and by their confirmation or lapse, it is yet to be decided, whether the Revolution must ultimately be considered as a blessing or a curse …
not to the present age alone, for with our fate will the destiny of unborn millions be involved.”
Washington’s concern for “unborn millions” was indicative of the founders, who sacrificed prosperity for posterity.
This contrasted with later politicians who sacrifice posterity for prosperity, yoking future generations with unpayable debt and lawlessness.
John Adams wrote, April 26, 1777:
“Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it.
If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”
Washington concluded with an admonition to follow the example of “the Divine Author of our blessed religion”:
“I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the state over which you preside, in His holy protection;
that He would incline the hearts of the citizens … to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another … and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field;
and finally, that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy,
and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.”
In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson designated JUNE 14 as “NATIONAL FLAG DAY.”
“I … call your attention to the approach of the anniversary of the day upon which THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES was adopted by the Congress as the emblem of the Union …
I therefore … request that throughout the nation … the FOURTEENTH DAY of JUNE be observed as FLAG DAY with special patriotic exercises …
to give significant expressions to our thoughtful love of America, our comprehension of the great mission of liberty and justice … for an America which no man can corrupt, no influence draw away from its ideals, no force divide against itself …
Done at the City of Washington … in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen.”
Speaking of the Flag, President Calvin Coolidge stated May 31, 1926:
“Our condition today is not merely that of one people UNDER ONE FLAG, but of a thoroughly united people who have seen bitterness and enmity which once threatened to sever them pass away, and a spirit of kindness and good will reign over them all.”
President Calvin Coolidge stated May 25, 1924, at the Confederate Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia:
“It is the maintenance of our American ideals, BENEATH A COMMON FLAG, under the blessings of Almighty God … We know that Providence would have it so.”
President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated November 13, 1935:
“OUR FLAG for a century and a half has been the symbol of the principles of liberty of conscience, of religious freedom and equality before the law; and these concepts are deeply ingrained in our national character.”
During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated on FLAG DAY, JUNE 14, 1942:
“The belief in man, created free, in the image of God – is the crucial difference between ourselves and the enemies we face today …
… We ask the German people, still dominated by their Nazi whip-masters, whether they would rather have the mechanized hell of Hitler’s ‘New’ Order or – in place of that, freedom of speech and religion …
We ask the Japanese people, trampled by their savage lords of slaughter, whether they would rather continue slavery and blood or – in place of them, freedom of speech and religion …
We know that man, born to freedom in the image of God, will not forever suffer the oppressors’ sword …”
Roosevelt continued:
“I am going to close by reading you a prayer …
‘God of the free, we pledge our hearts and lives today to the cause of all free mankind.
Grant us victory over the tyrants who would enslave all free men and Nations …
Grant us patience with the deluded and pity for the betrayed …
Grant us … valor that shall cleanse the world of oppression and the old base doctrine that the strong must eat the weak because they are strong.'”
Mentioning the Flag, Yale President Ezra Stiles explained, May 8, 1783, that America is different from most of the other countries in world history, where people were dominated by power concentrated into the hands of deep state government leaders:
“That symbol of union, THE AMERICAN FLAG with it increasing stripes and stars, may have an equally combining efficacy for ages …
The senatorial constitution and consulate of the Roman Empire lasted from Tarquin — last Roman king, 509 BC — to Caesar — Roman dictator, 49 BC — …
The Assyrian endured without mutation through a tract of one thousand three hundred years from Semiramis — legendary ancient Babylonian queen — to Sardanapalus — alleged last Assyrian ruler, 627 BC — …
… Nor was the policy of Egypt overthrown for a longer period from the days of Metzraim — upper and lower Nile kingdoms, c.3,300 BC —
till the time of Cambyses — Persian conqueror of Egypt, 525 BC — and Amasis — last great Egpytian ruler, 526 BC — …
The Medo-Persian — 550-330 BC — and Alexandrine Empires — 356-323 BC –, and that of Timur — 1370-1405 AD –, who once reigned from Smyrna to the Indus, were … of short and transitory duration …
… Pragmatic sanction … secured the imperial succession in the House of Austria for ages — Habsburgs, 1020-1780 — …
Whatever mutations may arise in the United States, perhaps hereditary monarchy and a standing army will be the last.”
Ben Franklin warned June 2, 1787:
“There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh – get first all the people’s money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever …
There is a natural inclination in mankind to kingly government … I am apprehensive … that the government of the states may, in future times, end in a monarchy.”
Yale President Ezra Stiles continued:
“This great American revolution, this recent political phenomenon … will be … contemplated by all nations …
Navigation will carry THE AMERICAN FLAG around the globe itself; and display the thirteen stripes and new constellation at Bengal and Canton, on the Indus and Ganges, on the Whang-ho and the Yang-tse-kiang; and with commerce will import the wisdom and literature of the east …
That prophecy of Daniel is now literally fulfilling – there shall be a universal traveling to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
This knowledge will be brought home and treasured up in America: and being here digested and carried to the highest perfection, may re-blaze back from America to Europe, Asia and Africa, and illumine the world with truth and liberty …”
Ezra Stiles added:
“John Adams … observes — in letter from Amsterdam, April 28, 1782 — …
‘But the great designs of Providence must be accomplished …
The progress of society will be accelerated by centuries by this revolution …
American ideas of toleration and religious liberty … will become the fashionable system of Europe very soon. Light spreads from the Dayspring in the west — Luke 1:78 — ; and may it shine more and more until the perfect day — Proverbs 4:18 — …'”
Stiles concluded:
“The United States will embosom all the religious sects or denominations in Christendom …
The Presbyterian,
the Church of England …
the Unitas Fratrum … Moravian bishops …
Ancient Bohemian churches …
the Baptists,
the Friends — Quakers –,
the Lutherans,
the Romanists …
the Dutch,
and Gallic,
and German reformed or Calvinistic churches …
There is a Greek church brought from Smyrna …
There are Wesyans, Mennonites … all … who will give the religious complexion to America …
Episcopal … Greek and Armenian patriarchates …
With a most generous benevolence … of a friendly cohabitation of all sects in America, proving that men may be good members of civil society, and yet differ in religion …
Little would civilians have thought ages ago, that the world should ever look to America for models of government.”
President James Buchanan stated March 4, 1857:
“We ought to cultivate peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations … in a spirit of Christian benevolence toward our fellow-men …
The people, under the protection of THE AMERICAN FLAG, have enjoyed civil and religious liberty.”
In 1865, President Abraham Lincoln commented to State Senator James Scovel of New Jersey:
“If God gives me four years more to rule this country, I believe it will become what it ought to be – what its Divine Author intended it to be – no longer one vast plantation for breeding human beings for the purpose of lust and bondage.
But it will become a new Valley of Jehoshaphat — Joel 3:2, 12 –, where all the nations of the earth will assemble together UNDER ONE FLAG, worshiping a common God, and they will celebrate the resurrection of human freedom.”
When Lincoln died, President Andrew Johnson stated April 25, 1865:
“In order to mitigate that grief on earth which can only be assuaged by communion with the Father in heaven …
I … appoint … the 25th day of May next, to be observed, wherever in the United States THE FLAG OF THE COUNTRY may be respected, as a day of humiliation and mourning, and I recommend … citizens … assemble in their respective places of worship, there to unite in solemn service to Almighty God.”
President Rutherford B. Hayes noted in his diary that during the Civil War:
“Archbishop John Baptist Purcell strung THE AMERICAN FLAG, in the crisis of our fate, from the top of the Cathedral in Cincinnati April 16, 1861! The spire was beautiful before, but the Catholic prelate made it radiant with hope and glory for our country!”
When Rutherford B. Hayes died, President Benjamin Harrison described him, January 18, 1893:
“He was a patriotic citizen, a lover of THE FLAG and of our free institutions, an industrious and conscientious civil officer, a soldier of dauntless courage, a loyal comrade and friend, a sympathetic and helpful neighbor, and the honored head of a happy Christian home.”
President Andrew Johnson stated while serving as a Senator from Tennessee (The Life and Public Services of Andrew Johnson-State Papers, Speeches and Addresses, by John Savage, NY: Derby & Miller, 1866, p. 247, appendix p. 87, Jan. 31, 1862):
“Let us look forward to the time when we can take THE FLAG OF OUR COUNTRY and nail it below the Cross, and there let it wave as it waved in the olden times, and let us gather around it and inscribe for our motto: ‘Liberty and Union, one and inseparable, now and forever,’ and exclaim, ‘Christ first, our country next!'”
In dedicating the Oregon Trail, President Warren G. Harding stated July 3, 1923:
“Never in the history of the world has there been a finer example of civilization following Christianity.
The missionaries led under the banner of the Cross, and the settlers moved close behind under the STAR-SPANGLED SYMBOL OF THE NATION.”
President Benjamin Harrison stated July 21, 1892
“Let THE NATIONAL FLAG float over every schoolhouse in the country and the exercises be such as shall impress upon our youth the patriotic duties of American citizenship … Let there be expressions of gratitude to Divine Providence.”
On FLAG DAY, JUNE 14, 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower signed Public Law 396 adding the phrase “One Nation Under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance:
“Section 7. The following is designated as the Pledge of Allegiance to THE FLAG: ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’
Such pledge should be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart. However, civilians will always show full respect to the flag when the pledge is given by merely standing at attention, men removing the headdress. Persons in uniform shall render the military salute.”
President Eisenhower stood on the steps of the Capitol Building and recited the revised Pledge of Allegiance for the first time.
The Pledge of Allegiance was first written in 1892 by a Baptist minister from Boston named Francis Bellamy, who was ordained in the Baptist Church of Little Falls, New York.
Francis Bellamy was a member of the staff of The Youth’s Companion, which first published the Pledge on September 8, 1892, in Boston, Massachusetts.
Public-school children first recited it during the National School Celebration on the 400th anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of America, October 12, 1892, at the dedication of the 1892 Chicago World’s Fair.
The words “under God” were taken from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:
“… that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.”
In 1979, a publication approved by and printed under authority of Congress titled “The Capitol-A Pictorial History of the Capitol and of the Congress” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), p. 24, commented regarding the Pledge:
“This Pledge attests what has been true about America from the beginning. Faith in the transcendent, sovereign God was in the public philosophy – the American consensus. America’s story opened with the first words of the Bible, In the beginning God …
… We are truthfully one nation under God ‘and our institutions presuppose a Divine Being,’ wrote Justice William O. Douglas in 1966 …
Only a nation founded on theistic presupposition would adopt a first amendment to ensure the free exercise of all religions or of none.
The government would be neutral among the many denominations and no one church would become the state church.
But America and its institutions of government could not be neutral about God.”
On January 10, 1963, Democrat Congressman Albert Sydney Herlong Jr., of Florida, read into the Congressional Record the 45 communist goals for America, which included:
“… 12. Do away with all loyalty oaths …
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack …
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV …
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible …
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned …
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the ‘common man.’
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the ‘big picture’ …
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ‘united force’ to solve economic, political or social problems.”
The Founding Fathers, for all their human failings, gave a present to future Americans, namely, each citizen gets to determine their own destiny, in a sense, be the king of their own life, and then all citizens, together, are the king of the country.
The pledge is “to the Flag and to the Republic for which it stands.”
A “republic” is where the people are king, ruling the country through their public servants called representatives.
Kings have subjects, who are subjected to the king’s will.
Republics have citizens. The word “citizen” is Greek for co-ruler, co-sovereign, co-king.
When a person pledges allegiance to the Flag, they are pledging allegiance to us being in charge of ourselves. They are saying that we, the people, are the king, not some power-usurping totalitarian deep state dictator.
When someone protests the flag, they are effectively saying:
“I don’t want to be the king anymore, I protest this system where I participate in ruling myself, I would rather relinquish authority over my life to deep-state government bureaucrats.”
Whether they fully realize it or not, those who dishonor the flag are effectively rejecting:
- equality before the law,
- freedom of speech,
- freedom of conscience,
- freedom of religion, and
- inalienable rights from the Creator.
“Kneeling” is the universal sign of surrender.
Old Testament believers, such as Daniel, or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, would rather be thrown into the lion’s den or into the fiery furnace than kneel to something other than God.
Early Christian believers would rather be martyred in the Roman Colosseum than kneel to something other than God.
At the Dodger versus Giants baseball game, July 23, 2020, Giants pitcher Sam Coonrod was to only player not to kneel.
When asked why, Coonrod stated: “I’m a Christian, so I just believe that I can’t kneel before anything besides God.”
The Christian Post reported, August 3, 2020:
“Orlando Magic forward Jonathan Isaac was the lone player to stand during the national anthem …
He cited the Gospel later when asked to explain his reasoning.
‘I don’t think that kneeling … for me, personally, is the answer … For me, black lives are supported through the Gospel, all lives are supported through the Gospel. My life has been supported by the Gospel …
Everyone is made in the image of God and we all share in His glory …'”
Isaac continued:
“We all make mistakes but I think the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that there’s grace for us and that Jesus came and died for our sins, and that we all will come to an understanding of that and that God wants to have a relationship with us.”
The 6’11” NBA Player Jonathan Isaac concluded:
“We all fall short of God’s glory, and at the end of the day, whoever will humble themselves and seek God and repent their sins, then we could see our mistakes and people’s mistakes and people’s evil in a different light,
and that it would help bring us closer together and get past skin color, get past anything that’s on the surface that doesn’t really deal with the hearts of men and women.”
One of the first Gospel songs that nearly all children in America were taught, was:
“Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world.
Red, and yellow, black, and white,
They are precious in His sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world.”
On CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, February 1, 2019, singer Gladys Knight-the Empress of Soul, explained why she was going to sing the National Anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner, at Super Bowl 53:
“As far as this is concerned, I grew up with the national anthem … We used to sing it in school before school started.
We used to say prayers in school before school started, and we just don’t have that anymore and I’m just — I’m just hoping that it will be about our country and how we treat each other and being the great country that we are.”
On the Great Seal of the United States is the Latin phrase E Pluribus Unum, which means “Out of many, one.”
Though there are many sources for this phrase, one is that of Roman statesman Cicero, who, in De Officiis, described basic family and social bonds as the origin of society:
“When each person loves the other as much as himself, it makes one out of many — unum fiat ex Pluribus– .”
Further back, this concept was written in Leviticus 19:17-18:
“You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.”
The opposite of this is the Latin phrase divide et impera, meaning “divide and rule” or “divide and conquer.”
This concept was utilize throughout history, such as: Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, Philip II of Macedon, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, Niccolò Machiavelli, British in India, Napoleon in Europe, and others.
On a biological level, an autoimmune disease is a disease where the body attacks itself.
On a “body politic” level, this is happening in America, a type of cultural autoimmune disease, where citizens are taught to attack their own country.
Eleanor Roosevelt is credited with saying:
“Pit race against race, religion against religion, prejudice against prejudice. Divide and conquer! We must not let that happen here.”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who spent eleven years in socialist gulag labor camps, warned in a speech titled “Godlessness: the First Step to the Gulag,” May 10, 1983:
“Western societies are losing more and more of their religious essence as they thoughtlessly yield up their younger generation to atheism …
Atheist teachers in the West are bringing up a younger generation in a spirit of hatred of their own society.”
Attorney Chris Banescu, a regular contributor to OrthodoxyToday.org, wrote July 18, 2011:
“As a survivor of the Communist Holocaust I am horrified to witness how my beloved America, my adopted country, is gradually being transformed into a secularist and atheistic utopia, where communist ideals are glorified and promoted, while …
God has been progressively erased from our public and educational institutions …
Those of us who have experienced and witnesses first-hand the atrocities and terror of communism understand fully why such evil takes root, how it grows and deceives, and the kind of hell it will ultimately unleash …
Godlessness is always the first step towards tyranny and oppression!”
Emphasizing America’s dedication to God, President Eisenhower stated on Flag Day, June 14, 1954:
“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.
… To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than … this re-dedication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country’s true meaning …
… In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war.”
—
American Minute is a registered trademark of William J. Federer. Permission granted to forward, reprint, or duplicate.
—
Image Credits: Public Domain; Description: 140th U.S. Flag Day poster 1777-1917; The birthday of the stars and stripes, June 14th, 1917, ‘Tis the Star Spangled Banner, oh, long may it wave, o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!” Library of Congress description: “Poster showing a man raising the American flag, with a minuteman cheering and an eagle flying above”; Date: 1917; Source: US-LibraryOfCongress-BookLogo.svg ; United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID cph.3g06262 ; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Flag_Day_poster_1917.jpg
The Weekly Sam: Christianity Versus Islam By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
Because we live in such a highly secularized society, we cannot believe that America could ever become involved in a religious war in this day and age. Yet ferocious religious wars have been going on all over the place: in Northern Ireland, in Israel, in the Balkans, in Sudan, in India, in Kashmir, and in Russia. But history is a very harsh taskmaster and refuses to let us Americans escape into our secular fantasies and liberal hot houses for long. Thus, it is vitally important for us to reconnect with the human race’s never ending history of religious struggle. That a group of Islamic terrorists, trained in a remote war-torn, famine ridden, hellhole in Asia, could organize the kind of mind-boggling attack against America that took place on September 11, 2001, means that America is not only not exempt from history, but has been dragged kicking and screaming back into the middle of it.
Back in 1588, Christopher Marlowe, master of historical drama, wrote his famous Tamburlaine. In it there is a fascinating scene in which the Christian King Sigismund of Hungary and Orcanes, the Muslim King of Natolia, both former enemies, decide to establish peace between them in order to join forces to defeat Tamberlaine the Great, the cruel, pagan conqueror of Asia. Both men confirm their commitment with an oath. King Sigismund vows: By Him that made the world and saved my soul, The Son of God and issue of a maid, Sweet Jesus Christ, I solemnly protest And vow to keep this peace inviolable! King Orcanes vows: By sacred Mohamet, the friend of God, Whose holy Alcoran remains with us, Whose Glorious body, when he left the world, Closed in a coffin mounted up the air, And hung on stately Mecca’s temple-roof, I swear to keep this truce inviolable! But as the story goes, it was King Sigismund who later broke the truce and was defeated and killed by the Muslims.
While the history of the struggle between Christians and Muslims for control of Europe was for a time settled after the Muslims were expelled from Spain in 1492 and driven back from the gates of Vienna to Asia and Africa, the Islamic enclaves that remained in the Balkans led to the recent wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Serbs had considered themselves as the Christian bulwark against further Islamic incursions in Europe, and therefore could not understand why they were being bombed by fellow Europeans and Americans. You had to know history to understand what Bosnia and Kosovo were all about and what bin Laden’s men were doing in the Balkans. That conflict proved that the war between Christianity and Islam has never ended. Over the ages, it simply took on different forms. The rise of European power put a lid on Islamic ambitions and the Muslim world became the backwater of history until the discovery of oil in the twentieth century. But in the nineteenth century, the Islamic Barbary states of North Africa could still make trouble for the Infidel. They took possession of American and European commercial vessels, held their crews for ransom, and enslaved other Christians. Our first war after independence was fought during the Jefferson administration against the Muslim pirates and kidnappers of Tripolitania. It is known in the history books as the Barbary War, in which U.S. Marines staged their first invasion of foreign soil. Hence, the Marine anthem: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.”
In order to finally put an end to the piracy and barbarism coming out of North Africa, France decided to take over Algeria. During the 1830s and 1840s, the French imposed their rule over the territory, encouraging Europeans to settle there. The result was a flourishing French colony and an end to Barbary piracy. France maintained order in North Africa until the end of World War II, when the anti-colonialist movement got underway. Both liberals and communists joined in forcing the European powers to give up their colonies. In Algeria, however, over a million Europeans had settled in the territory and the coastal departments were considered an integral part of France. However, when Charles de Gaulle gained power at the height of the Algerian uprising, he decided that France should quit Algeria because the Moslems could never become true Frenchmen. And so, France abandoned Algeria, and a million Europeans took to the boats. Today, the invasion has been reversed. Five million Muslims, mostly Algerians, live in France. They make up ten percent of the population and are part of the resurgent Islamic power in Europe. Christianity is now so weak in France that one wonders if it is capable of resisting the assumption of Islamic power. We have been told by our leaders and the media that we are not at war against the Islamic religion. We are at war against terrorism.
But what they all prefer not to recognize is that the spiritual power behind that terrorism, the power that drives otherwise intelligent human beings to undertake suicidal missions against the infidel is the religion of Islam. Of course, there are millions of Muslims who just want to lead normal lives. Unfortunately, after September 11, 2001, nothing is “normal” anymore. In an alarming article in the November issue of Commentary magazine, Daniel Pipes contends that Islamist militants are serious about their plan to conquer America. He writes: The first missionaries for militant Islam, or Islamism, who arrived here from abroad in the 1920’s, unblushingly declared, “Our plan is, we are going to conquer America.” The audacity of such statements hardly went unnoticed at the time, including by Christians who cherished their own missionizing hopes. As a 1922 newspaper commentary put it: To the millions of American Christians who have so long looked eagerly forward to the time the cross shall be supreme in every land and the people of the whole world shall have become the followers of Christ, the plan to win the continent to the path of the “infidel Turk” will seem a thing unbelievable. But there is no doubt about its being pressed with all the fanatical zeal for which the Mohammedans are noted. Pipes writes further: As a teacher at an Islamic school in Jersey City, near New York, explains, the “short-term goal is to introduce Islam. In the long term, we must save American society.” Step by step, writes a Pakistan-born professor of economics, by offering “an alternative model” to Americans, Muslims can transform what Ismail Al-Faruqi referred to as “the unfortunate realities of North America” into something acceptable in God’s eyes. The irony in all of this is stunning.
For years the Christian right has been trying to get Americans to live godly lives, but with very limited success. The fact that 85% of American parents put their children in pagan public schools is an indication of how strong our liberal secular culture is. It controls the curriculum in our schools and universities. It controls most of the print media, the electronic media, and most of what comes out of Hollywood. And American schools are now teaching American children all about Islam. While the Bible has been eliminated from the classroom, apparently the Koran hasn’t. How else can you teach about Islam? Recently, the Reverend Franklin Graham, president of Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian relief agency, called Islam “wicked and violent.” He said, “I don’t believe this is a wonderful, peaceful religion. When you read the Koran and you read the verses from the Koran, it instructs the killing of the infidel, for those that are non-Muslim.” As the son of Billy Graham, Franklin is the designated successor to his father’s longtime evangelical ministry. He delivered the benediction at Bush’s inauguration. But now he’s in trouble with the White House, which sponsored a Ramadan dinner for 50 ambassadors from Islamic countries with a traditional meal and prayer. Also, the Muslim chaplain of Georgetown University recently officiated at the opening prayers of the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill.
The moral seems to be that if Islamist terrorists bomb the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and kill 5,000 Americans, other Islamists get invited to the White House for a special dinner prepared to their specifications: no pork. Now that Americans are being invited to be kind to Muslims, where will all of this lead? Graham said, “It wasn’t Methodists flying into those buildings, it wasn’t Lutherans. It was an attack on this country by people of the Islamic faith.” And that’s why the latter are now favored guests at the White House! Of course, the President is doing this to keep the Islamic states in line while we war against the terrorists which these states harbor. But if we are being encouraged by our born-again President to be kind to our Muslim neighbors, shouldn’t Christians see this as a missionary opportunity? Why not introduce Muslims to the loving grace of Jesus Christ? One of the reasons why Americans find it difficult to become friendly with Muslims is because sooner or later their rabid hatred of Israel will surface. Americans in general don’t like to hate anybody, and they are uncomfortable with people who are haters. Christianity preaches love. Islam preaches hate. That is why hatred of Israel fills the psyche of so many Muslims. Abnormal, pathological hatred is not healthy. It requires constant energy to be sustained at the level it exists among Muslims. And that is why life is so miserable in many Islamic countries. And that is why Palestinian refugees have preferred to remain in refugee camps for 50 years rather than do something constructive with their lives. They prefer to live with festering, enduring hatred, and teach it to their children, rather than accept forgiveness and peace.
No true Christian could ever waste his life that way. Yet, the United Nations aid agency accepts these refugee camps as perfectly normal for the Arab Muslims. After World War II, millions of displaced persons found new constructive lives in countries all over the world. But in the Middle East, Palestinian hatred is used to torment the world about Israel. It is to be hoped that one of the first things the new government of Afghanistan might do is recognize Israel and establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. It would signal a dramatic change in the attitude of Muslims toward Israel. Indeed, let us be loving and concerned with the well-being of our Muslim citizens, and let us convey to them that Jesus will save them from their sickening hatred and grant them life renewed. Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of eight books on education, including NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, How to Tutor, Alpha-Phonics: A Primer for Beginning Readers, and Homeschooling: A Parent’s Guide to Teaching Children. All of these books are available on Amazon.com
(The above article came from the Sam Blumenfeld Archives http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm
The Blumenfeld Archives
Christian Flag Case Continues Ripple Effect on Governments News Release from Liberty Counsel
In Clearwater, Florida, Mayor Bruce Rector stated that the city will host events and a proclamation for “pride month” but have ended the practice of switching out the city flag at the downtown Municipal Services Building. Rector said that it could create “a slippery slope” with the city making judgment calls on groups that may “ask for the gesture in the future.”
The city council banned the “pride flag” in Hamtramck, Michigan on public property after debate on LGBTQ+ discrimination and religion due to the “beliefs of some members of their faith.” The council voted to display only five flags: the American Flag, the Michigan flag, and the countries of immigrant residents.
In Downey, California, the city council voted 3-2 to adopt a “neutral” flag policy allowing only the United States flag, the state flag, the city flag, and the POW/MIA flag.
Even though Huntington Beach, California had previously flown the rainbow flag during “Pride month” during the last two years, voters approved a measure that restricts all non-government flags from being flown on city property and only allows that the American flag, the State of California flag, the County of Orange flag, the City of Huntington Beach flag, the POW-MIA flag, the six Armed Forces flags and the Olympic flag during the Summer Olympic Games may be flown on government flagpoles.
Mayor Randy Taylor of Salisbury, Maryland decided against the city taking part in raising a rainbow flag, an annual tradition marking the start of “Pride month.” Taylor stated the decision was based on being “fair” and “transparent.” He said, “Neutrality is not to be interpreted as anything else but simply that — being neutral.”
In Boonton, New Jersey, the city council recently approved an ordinance which significantly restricts the types of flags permitted to fly over municipal property. Under the new rules, only the American flag, state and county flags, and military flags or Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flags are allowed.
The city council in Dover, New Jersey also recently voted to restrict flags on city property to just the U.S. flag, state and POW-MIA flags. Major James Dodd stated the city wanted to avoid having to “pick and choose” which community organizations would be permitted to fly flags above Town Hall.
In Enfield, Connecticut, the town council voted 6-5 last January to only allow the American flag, Connecticut state flag, POW/MIA flag, and military branch flags. The interim town’s attorney, Tom Tyler, said the decision protects the town from unnecessary lawsuits from organizations or individuals wanting to fly flags on town owned property and forbids town flagpoles from being used as public forums of free speech.
In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, the High Court stated because the government admitted it censored the Christian flag because it was referred to as a Christian flag on the application, the censorship was viewpoint discrimination, and therefore the government was not taking part in establishing a religion by flying the flag.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Shurtleff focused in part on “government speech” and “ownership of expression.” The ruling stated that when the government opens a forum for expression to the public (such as a flagpole), then the First Amendment prevents viewpoint discrimination.
The Shurtleff and Coach Kennedy cases resulted in the Supreme Court overturning the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman case, which for 51 years distorted the First Amendment Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech Clauses.
Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The clear message from the Supreme Court is that government cannot favor one viewpoint and censor another. To avoid litigation and an unfavorable ruling like the City of Boston received, governments should stick with government flags. If they veer away from government flags, be warned that viewpoint censorship can be a costly mistake.”
For more information on Shurtleff v. City of Boston, visit www.LC.org/flag.
Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.
The Weekly Sam: Are Compulsory School Attendance Laws Good for America? By Samuel Blumenfeld
Should a child be forced to attend a public school that will turn him into a functional illiterate? Since no public school will guarantee that a child will be taught to read in a manner that will help him achieve high literacy, why should a parent send a child to that kind of school? Indeed, why should compulsory school attendance laws force parents to do something that wil1 harm their children? It is assumed by the vast majority of Americans that the issue of compulsory school attendance is a settled matter, part and parcel of every civilized nation-state, and a prerequisite of a democratic society. We all acknowledge that a representative form of government requires an educated electorate for its survival. But what happens when that government’s schools no longer know how to teach children to read and write, when those schools turn children not into civilized citizens, but into barbarians? What happens when millions of parents feel compelled to remove their children from government schools in order to make sure that their children do get an education? What happens is that the basic premises of compulsory attendance and government education come into question.
The glaring fact is that despite our compulsory attendance laws, we now have more illiteracy and more ignorance among Americans than before such laws were enacted. The first compulsory school attendance law was passed in Massachusetts in 1852 and by 1918 every state in the Union had such a law. Yet, the fact is that these laws have merely increased the amount of time children spend in school, not the amount of learning or knowledge they acquire. The Way It Was To find out how much better educated Americans were before compulsory attendance laws and government schools existed, all we have to do is read DuPont de Nemours’ fascinating little book, National Education in the United States of America, published in 1812. He writes: “The United States are more advanced in their educational facilities than most countries.
They have a large number of primary schools; and as their paternal affection protects children from working in the fields, it is possible to send them to the school-master–a condition which does not prevail in Europe. “Most young Americans, therefore, can read, write and cipher. Not more than four in a thousand arc unable to write legi bly–even neatly . . “England, Holland, the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland more nearly approach the standard of the United States, because in those countries the Bible is read; it is considered a duty to read it to children; and in that form of religion the sermons and liturgy in the language of the people tend to increase and formulate ideas of responsibility. Controversy also has developed argumentation and has thus given room for the exercise of logic. “In America, a great number of people read the Bible, and all the people read a newspaper. The fathers read aloud to their children while breakfast is being prepared–a task which occupies the mothers for three quarters of an hour every morning. And as the newspapers of the United States are filled with all sorts of narratives… they disseminate an enormous amount of information.” Obviously, back in the very early days of this republic, education was a family affair closely connected to religious practice.
A nation built on Biblical principles had to be a highly literate one. In addition, all of this education was achieved without any government involvement, without any centralized educational bureaucracy, without any professors of education, or accrediting agencies or teacher certification. And, most significantly, without any compulsory attendance laws. The Way It Is Contrast that happy picture of complete educational freedom and high literacy with the present situation in which the State has assigned the function of educator, at great expense to the taxpayer, with all sorts of laws and regulations forcing the population to patronize a system that is turning out functional illiterates by the millions. According to an article in the Spring 1989 issue of Education Canada, published by the Canadian Education Association: “It is currently estimated that one million Canadians are almost totally illiterate and another four million are termed ‘functionally illiterate.’ In the United States these figures are estimated respectively at 26 million and 60 million.” Both Canada and the United States have had compulsory attendance laws for decades. The purpose of these laws was to make certain that every child was educated. The laws were particularly aimed at the children of the poor, and yet it is they who have suffered the most at the hands of government education.
Even Secretary of Education Cavazos, in 1989, admitted in the frankest terms that the government education system was failing the American people. In his sixth annual report card on American schools, he repeated the well-known litany of failures that still plague American education: declining SAT scores, declining interest in math and science, declining literacy, and a soaring dropout rate in Washington, DC. He said that we were still wallowing in a ”tide of mediocrity,” and that “we must do better or perish as the nation we know today.” Has anything changed since 1989? Yes, it has all gotten worse. In fact, it was an alarming report on American literacy issued in 2007 by the National Endowment for the Arts that informed Americans that the reading problem had deteriorated further since Secretary Cavazos issued his own alarming assessment. The chairman of the Endowment, Dana Gioia, stated: ‘This is a massive social problem. We are losing the majority of the new generation. They will not achieve anything close to their potential because of poor reading.” The Endowment report revealed that the number of 17-year-olds who never read for pleasure increased from 9 percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 2004. Almost half of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 never read books for pleasure. Why? Because reading has become a painful, tortuous exercise that they wish to avoid. The simple truth is that literacy is not at all difficult to achieve, provided the schools use the right phonetic teaching methods. Indeed, the home-school movement has already proven that parents can actually do a better job of teaching reading than our high-priced professionals. It has also been shown that children progress better academically when taught at home, and that the cost of educating a child at home is less than $1,000 a year. So why do we need compulsory attendance laws? We need them so that the ruling liberal elite can dumb down the population and make sure they can’t read. For proof of this, listen to the words of
Professor Anthony G. Oettinger of Harvard University, given in a lecture to an audience of Telecom executives in 1982: “The present ‘traditional’ concept of literacy has to do with the ability to read and write. But the real question that confronts us today is: How do we help citizens function well in their society? How can they acquire the skills necessary to solve their problems? “Do we, for example, really want to teach people to do a lot of sums or write in ‘a fine round hand’ when they have a five-dollar hand-held calculator or a word processor to work with? Or do we really have to have everybody literate–writing and reading in the traditional sense–when we have the means through our technology to achieve a new flowering of oral communication? “What is speech recognition and speech synthesis all about if it does not lead to ways of reducing the burden on the individual of the imposed notions of literacy that were a product of nineteenth century economics and technology? “It is the traditional idea that says certain forms of communication, such as comic books are ‘bad.’ But in the modem context of functionalism, they may not be all that bad.” I doubt that there are any parents in America who send their children to school to learn to read comic books. If anything, they want their children to be taught to read and write in the traditional manner.
They don’t consider learning to read as a “burden imposed on the individual.” Rather, if taught in the proper phonetic manner, learning to read becomes a joyful experience for children eager to expand the use of their minds and language. Although the compulsory attendance laws were enacted to make sure that everyone learned to read, their new application by the likes of Professor Oettinger and his liberal colleagues is to make sure that the population can be controlled and manipulated by schools that serve the agenda of the ruling elite. There is no longer any need for compulsory attendance laws since the ruling class no longer believes that literacy is for everyone, the poor and the rich. In reality, the compulsory attendance laws are the linchpin in the plan for a socialist world government. Such laws have been used by every modern dictator to control the people and mold the minds of the children. Such laws are not only not needed in a free society, but ultimately lead to its demise.
(This article is from the Sam Blumenfeld Archives. Please visit and join: https://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/
The Blumenfeld Archives