The idea that people needed to be educated about sex probably began with the founding
of the birth control movement by Margaret Sanger, who launched a crusade early in the
20th Century to provide women with birth control information. It was Sanger’s work as a
visiting nurse that turned her interest to sex education and women’s health. Influenced
by anarchist Emma Goldman, she began to advocate the need for family limitation as a
means by which working-class women could liberate themselves from the burden of
In 1914, Sanger published the first issue of The Woman Rebel, which advocated militant
feminism and the right to practice birth control. She also wrote a 16-page pamphlet,
Family Limitation, which provided explicit instructions on the use of contraceptive
methods. In August 1914, Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws. She
jumped bail in October and set sail for England.
In England she became acquainted with a number of British radicals, feminists, and Neo-Malthusians whose social and economic theories helped her develop broader scientific
and social justifications for birth control. She was also deeply influenced by psychologist
Havelock Ellis and his theories on female sexuality and free love.
In 1915, Sanger returned to the United States. The government’s case against her was
dropped. In 1916, she opened the nation’s first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New
York. After nine days of operation, the clinic was raided, and Sanger and staff were
arrested. She spent 30 days in jail. However, the publicity surrounding the clinic
provided Sanger with a base of wealthy supporters from which she began to build an
organized birth control movement.
In 1917, Sanger published a new monthly, the Birth Control Review, and in 1921 she
embarked on a campaign to win mainstream support for birth control by founding the
American Birth Control League, the forerunner of Planned Parenthood. She focused her
efforts on gaining support from the medical profession, social workers, and the liberal
wing of the eugenics movement. Havelock Ellis had converted her to the eugenics creed.
She saw birth control as a means of reducing genetically transmitted mental or physical
defects, and supported sterilization for the mentally incompetent. She advocated “more
children for the fit, less from the unfit-that is the chief issue of birth control.”
In 1922, Sanger married oil magnate James Noah H. Slee, thus insuring her financial
independence. Slee, who died in 1943, became the main funder of the birth control
movement. By connecting with the eugenics movement, Sanger was able to gain the
backing of some of America’s wealthiest people.
In 1930, Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem with the approval of the
Negro leadership, including communist W.E.B. DuBois. Beginning in 1939, DuBois also
served on the advisory council for Sanger’s ”Negro Project.” The financial support of
Albert and Mary Lasker made the project possible. In 1966, the year Sanger died, the
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “There is a striking kinship between our movement
and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts.”
From the end of World War II to the present, Planned Parenthood has become the world’s
largest enterprise promoting birth control and abortion. In 1960, the Food and Drug
Administration approved the sale of the birth control pill. In 1961 President Kennedy
defined population growth as a “staggering” problem and formerly endorsed reproductive
research to make new knowledge and methods available worldwide.
In 1961, a Conference on Religion and the Family brought together the medical director
of Planned Parenthood, the director of the National Council of Churches of Christ, and
the leader of the marriage counseling movement in the United States. Out of that meeting
came the idea for creating SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of
the United States. It was Dr. Mary Calderone, one of the founders, who introduced the
concept of sexuality in 1964. It encompassed much more than the biological meaning of
sex. Thus, sexuality education replaced the term sex education to emphasize its more
A SIECUS Report (Vol. 27, No.4) states: “In February 1999, SIECUS conducted a
public poll on our Internet site to ask the general public who had the greatest impact in
bringing about a positive change in the way America understands and affirms sexuality.
The top ten, chosen from a list of 100, were Judy Blume, Mary Calderone, Ellen
DeGeneres, Joycelyn Elders, Hugh Hefner, Anita Hill, Magic Johnson, Madonna, Gloria
Steinhem, and Ruth Westheirner. They represent diverse perspectives and views, and
each has helped American think about sexuality in a new and different way.”
Getting back to our chronology, in 1963, the U.N. General Assembly approved a
resolution on population growth and economic development. In that same year, the U.S.
government established the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD). Part of its mandate was to support and oversee research in reproductive
science and contraceptive development.
In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut ruled that
Connecticut’s law prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples violated a
newly defined right of marital privacy. As a result, ten states liberalized their family
planning laws and began to provide family planning services with tax funds.
In 1969 the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as the
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, was founded.
In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Services Act, which provided
support and funding for family planning services and educational programs and for
biomedical and behavioral research in reproduction and contraceptive development. Title
X also authorized funding for a Center for Population Research within NICHD. This
marked the first time Congress had ever voted for a separate authorization of family
In that same year, New York state enacted the most progressive abortion law in the
nation, and Planned Parenthood of Syracuse, New York, became the first affiliate to offer
abortion services. In 1973, Humanist Manifesto II was published. It advocated a doctrine of sexual freedom
that clearly clashed with traditional views of sex. The Manifesto states: “In the area of
sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and
puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion,
and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitative denigrating
forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction,
sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration
should not in themselves be considered ‘evil.’ Without countenancing mindless
permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one.
Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be
permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire ….
Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and
sexual maturity.” Among the signers of the Manifesto was Alan F. Guttmacher,
President of Planned Parenthood.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the constitutional right of
privacy extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, thereby legalizing abortion
throughout the United States. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of
Central Missouri v. Danforth struck down state requirements for parental and spousal
consent for abortion and set aside a state prohibition against saline abortions.
In 1976, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, named after Planned Parenthood’s president,
published 11 Million Teenagers, the first nationally distributed document to focus
attention on the problem of teen pregnancy and childbearing in the United States.
In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court found the Massachusetts statute restricting minors’
access to abortion unconstitutional. It ruled that if states required minors to obtain
parental consent for an abortion, they must also give minors the alternative of obtaining
the consent of a judge, in confidential proceedings and without first notifying their
In 1981, the Alan Guttmacher Institute published Teenage Pregnancy: The Problem that
Hasn’t Gone Away, an analysis of teen sexuality, contraceptive knowledge and use, and
pregnancy experience. It emphasizes the need for making confidential contraceptive
services accessible to sexually active teens. In 1982, Planned Parenthood published “Sexuality Alphabet,” as tool for sex education.George Grant, in his book, Grand illusions, writes of this publication: “Planned
Parenthood’s sex education programs and materials are brazenly perverse. They are
frequently accentuated with crudely obscene four-letter words and illustrated by
explicitly ribald nudity. They openly endorse aberrant behavior-homosexuality,
masturbation, fornication, incest, and even bestiality-and then they describe that
behavior in excruciating detail.”
In 1953, staffer Lena Levine wrote in Planned Parenthood News: “Our goal is to be ready
as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage.
By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt.”
In 1985, the Alan Guttmacher Institute published its report on Teen Pregnancy in
Industrialized Countries, indicating that the u.S. teen pregnancy rate of 96 per 1,000 is
the highest in the developed world. A two-year study by the National Academy of
Sciences agreed with the AGI study and concluded that “prevention of adolescent
pregnancy should have the highest priority,” and “making contraceptive methods
available and accessible to those who are sexually active and encouraging them to
diligently use these methods is the surest major strategy for pregnancy prevention.”
In 1970, fewer than half of the nation’s school districts offered sex education curricula
and none had school-based birth control clinics. In 1998, more than seventy-five percent
of the districts teach sex education and there are more than one hundred clinics in
operation. Yet the percentage of illegitimate births has only increased during that time,
from a mere fifteen percent to an astonishing fifty-one percent. In California, the public
schools have required sex education for more than thirty years, and yet the state has
maintained one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the nation. (Grant, p. 128)
Meanwhile, the AIDS epidemic, which began with eleven cases in 1979, had grown to
24,000 cases in 1986. In 1993, the number of cases was up to 339,250.
By 1987, Planned Parenthood had become the world’s largest non-government provider
of family planning services. It had also become politically active, joining more than 250
civil rights, civil liberties, religious, labor, education, legal, environmental, health, and
feminist groups that opposed the appointment of conservative Judge Robert Bork to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
This speech was give in 2000
Sign up for the Sam Blumenfeld Archives:
Instead, Meckler deceives Republicans by playing the victim to leftist, globalist billionaire George Soros. Since April 2017, COSP operatives have spread the false narrative that Soros has declared war on them. But in fact, backers of COSP are on the same side as Soros in their quest to rewrite our Constitution at an Article V convention AKA “constitutional convention,” “con-con,” or “convention of states.”2
What seems to have triggered the “George Soros is against us” fabrication was a letter signed by over 200 national, state and local leftist organizations released by Common Cause on Good Friday 2017. The letter urged state legislators to oppose efforts by convention proponents asking Congress to call an Article V convention, and to rescind all previously passed Article V convention applications from their states.
After the Good Friday letter was released, Meckler sprang into action. He accused Soros of being behind the effort against him, implying the left-leaning groups were receiving Soros money for the purpose of defeating COSP. No one pushed back. So convention operatives became more and more brazen with their false claim. By July 2017, former US Senator Jim DeMint, who is on Meckler’s payroll, declared with conviction on Red-eye Radio3 that “George Soros and all of the liberal groups” had signed the Good Friday letter. Not true, but COSP’s purpose was served. Who would bother to verify it?
In fact, in addition to Soros, there are hundreds of progressive groups that didn’t sign the letter. The Left, as well as the Right, is split on this issue; and Soros money is widely distributed among leftist organizations. Conspicuously missing as a cosigner of the Good Friday letter is Wolf-PAC, the radical group that is leading the national charge from the Left in promoting an Article V convention. Move to Amend (MTA) is a coalition of hundreds of radical leftist groups formed to promote an amendment to the US Constitution to overturn the Citizens United decision. Most MTA-affiliated groups don’t oppose the convention method 4 of amending the Constitution and, therefore, didn’t sign the Good Friday letter.
Like Meckler’s globalist backers from the phony Right, Soros is linked to promoting Article V convention applications all over the country from the radical Left, with his money on Wolf-PAC and its media arm, Young Turks. HERE Soros is given credit for Wolf-PAC’s 2014 success in Vermont, the first state to ask Congress to call an Article V convention, ostensibly to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and to limit political speech. And that effort continues today.5 Wolf-PAC and Young Turks were both founded by Cenk Uygur; Young Turks has been identified as part of Soros’s Media Consortium.
At times COSP adds other progressive bugaboos to the mix, including Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and anyone else that might elicit a knee-jerk reaction of revulsion in diehard Republicans. HERE COSP ally and talk show host, Mark Levin, dissects a Hillary Clinton recording. First, Levin announces that Clinton is worried about a “convention of states.” He then cuts to 20 seconds of Clinton alluding to a “constitutional convention.” Ironically, COSP operatives also claim to be opposed to a “constitutional convention” which they falsely claim is different than a “convention of states.“ Levin had to put words in Clinton’s mouth and defy his own twisted logic in order to set up Clinton as an archenemy of COSP to “prove” to Hillary-loathing Republicans that Levin is on the side of goodness and truth.
Meckler has added the “Soros-is-against-us” mantra to his repertoire, appearing to believe it himself. Meckler often invokes George Soros rather than answering hard-hitting objections to an Article V convention. For example, when cornered on Fox News’ Steve Hilton show by conservative pundits Jason Chaffetz and Tomi Lahren on July 29, 2018 (at 5:24), Meckler goes for the jugular with an emotional, albeit false assertion: “I would ask Jason and Tomi if they understand who they’re standing with. Every single radical leftist Marxist communist group in America has stood against us. Soros, Hillary Clinton personally has spoken out against us…”Meanwhile COSP claims they have a “non-partisan solution to a bi-partisan problem.” Go figure.
In this deceptive video, amid ominous background music, COSP contends that Soros-funded organizations have been “caught on camera” lobbying legislators to oppose Article V convention applications. Laughably, COSP’s “proof” of a supposed conspiracy against them is two individual presenters from two liberal organizations in two states; each of whom used similar language testifying against COSP legislation. That’s likely because COSP has been introducing largely identically-worded applications6 in almost every state for the past five years! You can be sure that in those states where hearings were held, testimony supporting COSP applications would sound like an echo chamber if spliced together as well.
Committee hearings are often recorded and archived online by legislatures. This promotes public access and transparency in government. It is ludicrous to associate public testimony with the phrase “caught on camera,” which is reminiscent of treachery and hot mics.
Two-thirds-plus respondents, depending upon the state polled, said they favored a “convention of states,” a term the poll failed to define. In Iowa, the result jumped 36.7% in favor of a convention in just the few minutes between the first and fourth questions! COSP wasn’t shy about disseminating survey results in speeches, interviews, and well-placed articles disguised as news items in states debating COSP legislation.
Published polls, paid for by clients with agendas, generally yield the results the client wants. Otherwise, the polls, owned by the client, wouldn’t see the light of day. Poll results are determined by the questions asked, among other factors. Garbage in, garbage out.Respondents to the COSP-commissioned poll were first asked their opinion (favor/oppose) on whether their state should join other states in calling for a “convention to propose constitutional amendments that limit federal power.” Next, they were asked their opinion of a “constitutional amendment to limit federal spending.” Then they were asked their opinion about “placing term limits on members of Congress and/or federal judges.” Finally, respondents were asked their opinion of their state “calling for a convention of states to propose constitutional amendments that limit federal spending, limit federal power, and establish term limits for members of Congress and/or federal judges.” 8 (Emphasis mine).
But these are trick questions!The poll questions conceal the fact that Delegates to an Article V convention can’t be limited or bound by subject. Delegates to a convention will have more power than state legislatures, Congress or the President.9 They can write their own rules. And they’ll be able to propose (or not propose) any amendments they like; or rewrite or replace our Constitution, if they so choose. So, respondents were surveyed using irrelevant questions akin to a magician’s trick of drawing audience attention to one thing (the subject of the amendments) while distracting it from another (the dangers of a convention). In addition to omitting the risks of a convention, the questions omit that our problems arise from long-standing violations of our Constitution – and that we can’t fix violations of our Constitution by amending our Constitution. Poll results most certainly would have been flipped had these caveats been incorporated into the questions.
How can a few short, flawed multiple-choice questions fed to random voters measure informed opinion and ardent support for a complicated, relatively unknown issue like an Article V convention? Are those who responded favorably part of Meckler’s “army” too?
Clearly COSP’s poll was intended to influence public policy by swaying legislators’ votes and public opinion, rather than to measure where voters stand on this important issue. COSP’s treating the results as authentic is misleading at best.
Meckler said on Mark Levin’s show and archived here during March, 2018, that the conservative Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, which opposes a convention, has “…lost their way. They’re sending out these horrible, dishonest emails slandering the movement, repeating the lies of the left.” 11
Until 2014, Meckler attempted to disparage Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly in her later years by implying she was senile; he also claimed that Schlafly had no support from “legitimate scholars” for her opposition to an Article V convention. Meckler, whose credentials are no match for Schlafly’s, later changed his tune, apparently after conservative pushback. Today Meckler showers Schlafly with praise and claims her view on the con-con was her only mistake.Meckler and his operatives repeatedly pressure those hosting conservative events to cancel national speaker and Article V convention expert Joanna Martin J.D.,12possibly COSP’s most formidable living conservative opponent. COSP defames Martin’s character by falsely claiming she is a white supremacist affiliated with the Aryan Nation. On Sept. 29, 2018, three Texas Convention of States co-directors emailed an urgent call to action for COSP lemmings to bombard the First Baptist Church in Dallas with calls demanding that Martin’s next-day event be cancelled.13In another instance, Ms. Martin, who had been invited to debate COSP at the prestigious South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Conference held January 20, 2018, was cancelled after Meckler refused to debate her, demanded that Martin not be allowed to speak, and insisted that he be allowed to appear on the stage alone, without Martin.
COSP engages in “Ritual Defamation” of their opponents in order to prevent the public from hearing the truth about COSP’s false claims. The purpose of ritual defamation is to bully opponents into silence, intimate others from associating with opponents, and to shut down open public discussion of issues. If they can stop the debate, they won’t have to win the debate.
A “convention of states,” AKA “constitutional convention,” poses a very real threat to our Republic. Sadly, it’s an obscure, complicated issue that few ordinary citizens understand. And too many state legislators, who should know better, have accepted COSP’s myths at face value, sponsored their legislation, and voted accordingly.
Just about every political issue conservative Americans care about depends upon our keeping the Constitution we have and not risking it at a convention. Instead of sponsoring COSP applications, state legislators need to reject all Article V convention applications from their states and rescind those that have passed previously. Given COSP’s trail of deception, how can we possibly trust them with our Constitution?
There is enough documentation linked to this article and endnotes to educate you and your state legislator on the dangers of an Article V convention. The more people learn about it, the more they oppose it. All they need is an open mind. Read, learn, and share. Fool me once!
Endnotes:1 When 2/3 of the States (34) pass applications (resolutions) asking Congress to call an Article V convention, Congress is to call a convention.
2 Since nothing in the Constitution places subject limitations on a convention or its Delegates, any convention called by Congress would be one convention for all.
4 There are 2 ways to amend the US Constitution per Article V: 1) Congress proposes Amendments and sends them to the States for ratification; or 2) When 2/3 of the States (34) apply for it, Congress is to call a convention to propose Amendments that are then sent to the states for ratification. The second method has never been used.
5 Wolf-PAC applications for a convention were pending and rejected in at least 17 states in 2018 alone: CO, HI, IA, LA, MA, MD, ME, MO, NE, NM, NY, OK, PA, SC, WA, WI, & WV.
6 The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) wrote the model legislation from which COSP’s state applications are derived, hence the similarities. ALEC is heavily financed by corporations and consists of corporate and legislative members who meet in secret to shape public policy in state legislatures nationwide.
8 The final question reflects the language of COSP’s Article V convention applications.
9 Delegates to an Article V convention, as sovereign representatives of The People, have the inherent right “to alter or to abolish” their “Form of Government,” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2.
12 Retired litigation attorney Joanna Martin writes and speaks nationally under the nom de guerre Publius Huldah.
13 Texas Convention of States co-directors Tamara Colbert, Shelby Williams, and Paul Hodson falsely claimed in an email blast that Huldah [Martin] “has a background [with ties to the Aryan Nations and anti-government groups] that could jeopardize Pastor Jeffress and the positive reputation of the church.” The event was cancelled, but not before Ms. Martin had traveled long hours to be there.
16 Here are a few whoppers: a) we have two Constitutions (one being a compilation of Supreme Court decisions). b) a “constitutional convention” is different than a “convention of states.” c) The framers added the convention method to Art. V after George Mason asked the question, “Are we so naïve that we believe a govt that becomes a tyranny will propose the right kind of amendments to restrain its own tyranny?” More COSP-generated myths are HERE (See pg. 2) and HERE.
© Judi Caler
One of the reasons why the United States of America got off to such a great start is
because we had total educational freedom. When the Constitution was written, there was
already by then a great variety of teaching institutions. The Dames Schools were colonial
preschools in which children were taught the three R’s in preparation for going on to an
academy. The academy was a private school run by an educational entrepreneur. It
prepared students for higher learning or a trade or profession. They were considered the
most appropriate educational institution for a free people. Their responsibility was to the
parents who put their children in the academy.
Home tutoring was also very common in those days. There was no such thing as
“compulsory school attendance.” Parents were free to provide their children with any
form of education which met their needs. Children were taught to read and write in the
Dames Schools, which were keenly aware that Biblical literacy was an absolute necessity
in a society based on the teachings of the Bible.
In New England, laws had been passed requiring parents to educate their children. This
spurred the creation of Common Schools throughout the region. Towns hired teachers to
run such schools. Their main function was to prepare the students for future studies in
the colleges. They were owned and operated by the local folks who usually paid the
schoolmasters with commodities rather than money.The beauty of this high degree of freedom was that education was practical, its foundation based on reality. Whatever was taught was intended to improve the
knowledge, skills, and aptitudes of the students. The community’s basic purpose in
education was to pass on to the future generation the knowledge, wisdom, religion and
morals of the previous generation. There was no such thing as religious neutrality. The
United States was a Christian nation and all agreed that children should be inculcated in
the tenets of Christianity. And anyone who went into the education profession knew its
But then the question arises: why did Americans give up educational freedom so early in
their history when its benefits were so obvious? Believe it or not, it had nothing to do
with economics or poor teaching. Literacy was very high and education was available to
everyone. There were even excellent charity schools that provided education for the
children of the poor. There was no need for the government to get involved in education.
But in Boston, the government did get involved in establishing the Boston Latin School,
an elite school to prepare students for Harvard. It was funded by the city even though the
parents of the students could easily have paid its costs. But the liberals in Boston were
already looking to government to establish an elite institution separated from the church.
What happened to create this state of mind? It was the rise of the Unitarian heresy at
Harvard among the descendants of the Puritans. Intellectual pride became the spearhead
of religious Liberalism.
The Unitarians no longer believed in the Trinity or in the divinity of Christ. If Christ was
divine it was in the sense that we are all divine. But while Christ was considered a great
teacher, he was not considered to be the source of salvation. The Unitarians also rejected
Calvin’s view of man as being innately depraved who needed to be saved by Jesus Christ.
The Unitarians believed that man was basically good, and that all he needed was a good
secular education to achieve moral perfectibility.
And so the Boston Unitarians launched a strong campaign to create government primary
schools in which Calvinist teachings would be eliminated. They were successful because
they learned how to influence the press, control the legislature, and get what they wanted.
As the public school movement grew, the orthodox were in a dilemma as to whether or
not to support it. In 1849, the orthodox General Association of Massachusetts decided in
favor of support with this very important stipulation. They wrote:
“If after a full and faithful experiment, it should at last be seen that fidelity to the
religious interests of our children forbids a further patronage of the system, we
can unite with the Evangelical Christians in the establishment of private schools,
in which more full doctrinal religious instruction may be possible.”
There is no question that the “full and faithful experiment” has been a colossal failure,
and that millions of Christian children have been spiritually harmed. While many parents
have taken their children out of the public schools, and hundreds if not thousands of
church schools have been founded, the vast majority of Christian parents still put their
children in these anti-Christian public schools. In other words, we have still to learn the
lessons of history.
(Here is a link to a PDF of the above article: http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/Articles/America%20Started%20with%20Educational%20Freedom.pdf
The UN and its members are using and weaponizing the impressionable young. All over COP24 (the most recent global warming conference), young people were present in numbers like never before. Perhaps the most recognizable face was an autistic 15-year-old from Sweden named Greta Thunberg, who was plastered across newspapers and TV screens worldwide lecturing adults on the need to stop alleged man-made global-warming. Her claim to fame: Skipping school to save the “climate” and encouraging other students to do the same.
But Greta was just one among many. In coordination with other groups such as “Indigenous” peoples, We Are Still In (USA), Climate Nexus, just to name a few, the youth organized by the hundreds blocking COP24 hallways and disrupting events. They demanded “climate justice” or chanted loudly in unison some other UN-approved catchy slogan.
The young preached about “anthropogenic warming,” “the science is settled,” “the Paris Agreement,”, “resiliency,” “adaptation and mitigation,” “fossil-free” and “de-carbonizing” the world, the need for “carbon taxes,” “stolen lands,” “action plans,” biodiversity, wildfires, floods, sea rise, droughts…anything weather related must be man-made. Their dire messages matched that of the UN’s: We must act now to stop global warming or else in twelve years Earth will be unrecognizable and uninhabitable.
Nonetheless, the UN is fulfilling on its Sustainable Development Goals. In this case, number 4 for “sustainable education.” The so-called UN 2030 Agenda identifies children as “critical agents of change.” Thus, all youth must be taught to “promote sustainable development.” At COP24, their success in this regard was evident everywhere. Adolf Hitler probably said it best, “He alone who owns the youth gains the future.” And at the UN, the youth are being trained, encouraged, and used to spread global-warming alarmism and forward a fundamentally transformed future plagued by controlling human action at every level.
The following are just a few examples of youth’s engagement at the conference:
“JUST” RUDE! During the Trump’s administration presentation on the benefits of coal, hundreds of “youth” took over for more than ten minutes, stormed the stage, loudly and rudely mocked the panelists, all while shouting about “stolen lands” and “climate justice.” (Exclusive video of this can be found on TNA’s YouTube.)
JUST” SAD! In an interview with Regan (a high-school student from Santa Barbara, California, now living in Fiji and attending a “Green” school) she executed a perfectly coiffed interview about “climate justice,” “Sustainable Development”, the “importance” of being “vegan” and “humane” to animals while fearlessly calling out “guilty” major organizations (like PepsiCo). When she “messed up” she asked to start over, composed herself, and began again for perfect UN messaging.
LOCK THEM UP! Exclusive TNA footage of a young adult from Germany (who is shocked that climate skeptics would attend the global warming conference) chants “lock them up” when asked what should happen to skeptics of the man-made warming hypothesis.
YOUNG EXPERTS! Cornell University (New York) students shared their so-called climate-change-expertise of California’s wildfires, adaptation, and solutions. One conference solution suggested less people living in rural forested areas.
PULL YOUR HEART STRINGS! Adult representatives from the Pacific Islands shared “climate” horror stories with the Katowice children’s choir. Afterwards, the kids dressed in gas masks to entertain a standing-room only audience with sad songs about the environment. “I Need Air to Breathe,” they sang as a video displayed young kids in “climate action” caring for the Earth.
EXPLOIT! On a massive monitor World Bank Group looped footage of young adults in “climate change” action with the slogan “Youth are Unstoppable.”
POLICE THE ADULTS! We interviewed a 23 year-old, Mary, who shared that her responsibility as the Norwegian Youth Delegate was to make sure the adults were fulfilling on their UN commitments.
The children are being groomed to usher in the UN’s One World agenda, with “climate justice” as a pretext. The totalitarians have netted the youth, hook, line, and sinker like never before.
None of this should be a surprise, though. Just head to your local university bookstore and examine the required texts. Check out a Common Core-aligned lesson on climate change. They are capturing the youth right in front of us. If freedom-loving Americans hope to preserve liberty and justice, rest is not an option. Get moving!
“Cursive is a lost art” is a lament we hear on a regular basis, but the Sam Blumenfeld Archives has a way to bring that lost art back: http://campconstitution.net/blumenfelds-writing-tutor/
This is an easy step by step lesson plan that can be used to teach your child or yourself cursive.
Please help support the archives by making a donation to Camp Constitution. We can accept donations via our PayPal account accessed from our web site’s homepage: http://www.campconstitution.net
Camp Constitution Media attended the 2018 Boston Tea Party Reenactment which began at the Old South Meeting House, and proceeded to the Boston Waterfront. The Old South Meeting House was the actual location of a meeting attended by members of the Sons of Liberty. Reenactors and some of the audience engaged in a fiery debate, and then marched to Boston Tea Party Museum close to the original location where chests of tea were thrown into the harbor.
Since our inception, Camp Constitution has opposed an Article V Convention. We have held outreach events and press conferences at state houses providing legislators important information on the subject. We have sponsored a speaking, and media tour for Robert Brown in Maine and New Hampshire. Camp Constitution’s director Hal Shurtleff, has conducted numerous presentations on the issue throughout the region. We have interviewed experts on the subject on our radio show including Andy Schlafly, Robert Brown, Publius Huldah, Tom DeWeese, David Super, Bob Marshall, Richard Fry, Shawn Meehan, Joe Wolverton, and Peter Boyce. We have also have video interviews of Attorney and scholar John Eidsmoe, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Zach Lautenschlager of the National Association of Gun Rights, former U.S. Senator Bob Smith, and Maine State Rep Sheldon Hannington. Camp Constitution Media was on hand to videotape presentations by Constitutional scholar Edwin Vieira, Alan Keyes, Attorney Deborah Stevenson. We also have a video of Cenk Uygur and Larry Lessig calling for a “runaway” convention, and a video of left-wing law professor Meg Penrose calling for an Article V Convention to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
We have created a YouTube playlist with these interviews.
We also have a collection of audio interviews available as free downloads on our Podomatic page: https://shurtleffhal.podomatic.com/
Our web site has a collection of articles, flyers , a model resolution to rescind, and the book “Formation of the Union Under the Constitution” which contains Governor John Hancock’s circular letter against an Article V Convention in PDF. Here is the link:
As of this writing, all applications for an Article V Convention in 2018 were defeated. Let’s make 2019 a year where we not only stop any new resolutions but rescind existing resolutions as well-one was already filed in New Hampshire. Readers who would like to be put in contact with activists in their states are welcome to contact Camp Constitution’s director Hal Shurtleff (857) 498-1309 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Please consider donating to Camp Constitution. Donations can be made via our PayPal account which can be accessed via our website’s homepage http://www.campconstitution.net
November 10 at 5:37 PM
This is a letter my husband wrote to Greenpeace about them and all the people that think that oil and oil products are not needed on earth or peoples daily lives.
So to all you oil industry haters, maybe you should read this and come to reality!!!
Also please, to everyone out there that agrees, share like crazy!!!
Dear Greenpeace personnel,
I am a very concerned 41-year old Canadian family man (yes, male, I can still distinguish), born in a small village in Saskatchewan and currently residing in Medicine Hat, Alberta. I would love to assist your organization in making the world a better place. I recently read a quote from Mr. Stewart that ‘oil in Alberta is unnecessary’ and something about ‘only clean energy’ (of course I am mildly paraphrasing but it was the gist of the CTV article). Now, I can tell you that I was angered by these comments. So, as Greenpeace has all the answers, I thought who better to contact other than the fine individuals of your organization.
Now Issue # 1 is transportation: As almost everyone in Canada is not living in the GTA, what is the cleanest form of transportation that you could recommend for my family (which includes my wife, 2 teenage daughters, and the family dog)? Public transportation across the prairies (to visit family) is almost non-existent since the closure of Greyhound and STC (Saskatchewan Transport Company). Even when the bus lines were fully operational, 10 to 14-hour bus trips to get from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ were way too long and fares for the family were too expensive. I should also mention a normal drive time for a personal vehicle is approximately 6 hours. So, with public transportation out of the question, I need to own a vehicle. Please recommend a vehicle on the market that has no oil products in it. Maybe, if I can get personal on some level, what kinds of vehicles are most commonly owned by Greenpeace executives/employees? I only ask because as I read the news (and any other publication that posts the comments of individuals such as Keith Stewart), apparently Greenpeace has no use for oil and oil produced products, as they all pollute the earth. Climate change, you know. So, should I buy an electric car … NO, I can’t. As a rational, reasonable thinking Canadian, I am aware that electric cars are full of … NO, wait … Almost COMPLETELY composed of, and manufactured with/by oil-based products. I guess electric cars are out too. Horseback? NO. Riding on horseback would get me into all kinds of trouble with the good people over at PETA and WWF. Don’t want them trying to shut me down. My best guess is that none of you folks over there own a personal vehicle. Well let me know which way to go on that one.
Issue # 2, food: Now I’m sure that no one from the world of Greenpeace buys that grubby food produced on and from farms across Canada. Those farmers use an abundant amount of diesel to produce every scrap and morsel of food that can be found in every grocery store across this great nation. I mean seriously, how is it that all Canadians can’t understand this simple truth. Milk, bread, meat, vegetables, etc. have all come from a farmer, who I can promise you, owns a tractor. Tractors burn a lot of fuel. If you were or are unaware of this revelation, I will guarantee these facts, as I was born and raised on a Canadian farm. ALL the food consumed from the store has come from a farm somewhere. Then to top it off, those grocers have everything packaged one way or another to keep food fresh and sanitary (God knows we can’t have someone else’s germs on our food). Again, oil issues, all that packaging (to keep the food safe) is made with and by oil products. Honestly, it feels like I can’t win. So, like activists, I have a garden for all our food. However; protein (you know, meat) is a real issue. City bylaws say I’m not allowed a pig (for pork products such as bacon and such), or a cow (steaks). I can have five chickens. I guess those teenage girls I mentioned earlier are going on a diet. I am very concerned for the well-being of people living in apartments (where gardens are impossible). By the way, where do you get all your food from?
Issue # 3, heating: This is a touchy subject. How would a man as intelligent as Keith Stewart and other lead activists heat their homes? Now I am somewhat intelligent as I only have a Grade 12 education from a small prairie high school (not big city educated), but I can’t figure this one out for two reasons. Natural gas … I don’t think so! Pollution! That clean burning gas from the ground is still produced by Big Oil (we hate those guys). I was going to switch to coal but, carbon tax (pollution, again). Wood burning is not the way to heat our homes, it’s soon going to be illegal to cut down trees (emissions, again). Solar energy, well, that doesn’t stand a chance in Canada. Geothermal would almost be the way to go if it didn’t require drilling and glycol-based fluids. I don’t need to tell you folks the ecological effects that a glycol spill has on the environment and animals. Wind turbines would be almost effective if they weren’t so expensive to set up and not to mention the amount of poor birds that would die as a result. PETA, again, would not be pleased. So, please help, I currently have no way to heat my home that isn’t a pollution issue.
Issue # 4, electronics: As we all hate Big Oil, we must destroy all electronic devices. No computers, phones, tablets, etc. If it has a computer chip, a plastic-coated wire, a power cord, I mean if even one component of any device/machine contains oil and/or oil by-products, it must be destroyed. Big Oil is not going to keep you and me from our dream of a better planet. No more electronics … I can’t write this letter, businesses everywhere can’t operate, you can’t get your points across. Maybe we need oil? What do you think?
If we (as a country) are not going to produce oil, whom/where does Mr. Stewart want us to buy it from – as I think we have established that it is currently a requirement in every Canadian household including yours? The obvious answer must be the Saudi’s, America or maybe Venezuela (all environmentally-conscious places, right …?). Which does leave me curious, if all our oil is imported, does the carbon tax go up or down? Maybe imported oil is carbon free? The Liberal government would have Canadians believe that the carbon tax will stop global warming. You men and women are smarter than that, right? I’d like to think that as Canadians we should support Canadian oil as it is one of the most regulated oil producing countries on the planet.
Is everyone at Greenpeace living in a time warp? Are you all individuals who are living off the land, being 100 percent self-sufficient? If you are, you wouldn’t be able to read this email. However, we both know that you have the ability to do so, which means Greenpeace is also on the Big Oil wagon. Please don’t be ashamed. Just own it. Stop preaching to the masses. When your organization and personnel are willing to walk your own talk, then I guess we’ll have something to discuss.
Are you so blinded by tofu farting hippies that you can’t see the plain truth? Let us all be honest, organizations such as yours and the ones like it are not willing to make the hard sacrifices to accomplish any real change. Like almost every lobbyist group, you’d prefer to bitch and whine about everything until the donations stop coming in and then move on until the next money-making issue swings around. Granted; Greenpeace started with admirable beginnings, but like all good ideas, it always ends up about the money. Or am I way off base?
I do expect a response, for if I don’t get one … you’re going to find this letter on every news feed and publication that will print it. I will send it to Ottawa (not a threat with the current ‘leadership’, but the Conservatives might listen). I’ll post it on every social media outlet I can sign up for and people will read it. I know that the loudest voice is the one the public hears the best. By now you must understand that you can’t be the only voice for people to listen to.
As you may have guessed, there has been no response from Greenpeace, so, here we go.
If you agree with my thoughts, please feel free to discuss, forward, share, post, etc. We can no longer sit back and let others be the only voice that the public, activists, government, etc. are listening to you. I think that with our oil built electronics, we must circulate this letter. Let’s get people talking. Thanks for your help.
The emormous failure of our government school system was nicely
summed up by a Boston high school teacher in a recent issue of Education
Week (12/9/98). He said:
“I have about 30 kids in my U.S. history class. They come from nine
different countries; most of them can’t read. Even if they can read the text,
they don’t know what it means. How am I supposed to teach U.S. history to
kids who can’t read? I could come in here every day for 20 years and still
not figure out how to do it.”
Obviously, this particular teacher had no idea how these kids got into
high school without knowing how to read. He had no idea what goes on in
primary school that prevents these children from learning to read, and he
had no idea what to do with older students who are functionally illiterate.
Clearly, the teacher himself is part of the problem. His ignorance of how the
system functions prevents him from helping his students get through it in
one piece. In other words, the compartmentalization of teachers explains
why so many of them have no idea of how the total system works and why
the system can lurch from crisis to crisis without any effective change taking
The real blame for the system’s dysfunction, however, must lie with the
professors of education, the state departments of education, and the
administrators who have all conspired to create the functional illiteracy that
plagues the public schools of America — once considered the most literate
and advanced nation on earth. Deliberately induced illiteracy among
students is a vital part of the plan to dumb down Americans so that they will
be unable to resist the imposition of social and political control by an
arrogant universitarian elite determined to create a new world order based
on humanist-socialist values.
This “education” plan is part of the utopian socialist agenda set down
by the progressives at the turn of the century. The progressives were
members of the Protestant academic elite who no longer believed in the
religion of their fathers. They put their new faith in science, evolution, and
psychology. Science explained the material world (matter in motion),
evolution explained the origin of life (organisms crawling out of the
primordial ooze), and psychology explained human nature and provided
the elite with the scientific means of controlling human behavior.
These men were also socialists. Why? Because they had to deal with
the problem of evil. The Bible tells us that evil is the result of man’s innate
depravity, his innate sinful nature. But since the progressives did not
believe in the Bible, they decided that evil was caused by ignorance,
poverty, and social injustice. And what was the cause of social injustice?
Why, it was this horrible capitalist system with all of its inequities. Socialism,
it was believed, would remove these inequities and thereby solve the
problem of evil. By the way, the progressives did not get their model of
socialism from Karl Marx. They got it from an American by the name of
Edward Bellamy whose book, Looking Backward, published in 1888,
projected the fantasy of a socialist America in the year 2000.
And so, the progressives, dedicated to their utopian ideal, decided to
do all in their power to change America from an individualistic, capitalist,
and religious society into a socialist, collectivist, humanist or atheist society.
How were they to accomplish that? Through the education system. They
would change the curriculum and teaching methods in the public schools so
that American children would emerge as young socialists willing to change
our way of life into a socialist one.
The socialists realized that the transformation might take as much as a
hundred years to complete. In fact, John Dewey wrote in 1898: “Change
must come gradua.lly. To force it unduly would compromise its final success
by favoring a violent reaction .” Dewey then outlined the long-range strategy
which the progressives were to adopt:
What is needed in the first place is that there should be a full and frank statement
of conviction with regard to the matter from physiologists and psychologists and from
those school administrators who are conscious of the evils of the present regime.
Educators should also frankly face the fact that the New Education, as it exists today, is
a compromise and a transition: it employs new methods but its controlling ideals are
virtually of the Old Education. Wherever movements looking to a solution of the
problem are intelligently undertaken, they should receive encouragement, moral and
financial, from the intellectual leaders of the community. There are already in
existence a considerable number of educational “experiment stations,” which
represent the outposts of educational progress. If these schools can be adequately
supported for a number of years they will perform a great vicarious service. After such
schools have worked out carefully and definitely the subject-matter of the new
curriculum,–finding the right place for language-studies and placing them in their right
perspective,–the problem of the more general educational reform will be immensely
One hundred years later we can see how successful the Dewey plan
has been in transforming our educational system into one that serves the
needs of the atheist socialist state. Dewey was aided and abetted by a
cadre of reformers that included such luminaries as Edward L. Thorndike,
James McKeen Cattell, Elwood P. Cubberly, George D. Strayer, Charles
Judd, James R. Angell and a host of others. Thorndike, Cattell, and Strayer
ra~ an educational mafia out of Teachers College (Columbia), Cubberly
reigned at Stanford, and Angell became president at Yale.
Change in the curriculum of public education has happened so
gradually that most parents haven’t the faintest idea what is happening to
their children, four million of whom are being drugged daily with Ritalin so
that they can sit in their classroom seats and be socialized without
What is truly amazing is the coherence and continuity of the
progressive agenda which is as much alive today at it was when Dewey and
company were pontificating. For example, The Whole Language Catalog, a
sort of bible of the whole-language movement published in 1991, has 15
entries for John Dewey in its index. After citing his debt to Dewey, Kenneth
Goodman, the leading guru of whole-language philosophy, writes:
Whole language picks up where the progressives left off . … [It] takes the
philosophy and positive, child-centered view of the progressive educators and adds
the knowledge of language, of learning, of child development, and of teaching, and
builds a strong scientific base under them . It is this combination of science and
humanistic educational and social philosophy that forms the foundation for whole
language curriculum . … We use the psychological concepts of Piaget and Vygotsky to
underscore Dewey’s concept of learning as transaction: pupils making sense of their
world and being changed themselves in the transactions. (p. 281)
In the early days, the progressives were mainly supported by the major
philanthropic foundations. Today the reforms are being underwritten by
federal and state governments. Three recent federal programs are funding
the massive restructuring of American education in accordance with the
progressives’ plans: Goals 2000 (enacted 3/31/94), School-to-Work
Opportunities Act (enacted 5/4/94), and the Improving America’s Schools
Act, a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (enacted 10/20/94). Thus, the Congress of the United States has
become an accomplice in the progressive plan to restructure American
education in the socialist mold.
Apart from needing the funds to carry out their plan, the progressives
also realized that coherence and continuity of their agenda over a hundred
years was vitally necessary if the plan was to be successful. Thus, in 1901
they created the National Society for the Study of Education, wherein the
progressive leaders would be able to formulate their programs of reform,
debate their effectiveness, and pass on the baton to their loyal disciples. By
studying their yearbooks, the first of which was published in 1902, one can
follow the inexorable progress of the socialist takeover of American
All of this was accomplished by tenured professors of education and
behavioral psychologists, working within a maze of well funded professional
organizations, publishing journals, writing textbooks, holding hundreds of
conferences, seminars, and conventions each year. None of this has been
visible to the average parent who puts a child in a public school. Parents
assume that their schools are run by local school boards, superintendents,
principals, and teachers. What they don’t see is the invisible hand behind
this constant pressure for reform that keeps recreating the curriculum .
The average teacher may feel that there is some kind of invisible hand
at work, but teachers would rather blame failure on cultural trends,
excessive television viewing, dysfunctional parents, and such student
disabilities as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia.
Obviously, this is a system of education that cannot be supported by
any Christian. Local control no longer exists. It was inevitable that a
government education system would become a federal system controlled
by those who have been leading us toward totalitarian socialism. Do I
exaggerate? To be convinced that the end goal is a totalitarian system, all
one has to do is read the Student Data Handbook for Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education (NCES 94-303). This is the official
guidebook for the computerized data-gathering system dreamed up by our
totalitarian bureaucrats. The data will include massive information on
health, family, religion, attitudes, psychological assessments, etc. For
example, the attitudinal test is described as: “An assessment to measure
the mental and emotional set or patterns of likes and dislikes or opinions
held by a student or a group of students. This is often used in relation to
considerations such as controversial issues or personal adjustments.”
All of this sensitive, personal data will be housed in a central computer
in Washington making it easy for “educators” to control just about everyone.
But the question is simply this: does the government of a free people have
the right to collect this kind of information on all of its citizens for its own
political or social purposes? Should the government of a free people record
the attitudes and opinions of its citizens so that it can engineer thei r
The time has come for Christians to realize what has become of the
“land of the free and the home of the brave.” If Christians want to restore
the full measure of our freedoms, they will have to do what they are
reluctant to do: remove their children en masse from the public schools.
What is needed now is not accomodation to the plans of the American
Pharoah but a full-fledged exodus of Christian children. That’s the easiest
and most peaceful way to put an end to the socialist agenda and return
America to its basic constitutional principles. Will Christians have the
courage to do what must be done? That test will be upon us sooner than
A link to the above article from the archive: http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/Articles/What’s%20Wrong%20With%20Government%20Education.pdf
It would be hard to find a person living in America who is not familiar with the names Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. The media circus that preceded the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court dominated the news for weeks, if not months, and will no doubt continue to do so.
A name not so well known today is that of Kermit Gosnell, the Pennsylvania abortionist who not only killed babies in the womb, but for those born alive, he severed their spinal cords with a technique called “snipping.” He also seriously maimed and had a part in the deaths of a number of his female clients. He is serving a life sentence in prison, and is the subject of the book, Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer.
A movie was made based on the facts of the trial that ultimately sent him to permanent incarceration. However, originally it looked like the film would have the same fate as the millions of unborn babies who do not live to see the light of day. Not only could the filmmakers not find investors in pro-abortion Hollywood, but also their initial funding campaign had to move to a different funding platform after being cut off from their original one (Kickstarter). A new funding platform was enlisted in order to obtain the financial support from ordinary people to bring the film to fruition.
Well, the movie eventually was ready for release but was unable to be advertised on places such as National Public Radio (funded by taxpayer dollars) unless the word “abortion” was removed from any advertisement. The filmmakers would not bow down to such censorship. They waged an uphill battle to enable the film to be released in over 700 theaters around the country. The film opened on October 12, but has been embroiled in controversial decisions by some theaters to respond to inquiries that the movie was not showing when it was, and by failing to display posters that normally are placed when a film is on the schedule.
This subject matter should be required reading or viewing in every Christian family (including children) and churches. Why? Not only to learn about what makes a person take life rather than save life, but to expose the dark side of health departments and courts that allowed this despicable man to kill the unborn and maim and brutalize women (especially poor and minority women), all because the priority of these agencies was to do nothing that would stigmatize abortion. As one prosecutor commented, nail salons have more scrutiny than abortion clinics. Why? Because entrenched in our federal and state bureaucracies are those who will not allow abortion access to be constrained under any circumstances. This scenario is not an isolated case restricted to Philadelphia, but exists throughout the country.
One eye-opening moment for me came when I recognized a name, Tom Ridge, the first head of the Department of Homeland Security and previously the “pro-choice” Republican governor of Pennsylvania. While in office, his policies made sure that nothing would hinder legalized abortion in his state. That is why, and how, Kermit Gosnell could operate with impunity for over thirty years. As a matter of policy, bureaucrats and their superiors continually ignored the many complaints and red flags they received about Gosnell. They are, in reality, as guilty, if not more guilty, than the abortionist.
The authors and filmmakers of this book and movie were not pro-life when they began their expose. However, by their own admission they became anti-abortion by the time they had examined all the gruesome facts of the case. They could not conclude in good conscience that Gosnell was an anomaly. They realized, as did the jurors in the trial, that there was no significant difference between a good abortion provider and a bad one. In fact, one of the most telling scenes in the film occurs as a “proper abortionist” comments that she had performed over 30,000 abortions personally. Unlike the “cruel” Dr. Gosnell who snipped the spinal cords of inconveniently born infants, under her watch, if any baby survived the procedure, it would be given “comfort care,” the euphemism for being allowed to die.
Many times as I read this account and watched the film, I experienced disturbing physical reactions. After years of believing I knew all there was to know on this subject, I realized I did not. I then did an informal survey of people I know, asking if the name Kermit Gosnell meant anything to them. Sadly, it did not, thanks to the media blackout of most of the trial. Apparently, the media did not consider the horrendous crimes of this man newsworthy. What’s more, I discovered that, although the book had done quite well when it came to sales, it was kept from appearing as high as it rightfully belonged on The New York Times Bestseller List. While this is not surprising, it should tell us something about the entrenched warfare involved when it comes to the subject of the murder of the unborn.
The average person who deems himself pro-life needs to do more than just agree that abortion is wrong. I submit that we must make this the subject of routine conversation as a matter of course. Read the book; talk about the book; lend the book. Watch the film, and invite an “on the fence” acquaintance to join you. Let us not allow this subject to fall under that category of differing political views, and agreeing to disagree. I challenge you to fully enlist in this cause, if for no other reason than to avert the justifiable anger and wrath of God.
(This article is republished with permission from the author. It originally appeared on the Chalcedon Foundation’s blog: https://chalcedon.edu/blog/talk-about-a-cover-up