campconstitution

The Weekly Sam: Can Dyslexia Be Artificially Induced in School?

Published July 12, 2022 | By campconstitution

(This article was first published in March 1992)

Ever since The New Illiterates was published back in 1973, we have known that the chief, and
perhaps only cause of dyslexia among school children has been and still is the look-say, wholeword, or sight method of teaching reading. In that book I revealed the fact that the sight method
was invented back in the 1830s by the Rev. Thomas H. Gallaudet, the director of the American
Asylum at Hartford for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb. He had been using a sight, or
whole-word method in teaching the deaf to read, by juxtaposing a word, such as cat, with the
picture of a cat. And because the deaf were able to identify many simple words in this way,
Gallaudet thought that the method could be adapted for use by normal children.
Gallaudet, who believed that education was a science and could be improved by scientific
experimentation, gave a detailed description of his new method in the American Annals of
Education of August 1830.

It consisted of teaching the child to recognize a total of 50 sight
words written on cards “without any reference to the individual letters which composed the
word.” After the child had memorized the words on the basis of their configurations alone, the
letters of each word were taught. The final step was to teach the letters in alphabetical order.
In 1836 Gallaudet published The Mother’s Primer based on his look-say methodology. Its
first line was: “Frank had a dog; his name was Spot.” In 1837 the primer was adopted by the
Boston Primary School Committee. Horace Mann was then Secretary of the Board of Education
of Massachusetts, and he favored the method. The educational reformers of the time were against
anything that smacked of old orthodox practices, and they considered intensive, systematic
phonics to be one of them. The American Annals of Education, representing the progressive
views of the time, provided a ready platform for the critics of the alphabetic-phonics method.
One could find such opinions as the following in its pages:
He [the child] should read his lessons as if the words were Chinese symbols, without paying any attention to the
individual letters, but with special regard to the meaning… This method needs neither recommendation nor defense,
with those who have tried it: and were it adopted, we should soon get rid of the stupid and uninteresting mode now
prevalent. (Oct. 1832, p. 479)

If it is true, that so long as we cling with intense fondness to the deformities of our orthography with a fondness
like the mother’s love to her offspring, enhanced by deformity — much time is, and must be, wasted over the
elementary books of reading and spelling. It becomes the friends of education to examine the facts, and act with
energy, as men living in an age of reform. (Apr. 1832, p. 173)
The ABC is our initiative tormentor, requiring much time and Herculean effort, altogether thrown away. (Nov.
1833, p. 512)

Boston Schoolmasters React

Such was the climate of the time. Gallaudet’s primer was imitated by other textbook writers,
and the children of Massachusetts were taught to read by this new sight method. By 1844 the
defects of the new method were so apparent to the Boston schoolmasters, that they issued a
blistering attack against it, and urged a return to intensive, systematic phonics. I reprinted the full
text of that historic critique in The New Illiterates, in order to demonstrate how early the defects
of the look-say, whole-word method were recognized by educators who were not seduced by the
siren songs of the reformers.

In that book, I also did a line-by-line analysis of the Dick-and-Jane reading program and came
to the conclusion that any child taught to read solely by that method would exhibit the symptoms
of dyslexia. The cause was obvious: when you impose an ideographic teaching technique on an
alphabetic writing system, you get reading disability. By eliminating the sense of sound from the
reading process, one is breaking the crucial link between the alphabetically written word and its
spoken equivalent. Also, by using sound symbols as ideographic symbols, one creates symbolic
confusion.

The schoolmasters of Boston had recognized this phenomenon in 1844, and it was also
recognized in 1929 by Dr. Samuel T. Orton, a neuropathologist in Iowa who was seeking the
cause of children’s reading problems. After considerable research, he came to the conclusion that
their problems were being caused by the new sight method of teaching reading. The results of his
research were published in the February 1929 issue of the Journal of Educational Psychology
with the title, “The Sight Reading Method of Teaching Reading as a Source of Reading
Disability.” Dr. Orton wrote:

“I wish to emphasize at the beginning that the strictures which I have to offer here do not apply to the use of the
sight method of teaching reading as a whole but only to its effects on a restricted group of children for whom, as I
think we can show, this technique is not only not adapted but often proves an actual obstacle to reading progress,
and moreover, I believe that this group is one of considerable educational importance both because of its size and
because here faulty teaching methods may not only prevent the acquisition of academic education by children of
average capacity but may also give rise to far reaching damage to their emotional life.”

And so, there has been no doubt in my mind as to the cause of dyslexia among perfectly
healthy, normal school children. However, in recent years I have heard stories of children
entering the first grade already exhibiting the symptoms of dyslexia, before they have had any
formal reading instruction. It was said that these children, who had never been to school, were
having a terribly difficult time learning to read by phonics. The phenomenon was somewhat
inexplicable, until sometime in 1988 when I received a phone call from a man in North
Wilkesboro, North Carolina, by the name of Edward Miller. It turned out that he had the key to
the mystery. Miller had called to tell me of his theory of “educational dyslexia,” that is, how dyslexia
could be artificially induced. I was delighted to know that there was someone else in America
who agreed with me. He had seen me on a television interview in 1984 and was so astounded by
my assertions about dyslexia that he decided to get my book on the NEA, What I had said on TV
sounded crazy to him, but he said I looked too sane to be crazy.

Overcoming a Handicap

Miller was particularly interested in this subject because he himself was dyslexic and had
been so since the first grade. He had been taught to read in a rural school in North Carolina by a
young teacher fresh out of college who used the sight method. At first Miller thought it was his
stupidity that was causing his reading problem. But in the fourth grade he proved that he was not
stupid by memorizing the multiplication table and winning a prize in class. From then on he
simply saw his reading problem as a handicap that had to be compensated for by all sorts of
tricks. For example, he found that he could pass many essay tests by writing short, simple
sentences in which all of the words were spelled correctly. He might earn a C for his efforts, but
C’s were better than F’s.

Eventually, Miller made it through North Carolina State College. In fact, despite his reading
disability, he was able to become a mathematics teacher and finally an assistant administrator in
a high school in Hollywood, Florida. It was by reading an excerpt from Rudolf Flesch’s book.
Why Johnny Can’t Read, in a newspaper in 1956 that Miller had become aware of the two ways
of teaching children to read: the phonetic method and the sight or look-say method. He realized
that he had been taught by the sight method.

But it wasn’t until 1986, when his young grandson, Kyle, then in the first grade, developed a
reading problem, that Miller was motivated to investigate the matter in greater depth. In the
suffering and pain of his grandson he saw a repeat of himself. He knew that Kyle had learned to
read by look-say, and that was easy to prove because Kyle could read his little sight-vocabulary
books rapidly, without error. But when faced with reading matter not in the controlled
vocabulary, he had extreme difficulty. Miller could see that Kyle was trying to guess the words.
The boy found the process of sounding out words irritating and painful.

Miller recalled what he had read in my NEA book about the Russian psychologists, Luna and
Pavlov, and of how they had devised an artificial way of including behavioral disorganization by
introducing two conflicting stimuli to the organism. Miller believed that he was seeing the same
process at work in Kyle. He was sure that Kyle had learned something at an early age that was
interfering with his attempt to decode the little phonetic books which Miller had bought for him.
“I knew about the two methods of teaching reading,” relates Miller, “and suspected that he had
learned a non-phonetic method of looking at words. I tried to help him sound out the words in
the little books, but the books seemed to be hurting him.”

A Cognitive Conflict

It was obvious to Miller that his grandson had learned a method of reading that conflicted with
the phonetic method, and that it was causing what is commonly known as “dyslexia.” Miller
thought that he could demonstrate how this cognitive conflict could be artificially induced by
way of a very simple experiment. Drawing on his extensive knowledge of mathematics, he
devised an experimental problem whereby an individual trained in the base-ten arithmetic system
would be required to do his calculations in a base-twelve system. The individual would
experience great difficulty, confusion and frustration trying to suppress his automatic base-ten
responses as he attempted to do simple arithmetic in a base-twelve system. This was what the
sight reader experienced in trying to apply a phonetic method of looking at words when the
automatic tendency was “spatial-holistic” in orientation.

The key to the problem, Miller believed, was in the automaticity involved in each method. If a child’s first-learned way of reading wasconfigurational and not phonetic, and if the child could read this sight vocabulary in an out-of
context word list at more than 30 words per minute, that child would develop educational, or
artificially induced, dyslexia. However, if the child’s first-learned way of identifying words was
phonetic, and if that ability had become automatic, that child would never become dyslexic.
But Miller wondered how Kyle could have developed such a strong automatic configurational
way of identifying words without any formal reading instruction. He had noticed that Kyle had in
his room many children’s books, including many of the Dr. Seuss books which children often
learn to read by memorizing the words. If Kyle had developed an automatic configurational way
of identifying words by having memorized the Dr. Seuss books, then he could have entered the
first grade with an already learned way of reading that would conflict with the phonetic
approach.

Dr. Seuss’s 223 Words

Most people are not aware that the Dr. Seuss books were created to supplement the whole word
reading programs in the schools. Most people assume that Dr. Seuss made up his stories using
his own words. The truth is that the publisher supplied Dr. Seuss with a sight vocabulary of 223
words which he was to use in writing the books, a sight vocabulary in harmony with the sight
words the child would be learning in school. Thus, the children would enter the first grade
having already mastered a sight vocabulary of several hundred words, thereby making first-grade
reading a breeze. Because the Dr. Seuss books are so, simple, many people assume that they
were easy to write. But Dr. Seuss debunked that idea in an interview he gave Arizona magazine
in June 1981. He said:

“They think I did it in twenty minutes. That damned Cat in the Hat took nine months until I was satisfied. I did it
for a textbook house and they sent me a word list. That was due to the Dewey revolt in the Twenties, in which they
threw out phonic reading and went to word recognition, as if you’re reading a Chinese pictograph instead of
blending sounds of different letters. I think killing phonics was one of the greatest causes of illiteracy in the country.”Anyway, they had it all worked out that a healthy child at the age of four can learn so many words in a week and
that’s all. So there were two hundred and twenty-three words to use in this book. I read the list three times and I
almost went out of my head. I said, I’ll read it once more and if I can find two words that rhyme that’ll be the title of
my book. (That’s genius at work.) I found ‘cat’ and ‘hat’ and I said. ‘The title will be The Cat in the Hat.’

And that is how the Dr. Seuss pre-school sight-word books were born. The publishers
believed that if the children could memorize the words in the books, they would be better
prepared for the sight-reading instruction they would get in the first grade. An ad for The
Beginning Readers’ Program states:

“The words are just right for young readers, too. They’re in large, clear type. They often tell the story in rhyme.
And they’re so closely related to the pictures that, with a little help from Morn and Dad, even preschoolers can start
reading all by themselves. And when a preschooler is turned on to reading by Dr. Seuss and his friends he generally
stays turned on to reading for life.”

What the ad didn’t tell parents is that if the child was permitted to develop an automatic
configurational, spatial-holistic way of identifying words, then that child would be dyslexic when
dealing with the much larger reading vocabulary beyond the few hundred words he or she had
memorized. And with the advent of audiocassettes, the child could learn to memorize the words
even without the help of Mom or Dad. But if the child had been taught to read phonetically from
the very beginning, he or she would never become dyslexic.

Miller had, indeed, made a very significant discovery, one that could save millions of children
from falling into the dyslexia trap caused by memorizing the sight vocabularies in their preschool
readers. But the problem now was how to make this discovery public?
The publishers of the Beginner Books were making millions of dollars, and the books
themselves were extremely popular with parents and children alike. Some children are taught to
sound out words by their parents, and these children, of course, are not harmed by these little
books since they look at all words phonetically. But since most preschoolers are not taught to
read phonetically at home before they go to school, they are in great danger of becoming
dyslexic. And the better they get at memorizing the words, the greater the danger, for it is when
the child develops an automatic ability to identify words configurationally, he or she develops the
cognitive block that produces dyslexia.

The publishers of the Beginner Books have also produced a picture dictionary. The purpose of
the dictionary is to make the child “recognize, remember, and really enjoy a basic elementary
vocabulary of 1,350 words.” We wonder how many hundreds of thousands of children have
become dyslexic by memorizing the sight words in this picture dictionary.
Getting to the Public

But how was Miller going to get this information to the public? He decided to contact some of
the educational officials in the Florida public school system. Having retired from the system in
1982, he was acquainted with many of them. They listened politely and seemed to understand
what he was talking about. But he could arouse no real interest or enthusiasm about his
discovery.

He then went to IBM, which had developed a costly computer reading-instruction program
called Writing to Read which teaches children a modified phonetic writing system. After many
phone conversations, they referred him to Dr. Larry Silver, director of the National Institute of
Dyslexia in Bethesda, Maryland. Miller called Silver who said he would like to see Miller’s
materials on the artificial induction of dyslexia. Several days after sending the materials, Miller
called Silver’s office. The secretary said that the materials had arrived, that a complete copy of
them had been made, and that they were being returned to Miller with a letter from Dr. Silver.
Silver’s letter was quite perfunctory. He offered no evaluation of Miller’s theory on the artificial
induction of dyslexia, but advised Miller to team up with someone at a university working in
special education. Apparently, Miller’s lack of academic “credentials” was the new handicap he
had to deal with.

But Miller had already contacted someone at Appalachian State University for help. He had
spoken with the dean of the school of education who recommended that he contact Dr. Gerald
Parker, professor of special education. In August 1988 Miller made a presentation of his theory
to Dr. Parker’s graduate students. But he soon realized, by the questions they asked, that they
were all committed to the whole-language approach. In fact, Parker expressed the opinion that
the best way to avoid creating the cognitive conflict was to teach the child only one way of
looking at words: the holistic, configurational way! In other words, the child should only read
words that he had memorized as sight words. If he did that, he would never exhibit the symptoms
in his sight vocabulary? Parker told Miller that Frank Smith provided the answer to that question
in his book. Understanding Reading, the bible of whole-language educators. Miller got a copy of
the book, read it slowly but thoroughly and came to the conclusion that Frank Smith was
responsible for the misconception of the century.

Frank Smith Was Wrong

Miller’s theory was that the two ways of looking at words — the configurational and the
phonetic — were mutually exclusive, and that once a child achieved an automatic ability to look
at words in a spatial-holistic fashion, it created a cognitive conflict with the phonetic method.
Frank Smith, however, insisted that none of these methods were mutually exclusive. But if this
were so, then why didn’t those who were trained to read phonetically ever become dyslexic, and
those who were taught to read ideographically did?

Dr. Parker had also told Miller about Dr. Frank Wood, director of the Bowman Gray Learning
Disability Project at the Bowman Gray School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Wood was conducting research on learning disabilities under a $3-million grant from the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The goal of the project,
according to a brochure, was “to understand the causes of learning disability and the methods by
which we might forestall or prevent some of the worst consequences in underachievement.”
Obviously, if there were anyone who would be interested in Miller’s theory about the cause of
dyslexia, it would have to be Dr. Wood.

Wood did, in fact, show interest in Miller’s theory, and after several visits and phone
conversations over a period of about four months, he sent Miller a four-page review of the theory
in August 1988. In essence, Wood agreed that dyslexia was generally characterized by a deficit
in decoding skills. But he believed that this deficit was probably due to some children being
“genetically predisposed against phonetic processes” rather than their having become
phonetically impaired by their pre-school learning of a sight vocabulary. Wood wrote:

“There is no evidence of which I am aware that would relate the kinds of early pre-reading experiences you describe
to dyslexia in the school years. Perhaps it is fair to say that there has been little attempt to gather such evidence, so
that the issue remains unexplored. There is, however, a major series of investigations that establishes the role of
genetic factors in dyslexia. To the extent that genetic factors control the dyslexic outcome, preschool experience
would be eliminated as any substantial cause of the problem.”

In other words, the federal government has spent and is still spending millions of dollars
looking for the genetic causes of dyslexia. This line of investigation is the official line of the
Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities, which defined “Learning Disabilities” as
follows in its 1987 report to the Congress:

“Learning disabilities is a generic term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant
difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities, or
of social skills. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to be due to central nervous system
dysfunction. Even though a learning disability may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g.,
sensory impairment, mental retardation, social and emotional disturbance), with socioenvironmental influences (e.g.,
cultural differences, insufficient or inappropriate instruction, psychogenic factors), and especially with attention
deficit disorder, all of which may cause learning problems, a learning disability is not the direct result of those
conditions or influences.”

In other words, instruction methods are largely irrelevant! Also, note that you can also be
learning disabled in social skills, which opens a vast new field of investigation for psychologists
seeking government research grants. Wood also wrote:

The only part of your theory that is undeveloped in research is that having to do with the role of preschool
experience in strengthening a natural spatial holistic viewing tendency, to the subsequent detriment of phonemically
based reading. That is an interesting research question, and it has not yet been subjected to careful scientific
methodology. It seems to me that there would be two separable issues: (1) whether any substantial numbers of
dyslexic children owe their dyslexia to the preemption by a spatial strategy that was learned or strengthened in the
preschool years; and (2) whether this preemption by a spatial strategy is even possible (notwithstanding the question
of whether it accounts for a substantial number of dyslexic children’s problems).

Devising a Suitable Test

What this meant was that Miller had to prove, in a manner acceptable to the scientific
community, that his theory was correct. Miller believed that he could do so by means of a simple
test that anyone could duplicate and verify. He had already seen how dyslexic children could
read their controlled vocabulary books with great speed but were stymied when faced with
simple newspaper stories. The question was, at what point did the child become a committed
sight reader and develop a block against learning phonics? It took about ten months of
experimentation before Miller finally came up with a testing instrument that would indicate
clearly whether a child was a sight reader or a phonetic reader and at what point the child’s
reading mode became permanent. The test would scientifically measure the child’s word
identification strategies and accurately measure the severity of the child’s dyslexic condition.

The test was composed of two sets of words: the first set consisted of 260 sight words drawn
from two Dr. Seuss books, Green Eggs and Ham and The Cat in the Hat, The second set
consisted of 260 equally simple words drawn from Rudolf Flesch’s word lists in Why Johnny
Can’t Read, The sight words were arranged in alphabetical order across the page. They included
such multi-syllabic words as about, another, mother, playthings, something, yellow, while the
words from Flesch’s book were all at first-grade level, one syllable and phonetically regular. In
other words, for a child who knew his or her phonics neither set of words posed any problem.
The purpose of the test was to measure the speed at which the child read both sets of words and
to count the errors, or miscues, made in reading the two sets of words.
What the Tests Revealed

The first children Miller tested were the five children of the Norman family, a black family
Miller had known for many years. He discovered that the two oldest boys, Deidric and Cameron,
could read both sets of words with no difficulty, indicating normal, phonetic reading ability.
However, their brothers Travis, 11, and Jason, 7, were a different story. Travis read the sight
words at 51 words per minute with no errors, but read the phonetic words at 17 words per minute
with 91 errors. Jason read the sight words at a speed of 44 words per minute with no errors, but
read the phonetic words at 24 words per minute with 47 errors.
Obviously, both youngsters had become dyslexic. The fact that they could read the sight
words at over 30 words per minute meant that their word-identification mode was automatic and,
therefore, permanently fixed. Their cognitive block against phonics had been established by the
way they had learned to read. Unless the blockage was undone through intensive remedial
intervention, it would remain a major lifelong handicap, preventing them from pursuing careers
that required accurate reading skills.

The youngest child, Nickayla, 6, given a shorter test, read the sight words at 21 words per
minute with 8 errors and read the phonetic words at 10 words per minute with 16 errors. She had
not yet developed that degree of automaticity with the sight words that would have prevented her
from becoming a phonetic reader. But Nickayla was tested nine months later, and the results
indicated that she had developed the needed automaticity. She could now read the sight words at
39 words per minute with 11 errors, and read the phonetic words at 21 words per minute with 50
errors. In other words, she had become educationally dyslexic in a matter of nine months. This
outcome could have been prevented had she been taught intensive, systematic phonics at a time
when her word-identification mode was still indeterminate.

The test had clearly shown its value as an indicator of a child’s way of identifying words:
phonetically or holistically. It also indicated the degree of dyslexia, or symbolic confusion, the
child was suffering from. It could also identify those children who had not yet made a cognitive
commitment to either word-identification mode and could still be saved from becoming
educationally dyslexic with the proper intervention.
Alarming Results

In January 1990 Miller obtained permission to administer his test to 68 students at the Ronda Clingman Elementary School, a rural school with an enrollment of about 600 near the town of
Ronda in Wilkes County, North Carolina. Of the 68 students, 25 were 4th-graders, 26 were 2nd
graders, and 17 students were from different grades in Title 1. The results were alarming. Of the
26 second-graders, 5 were phonetic readers, 11 were permanent holistic readers (with a sight
reading speed of over 30 words per minute) and therefore already educationally dyslexic, and 10
were in a state of reading limbo, that is, they hadn’t yet developed automaticity in either word
identification mode and could either become fluent phonetic readers or educationally dyslexic.

The outcome would depend on how they were taught to read in the next few months.
Of the 25 fourth-graders, 14 were phonetic readers and 11 were holistic, that is, educationally
dyslexic. None were in an indeterminate state. In other words, they had all developed the degree
of automaticity in their word-identification mode which made their reading mode permanent. If
this fourth-grade class was typical of fourth-grade classes throughout North Carolina, this meant
that 44% of all students in the public schools of that state would emerge at the end of their school
careers educationally dyslexic, that is, functionally illiterate.

Of the 17 students in Title 1, 6 were phonetic readers, 6 were holistic (educationally
dyslexic), and 5 were in limbo. Of the latter, 4 were in first grade, indicating that their reading
instruction was leading them into educational dyslexia.
What was happening at the Ronda-Clingman school was going on in every elementary school
in North Carolina. Were the authorities concerned? Miller had actually gone to the state
education authorities in September of 1989 and demonstrated to them his theory on the artificial
induction of dyslexia. Two months later he received a letter from Betty Jean Foust, the state’s
Consultant for Reading Communication Skills. She wrote:

“This letter is in response to your request that I review your materials and comment upon your theory of dyslexia.
Members of the Department of Public Instruction believe in a multiple approach to teaching reading. We believe
that phonics may help the beginning reader if it is done early and kept simple. We do not feel phonics are useful
with older students. In my teaching experience, I have encountered several students who could not hear sounds;
therefore, we used other methods for learning to read. In my opinion, all students do not need a phonics assessment.
We have never promoted reading words out of context as your assessment does. Time is precious in our schools, and
we need activities which promote achievement. Secondly, I believe all students can be taught to read. Some can read better than others, but all students can learn something. We need to guard against the use of dyslexia as a term for ‘catch all reading problems.”’ Thus spake the State Reading Authority.
Comparing Schools

In January 1991, Miller gained permission to test 62 students at Dade Christian School, a
private school in Miami, Florida. The school, with an enrollment of about 1,000 students, is
racially mixed, with many children from Spanish-speaking families.
Of the 62 students tested, 26 were in fourth grade, 19 in second grade and 17 in a special
group selected from second and third grades because of the difficulties they were having in
reading. Of the 19 second-graders, 14 were established phonetic readers, 4 were holistic, and 1
was indeterminate, that is, in the limbo state. All of the 16 children in the special group were
educationally dyslexic. Of the 26 fourth-graders, 24 were phonetic readers, and only 2 were
educationally dyslexic.

In other words, while in the public schools of North Carolina 44 out of 100 students were
becoming educationally dyslexic because of their reading-instruction methods, only 8 out of 100
were becoming educationally dyslexic at the private school in Florida. But even that rate was too
high. In any case, Miller had not ascertained how those 2 dyslexic students in the fourth grade
had become that way, nor was he given the academic histories of the 17 children in the special
group.

The implications to be drawn from Edward Miller’s theory on the artificial induction of
dyslexia are most significant. In the first place, they infer that dyslexia is being caused by the
reading-instruction methods presently being used in most American public schools, and that
educational dyslexia can be prevented by the teaching of intensive, systematic phonics so that the
children will become phonetic readers. As Miller has pointed out, a phonetic reader cannot
become dyslexic.

If what Miller has discovered is true, then the millions of dollars the federal government is
spending on finding the genetic causes of dyslexia is a total waste. In addition, the billions of
Chapter One dollars the U. S. Dept. of Education has spent in support of reading programs that
are causing educational dyslexia are more than a waste. They are being used to commit a horrible
crime against the children of this country.

For years, now, we have been telling the public that the dyslexia that afflicts millions of
perfectly normal, healthy children is being caused by the reading-instruction methods used in our
schools. Whole language, which is presently sweeping through the primary schools of America
like a plague, is the latest manifestation of this insane addiction to defective teaching methods. It
is sad to know that millions of innocent children will be permanently damaged by these methods,
used by teachers who believe they are doing the right thing.
Establishment Not Interested

Edward Miller has gone to great lengths to bring his findings to the attention of the
government education and research establishment. His letters and phone calls to top officials
have been to no avail. What he has found out is what we have known for a long time: they are
not interested. They have their own agenda, and it has nothing to do with educational excellence.

At this point, our only hope is to reach enough parents so that as many children as possible
can be saved from the fate of functional illiteracy the public schools have in store for them. We
are advising all American parents to teach their children the three R’s at home or have them
taught at a trustworthy private school until at least the fourth grade. The most severe, permanent
damage is done to the children in the first three grades of public school. We believe that
homeschooling is the best educational alternative for all children. However, we realize that
homeschooling is not a viable alternative for many parents. In addition, many parents cannot
afford private education. But they must find some way to educate their children correctly in those
first crucial three years. Parents must also be made aware that permitting their pre-school
children to memorize a battery of sight words will cause reading problems later on. They should
teach their children to read by intensive, systematic phonics before giving them little preschool
books to read. This will “immunize” the children against dyslexia. And lastly, pray for those
children whose parents, or teachers, do not have this knowledge — and then. . . pray for
America.

Independence Day by Russ Payne

Published July 4, 2022 | By campconstitution

This 4th of July Americans need to ponder the powerful wisdom of Sam Adams, the will of our Founding fathers expressed at the Continental Congress in July 1776 to return from the chaos that rules our nation today back to our moral anchor the Author of Liberty:

“We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and … from the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come.”

Our Constitution undergirded by the eternal biblical wisdom of the Declaration of Independence demands Independence from the despotic rule of the rest of the world. It demands obedience! To implement our nations uniqueness in all history. Because our American Republic is founded on the premise that: “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights…. and among these are “life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This is the recipe for liberty, and why for over two hundred years the enemies of God and the Constitution have been busy trying to eliminate our nations founding documents from our history. For these are our birth certificates, for without their controls on government, they think they will dethrone God. Today, it is for shame, well organized and financed forces of evil both within and outside our government, called the “Deep State, labor to destroy our American heritage. Perhaps this is why we have so many hypocrite’s who wave the flag on the 4th of July while they promote the UN world government goal of the “New World Order.”

We suffer these troubles of our times because generations of Americans have been governed by politicians whose educations have been remiss of the great heroics of our Christian forbears. How many have been taught the spiritual fire that breathed liberty in 1775 by Patrick Henry was the “Invisible Hand?” And that it ignited from the fiery pulpits of Christian churches from 1740’s and 50’s by liberty minded pastors called the Black Regiment? Listen to Jedidiah Morse words from his, Annals of the American Revolution: “The Prayers and public discourses of clergy,… who were friends to their country, (there were few who were not) breathed the spirit of patriotism;…”

John Stark.s life exemplified New Hampshire’s burning desire for liberty, with his words “Live Free or Die” motto of our state of New Hampshire. But his message is incomplete without what follows, “death is not the worst of evils.” This high standard of moral conviction also burned hotly in the heart of Pastor Samuel Langdon from the Granite State. Perhaps these are only words to us, to these men they meant life or death. After battle of Bunker Hill, Landon another member of the Black Robe Regiment, became Chaplin. His fervor for independence sounded in his words from his sermon in June of 1775: “This is God’s cause…. We should be unworthy of the fathers and mothers who landed on Plymouth Rock if we do not cheerfully bear what Providence shall put upon us in the great conflict before us. I had two sons at Bunker Hill, and one of them, you know, was slain. The other did his duty, and for the future God must do with him what seemeth best. I had thought I would stay here with the church, but my minister is going, and I will shoulder my musket and go, too.”

South to Virginia in that same year, the same spiritual fire was breathed in the sermon, of Black Robe Regiment, Pastor Peter Muhlemberg challenging his congregation: “There is a time for all things — a time to preach and a time to pray;’” but these times had passed away;” and then with a trumpeting voice blasting through the church , he exclaimed ,; “ There is a time to fight, and that time has now come.’” After ripping off his ecclesiastical robe he stood before them in full uniform of a Virginia Colonel while the drums beat: “almost the entire audience capable of bearing arms, nearly 300 men joined to fight with Muhlemberg.” Honoring such heroic courage was popular in the early years of our Republic. For in the U.S. Capital building stands a statue of Colonel Muhlemberg a leader of the Black Robe Regiment. It’s for shame that our wimpish leaders allow revolutionary Marxist to tear them down.

God’s intervention to build this great Republic won the victory through many great Christian patriots. This 4th of July, let us as Americans look back for inspiration at how history reveals He worked through these great men of God. The anti-independence Tories on the front row of St. John’s church sure felt heat of Patrick Henry’s, Give Me liberty or Give Me Death” challenge to their “complacent, business is good, why rock the boat attitude.” Near the end of Henry’s thundering oration, the flames got hotter, reflecting in his countenance: eyewitness accounts have said his face was “crimson” and the veins in his neck were like white whipcords.” He was building a fire for liberty and independence from the rule of King George with his final words to the overflow audience that warm March day with many observing at open windows when he said:

“Is life so dear , and peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it , Almighty God ! I know not what course others make take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! After this moving challenge before God, a silence hovered over the church for about a minute. Then the thundering roar with clenched fist exploded in the cry, “To arms!”

The Fourth of July brings back many memories like the above history of the great acts of moral courage. “Once there were such men, “may God give us more like these great Christian patriots!” I have shared these memories to help keep them alive. Don’t let our contemporary politician’s hypocrisy celebrate Independence Day: waving the flag in celebration, to hide their vote for every United Nations program that challenges our independence: a goal to “totally destroy of our nation.” Reflecting back to all the miraculous incidents that brought victory for American independence at his 1789 first inaugural address, President George Washington’s powerful insight tells us how God had guided and provided victory against what seemed to be impossible odds. These are his words that should inspire us today to fight for our liberty by demanding obedience to the Constitution:

“No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

The Invisible Hand is still there, let us pray for His guidance. And educate our families to know the Constitution, so accountability may become a straight jacket of control to limit leaders who lust for power. We in New Hampshire are blessed to have Camp Constitution’s Annual Summer Camp to be held July 17th-22,2022 in Plainfield, NH at Singing Hills Christian Camp. Check it out at CampConstitution.net

The Weekly Sam: Why the Federal Government Should Get Out of Education by Sam Blumenfeld

Published June 12, 2022 | By campconstitution

Most Americans want less government, smaller government and lower taxes. The only
way to accomplish this is by abolishing federal departments and bureaucracies. As far
back as the Reagan administration, Republicans promised to abolish the Department of
Education. They couldn’t do it then because they lacked a majority in Congress. But
whatever happened to the plan to abolish the Department of Education when Republicans
became the majority? Not only did they forget their promise, but in September 1996 they
passed the single largest increase in federal education funding: $3.5 billion. Who were
the Republicans trying to impress? The National Education Association?
The basic question is: Can good education be provided in the U.S. without the help or
intrusion of the federal government? The answer is clearly yes. In fact, there is ample
evidence indicating that the present decline in educational quality is a direct result of
federal funding which has been used by the educators to fund more and more expensive
educational malpractice.

A little historical background will help us understand why the federal role in education in
America is more of an aberration than a natural development. There is no mention of
education in the U.S. Constitution. However, in 1785 and 1787, while the United States
were still under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress passed the
Northwest Ordinance Acts which provided for the orderly settlement of the Northwest
Territory and encouraged the establishment of schools in the territory by stating:
“Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be encouraged.” The
new states were required to set aside the 16th section of each township to be used for
educational purposes. But there was no requirement that the schools be government
owned and operated.

Seventy-five years later, in 1862, Congress passed and President Lincoln signed the
Morrill Land Grant Act providing each loyal state with 30,000 acres of land for each
Senator and Representative, the land to be used for agricultural and mechanical schools
under a measure proposed by Senator Justin S. Morrill of Vermont. Five years later, in
1867, a federal Office of Education was established. Its purpose was:

“To collect such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the
several States and Territories, and to diffuse such information respecting the organization and
management of schools and school systems, and methods of teaching as shall aid the People of
the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and
otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country.”

It should be noted that the National Education Association had been founded ten years
earlier in 1857 and that its members called for the establishment of a federal department
of education at the founding convention. And it is obvious that in that statement of
purpose was an expansionist view of the government’s future role in education.
After World War I, the NEA began a long range campaign to get federal aid for public
education. From 1867 to 1940–a period of 73 years–the Congress passed about 11 minor
pieces of legislation related to education. The fear of federal control of schools kept most
legislators from voting for federal aid to public education. But resistance was gradually
broken down by such acts as the National School Lunch Act of 1946, the School Milk
Program Act of 1954.

But it was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 passed during the
Johnson administration which opened the floodgates of the U.S. Treasury for the benefit
of the education establishment. From 1965 to 1983–18 years–there were 43 education
acts passed by the Congress, including the establishment in 1979 of a U.S. Department of
Education with cabinet status. In the year 1994 alone, there were about 180 educational
restructuring bills before Congress! The three most important bills enacted were the
Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the Improving America’s
Schools Act, a reauthorization of the ESEA of 1965. All of this legislation was passed
with much Republican help. In short, the Congress launched an avalanche of bills which
virtually amounted to a cultural revolution.

It seemed as if all restraints had been removed on government expansion and intrusion
into education, and the Republican Congress did nothing to reverse the trend. That is
why the federal government has become a government of unlimited power.
We must return to the principle of limited government if we wish to reduce the cost of
government and its unwarranted intrusion in the education of our children. A limited
federal government does only those things that cannot be done by the states or the private
sector. The purpose of taxes is to pay for government not change society.
There is no doubt that the federal intrusion in education has harmed education and
produced the dumbing down effect. Test scores attest to this bizarre phenomenon. Since
1962, SAT verbal scores have declined despite billions of federal dollars pumped into
public education. In September 1993, the U.S. Department of Education revealed that
some 90 million adult Americans have grossly inadequate reading and writing skills,
despite compulsory school attendance. The more federal money Congress pumps into
education the worse it gets. Why? Because educational malpractice is very expensive,
and without federal funding we’d have much less of it.

The simple truth is that federal education programs cost the taxpayers billions of dollars,
and not one of these programs has actually improved education. Claims have been made
that Headstart is a successful program. But research indicates that whatever gains
children make in Headstart are lost by the third grade. Federal education grants subsidize

a liberal academic elite with its secular humanist,
socialist agenda, thus violating the Constitutional prohibition against establishing a state
religion: Humanism.

The Data Collection System of the National Center for Education Statistics threatens
family privacy and freedom. Children are not a “national resource” to be monitored and
controlled for use by the state or industry. They are individuals whose lives belong to
themselves, not to “the economy.”

The federal government has institutionalized educational malpractice by supporting
unsound educational theories and practices which have found their way into the public
schools via the federally funded National Diffusion Network. Federal aid to public
education simply reinforces a socialist, government owned and operated education system
which distorts market values and encourages monopoly union practices.
Meanwhile, the education establishment continues to grow and prosper. In 1982, the
average public school teacher’s salary was $19,274. In 1995 it was up to $37,643., and in
2008 it us up to $47,602. In 1982, per pupil expenditure was $2,726. In 1995-96 the
national average was up to $6,213, and in 2009 it was up to $9,963. In 1984, total
expenditure for public education was $134.5 billion. In 2002 it had risen to $420 billion.

In short, never has public education been more generously supported by the taxpayer and
never have our schools seen more violence, academic disarray, and parental
dissatisfaction than the present. What is even more shocking is that over four million
students must be drugged daily with Ritalin in order to be able to attend class.
Today, well-connected change agents like Mark Tucker are busy imposing on America
the new Human Resources Development System, exuberantly described by Tucker in an
18-page letter to Hillary Clinton when her husband was elected President. Tucker
described his system as “a seamless web of opportunities to develop one’s skills that
literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone–young and old,
poor and rich, worker and full-time student.”

And so, in place of academic excellence, we have Outcome Based Education, Whole
Language, Multiculturalism, Skinnerian Mastery Learning, National Teaching Standards
and Certification, School-Based Clinics, Attitude Assessments, Global Citizenship, and
Socialized Medicine for every student.

What is actually taking place is a cultural revolution engineered by behavioral
psychologists, humanist educators, and socialist change agents using a whole galaxy of
education programs to implement their agenda, financed by the federal government.
And much of this has taken place when Republicans were in control of Congress. And
that accounts for the extreme frustration of conservatives who vote Republican but get
liberal results. When will this change?

The takeover of the White House and the federal government by radical leftists has finally
awakened the American people to what has happened to this country since we started
allowing the federal government to exceed all limits placed on it by the Constitution. But
in order to succeed in restoring the principles of government held by our founding fathers,
we must return to limited government. This can only be done if the American people
realize the potential for tyranny inherent in a government education system.

The most important institution in a socialist state is a government owned and controlled
school system wherein children can be indoctrinated to accept a socialist way of life. And
the best way to prevent this from occurring is to return to the concept of educational
freedom in which the federal government has no role in education.
Local public schools can easily become private institutions governed by local trustees and
supported by tuition fees. This would greatly reduce the tax burden on home owners and
provide more than enough resources to pay for the tuitions of poor families. The costs of
education would decrease dramatically since education would once more become reality
based wherein the fundamental academic subjects would be taught without the added
costs of educational malpractice. Individual intelligence would be enhanced, while
collectivist group-think would be discarded.

Can this be done? Only if America’s conservative leaders demand that it should be done.
The home-school movement has already proven that parents can actually teach better
than our high-priced professionals, 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.
If Americans want to once more experience what it means to be free, they must burst out
of the high-priced straitjacket imposed on them by the socialist education tyrants. If they
want better education at lower cost, then the prescription for success is simple: get the
government out of education.

This article is from the Sam Blumenfeld Archives. https://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/

James Garfield’s Memorial Day Speech of May 30, 1868

Published May 30, 2022 | By campconstitution

I am oppressed with a sense of the impropriety of uttering words on this occasion. If silence is ever golden, it must be here beside the graves of fifteen thousand men, whose lives were more significant than speech, and whose death was a poem, the music of which can never be sung. With words we make promises, plight faith, praise virtue. Promises may not be kept; plighted faith may be broken; and vaunted virtue be only the cunning mask of vice. We do not know one promise these men made, one pledge they gave, one word they spoke; but we do know they summed up and perfected, by one supreme act, the highest virtues of men and citizens. For love of country they accepted death, and thus resolved all doubts, and made immortal their patriotism and their virtue. For the noblest man that lives, there still remains a conflict. He must still withstand the assaults of time and fortune, must still be assailed with temptations, before which lofty natures have fallen; but with these the conflict ended, the victory was won, when death stamped on them the great seal of heroic character, and closed a record which years can never blot.

I know of nothing more appropriate on this occasion than to inquire what brought these men here; what high motive led them to condense life into an hour, and to crown that hour by joyfully welcoming death? Let us consider.

Eight years ago this was the most unwarlike nation of the earth. For nearly fifty years no spot in any of these states had been the scene of battle. Thirty millions of people had an army of less than ten thousand men. The faith of our people in the stability and permanence of their institutions was like their faith in the eternal course of nature. Peace, liberty, and personal security were blessings as common and universal as sunshine and showers and fruitful seasons; and all sprang from a single source, the old American principle that all owe due submission and obedience to the lawfully expressed will of the majority. This is not one of the doctrines of our political system—it is the system itself. It is our political firmament, in which all other truths are set, as stars in Heaven. It is the encasing air, the breath of the Nation’s life. Against this principle the whole weight of the rebellion was thrown. Its overthrow would have brought such ruin as might follow in the physical universe, if the power of gravitation were destroyed and

“Nature’s concord broke,
Among the constellations war were sprung,
Two planets, rushing from aspect malign
Of fiercest opposition, in mid-sky
Should combat, and their jarring spheres confound.” (From Milton’s Paradise Lost)

The Nation was summoned to arms by every high motive which can inspire men. Two centuries of freedom had made its people unfit for despotism. They must save their Government or miserably perish.

As a flash of lightning in a midnight tempest reveals the abysmal horrors of the sea, so did the flash of the first gun disclose the awful abyss into which rebellion was ready to plunge us. In a moment the fire was lighted in twenty million hearts. In a moment we were the most warlike Nation on the earth. In a moment we were not merely a people with an army—we were a people in arms. The Nation was in column—not all at the front, but all in the array.

I love to believe that no heroic sacrifice is ever lost; that the characters of men are molded and inspired by what their fathers have done; that treasured up in American souls are all the unconscious influences of the great deeds of the Anglo-Saxon race, from Agincourt to Bunker Hill. It was such an influence that led a young Greek, two thousand years ago, when musing on the battle of Marathon, to exclaim, “the trophies of Miltiades will not let me sleep!” Could these men be silent in 1861; these, whose ancestors had felt the inspiration of battle on every field where civilization had fought in the last thousand years? Read their answer in this green turf. Each for himself gathered up the cherished purposes of life—its aims and ambitions, its dearest affections—and flung all, with life itself, into the scale of battle.

And now consider this silent assembly of the dead. What does it represent? Nay, rather, what does it not represent? It is an epitome of the war. Here are sheaves reaped in the harvest of death, from every battlefield of Virginia. If each grave had a voice to tell us what its silent tenant last saw and heard on earth, we might stand, with uncovered heads, and hear the whole story of the war. We should hear that one perished when the first great drops of the crimson shower began to fall, when the darkness of that first disaster at Manassas fell like an eclipse on the Nation; that another died of disease while wearily waiting for winter to end; that this one fell on the field, in sight of the spires of Richmond, little dreaming that the flag must be carried through three more years of blood before it should be planted in that citadel of treason; and that one fell when the tide of war had swept us back till the roar of rebel guns shook the dome of yonder Capitol, and re-echoed in the chambers of the Executive Mansion. We should hear mingled voices from the Rappahannock, the Rapidan, the Chickahominy, and the James; solemn voices from the Wilderness, and triumphant shouts from the Shenandoah, from Petersburg, and the Five Forks, mingled with the wild acclaim of victory and the sweet chorus of returning peace. The voices of these dead will forever fill the land like holy benedictions.

What other spot so fitting for their last resting place as this under the shadow of the Capitol saved by their valor? Here, where the grim edge of battle joined; here, where all the hope and fear and agony of their country centered; here let them rest, asleep on the Nation’s heart, entombed in the Nation’s love!

Camp Constitution’s motto is “Honor the Past….Teach the Present….Prepare the Future.” https://www.campconstitution.net

Get Us Out of the United Nations Support H.R. 7806 by Russ Payne

Published May 29, 2022 | By campconstitution

Will Rogers has a humorous observation on how lots of us think: “The problem with the American people is not what they don’t know, it’s what we think we know that ain’t so.” Representative Mike Lee of Alabama has introduced H.R. 7806 , The American Sovereignty Restoration Act to completely Get US Out of The United Nations. The goals of the UN were altruistic, however the implementation of said goals have been less than desirable.

First of all consider the UN globalist strategy has followed an agenda to bring “peace through force” which has resulted in wars fought by American soldiers and financed with U.S tax dollars. The narrative of the world government movement has been a “monkey on the back” of our independence and freedom since WWII because it attacks the U.S. Constitution. Just as saws and hammers are tools to build with, the UN is a tool to build world government.

Unfortunately, Eleanor Roosevelt, when she chaired the UN committee that drafted the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, allowed the language in Article 29 that negates all the previous rights granted with the words: “Rights should not be exercised contrary to the principles and purposes of the United Nation.” This completely turns away from the Americanist principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence that human rights come from God our Creator that were written into law in the First Ten Amendments, essentially telling the federal government what it could not do.

Over the past 70 plus years Marxism has gradually eroded American sovereignty over ruling constitutional domestic law in many critical areas. The UN is showing its true purpose to so many today. Personal health decisions being taken away has exposed the WHO’s violation of inherent rights during these pandemic years as this global malignancy has rapidly metastasized in the area of health with a compassionate desire to control healthcare all over the world. Blessed with the protection from public scrutiny by the media, this week they are meeting in Geneva at the World Health Assembly to draft a Global Pandemic Treaty with two in-depth amendments that could easily be mistaken for international law proposed by an enemy to control the American people by a foreign enemy power.

The Biden Administrations actions this week reveal his position to take personal healthcare away from individuals, ceding these inherent liberties to International Health Regulations (IHR). This would give WHO’s bureaucrats power to replace doctors caring for and advising American citizens. Who of us will trust their liberty to such global power that in the past during the Obama Administration sent thousands of U.S. troops to the Ivory Coast of Africa to help the UN to enforce medical martial law when Ebola was spreading? Do we want annual “lockdowns” to be part of the American way of life? Don’t put your faith in the Senate stopping the new treaty with 2/3 majority. Adding these controls onto IHR will be automatic new powers that will continue the dangerous trend of overriding our Constitution on the way to 100% control of our lives.

Global government is rapidly strangling human liberty with force through their concern for our physical health through the World Health Organization. Do not the above facts shed new appreciation for Presidents Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO? It is critical that Americans who have been provoked by invasive control of personal healthcare, realize that the only permanent way to defund the Global Pandemic Treaty and its new IHR is to Get US Out Of the UN. It hasn’t just become a monster to destroy our liberty during the pandemic. It has safely moved its globalist agenda to overrule constitutional law in many areas for decades because the majority of our political leaders have represented their constituents as if they have sworn allegiance to the UN Charter instead of the U.S. Constitution. They must be terminated at the ballot box If this counterrevolution against globalism is to succeed.

Concerned citizens would do well to inform themselves about all the tentacles of UN controls that have become “assumed powers” that illegally supersede constitutional domestic law at jbs.org. For since its origin in 1958 The John Birch Society has aimed its educational war against this UN “fifth column” that is strangling American liberty at the American electorate to send constitutionalists to office. Apparently they are slow learners, for it is so obvious that the superiority of the historical foundation of Americanism over the UN peace by force, is like another way of saying that freedom is superior to slavery. Help build a fire of truth under the feet of your Senator’s and Congressmen to be a cosponsor with a true friend of American Independence and liberty, Rep. Mike Lee of Alabama whose bill H.R. 7806 will completely withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations. Be a friend to liberty. Don’t be one of those Americans who think they know the UN is for peace. It ain’t so!

Where There is Unity by James Harrison of Natural Family Strong

Published May 15, 2022 | By campconstitution

A recent Supreme Court “leak” regarding an upcoming Roe Vs Wade decision has created a wave of activity on the part of our adversaries. But strangely enough and almost unnoticed was an actual Supreme Court decision that was coincidentally released the very same day of the Roe Case leak. This separate Supreme Court Decision, a seldom seen 9-0 decision, has quietly created some interesting results throughout the fruited plans frustrating the plans of many progressive on the God hating left.

Back to that in a moment but first I mentioned the word coincidental which Webster defines as :

“Occurring or existing at the same time”. For example – the fact that your boss and you went to the same college was purely coincidental or like Joe Biden just happens to be pumping billions of dollars into a county where his son made millions in questionable business deals – a coincidence for sure, right?

Speaking of coincidence, it just so happens that a week after this unanimous Supreme Court Decisionthe city of Delaware, Ohio announced that they were pausing their banner/ flag program where one noted alphabet organization was looking forward to flying their colors all over the city in June.

It is also noteworthy that prior to this city council decision several local citizens had asked the city of Delaware council to declare a family celebration from Mother’s Day to Father’s Day of 2022. The idea was to honor the traditional family as described in the bible. And of course, the Delaware City Council would not even consider the idea quickly noting several excuses as to why not. Keep in mind this is the same council that encourages the celebration of the sexually challenged and even gave them memorial plagues for their inaugural efforts last year.

In response to the council’s Traditional Family Celebration denial, family friendly citizens then requested of the city council that instead of flying a supposed “Pride” banner the entire month of June, a Traditional Family banner be displayed. Hopefully this would be done at least 2 weeks in June. This Traditional Family display would replace the “pride” banners and preferably appear at least over father’s day June.

The city reluctantly took the Traditional Family application which included a banner with the picture of one man, one woman and their children inside of a heart? To say that the city seemed to have little interest in offering a symbol of the Traditional (aka Natural Family) would be an understatement. They were quite aware that Traditional family banner would have “countered” the Gay Pride banner and rumor had it that the city would likely would have said thanks but no thanks to our request if it were not for…

Did I mention that there was a 9-0 Supreme Court decision a couple of weeks ago? A unanimous decision that said the city of Boston, despite the city’s previous decision against it, would now have to display a Christian flag if so requested. And folks this was after 5 years of legal wrangling. The fact that the court even considered the case let alone come down with a unanimous decision in favor of Christians was well, dare I say, miraculous in today’s bizarre world.

And what did that have to do with our little Ole Midwest City council decision? Well, I’d say most everything! That is because Delaware city has now decided to “pause” all banners pending, wait for it, pending their lawyer taking a good hard look at the Boston Case – Camp Constitution Vs. City of Boston. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf Which means that at present NO banners – yes that means nothing in June for sure – will be on display on the city’s property until further notice.

Oh and one more thing. As is my want I have been sending emails to a local pastor of a quite large church encouraging him as best he could to encourage his congregation to be salt and light in the world. To nudge his flock to start attending local magistrate meetings- like the aforementioned City council.

Well, before the meeting this past Monday evening a gentleman got up and spoke and gave a passionate speech on how the city should not be displaying the rainbow flag or anything that promotes a perverted lifestyle. His heartfelt appeal was quite impressive and keep in mind this was well before the City’s decision was officially announced.

After the meeting our Traditional Family group spoke with this gentleman who assured us that he was a Christian and that his church was active in the community. And what church was that? As you might have already guessed, his church just happened to be the same one I’ve been badgering, oops I mean communicating with over the past few months..

As I look back on this experience, I can’t help but be astonished as to how things worked together, like, well like it was some sort of a synchronousor dare I say, providential plan where all the pieces seemed to just snap into place and the perfect time.

James Harrison

Director – www.naturalfamilystrong.com

614-899-1414

City of Nashua Admits They Were Wrong to Take Down My Save Women’s Sports Flag by Beth Scaer

Published May 10, 2022 | By campconstitution

My husband and I raised the Save Women’s Sports flag on the Citizen Flag Pole on Nashua City Hall Plaza on Saturday, October 10, 2020 with permission from the City of Nashua. It was supposed to stay up until Friday, October 16.

Nashua Mayor Jim Donchess had it removed in less than 24 hours claiming the message “Woman = Adult Human Female” on the flag is offensive and that it violates state law.

In Nashua City Attorney Steve Bolton’s response to my appeal to have my flag put back up, he cited the court case Shurtleff V Boston as justification for the City of Nashua to control which flags can be flown.

Earlier this year, I warned Mayor Donchess and Attorney Bolton, and the Nashua Board of Aldermen repeatedly that the Shurtleff case was being heard at the US Supreme Court and it was going very badly for Boston, which had denied Hal Shurtleff the right to fly a Christian flag on a community flagpole on Boston City Hall plaza. But they ignored me and continued to allow community groups to fly flags on the Citizen Flag Pole.

Last week, the Supreme Court justices voted 9-0 in favor of Shurtleff and said it was viewpoint discrimination to deny him the right to fly his flag when Boston had allowed all other flags requested by others to be flown.

Attorney Richard Lehmann sent a letter on my behalf to Nashua City Attorney Steve Bolton calling out the unconstitutionality of Mayor Jim Donchess having my Save Women’s Sports flag removed from the Citizen Flag Pole based on the outcome of this case and requesting that I be allowed to raise my flag again.

The City of Nashua’s response was to remove the webpage for the Citizen Flag Pole program from the city website. This is an acknowledgment of wrongdoing by Mayor Donchess and the City of Nashua.

The City had a flag-raising scheduled for June 17 for the Pride flag which has gone up every year on the Citizen Flag Pole since the flag program was instituted in June 2017, but that event also seems to have disappeared. I am awaiting word from my alderman on what is going to happen with the flag program.

Thanks to the ACLU and the Biden administration for supporting Shurtleff’s and other citizens’ right to fly flags with other points of view on city flagpoles.

My favorite quote from the Supreme Court case is this from Shurtleff’s lawyer Matthew Staver:

If the city allows a Black Lives Matter flag, then it will probably have to allow a Proud Boys flag. That’s just what the First Amendment requires.

Today Robert Azzi, board member of ACLU-NH congratulated Shurtleff on winning his case in a Letter to the Editor to the Union Leader and applauded the ACLU-NH’s “unwavering support for the rights of all Americans”.

If Nashua continues the Citizen Flag Pole program and continues to deny me my first amendment right to fly my Save Women’s Sports flag on Nashua’s Citizen Flag Pole, I will be reaching out to the ACLU-NH for their help.

The Weekly Sam: The Sam Blumenfeld Legacy

Published April 23, 2022 | By campconstitution

Hal Shurtleff, director of Camp Constitution and president of the Samuel L. Blumenfeld Literacy Foundation, gives a presentation on the legacy of the late Sam Blumenfeld who was an author, homeschool pioneer, and Camp Constitution instructor. This presentation took place at the Mass HOPE ‘s annual homeschool convention in Sturbridge Friday April 22, 2022. https://masshope.org

CHRIST is RISEN INDEED! – Evidences for the Resurrection by Dr. Peter Hammond

Published April 17, 2022 | By campconstitution

“And declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the Resurrection from the dead.” Romans 1:4

Decisive
The bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is tremendously important. Death is man’s greatest enemy and it has conquered all men – but Christ. Cities and nations, like people, are born and grow for a season and then fade away. Homes, clothes, even vehicles, wear out and eventually go back to dust, just as do their owners. The Bible describes this universal reign of decay and death as “the bondage of corruption” (Romans 8:21). In science it is recognized as the Second Law of Thermodynamics – the Law of Increasing Entropy. Left to themselves, every system tends to become disordered, to run down and eventually die. All the founders of great religions and movements have died and you can visit their graves. Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Muhammad, Marx and Lenin. They are all dead and decayed in the grave. But Jesus Christ is alive!

So, what difference does that make? You may ask. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is vitally important because it demonstrates Christ’s victory over death, it gives hope to all mankind, it shows that eternal life is available to believers, it points to the ultimate triumph of God over all evil and it provides an indisputable proof that the message about Jesus Christ, as both Judge and Saviour, is true. “Because He has appointed a Day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man Whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” Acts 17:31

The Research of Skeptics
The Resurrection is so important and foundational to Christianity that it has been targeted for the most relentless attacks. Frank Morison, a lawyer, determined to disprove the Resurrection and thereby undermine Christianity. The result of his exhaustive investigations was his conversion to Christ and the publication of his book: “Who Moved the Stone?” which decisively demonstrates the overwhelming evidence for the Resurrection.

A skeptical university lecturer, Josh McDowell, determined to disprove Christianity by investigating evidence against the Resurrection. The result was his conversion to Christ and publication of the monumental: “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” which exhaustively and conclusively presents documentation and evidence upon evidence substantiating the historical truth, factual accuracy, archaeological evidence, manuscript evidence, fulfilled prophecies, transformed lives and other indisputable evidences which support the fact of the Resurrection of Christ from the dead and the truth claims of Christianity.

Thomas Arnold, Professor of History at Oxford University, one of the greatest historians of the 19^th Century wrote: “I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair enquirer, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose from the dead.”

Simon Greenleaf, an unbelieving Jew, recognized as one of the most skilled legal minds ever produced, developed the Harvard Law School. He is recognized as the top authority on what constitutes sound evidence. After being challenged by a student if he had examined the evidence for the Resurrection, Simon Greenleaf made a thorough and exhaustive examination of the objective evidence and the testimony of the four Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In his book: “The Testimony of the Evangelists” (Baker, 1874) he concluded: “It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.”

Simon Greenleaf declared that any court of law, if presented with the evidence of the Resurrection, would have to give a verdict in favour of the integrity and accuracy of the Gospel writers and the fact of the Resurrection.

One of the most popular books ever written and most successful films ever produced, Ben Hur, was a result of a skeptical challenge to General Lew Wallace to the authenticity of Christ’s Resurrection and a careful examination of the evidence. As General Wallace was US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at that time, he explored archaeological sites and manuscripts in the Holy Land.

What are the facts? The religious leaders, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who had campaigned and conspired to have Christ arrested and executed on trumped-up charges, had a compelling interest in disproving any claims of the Resurrection. They had presumed that the execution of Jesus would eliminate this threat to their religious power base and silence His supporters. These Jewish religious leaders had great concerns about the corpse of Jesus and they approached the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, for a military detachment to secure the tomb (Matthew 28:62-64).

The Roman governor’s priority in the volatile province of Palestine was to preserve peace and stability. He recognized the political problems that would ensue if anything happened to this religious Teacher whom he had three times declared innocent and ultimately washed his hands in front of the crowd declaring, “I am innocent of this Man’s Blood” (Matthew 27:24). His wife had warned him: “Do not have anything to do with that innocent Man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of Him.” (Matthew 27:19)

Pilate was only too aware that a travesty of justice had taken place and the last thing he needed was a review of his shameful conduct and dereliction of duty in this case. Ensuring that the victim’s corpse remained buried was definitely in Pilate’s political interests as well. “‘Take a guard’, Pilate answered. ‘Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how’. So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.” Matthew 27:65

The Roman Guard
As the chief priests had approached the Roman governor and as the Greek word Koustodia is used to describe the detachment of soldiers, it was evidently a Roman guard. If only a Temple guard had been used, there would have been no need to approach Pilate to issue the order. Additionally, the concern of the guards after the Resurrection to be protected from consequences from the governor (Matthew 28:14) confirms that those guarding the tomb were Roman soldiers. The detachment would have consisted of at least sixteen soldiers with four men placed directly in front of the entrance of the tomb, on duty, at any time. Under Roman military law any guard who deserted his post, or who fell asleep on duty, would face crucifixion. Typically, if Roman soldiers allowed a prisoner to escape they would face the same sentence as the prisoner – in this case crucifixion.

The seal placed on the stone at the entrance to the tomb signified the administrative authority of Rome and only an authorised officer of Rome would be permitted to break the seal. Anyone breaking a Roman seal without permission would be tracked down and executed.

Although the intention of the religious and political leaders had been to ensure that the phenomenon of Jesus ended at the tomb, their extraordinary security measures have only served to confirm the truth that they had murdered an innocent Man and that Jesus Christ was truly the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, “the Firstborn from the dead and the Ruler of the kings of the earth… the One Who lives and was dead and behold, I am alive forevermore.” Revelation 1:5,18.

Christ’s Victory Over Death
“Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning and his clothing as white as snow. And the guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. But the angel answered and said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus, Who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold I have told you’. So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to bring His disciples word. And as they went to tell His disciples, behold Jesus met them, saying ‘Rejoice!’, so they came and held Him by the feet and worshipped Him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee and there they will see Me.'” Matthew 28:1-10

Attempts to Avoid the Truth of the Resurrection
To explain away the empty tomb, the enemies of the Gospel have had to resort to some desperate deceptions. The first was to suggest that the disciples had stolen the body. This incredible theory suggests that those same disciples who had slept in the garden, fled at His arrest, denied Him before a young woman, were hiding in fear behind locked doors, could have unitedly overcome sixteen professional Roman soldiers, dared to break a Roman seal, moved a two-ton tombstone, just to steal a corpse! A dead Messiah would have served absolutely no purpose for the disciples. What possible motivation could they have had, even had they possessed the ability to overcome the military, political and logistical obstacles? They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Every one of the disciples suffered severe persecution, most dying as martyrs for the Faith. Would you die for a lie?

Did Jesus Really Die?
Others have questioned whether Christ had really died on the Cross. Perhaps He only fainted? This swoon theory would have us believe that the Roman soldiers, who were professional killers, (the centurion in charge, would most probably have already supervised dozens if not hundreds of executions), had failed to ensure that this high-profile political prisoner was not actually dead. Considering the vicious flogging which the Lord had already endured, the excruciating torture of crucifixion and the spear thrust into His side, with blood and water flowing out, all provide convincing evidence of death.

Yet, those advocating the swoon theory would have us believe that One Who had endured such savage flogging, crucifixion and a spear thrust to the heart, could not only have survived the legendary Roman military efficiency, but that He was revived on a cold slab in a cold tomb. Further that He somehow disengaged from the grave clothes and one hundred pounds of spices, ointments and wrappings which had effectively mummified Him, rolled away the two ton stone, overpowered, or eluded, the Roman soldiers and somehow found and impressed the disciples with His Deity? These suggestions have only to be mentioned in order to be dismissed as unbelievable.

The Empty Tomb
Another desperate attempt to explain away the Resurrection of Christ has been that they went to the wrong tomb. All of them, Mary Magdalene, Peter, John, the other women, all went to the wrong tomb. Somehow neither the Pharisees, nor the Sadducees, nor the Roman soldiers, nor Joseph of Arimathea, whose tomb it was, thought to point out that the tomb was in fact still occupied! However, this theory is also impossible, as the tomb was not in a cemetery, but in a garden privately owned by Joseph of Arimathea. There was no other tomb in that garden.

The Absence of the Body
All that the Roman and Jewish leaders had to do in order to end Christianity forever was produce the corpse of Jesus. But they couldn’t do it. Even when the Apostle Peter stood up on the day of Pentecost and proclaimed: “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Acts 2:36. “And with great power the apostles gave witness to the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 4:33. Many thousands in Jerusalem, including many Pharisees, came to faith in Jesus Christ.

The Crisis of Credibility
To the Jewish religious leaders, this was their worst nightmare, a disaster. The proclamation of the Resurrection of Christ undermined their power and credibility. Thousands of their followers now believed that they had condemned an innocent Man, the Messiah Himself. The new religion of Christianity was undermining the power base and credibility of the Pharisees and Sadducees. If the body of Jesus could have been found, Christianity could be stopped dead in its tracks and the threat to the religious status quo would have ended. Since they desperately needed Jesus’ corpse, the Jewish leaders would have used every means at their disposal to hunt it down and find it – if that was possible.

The Testimony of Eye Witnesses
However, we are not only dealing with the empty tomb and the absence of the body, but the testimony of eyewitnesses. On at least twelve separate occasions Jesus Christ was seen after rising from the tomb. Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18; Mark 16:9); the other women (Matthew 28:8-10); Peter (Luke 24:34); the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35); ten of the disciples (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-24); all eleven disciples, eight days later (John 20:24-29); seven disciples by the Sea of Tiberius (John 21:1-23); to five hundred at one time (1 Corinthians 15:6); to James (1 Corinthians 15:7); to all eleven apostles and others, at the Ascension (Acts 1:3-12); Paul (Acts 9:3-8); and John (Revelation 1:12-18), all saw the Lord bodily raised from the dead.

To explain away the testimony of all these eyewitnesses, enemies of Christianity suggest that these were merely hallucinations, perhaps as a result of hypnosis or hysteria. However, while hallucinations tend to be unique psychological experiences of an individual, we are here dealing with a large number of individuals, who at different times, in different groups, in different places, both indoors and outdoors, on a hilltop, along a roadside, by a lakeshore, all saw the Lord. They saw Him, they ate with Him, they saw the wounds in His hands and in His side.

Far from being gullible, it would appear that His disciples were very skeptical and slow to believe. Thomas declared that he would not believe that Christ had risen unless he personally placed his fingers in the nail prints in His hands and feet and his hand in the wound in His side.

The Transformation of the Disciples
Not only do we have the testimony of the eyewitnesses, but the dramatic transformation of the disciples. The Resurrection of Christ from the dead transformed the disciples’ grief to joy, their cowardice to boldness, their skepticism to faith and their doubt to determination. It turned Saul, the persecutor of the Church into Paul the Apostle of the Church.

The Transformation of History
It also transformed society and history. It changed the Jewish Sabbath into the Christian Lord’s Day. What else could explain the replacement of Saturday as the Jewish day of rest into Sunday as the Christian Lord’s Day? The Resurrection transformed a Jewish remnant into the worldwide Christian Church. Over 2-Billion people worldwide describe themselves as Christians who believe in the Resurrection of Christ from the dead. The very existence of the largest religious movement in the history of the world is another powerful evidence of the truth of the Resurrection.

Prophetic Fulfilment
Jesus Himself had prophesied His Resurrection from the dead. Because of His fulfilment of this, we can be absolutely certain that Jesus Christ is God with us, as He claimed. By His Resurrection we can know that our sins are forgiven through His Blood sacrificed on the Cross of Calvary: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that Whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:14-16

Full Salvation
Because of Christ’s death on the Cross, we can rejoice that our sins are paid for – we are forgiven, justified by faith.
Because of Christ’s Resurrection from the dead, we can rejoice in the prospect of eternal life.
Because of Christ’s Ascension, we can know that He has all authority and that His Great Commission will be accomplished on earth.
Because of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost we do not need to trust in our own abilities, but in His power alone. “Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord.”

Proclaim It to the Nations
William Sangster – the church leader and hymn writer – suffered from increasing paralysis which finally prevented him from even being able to talk. On his last Easter before he died, he wrote: “How terrible to wake up on Easter and have no voice to shout, ‘HE IS RISEN’, far worse, to have a voice and not to want to shout!”

We serve a risen Saviour! Death is defeated. Christ has risen – victorious over death, hell, satan and the grave.

Jesus Christ is the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in Christ, though he may die, yet shall he live, (John 11:25).

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” 1 Peter 1:3

Dr. Peter Hammond \| Director
Frontline Fellowship
PO Box 74 \| Newlands \| 7725 \| Cape Town \| South Africa
Tel: +27 21 689 4480 peter@frontline.org.za www.FrontlineMissionSA.org

Convention of States Collectivist Trojan Horse by Dr. Dan Eichenbaum

Published April 8, 2022 | By campconstitution

As our nation continues to depart from its founding principles, conservatives are desperately searching for strategies to re-establish the checks and balances designed to prevent government tyranny. As specific problems are identified, solutions are proposed. If professional politicians are the problem, term limits will get rid of them. If government spending is the problem, a balanced budget is the answer. If government overreach is the problem, defund and close government agencies. If moral decay is the issue, legislate against it.

The Convention of States (COS) agenda promises to resolve all these problems. Their plan is to invoke Article V of the Constitution in which thirty-four states can petition Congress to call a “convention of states” to propose constitutional amendments. They contend that each state delegation is restricted to proposing only amendments specified in the state’s petition. Common suggested amendments are Congressional Term Limits and a Balanced Budget Amendment. COS proponents claim that the states will control all aspects of the convention and any amendments proposed would still have to be ratified by ¾ of the states to become part of the Constitution. They claim the process is legal, constitutional, and a perfectly foolproof and safe way to reestablish constitutional rule.

I vehemently disagree. The Article V Convention of States is a Trojan Horse.

Article V of the Constitution is a 143-word run-on sentence that should make English teachers gasp and cringe. An English teacher so appalled, however, would probably have taught the class how to parse a sentence to understand who does what to whom. To parse a sentence one must find the subject, verb, and object of the sentence and temporarily put all the rest aside.

Here is the full text of Article V of the US Constitution with highlights for further discussion:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or,on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The simple declarative sentence reads as follows:

The Congress shall propose amendments to this Constitution or shall call a convention for proposing amendments.

Congress, it appears, can take one of two actions with certain triggers:

Congress Shall Propose Amendments itself
Trigger: 2/3 of both houses deem it necessary
Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments
Trigger: Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several states; i.e. 34 states

Option 2 is what the COS folks are talking about. Based just on this part of Article V, here are the obvious sources of risk:

“Congress shall call a convention”

call a Convention – not call a Convention of States
“Congress shall call a convention” means that congress calls the convention, determines the agenda, chooses the delegates, and defines the rules of the convention

Article V also specifies the ratification process which contains additional obvious risks. Amendments become part of the constitution “when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress”. Once again, Congress controls the ratification process.

The COS promoters claim that the process is safe as the states would control the entire process including making the rules, choosing delegates, and creating the convention agenda. They also claim that the rules could not be changed by the convention itself once it is underway. History proves them wrong.

Contrary to the COS narrative, our Constitution was written by a “runaway” convention, even though it turned out well. After the War of Independence, our country was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which created a central government that was too weak to enforce unified action even when essential. To remedy those deficiencies, a convention was called with only one specific purpose – to amend the Articles of Confederation. According to rules, amending the Articles required ratification of any changes by all thirteen states.

The convention convened in Philadelphia, but delegations from only twelve states were present. Rhode Island refused to attend. Disregarding the rules, the delegates decided to discard the Articles of Confederation entirely and write a new Constitution. Instead of requiring agreement by all thirteen states, the new Constitution became law of the land when ratified by only nine of the thirteen states.

The convention that created our Constitution defied and broke every rule under which it was called. It discarded the Articles of Confederation entirely instead of just amending it and changed the ratification requirements from all thirteen states to just nine. By definition, that was a runaway convention.

Commentary by Phyllis Schlafly on the Article V ConCon

Whether you call it a “Convention of States,” a “Constitutional Convention,” or a “ConCon,” the outcome is the same. It would open up our beloved founding document to attack from all kinds of special interest groups with intentions far less noble than the Founding Fathers.

Here are three concrete reasons Phyllis Schlafly opposed an Article V convention:

Congress has ultimate control over the process. The Congressional Research Service confirms that Congress will call the convention, determine the agenda, choose the delegates, and define the rules of the convention.
Activist judges will control the outcome of a convention. The American Bar Association acknowledged that a convention under Article V, like every other part of our Constitution, will be subject to judicial review. With just one lawsuit filed by either liberals or conservatives, this would give unelected judges the chance to control the actual wording of the Constitution through judicial fiat.
The Constitution is not the problem. Everyone acknowledges that the real problem with our federal government is not the powers given to it by the Constitution, but the powers the government has usurped outside the bounds placed on it by the Constitution. Why would anyone think that the federal government will suddenly start obeying the rules when we write more of them?

Many other notable constitutional scholars agreed with her. Chief Justice Warren Burger said, “A Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.”

Justice Antonin Scalia avidly opposed an Article V convention. He called it a “horrible idea.”

Even current proponents of an Article V ConCon like Mark Meckler admit that having one convention will open the door to many more. “There is no way to prevent the cycle [of multiple conventions] from happening because the cycle of it is the cycle of human nature.”

The Convention of States agenda is an organized attack on the Constitution. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, enlisting the support of conservatives by promising that a Convention of States will give us the tools we need to re-establish our constitutional republic.

In reality, the Constitution of States program is a dangerous tool that uses our patriotic hearts and desires to bring the fox into the henhouse.

Suddenly, this has become a critically important issue for citizens of North Carolina. In our state, the Republicans in the state House of Representatives voted to call for a Convention of States. The Senate has not voted yet, but they could in the short session that starts after the primary on May 17.

It is time to actively call your senators in Raleigh and urge them to vote against the COS resolution and explain why that is so important.

Resist Tyranny and Trust in Freedom!

campconstitution

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: