Back in 1849, when the organized Protestants of Massachusetts
debated whether or not to support the public school movement, which was
then being heavily promoted by the Unitarians, they decided in favor of
support, but with well-expressed conditions. They wrote:
“The benefits of this system, in offering instruction to all, are so many and so great
that its religious deficiencies,–especially since they can be otherwise supplied, do not
seem to be a sufficient reason for abandoning it, and adopting in place of it, a system
of denominational parochial schools ….It is however a great evil to withdraw from the established system of common
schools, the interest and influence of the religious part of the community. On the
whole, it seems to be the wisest course, at least for the present, to do all in our power
to perfect as far as it can be done, not only its intellectual, but also its moral and
“If after a full and faithful experiment, it should at last be seen that fidelity to the
religious interests of our children forbids a further patronage of the system, we can
unite with the Evangelical Christians in the establishment of private schools, in which
more full doctrinal religious instruction may be possibleBut, until we are forced to this results, it seems to us desirable that the religious community do all in their power to give an opportunity for a full and fair experiment of
the existing system, including not only the common schools, but also the Normal
Schools and the Board of Education”.
I don’t believe that any Christian can doubt that there has been a “full
and fair experiment” of public education for the last 150 years and that its
fidelity to the religious interests of Christian children has been proven to be
decidedly negative. In fact, thousands of Christian parents, without
knowledge of what was written in 1849, have already taken their children
out of the public schools and either decided to homeschool them or place
them in Christian schools. Their responsibilities as Christian parents have
led them to make the necessary decision for the sake of their children’s
spiritual well being.
But what is disturbing is that most Christians still patronize a system
that is undermining the religious beliefs of their children. One wonders what
must happen before these parents realize the harm they are doing to their
children by keeping them in the public schools.
The simple fact is that the present government education system has
as its foundation an anti-Christian philosophy known as secular humanism.
All one has to do is read the Humanist Manifestos I and II to confirm the
truth of this assertion. Humanist Manifesto I was written in 1933 by young
Unitarian ministers who believed that the spiritual power of orthodox
religion was in decline and should be replaced by a rational, man-centered,
non-theistic religion. They wrote:
“Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science
makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values ….
Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the
end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. .. .
Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the
fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and
direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of
human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions,
their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be
reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the
Humanism is the only religion in America that has as its purpose and
program the reconstitution of the institutions, rituals, and ecclesiastical
methods of other religions. This is an overt declaration of war against
Biblical religion. Forty years later, Humanist Manifesto II states:
As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. [W]e can
discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species …. No deity will save
us; we must save ourselves.
In the January/February 1983 issue of The Humanist magazine, a
young scholar by the name of John J. Dunphy expressed exactly what the
aim of humanists is in education:
“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in
the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the
proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the
spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must
embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for
they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey
humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level-
preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an
arena of conflict between the old and the new–the rotting corpse of Christianity,
together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent
in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy
neighbor” will finally be achieved.”
The humanist war against Christianity is going on everyday in the
classrooms of America. But the real battle is being fought in the courtrooms
of the nation. In March 1987, U.S. District Judge W. Brevard Hand ruled in
Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County. Alabama that
the public school curriculum was based on the tenets of secular humanism,
and he thereby ordered that humanist textbooks to be removed from the
schools. Five months later this ruling was overturned by the Eleventh
Circuit Court which stated that “none of these books convey a message of
government approval of secular humanism.”
In other words, humanists are free to teach their dogma in the public
schools as long as the government does not convey a message of
approval. But that is the argument used to keep Christianity out. It is said
that the mere inclusion of anything Christian in a public school curriculum
automatically implies government approval.
The notion that public schools are neutral when it comes to religion is
belied by the strong prejudice against Christianity as openly expressed by
such humanists as John Dunphy. What we have is not neutrality but
warfare. Until Christians recognize that the government schools are
establishments of religion, and that education is fundamentally a religious
activity, we shall not be able to deal realistically with our educational crisis.
The message for Christian parents must be loud and clear: putting a
child in a public school violates God’s commandment as given in
Deuteronomy 6 to educate a child in the love and admonition of the Lord.
There is no substitute for a godly education. In place of God, the public
schools offer evolution, sex education, death education, multiculturalism,
transcendental meditation, situational ethics, drug education, and other
forms of humanist teachings. These are the programs that are creating the
new nihilist, amoral barbarians that are devastating the lives of thousands
of parents. There is hardly a Christian family that has not lost a child to the
satanic culture that grows in the public school environment.
If Christians wish to restore America as a nation under God, they shall
have to educate their children in schools that revere Him .•
(This was a speech made by Sam in the late 1980s. Please visit his archives http://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/
And please consider a donation to Camp Constitution to help keep Sam’s archive on line and expand its reach. Donations can be made via our PayPal account accessed via our homepage www.campconstution.net
29-year old ex-bartender and freshman U.S. Representative (D-NY) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez received thunderous environmentalist and media acclaim when she introduced her Green New Deal resolution in the House and Ed Markey (D-MA) submitted it in the Senate. It was quickly endorsed or cosponsored by scores of House and Senate Dems, including many who want to run against President Trump in 2020.
But within days the GND was subjected to rigorous analysis (and ridicule) by energy experts, President Trump, Republicans, conservative pundits and even some Democrats. Their disdain is well-founded.
Asserting yet again that “manmade climate change” poses an “existential threat” to people and planet – with only a dozen years before total disaster strikes – the Green New Deal demands that the United States convert to 100% “renewable” energy within ten years. It also proclaims an equally urgent need to abandon free enterprise capitalism in favor of 100% socialist economic and “social justice” policies.
In the energy arena, AOC’s GND requires that fossil fuels, nuclear power and even waste-to-energy and large-scale hydroelectric facilities be eliminated from the US energy mix. Coal, oil and natural gas leasing and development on federally controlled Western lands would be banned, as would exports of those fuels.
Internal combustion cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats would be replaced with electric versions, or eradicated. Airplanes would be replaced by high-speed rail. And every house and building in America would be gutted, rebuilt or retrofitted with “state of the art efficiency” technologies. That’s for starters.
The original “draft” resolution (since replaced on AOC’s website) even called for getting rid of “farting cows” – to prevent methane from increasing above its current minuscule 0.0017% of the atmosphere. So “bugs not beef” in our diets – and no more cheese, milk, yogurt or Baskin Robbins.
In the “social justice and fairness” arena, the Cortez-Markey GND provides that every American would get government-guaranteed jobs, with “family-sustaining” wages and pensions; free college or trade school; “healthy organic” food; “safe, affordable, adequate” and energy-efficient homes; and support for ethnic and economic “communities” that “historically” were harmed “first and most” by “dirty energy.”
Saturday Night Live could not have crafted a better parody of energy, economic and scientific reality.
But Ms. Cortez is determined to have her GND brought up for a vote in the House, where Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) worries about the spectacle that would ensue. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is equally determined to have a vote. Mr. Markey is outraged; he claims Republicans just want to sow discord within the Democratic party, portray Dems as favoring extremist policies and sabotage the plan.
Meanwhile, Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) threatened to call police on a reporter who was “harassing” him merely by asking for his views about the Green New Deal.
Ms. Cortez has no such qualms. When asked whether implementing her GND would require “massive government intervention,” she replied: “It does. Yeah. I have no problem saying that.” Moreover, she added, we shouldn’t point fingers and say China or India or Russia isn’t doing anything like this. We shouldn’t “hold ourselves to a lower bar.” We should “choose to lead” the world in this transition.
Lead the world in economic suicide, environmental degradation, plummeting living standards, shorter life spans and societal upheaval would be a more accurate description of her GND.
But at least Democrats and environmentalists have now made clear what they will do to America’s energy, economy, jobs, transportation, infrastructure and society if they regain control of the House, Senate, White House, Deep State and courts.
What they are not doing, discussing or even thinking about is how they intend to get achieve their energy-climate-socialist nirvana … how many trillions of dollars it would cost … how many millions of good jobs would be eliminated before their promised job-creation programs theoretically kick in … and exactly how they plan to deal with the enormous human and environmental impacts.
AOC says don’t worry about the price tag. Just tax the rich more and borrow trillions more. Whether the cost is $1 trillion per year or $40 to $100 trillion in total, that is an ignorant, cavalier response. Either way, she must provide the numbers, calculations and wherewithal – transparently and with full debate.
But on environmental matters, Ms. Cortez and her cosponsors have no clue what they are talking about.
America has over a century of coal, oil and natural gas that we should use. We have vast quantities of limestone, copper, iron, and rare earth and other strategic metals that would be essential for the wind turbines, solar panels, biofuel operations, massive backup battery arrays, and thousands of miles of new electricity transmission lines that their Green New Deal envisions. Is there a snowball’s chance in Hell that they would open highly mineralized Western and Alaskan lands for exploration and mining?
Their intransigence on those resources means giving up bonuses, rents, royalties, taxes and millions of high-paying jobs. Billions of dollars in revenues to government will be replaced by billions of dollars in subsidies from government. America won’t even be able to manufacture GND energy systems because we will not have either the reliable, affordable fuels to operate factories nor the necessary raw materials.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue to use fossil fuels, emit greenhouse gases, surge ahead of us economically – and sell us trillions of dollars of Green New Deal energy systems. Those that come from China might even have grid-hacker-friendly portals built right into their motherboards.
Shuttering nuclear and hydro power plants – and converting our transportation and shipping systems from gasoline and diesel – would mean the USA will need twice as much electricity as it generates today. Closing waste-to-energy facilities would add to those demands – and to landfill requirements.
Energy journalist Ron Bailey estimates that the GND would require installing some 154,000 offshore wind turbines, 335,000 onshore wind turbines, 75 million residential photovoltaic systems, 2.75 million commercial solar systems, and 46,000 utility-scale solar facilities sprawling across millions of acres. My guess is that it would require a lot more than that – plus millions of Tesla-style battery arrays.
Manufacturing and installing all those units … and the transmission lines to connect them … would require removing hundreds of billions of tons of rock, to reach and extract tens of billions of tons of ores, to create billions of tons of metals, concrete and other materials. That would be expensive, fossil fuel-intensive and habitat destructive. If it is done overseas, as most of it is today, it would involve virtually no health, safety, environmental, human rights, child labor or fair-pay protections. That is not acceptable.
One would hope their commitment to environmental protection and “social justice” would make GND supporters stalwart advocates for reform. Amendments to the GND or stand-alone bills should require that that all future wind turbine, solar panel and battery components and raw materials be “responsibly sourced” under tough US standards addressing all these issues – or we don’t import them.
There’s more. Contrary to claims by GND advocates, electricity rates would likely skyrocket – to at least the 38¢ per kWh families and businesses are already paying in Germany and Denmark. That’s four times as much as Americans now pay in states where coal, gas, nuclear and hydro generate most of the electricity. Those rates are job killers for factories, hospitals, schools and businesses.
They also literally kill people, by making it hard for poor families and pensioners to afford adequate heat in wintertime. And just imagine countless stranded electric cars, trucks and buses clogging highways, especially during snow storms, as their batteries go dead … and hundreds of people die of exposure.
GND advocates seek a total, virtually totalitarian transformation of the US energy and transportation system, economy, buildings, industries, employment base, living standards and individual freedoms. They are using American citizens as guinea pigs in this grand experiment.
They need to tell us what resources will be required … how and where they will get them … how this scheme will work. That’s not likely to happen – because they don’t have a clue, and don’t care. They also can’t prove climate fluctuations and weather events are unprecedented and caused by fossil fuels.
So let’s have those House and Senate votes on the Green New Deal. Let’s see who stands where on this.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.
Feb 4, 2019
BOSTON, MA – Liberty Counsel has filed a brief regarding the city of Boston’s censorship of a Christian flag which Camp Constitution requested to fly on a public forum, but the city denied the request.
The city regularly extends to other civic and cultural organizations the freedom to raise their flags on the city hall flagpoles to commemorate whatever events are important to the organizations. The city’s application policy refers to the flagpoles as a public forum.
However, when Camp Constitution asked the city in 2017 for a permit to raise the Christian flag on Boston City Hall flagpoles to commemorate Constitution Day (September 17) and the civic and cultural contributions of the Christian community to the city of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, religious tolerance, the Rule of Law, and the U.S. Constitution, city officials denied the permit based on a secret, unwritten and unconstitutional “policy” of refusing religious flags. In the lawsuit, Shurtleff and Camp Constitution seek an injunction requiring the city to allow the Christian flag-raising event, that it denied in 2017 and 2018, to coincide with the observance of Constitution Day.
Liberty Counsel’s Assistant Vice President of Legal Affairs, Roger Gannam, previously showed the trial court that the city’s denial and secret “policy” are unconstitutional because the permit guidelines promise “to accommodate all applicants seeking to take advantage of the city of Boston’s public forums.” The city admitted in a court filing that its official policy is to make permit decisions based on whether the city approves the “message” of the applicant. The case is now before the court of appeals.
“The city’s blatant discrimination against Camp Constitution’s Christian viewpoint is an unconstitutional censorship and insult to the First Amendment,” said Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver. “Boston’s rich heritage has a focal point of liberty and free speech at America’s founding, and that cannot be denied,” said Staver.
Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics. Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.
The teaching of handwriting has a low priority among educators these days. They believe
that handwriting is passé and that in the future everyone will be using word processors to
do their writing. But have you noticed how easy it is to make errors when writing an email?
Parents can be quite confused by the subject of handwriting. So, whenever I lecture at a
homeschool convention on the second R, I always ask by a show of hands if parents think
that handwriting should be taught. Usually the response is unanimously positive.
-So you agree that teaching your child to write is an important part of your homeschooling
curriculum. – The next question I raise is: -If you believe that handwriting should be formally
taught. do you believe that your child should be taught manuscript – also known as ‘ball and-stick’ – first or cursive first? – Most parents assume that ball-and-stick should precede
cursive, because that’s the way they were taught in school. Besides, it is supposed to be
easier that way.
But then I tell them that when I was in primary school in the 1930s, like their grandparents,
we were all taught cursive handwriting, or what was then known as “penmanship,” · using
pens dipped in real ink. That was before ballpoint pens were invented. We were actually
taught in the first grade that there was a correct way to hold a pen so that we would be
able write with ease and facility without tiring. Thus, in those ancient days, an important
part of the primary curriculum was the development of good handwriting, and we were
given plenty of drill to make that possible.
This surprises most parents who assume that print script always preceded cursive writing.
But when I tell them otherwise, I then must explain why cursive should precede print
script and not vice versa. If you teach a child to print for the first two years, that child develops writing habits that will become permanent. Thus, when you try to get your child to switch to cursive in the third grade, you will find resistance to learning a whole new way of writing. That child may continue to print fur the rest of his or her life. Some children develop a hybrid handwriting consisting of a mixture of both print and cursive. That seems to have become the dominant form of writing in America. And there are those children who develop a good cursive
hand writing because they’ve always wanted to and practiced it secretly on the side.
Thus, experience clearly indicates that if you teach ball-and-stick first, your child may never
develop a decent cursive handwriting, while if you teach cursive first, your child can always
learn to print very nicely later on. In other words, cursive first and print later makes good
An important and frequently overlooked benefit is that cursive helps a child learn to read.
With ball-and-stick it is very easy to confuse bs and ds. But with cursive, a b starts like an
I, and a d starts like an a. The distinction that children make in writing the letters in cursive
carries over to the reading Process. In addition, in writing print script, the letter ‘S may be all
over the page, sometimes written from left to right and from right to left. In cursive, where
all the letters connect. the child learns directional discipline. This helps in learning to
spell, for how the letters join with one another creates habits of hand movement that
automatically aid the spelling process.
Of course, your child should also be taught to print. That can easily be done after your child
has developed a good cursive handwriting. Another important benefit of cursive first is if
your child is left-handed. A right-handed individual tilts the paper counter-clockwise in order
to give one’s handwriting the proper slant. With the left-handed child, the paper must be
tilted in an extreme clockwise position so that the child can write from the bottom up. If the
paper is not tilted clockwise, the left-handed child may want to use the hook. form of
writing. This usually happens when the child is taught ball-and-stick first with the paper in a
straight up position.
If you consider good handwriting or fine penmanship a desired outcome of your home
teaching, then you must teach cursive first. There are several good cursive programs
available on the market. The Abeka program from Pensacola Christian College is probably
one of the best currently available.
I am often asked if Italic is a good way of teaching a child to write. Italic script is more in
the class of calligraphy than handwriting, and therefore takes longer to learn and requires
more skill than a standard cursive handwriting. So, simply learn this simple principle:
cursive first. print second.
(The above came from the Sam Blumenfeld Archives: http://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/
Everyone has heard the bad news. Imminent Climate Apocalypse (aka “global warming” and “climate change”) threatens humanity and planet with devastation, unless we abandon the use of fossil fuels.
Far fewer people have heard the good news. The sun has just entered its Grand Minimum phase, and the Earth will gradually cool over the next few decades.
Why should we all hope Earth will cool? Because nobody with any trace of human decency would hope the Earth will actually suffer catastrophic warming.
Many of us believe in the threat of global warming, but live in the hope that we can switch to “renewable energy” before it is too late. But this is a false hope. Despite our best efforts over several decades, renewables such as wind and solar energy still meet only 2% of global energy needs, while hydro adds only 7% or so.
So avoiding the alleged Climate Apocalypse by relying on renewable energy would require surviving on less than 10% of our current energy requirements. But that is impossible. It would also be really catastrophic: billions could die.
Our global economy runs on energy, and over 80% of it is still fossil fuels, with nuclear and other non-renewables providing another 10%. If we switch to renewables tomorrow, 90% of our energy will be lost, and the global economy will sink like the Titanic. Keeping nuclear power would merely add a second lifeboat as the great ship sinks. Even if the energy loss were spread out over decades, the final result would still be the same.
Humankind could not produce enough food, clothing and shelter. Jobs would vanish. Massive starvation, disease and death would result. Hard physical labor would once again become the norm. Even though life could be maintained for some portion of humanity, liberty and happiness would be lost.
Let’s stop pretending. The prescribed cure for Climate/Global Warming Apocalypse is far worse than the purported disease. If we don’t use coal, oil and natural gas for energy, many of the 7 billion of us now alive must die. Those who survive will be impoverished and enslaved, toiling and scavenging for food by day, and fearing the darkness by night – except for the privileged few who still have money, energy and power.
The sudden and dramatic growth of human life, liberty, and happiness since the industrial revolution was achieved by replacing muscle power with coal and oil power. Before that, Hillsdale College professor of history Burt Folsom points out, only the wealthy could afford whale oil and candles. Everyone else had to go to bed early, and often hungry, when the sun went down, sleeping to recover enough energy to work – only to repeat the daily cycle yet again. Freedom of thought and travel had little real worth when we were too tired to think or walk.
The petroleum age saved whales from the brink of extinction – and brought cheap kerosene to the masses, so that they could read at night, bringing light into their lives and their brains.
The premature switch to renewable energy recommended by the false prophets of Climate Apocalypse is really just one step in an industrial counter-revolution devoutly desired by those discontented with modern life in free market democracies – and ready to erase our hard-won prosperity and freedom.
The Climate Apocalypse global warming bad news is rewarded by big money from the government and servile amplification from traditional big news media – while the good news of global cooling is silenced and unheard, stifled by both traditional media and most of today’s social media platforms.
We should all be suspicious of the motives of those who push this bad news, and welcome those who push back. Dr. Willie Soon is one scientist, although by no means the only one, who has the courage to stand up to big money, big government, big (pseudo) science, big media and big environmentalism to spread the good news. It’s high time we all heard it.
The good news from Dr. Soon and his fellow solar scientists is that the increase in global temperatures since 1800 was caused by two centuries of increasing solar output – not by human use of coal and oil.
But then solar output began to fall around 2000, in a repetition of a well-known 200-year cycle of solar activity, and global warming stopped. That’s more good news that too few people know. The purveyors of Climate Apocalypse have no explanation for this two-decade failure of their prophecy, which fortunately for all of humanity shows the superiority of solar science over apocalyptic warming foretold by computer models, hysteria and headlines – but not by real-world evidence.
Finally, solar science says we should expect steady but manageable global cooling until about mid-century, when solar activity will recover and temperatures begin to warm once again. Once again, this will be due to solar activity, and not to fossil fuels or carbon dioxide emissions.
In the best news of all, that means humanity’s successful pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, and better living standards and healthcare needn’t be stopped by Climate Apocalypse – or its prescribed cure. The only thing we have to fear is the fear of Climate Apocalypse itself.
Equally important, a warmer or cooler planet with more atmospheric CO2 and plentiful, reliable, affordable fossil fuel and nuclear energy would be infinitely preferable to a cooler planet with less CO2 and only expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent wind, solar and biofuel energy.
At the very least, humankind has an historic opportunity to witness a crucial test between two scientific hypotheses of enormous consequence. The next decade or two will reveal whether Earth warms or cools.
Surely all right-minded people must hope that it cools – and that the fear-mongering of imminent global warming apocalypse cools as well.
I might add that no one should wish the current severe Chicago-style polar vortex cold on anyone. I extend my sympathies and prayers to all who are now suffering from the cold. But be of good cheer in the knowledge that this cold-snap at least puts the lie to vastly worse climate scare global warming stories.
I also wouldn’t wish on anyone the “Green New Deal” energy reality of February 1, 2019 – when wind power provided 1.5% of the energy that kept lights on and homes warm in America’s Mid-Atlantic region, solar provided zero, and derided and despised coal, natural gas and nuclear power provided a whopping 93% or that energy! Imagine the cold, misery and death toll under 100% pseudo-renewable energy.
Dr. Jeffrey Foss is a philosopher of science, Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, Canada, and author of Beyond Environmentalism: A Philosophy of Nature.
This Town of Bedford document clearly shows that 2009 was the year town officials created a workforce housing sub-committee in order to capitulate to the state’s new “workforce housing law”. Worse yet, it revealed the unholy alliance between government and corporations, the proliferation of “public-private partnerships”, and the subjugation of local and county governments to unelected regionalists.
Some will continue to repeat propaganda that we are spreading a “conspiracy theory”, but take a look at page 11, and you will see the proof.
As for SNHRPC, it is one of 9 unaccountable, unelected regional boards, all of which claim to have no authority, but seem to be ever-present when it comes to overriding the wishes of the people at the local and county levels. No vote was taken by the public on the decisions made by this sub-committee, that we are aware of.
To further elaborate, these so-called “public-private partnerships” (the latest euphemism for the alliance between corporations and government) are alliances that were formerly known as “crony capitalism”. But traditionally, there is yet another name for when government and corporations merge…
When developers partner with government, and are allowed to profit by it, so long as they do what the government tells them to do, it’s called “fascism”.
“New Urbanism’s” founder Andrés Duany summed it up nicely when he said:
“…fascism, say what you like, but it’s efficient”
In addition, another quote of Duany’s reveals his commitment to mega-cities as part of a global government. He said the following regarding the political structure of the country and that it should be based on the importance of cities:
“…Miami, Florida and then the US, then the United Nations”
We have stated before that we believe NH’s Workforce Housing Law to be an unconstitutional effort to dictate where and how people should live and to wrest power from local governments. Where in the US or State Constitutions does it allow federal and state governments to tell local governments what kind of housing they must provide? What’s next, assigning housing based on what they think are our needs? Check the next census for questions such as “How many bedrooms do you have”. Think we’re kidding? See this screen shot which was taken from the year 2000 long form version.
So, what you have just read might indeed be a conspiracy, but it’s definitely not a theory.
Are you starting to see the big picture, Bedford?
(This article originated in the Bedford, NH Patch and written by Jane Aitken
Jane Aitken is a Bedford NH resident who started teaching in 1970 when she had just barely turned 21. As a self taught oil-on-canvas artist, it was only natural that she would become an art supervisor for grades K-12, a job which she did for 10 years. She also worked in grades 1 and 2 classrooms for the next 23 years or so. During one of the school reform initiatives of the 1990s Aitken and her colleagues lost “lifetime job tenure”. In order to continue with their contracts, teachers had to attend many teacher training sessions in order to become “recertified”. The courses were nothing but lessons in social engineering. She chose computer courses whenever she could because it seemed a way to accumulate some actual useful information. Aitken then became IT certified with a specialization in graphic design. She also fixes hardware, assists others with the purchase and set up of various devices, and tutors them on usage. Today she uses her talents as an activist to support many causes, not the least of which is taking back the educational system from the corporations and NGOs and those who misuse our schools for political agendas. She was for 6 years Ed Naile’s sidekick on CNHT’s “Taxpayer Radio” which was heard right here on WLMW 90.7 FM, home of Girard at Large.
Increasingly absurd disaster rhetoric is consistently contradicted by climate and weather reality
Call it climate one-upmanship. It seems everyone has to outdo previous climate chaos rhetoric.
The “climate crisis” is the “existential threat of our time,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her House colleagues. We must “end the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future.”
Former California Governor Jerry Brown solemnly intoned that America has “an enemy, though different, but perhaps very much devastating in a similar way” as the Nazis in World War II.
Not to be outdone, two PhDs writing in Psychology Today declared that “the human race faces extinction” if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. And yet “even people who experience extreme weather events often still refuse to report the experiences as a manifestation of climate change.” Psychologists, they lament, “have never had to face denial on this scale before.”
Then there’s Oxford University doctoral candidate Samuel Miller-McDonald. He’s convinced the only thing that could save people and planet from cataclysmic climate change is cataclysmic nuclear war that “shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction.”
All this headline-grabbing gloom and doom, however, is backed up by little more than computer models, obstinate assertions that the science is settled, and a steady litany of claims that temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts et cetera are unprecedented, worse than ever before, and due to fossil fuels.
And on the basis of these hysterics, we are supposed to give up the carbon-based fuels that provide over 80% of US and global energy, gladly reduce our living standards – and put our jobs and economy at the mercy of expensive, unreliable, weather dependent, pseudo-renewable wind, solar and biofuel energy.
As in any civil or criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the accusers and prosecutors who want to sentence fossil fuels to oblivion. They need to provide more than blood-curdling charges, opening statements and summations. They need to provide convincing real-world evidence to prove their case.
They have refused to do so. They ignore the way rising atmospheric carbon-dioxide is spurring plant growth and greening the planet. They blame every extreme weather event on fossil fuel emissions, but cannot explain the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age or extreme weather events decades or centuries ago – or why we have had fewer extreme weather events in recent decades. They simply resort to trial in media and other forums where they can exclude exculpatory evidence, bar any case for the fossil fuel defense, and prevent any cross-examination of their witnesses, assertions and make-believe evidence.
Climate models are not evidence. At best, they offer scenarios of what might happen if the assumptions on which they are based turn out to be correct. However, the average prediction by 102 models is now a full degree F (0.55 C) above what satellites are actually measuring. Models that cannot be confirmed by actual observations are of little value and certainly should not be a basis for vital energy policy making.
The alarmist mantra seems to be: If models and reality don’t agree, reality must be wrong.
In fact, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels climbed to 405 parts per million (0.0405% of Earth’s atmosphere), except for short-term temperature spikes during El Niño ocean warming events, there has been very little planetary warming since 1998; nothing to suggest chaos or runaway temperatures.
Claims that tornadoes have gotten more frequent and intense are obliterated by actual evidence. NOAA records show that from 1954 to 1985 an average of 56 F3 to F5 tornadoes struck the USA each year – but from 1985 to 2017 there were only 34 per year on average. And in 2018, for the first time in modern history, not a single “violent” twister touched down in the United States.
Harvey was the first major (category 3-5) hurricane to make US landfall in a record twelve years. The previous record was nine years, set in the 1860s. (If rising CO2 levels are to blame for Harvey, Irma and other extreme weather events, shouldn’t they also be credited for this hurricane drought?)
Droughts differ little from historic trends and cycles – and the Dust Bowl, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other ancient dry spells were long and destructive. Moreover, modern agricultural and drip irrigation technologies enable farmers to deal with droughts far better than they ever could in the past.
Forest fires are fewer than in the recent past – and largely due to failure to remove hundreds of millions of dead and diseased trees that provide ready tinder for massive conflagrations.
Arctic and Antarctic ice are largely within “normal” or “cyclical” levels for the past several centuries – and snow surface temperatures in the East Antarctic Plateau regularly reach -90 °C (-130 F) or lower. Average Antarctic temperatures would have to rise some 20-85 degrees F year-round for all its land ice to melt and cause oceans to rise at faster than their current 7-12 inches per century pace.
In fact, the world’s oceans have risen over 400 feet since the last Pleistocene glaciers melted. (That’s how much water those mile-high Ice Age glaciers took out of the oceans!)Sea level rise paused during the Little Ice Age but kicked in again the past century or so. Meanwhile, retreating glaciers reveal long-lost forests, coins, corpses and other artifacts – proving those glaciers have come and gone many times.
Pacific islands will not be covered by rising seas anytime soon, at 7-12 inches per century, and because corals and atolls grow as seas rise. Land subsidence also plays a big role in perceived sea level rise – and US naval bases are safe from sea level rise, though maybe not from local land subsidence.
The Washington Post did report that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.” But that was in 1922.
Moreover, explorers wrote about the cyclical absence of Arctic ice long before that. “We were astonished by the total absence of ice in Barrow Strait,” Sir Francis McClintockwrote in 1860. “I was here at this time in [mid] 1854 – still frozen up – and doubts were entertained as to the possibility of escape.”
Coral bleaching? That too has many causes – few having anything to do with manmade global warming – and the reefs generally return quickly to their former glory as coralsadopt new zooxanthellae.
On and on it goes – with more scare stories daily, more attempts to blame humans and fossil fuels for nearly every interesting or as-yet-unexplained natural phenomenon, weather event or climate fluctuation. And yet countering the manmade climate apocalypse narrative is increasingly difficult – in large part because the $2-trillion-per-yearclimate “science” and “renewable” energy industry works vigorously to suppress such evidence and discussion … and is aided and abetted by its media and political allies.
Thus we have Chuck Todd, who brought an entire panel of alarmist climate “experts” to a recent episode of Meet the Press. He helped them expound ad nauseam on the alleged “existential threat of our time” – but made it clear that he was not going to give even one minute to experts on the other side.
“We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it,” Todd proclaimed. “The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period. We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.” The only thing left to discuss, from their perspective was “solutions” – most of which would hugely benefit them and their cohorts, politically and financially.
Regular folks in developed and developing countries alike see this politicized, money-driven kangaroo court process for what it is. They also know that unproven, exaggerated and fabricated climate scares must be balanced against their having to give up (or never having) reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy. That is why we have “dangerous manmade climate change” denial on this scale.
That is why we must get the facts out by other means. It is why we must confront Congress, media people and the Trump Administration, and demand that they address these realities, hold debates, revisit the CO2 Endangerment Finding – and stop calling for an end to fossil fuels and modern living standards before we actually have an honest, robust assessment of supposedly “settled” climate science.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.
Sam Blumenfeld’s most important work was his simplest” “Alpha-Phonics.” Thousands. or perhaps millions thanks in part to the archives, have used Sam’s simple how to read workbook. Here is a link to a 52 page testimonial on his book: http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/Other/Alpha-Phonics%20Testimonials.pdf
And you can find a link for the book here: http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/Books/Alpha-Phonics%20Workbook.pdf
The idea that people needed to be educated about sex probably began with the founding
of the birth control movement by Margaret Sanger, who launched a crusade early in the
20th Century to provide women with birth control information. It was Sanger’s work as a
visiting nurse that turned her interest to sex education and women’s health. Influenced
by anarchist Emma Goldman, she began to advocate the need for family limitation as a
means by which working-class women could liberate themselves from the burden of
In 1914, Sanger published the first issue of The Woman Rebel, which advocated militant
feminism and the right to practice birth control. She also wrote a 16-page pamphlet,
Family Limitation, which provided explicit instructions on the use of contraceptive
methods. In August 1914, Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws. She
jumped bail in October and set sail for England.
In England she became acquainted with a number of British radicals, feminists, and Neo-Malthusians whose social and economic theories helped her develop broader scientific
and social justifications for birth control. She was also deeply influenced by psychologist
Havelock Ellis and his theories on female sexuality and free love.
In 1915, Sanger returned to the United States. The government’s case against her was
dropped. In 1916, she opened the nation’s first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New
York. After nine days of operation, the clinic was raided, and Sanger and staff were
arrested. She spent 30 days in jail. However, the publicity surrounding the clinic
provided Sanger with a base of wealthy supporters from which she began to build an
organized birth control movement.
In 1917, Sanger published a new monthly, the Birth Control Review, and in 1921 she
embarked on a campaign to win mainstream support for birth control by founding the
American Birth Control League, the forerunner of Planned Parenthood. She focused her
efforts on gaining support from the medical profession, social workers, and the liberal
wing of the eugenics movement. Havelock Ellis had converted her to the eugenics creed.
She saw birth control as a means of reducing genetically transmitted mental or physical
defects, and supported sterilization for the mentally incompetent. She advocated “more
children for the fit, less from the unfit-that is the chief issue of birth control.”
In 1922, Sanger married oil magnate James Noah H. Slee, thus insuring her financial
independence. Slee, who died in 1943, became the main funder of the birth control
movement. By connecting with the eugenics movement, Sanger was able to gain the
backing of some of America’s wealthiest people.
In 1930, Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem with the approval of the
Negro leadership, including communist W.E.B. DuBois. Beginning in 1939, DuBois also
served on the advisory council for Sanger’s ”Negro Project.” The financial support of
Albert and Mary Lasker made the project possible. In 1966, the year Sanger died, the
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “There is a striking kinship between our movement
and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts.”
From the end of World War II to the present, Planned Parenthood has become the world’s
largest enterprise promoting birth control and abortion. In 1960, the Food and Drug
Administration approved the sale of the birth control pill. In 1961 President Kennedy
defined population growth as a “staggering” problem and formerly endorsed reproductive
research to make new knowledge and methods available worldwide.
In 1961, a Conference on Religion and the Family brought together the medical director
of Planned Parenthood, the director of the National Council of Churches of Christ, and
the leader of the marriage counseling movement in the United States. Out of that meeting
came the idea for creating SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of
the United States. It was Dr. Mary Calderone, one of the founders, who introduced the
concept of sexuality in 1964. It encompassed much more than the biological meaning of
sex. Thus, sexuality education replaced the term sex education to emphasize its more
A SIECUS Report (Vol. 27, No.4) states: “In February 1999, SIECUS conducted a
public poll on our Internet site to ask the general public who had the greatest impact in
bringing about a positive change in the way America understands and affirms sexuality.
The top ten, chosen from a list of 100, were Judy Blume, Mary Calderone, Ellen
DeGeneres, Joycelyn Elders, Hugh Hefner, Anita Hill, Magic Johnson, Madonna, Gloria
Steinhem, and Ruth Westheirner. They represent diverse perspectives and views, and
each has helped American think about sexuality in a new and different way.”
Getting back to our chronology, in 1963, the U.N. General Assembly approved a
resolution on population growth and economic development. In that same year, the U.S.
government established the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD). Part of its mandate was to support and oversee research in reproductive
science and contraceptive development.
In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut ruled that
Connecticut’s law prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples violated a
newly defined right of marital privacy. As a result, ten states liberalized their family
planning laws and began to provide family planning services with tax funds.
In 1969 the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as the
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, was founded.
In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Services Act, which provided
support and funding for family planning services and educational programs and for
biomedical and behavioral research in reproduction and contraceptive development. Title
X also authorized funding for a Center for Population Research within NICHD. This
marked the first time Congress had ever voted for a separate authorization of family
In that same year, New York state enacted the most progressive abortion law in the
nation, and Planned Parenthood of Syracuse, New York, became the first affiliate to offer
abortion services. In 1973, Humanist Manifesto II was published. It advocated a doctrine of sexual freedom
that clearly clashed with traditional views of sex. The Manifesto states: “In the area of
sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and
puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion,
and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitative denigrating
forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction,
sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration
should not in themselves be considered ‘evil.’ Without countenancing mindless
permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one.
Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be
permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire ….
Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and
sexual maturity.” Among the signers of the Manifesto was Alan F. Guttmacher,
President of Planned Parenthood.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the constitutional right of
privacy extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, thereby legalizing abortion
throughout the United States. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of
Central Missouri v. Danforth struck down state requirements for parental and spousal
consent for abortion and set aside a state prohibition against saline abortions.
In 1976, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, named after Planned Parenthood’s president,
published 11 Million Teenagers, the first nationally distributed document to focus
attention on the problem of teen pregnancy and childbearing in the United States.
In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court found the Massachusetts statute restricting minors’
access to abortion unconstitutional. It ruled that if states required minors to obtain
parental consent for an abortion, they must also give minors the alternative of obtaining
the consent of a judge, in confidential proceedings and without first notifying their
In 1981, the Alan Guttmacher Institute published Teenage Pregnancy: The Problem that
Hasn’t Gone Away, an analysis of teen sexuality, contraceptive knowledge and use, and
pregnancy experience. It emphasizes the need for making confidential contraceptive
services accessible to sexually active teens. In 1982, Planned Parenthood published “Sexuality Alphabet,” as tool for sex education.George Grant, in his book, Grand illusions, writes of this publication: “Planned
Parenthood’s sex education programs and materials are brazenly perverse. They are
frequently accentuated with crudely obscene four-letter words and illustrated by
explicitly ribald nudity. They openly endorse aberrant behavior-homosexuality,
masturbation, fornication, incest, and even bestiality-and then they describe that
behavior in excruciating detail.”
In 1953, staffer Lena Levine wrote in Planned Parenthood News: “Our goal is to be ready
as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage.
By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt.”
In 1985, the Alan Guttmacher Institute published its report on Teen Pregnancy in
Industrialized Countries, indicating that the u.S. teen pregnancy rate of 96 per 1,000 is
the highest in the developed world. A two-year study by the National Academy of
Sciences agreed with the AGI study and concluded that “prevention of adolescent
pregnancy should have the highest priority,” and “making contraceptive methods
available and accessible to those who are sexually active and encouraging them to
diligently use these methods is the surest major strategy for pregnancy prevention.”
In 1970, fewer than half of the nation’s school districts offered sex education curricula
and none had school-based birth control clinics. In 1998, more than seventy-five percent
of the districts teach sex education and there are more than one hundred clinics in
operation. Yet the percentage of illegitimate births has only increased during that time,
from a mere fifteen percent to an astonishing fifty-one percent. In California, the public
schools have required sex education for more than thirty years, and yet the state has
maintained one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the nation. (Grant, p. 128)
Meanwhile, the AIDS epidemic, which began with eleven cases in 1979, had grown to
24,000 cases in 1986. In 1993, the number of cases was up to 339,250.
By 1987, Planned Parenthood had become the world’s largest non-government provider
of family planning services. It had also become politically active, joining more than 250
civil rights, civil liberties, religious, labor, education, legal, environmental, health, and
feminist groups that opposed the appointment of conservative Judge Robert Bork to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
This speech was give in 2000
Sign up for the Sam Blumenfeld Archives:
Instead, Meckler deceives Republicans by playing the victim to leftist, globalist billionaire George Soros. Since April 2017, COSP operatives have spread the false narrative that Soros has declared war on them. But in fact, backers of COSP are on the same side as Soros in their quest to rewrite our Constitution at an Article V convention AKA “constitutional convention,” “con-con,” or “convention of states.”2
What seems to have triggered the “George Soros is against us” fabrication was a letter signed by over 200 national, state and local leftist organizations released by Common Cause on Good Friday 2017. The letter urged state legislators to oppose efforts by convention proponents asking Congress to call an Article V convention, and to rescind all previously passed Article V convention applications from their states.
After the Good Friday letter was released, Meckler sprang into action. He accused Soros of being behind the effort against him, implying the left-leaning groups were receiving Soros money for the purpose of defeating COSP. No one pushed back. So convention operatives became more and more brazen with their false claim. By July 2017, former US Senator Jim DeMint, who is on Meckler’s payroll, declared with conviction on Red-eye Radio3 that “George Soros and all of the liberal groups” had signed the Good Friday letter. Not true, but COSP’s purpose was served. Who would bother to verify it?
In fact, in addition to Soros, there are hundreds of progressive groups that didn’t sign the letter. The Left, as well as the Right, is split on this issue; and Soros money is widely distributed among leftist organizations. Conspicuously missing as a cosigner of the Good Friday letter is Wolf-PAC, the radical group that is leading the national charge from the Left in promoting an Article V convention. Move to Amend (MTA) is a coalition of hundreds of radical leftist groups formed to promote an amendment to the US Constitution to overturn the Citizens United decision. Most MTA-affiliated groups don’t oppose the convention method 4 of amending the Constitution and, therefore, didn’t sign the Good Friday letter.
Like Meckler’s globalist backers from the phony Right, Soros is linked to promoting Article V convention applications all over the country from the radical Left, with his money on Wolf-PAC and its media arm, Young Turks. HERE Soros is given credit for Wolf-PAC’s 2014 success in Vermont, the first state to ask Congress to call an Article V convention, ostensibly to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and to limit political speech. And that effort continues today.5 Wolf-PAC and Young Turks were both founded by Cenk Uygur; Young Turks has been identified as part of Soros’s Media Consortium.
At times COSP adds other progressive bugaboos to the mix, including Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and anyone else that might elicit a knee-jerk reaction of revulsion in diehard Republicans. HERE COSP ally and talk show host, Mark Levin, dissects a Hillary Clinton recording. First, Levin announces that Clinton is worried about a “convention of states.” He then cuts to 20 seconds of Clinton alluding to a “constitutional convention.” Ironically, COSP operatives also claim to be opposed to a “constitutional convention” which they falsely claim is different than a “convention of states.“ Levin had to put words in Clinton’s mouth and defy his own twisted logic in order to set up Clinton as an archenemy of COSP to “prove” to Hillary-loathing Republicans that Levin is on the side of goodness and truth.
Meckler has added the “Soros-is-against-us” mantra to his repertoire, appearing to believe it himself. Meckler often invokes George Soros rather than answering hard-hitting objections to an Article V convention. For example, when cornered on Fox News’ Steve Hilton show by conservative pundits Jason Chaffetz and Tomi Lahren on July 29, 2018 (at 5:24), Meckler goes for the jugular with an emotional, albeit false assertion: “I would ask Jason and Tomi if they understand who they’re standing with. Every single radical leftist Marxist communist group in America has stood against us. Soros, Hillary Clinton personally has spoken out against us…”Meanwhile COSP claims they have a “non-partisan solution to a bi-partisan problem.” Go figure.
In this deceptive video, amid ominous background music, COSP contends that Soros-funded organizations have been “caught on camera” lobbying legislators to oppose Article V convention applications. Laughably, COSP’s “proof” of a supposed conspiracy against them is two individual presenters from two liberal organizations in two states; each of whom used similar language testifying against COSP legislation. That’s likely because COSP has been introducing largely identically-worded applications6 in almost every state for the past five years! You can be sure that in those states where hearings were held, testimony supporting COSP applications would sound like an echo chamber if spliced together as well.
Committee hearings are often recorded and archived online by legislatures. This promotes public access and transparency in government. It is ludicrous to associate public testimony with the phrase “caught on camera,” which is reminiscent of treachery and hot mics.
Two-thirds-plus respondents, depending upon the state polled, said they favored a “convention of states,” a term the poll failed to define. In Iowa, the result jumped 36.7% in favor of a convention in just the few minutes between the first and fourth questions! COSP wasn’t shy about disseminating survey results in speeches, interviews, and well-placed articles disguised as news items in states debating COSP legislation.
Published polls, paid for by clients with agendas, generally yield the results the client wants. Otherwise, the polls, owned by the client, wouldn’t see the light of day. Poll results are determined by the questions asked, among other factors. Garbage in, garbage out.Respondents to the COSP-commissioned poll were first asked their opinion (favor/oppose) on whether their state should join other states in calling for a “convention to propose constitutional amendments that limit federal power.” Next, they were asked their opinion of a “constitutional amendment to limit federal spending.” Then they were asked their opinion about “placing term limits on members of Congress and/or federal judges.” Finally, respondents were asked their opinion of their state “calling for a convention of states to propose constitutional amendments that limit federal spending, limit federal power, and establish term limits for members of Congress and/or federal judges.” 8 (Emphasis mine).
But these are trick questions!The poll questions conceal the fact that Delegates to an Article V convention can’t be limited or bound by subject. Delegates to a convention will have more power than state legislatures, Congress or the President.9 They can write their own rules. And they’ll be able to propose (or not propose) any amendments they like; or rewrite or replace our Constitution, if they so choose. So, respondents were surveyed using irrelevant questions akin to a magician’s trick of drawing audience attention to one thing (the subject of the amendments) while distracting it from another (the dangers of a convention). In addition to omitting the risks of a convention, the questions omit that our problems arise from long-standing violations of our Constitution – and that we can’t fix violations of our Constitution by amending our Constitution. Poll results most certainly would have been flipped had these caveats been incorporated into the questions.
How can a few short, flawed multiple-choice questions fed to random voters measure informed opinion and ardent support for a complicated, relatively unknown issue like an Article V convention? Are those who responded favorably part of Meckler’s “army” too?
Clearly COSP’s poll was intended to influence public policy by swaying legislators’ votes and public opinion, rather than to measure where voters stand on this important issue. COSP’s treating the results as authentic is misleading at best.
Meckler said on Mark Levin’s show and archived here during March, 2018, that the conservative Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, which opposes a convention, has “…lost their way. They’re sending out these horrible, dishonest emails slandering the movement, repeating the lies of the left.” 11
Until 2014, Meckler attempted to disparage Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly in her later years by implying she was senile; he also claimed that Schlafly had no support from “legitimate scholars” for her opposition to an Article V convention. Meckler, whose credentials are no match for Schlafly’s, later changed his tune, apparently after conservative pushback. Today Meckler showers Schlafly with praise and claims her view on the con-con was her only mistake.Meckler and his operatives repeatedly pressure those hosting conservative events to cancel national speaker and Article V convention expert Joanna Martin J.D.,12possibly COSP’s most formidable living conservative opponent. COSP defames Martin’s character by falsely claiming she is a white supremacist affiliated with the Aryan Nation. On Sept. 29, 2018, three Texas Convention of States co-directors emailed an urgent call to action for COSP lemmings to bombard the First Baptist Church in Dallas with calls demanding that Martin’s next-day event be cancelled.13In another instance, Ms. Martin, who had been invited to debate COSP at the prestigious South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Conference held January 20, 2018, was cancelled after Meckler refused to debate her, demanded that Martin not be allowed to speak, and insisted that he be allowed to appear on the stage alone, without Martin.
COSP engages in “Ritual Defamation” of their opponents in order to prevent the public from hearing the truth about COSP’s false claims. The purpose of ritual defamation is to bully opponents into silence, intimate others from associating with opponents, and to shut down open public discussion of issues. If they can stop the debate, they won’t have to win the debate.
A “convention of states,” AKA “constitutional convention,” poses a very real threat to our Republic. Sadly, it’s an obscure, complicated issue that few ordinary citizens understand. And too many state legislators, who should know better, have accepted COSP’s myths at face value, sponsored their legislation, and voted accordingly.
Just about every political issue conservative Americans care about depends upon our keeping the Constitution we have and not risking it at a convention. Instead of sponsoring COSP applications, state legislators need to reject all Article V convention applications from their states and rescind those that have passed previously. Given COSP’s trail of deception, how can we possibly trust them with our Constitution?
There is enough documentation linked to this article and endnotes to educate you and your state legislator on the dangers of an Article V convention. The more people learn about it, the more they oppose it. All they need is an open mind. Read, learn, and share. Fool me once!
Endnotes:1 When 2/3 of the States (34) pass applications (resolutions) asking Congress to call an Article V convention, Congress is to call a convention.
2 Since nothing in the Constitution places subject limitations on a convention or its Delegates, any convention called by Congress would be one convention for all.
4 There are 2 ways to amend the US Constitution per Article V: 1) Congress proposes Amendments and sends them to the States for ratification; or 2) When 2/3 of the States (34) apply for it, Congress is to call a convention to propose Amendments that are then sent to the states for ratification. The second method has never been used.
5 Wolf-PAC applications for a convention were pending and rejected in at least 17 states in 2018 alone: CO, HI, IA, LA, MA, MD, ME, MO, NE, NM, NY, OK, PA, SC, WA, WI, & WV.
6 The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) wrote the model legislation from which COSP’s state applications are derived, hence the similarities. ALEC is heavily financed by corporations and consists of corporate and legislative members who meet in secret to shape public policy in state legislatures nationwide.
8 The final question reflects the language of COSP’s Article V convention applications.
9 Delegates to an Article V convention, as sovereign representatives of The People, have the inherent right “to alter or to abolish” their “Form of Government,” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2.
12 Retired litigation attorney Joanna Martin writes and speaks nationally under the nom de guerre Publius Huldah.
13 Texas Convention of States co-directors Tamara Colbert, Shelby Williams, and Paul Hodson falsely claimed in an email blast that Huldah [Martin] “has a background [with ties to the Aryan Nations and anti-government groups] that could jeopardize Pastor Jeffress and the positive reputation of the church.” The event was cancelled, but not before Ms. Martin had traveled long hours to be there.
16 Here are a few whoppers: a) we have two Constitutions (one being a compilation of Supreme Court decisions). b) a “constitutional convention” is different than a “convention of states.” c) The framers added the convention method to Art. V after George Mason asked the question, “Are we so naïve that we believe a govt that becomes a tyranny will propose the right kind of amendments to restrain its own tyranny?” More COSP-generated myths are HERE (See pg. 2) and HERE.
© Judi Caler