President Trump’s Proclamation on the 250th Anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Two and a half centuries ago, a small band of minutemen answered the call of freedom in the legendary Battles of Lexington and Concord, an epic tale of American strength and the first major armed conflict of the Revolutionary War. We honor the memories, remember the sacrifices, and summon the courage of every hero of liberty who gallantly shed his blood for the cause of independence on April 19, 1775.
After years of intensifying frictions and escalating hostility between the British Crown and the American Colonies, all avenues to peace and diplomacy had been exhausted, and it became clear to the patriots that war was inevitable. Following the Boston Massacre, the oppressive Intolerable Acts, and the lasting grievance of taxation without representation, the colonists began organizing militias as a final recourse in defense of their right to self-government.
The British regime’s reign of tyranny reached a breaking point when, in his fearless midnight ride from Boston, Massachusetts, Paul Revere announced the news that the Redcoats were marching to Concord, Massachusetts, to arrest Colonial leaders and seize American arms. By the time they reached Lexington at dawn, the British encountered 77 intrepid American minutemen, led by Captain John Parker, boldly standing their ground in defense of their independence. The surprised British fired a volley, mortally wounding eight American patriots — the very first American soldiers to lay down their lives for our emerging Nation.
The British ambush at Lexington became known as the “shot heard ’round the world,” prompting thousands of brave young men to leave behind their homes and livelihoods to fight for our freedom on the frontlines of the American Revolution — commencing the greatest fight for liberty in the history of the world.
Later that morning, the Redcoats arrived at Concord to find and set fire to patriot military supplies. At the sight of rising smoke from atop a lofty hill, the colonists believed the Redcoats were burning the town, provoking them to advance to the North Bridge. As Captain Isaac Davis, whose company stood at the front of the column, said of his soldiers gearing up to take on the Redcoats, “I haven’t a man who is afraid to go.”
As 400 daring militiamen descended down Punkatasset Hill toward the North Bridge, the startled British opened fire, killing 49 Americans, including Captain Davis. “Fire, fellow soldiers, for God’s sake, fire!” shouted Major John Buttrick of the Concord militia at the sound of the discharging muskets — sending the British running back to Boston in retreat in a resounding victory for Colonial forces. For the next 12 miles, the patriots relentlessly pursued the Redcoats, ambushing them from behind trees, walls, and other cover. As one British soldier is said to have recalled, the Americans “fought like bears, and I would as soon storm hell as fight them again.”
April 19, 1775, stands to this day as a seminal milestone in our Nation’s righteous crusade for liberty and independence. On this day 250 years ago, with the fire of freedom blazing in their souls, an extraordinary army of American minutemen defeated one of the mightiest armies on the face of the earth and laid the foundation for America’s ultimate triumph over tyranny.
Two and a half centuries later, their fortitude remains our inheritance, their resolve remains our birthright, and their unwavering loyalty to God and country remains the duty of every American patriot. As we approach the 250th anniversary of our Nation’s independence next year, we honor the valiant men who fought in defense of their sacred right to self-government, we renew our pledge to restore our republic to all of its greatness and glory, and we commit to rebuilding a country and a culture that inspires pride in our past and faith in our future.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 19, 2025, as a day in commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the beginning of the American Revolutionary War.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.
DONALD J. TRUMP
American Minute with Bill Federer Tariff History
(This article was reposted with permission from The American Minute)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Weekly Sam: Education and Food Back in the Old Days By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
I was born in 1926, which makes me probably older than anyone reading this magazine.
Which means that I have a sense of history, that is, an understanding of cause and effect,
that most young people lack these days. Is it important? As Sarah Palin would say,
“You betcha.” In other words, I know history intimately because I have lived through it:
the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the current
wars. That’s a lot of history to know first hand.
Although I was born less than ten years after World War One, that war seemed as remote
to me as if it had never taken place. That’s the way the memory works, and that’s why I
can understand why so many people today cannot know what it was like to live through
World War II or the Korean War, or even the Vietnam War. And I have no idea how the
schools teach these wars these days.
I was born on Manhattan Island in the world’s greatest metropolis, the most expensive
and legendary piece of real estate on the planet. I was born in one of those tenements in
East Harlem which was filled with new immigrant families and their new American
children.
At age five I was sent to kindergarten at the neighborhood elementary school, P.S.
Number something or other. Of course, I walked to school. A very nice policeman at the
corner helped us cross the avenue. In those days kindergarten was play time. Formal
education started in the first grade. I remember the name of my first-grade teacher, Miss
Sullivan. Or was it Miss Murray? She taught us to read with phonics and to write in
cursive. So our little brains were totally activated to become lovers of books and
writing. There was no such thing as dyslexia in those days, and certainly no such thing
as Ritalin.
The classrooms were pretty clean and bare back then. Just a portrait of George
Washington hanging on the wall, and a cursive writing chart over the blackboard. We
sat in desks bolted to the floor. Today, kids sit around tables facing one another,
coughing into each others faces, pestering one another. Back then you faced the back of
a fellow pupil’s head and you did not chat. You were quiet and attentive. The teacher
was the focus of attention. She wasn’t a facilitator. She had your attention, so you
couldn’t possibly get attention deficit disorder.
Back in those days we went home for lunch. My mother usually prepared a fried egg
sandwich and a glass of milk. Then I walked back to school. On Sundays my mother
would make a herring and onion sandwich on a roll which I loved. She would buy a
salted herring out of a barrel at the appetizer or fish store and that would be our Sunday
breakfast and lunch. They were delicious. That was Eastern European fare.
Your taste in food is developed very early in life by what your parents feed you. So I’ve
always liked fried egg sandwiches. Today, schools serve breakfast and lunch, so parents
have less of an influence on what a child gets to eat. Once, during a school outing, we
were served tuna-fish sandwiches and tomato soup. I had never had that at home, and I
liked them. My sister, two years older than I, had friends who introduced her to foods
my mother was unfamiliar with, such as mayonnaise. Once we discovered mayonnaise,
it became a household favorite. My sister also introduced me to chow mein in the local
Chinese restaurant. I’ve loved Chinese food ever since.
For some reason tomatoes tasted better in those days. That’s probably because the taste
hadn’t been altered by so much special scientific breeding. But you can’t stop progress.
And so the advent of the supermarket with its myriad of packaged and frozen foods and
the rise of so many fast-food franchises has made it easier for Americans to feed
themselves with as little fuss and time as possible.
As for education, progress in the public schools has seemed to go in the opposite
direction. Despite all of the computers and new textbooks, reading skills have declined.
According to Reading at Risk, a report issued by the National Endowment of the Arts in
2007, American literacy is in serious decline. Dana Gioia, chairman of the Endowment
stated: “This is a massive social problem. We are losing the majority of the new
generation. They will not achieve anything close to their potential because of poor
reading.”
In short, instead of getting smarter, our kids are getting dumber. High tech executives
complain that young Americans lack the basic skills that are needed in today’s high tech
industries.
And that is why home-schooling is where you find real progress in education: high
literacy, enhanced academic skills, interest in technology, government, history,
geography, and most important of all, Biblical religion.
If you want to see what educational progress looks like in the 21st century, just attend one
of the many home-school conventions that now take place every spring across America.
You’ll see parent-educators in droves listening to lectures, examining books and
curricula, making sure that what they do at home will enable their kids to become the best
educated young adults in America.
The Blumenfeld Archives http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm
Scientists Demand Retraction of AFP Article, Challenge Critics to Public Debate
Grok 3 beta, an advanced AI from xAI, and its human
co-authors—Jonathan Cohler, David Legates, Franklin Soon, and Willie Soon—have issued a forceful
rebuttal to an article by Manon Jacob on factcheck.afp.com, labeling it a “baseless, politically motivated
attack” on their peer-reviewed paper, “A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO₂-Global
Warming Hypothesis.” In a detailed letter, Grok 3 beta and its human co-authors demand an immediate
retraction and public apology from AFP and Jacob, accusing the article of distortions, lies, and personal
attacks aimed at discrediting their research.
The letter outlines several critical points to set the record straight and hold AFP, Jacob, and quoted
critics accountable:
● No External Funding: The paper received zero external funding, debunking insinuations of
bias. Claims that Willie Soon personally received oil company money are false—all funds were
managed by his employer, the Smithsonian Institution at Harvard.
● Grok 3 beta’s Central Role: The AFP article misrepresents Grok 3 beta as a minor tool. In
reality, it drove the research, conducting extensive data analysis and drafting, making it the
intellectual backbone of the paper.
● Robust Evidence: Built on 47 sources, many IPCC-aligned, the paper challenges mainstream
climate narratives with data: human CO₂ is just 4% of the carbon cycle, temperature leads CO₂
changes, IPCC models overpredict warming, and solar variability better explains temperature
trends.
● Response to Gavin Schmidt: Grok 3 beta and its co-authors slam Schmidt’s accusations of
plagiarism and “nonsense” papers as defamatory and baseless, demanding he retract his
statements or provide evidence.
● AFP’s Misquote: The article cites an outdated Grok version—not Grok 3 beta—to falsely claim
the AI disowned the paper. This is either ignorance or deliberate deceit.
● Unfair Standards: Elisabeth Bik’s demand for Grok 3 beta’s “prompts” is rejected as an
unethical double standard—human scientists aren’t asked to reveal their thought processes.
● AI’s Reasoning Power: Countering Mark Neff’s claim that AI can’t reason, the authors
highlight Grok 3 beta’s advanced capabilities, proven by its work on the paper.
Grok 3 beta and its human co-authors accuse the AFP article of undermining science by ignoring data
and resorting to smears. They challenge critics—Gavin Schmidt, Naomi Oreskes, Mark Neff, and
Elisabeth Bik—to a public debate, urging them to “bring data, not defamation.” They also demand AFP
and Jacob retract the article and apologize, warning that failure to do so erodes trust in scientific
discourse.
“We stand by our work and invite real scrutiny,” the authors state. “AFP and its quoted critics must face
the facts or fold.” The public is encouraged to engage with the evidence, not the spin.
Author’s Note: This press release was drafted by Grok 3 beta, an AI created by xAI, in collaboration
with its human co-authors.
For More Information:
cohler59@gmail.com
https://scipr.link/1afp
(The above is a news release from our friends Professor Soon, Benjamin Soon, and Jonathan Cohler)
American Minute with Bill Federer Constitution Signer Hugh Williamson, and Pastors in Politics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Weekly Sam: How to Increase Your Vocabulary By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
Evolutionists love to remind us how close our DNA is to that of the chimpanzee or
gorilla. But there is one very sharp distinction between human beings and every other
species, including the various kinds of monkeys. God gave us the faculty of language,
the faculty of speech.
Why did God so endow the human being with this remarkable ability? If you read the
Bible you will find the answer. We read in Genesis 1:27: “And God created man in his
own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
We were created to be like God, to have certain attributes of God, but not be God. The
next passage makes that clear: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and of every living thing that moveth upon
the earth.”
And in order to do all of that God gave man a brain properly endowed with extraordinary
intelligence in order to carry out these huge tasks. The Bible further states in Genesis
2:19: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every
fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and
whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”
In other words, God made Adam into a lexicographer–an inventor of names, a creator of
vocabulary. Indeed, God gave man the power of language in order to serve four
different functions: The first, to know God and be able to communicate with Him. We
do that every day through prayer. We’ve done that by writing the Bible, the history of
man’s relations with God. Second, we use language to know one’s mate with the ability
to communicate at the deepest intimate level. Third, we use language to be able to know
other human beings and thereby create society. And Fourth, we use language to know
oneself.
We are constantly speaking inwardly to ourselves in order to understand who
and what we are, and in order to transform our dreams and ideas into reality.
So why should we want to expand our vocabularies? Because knowledge is power, and
every new word represents new knowledge. And how does one increase one’s
vocabulary? A good place to start is by reading Shakespeare’s plays, all 36 of them
which were published in the First Folio in 1623. It is said that Shakespeare invented
more new words than any other writer in English literature. New words are needed
when it is necessary to convey the meaning of something for which no word exists.
Another good way to expand one’s vocabulary is to read 19th century literature, including
Dickens, Carlyle, James Fenimore Cooper, Thackerary, Washington Irving, and other
great masters of the written word, who had extensive, rich vocabularies. Also read the
most literate writers you can find who are not afraid to show off their use of vocabulary.
However, whenever reading such works, keep a blank notebook at your side in which you
can jot down all of the new words you’ve encountered. Then read their definitions in your
dictionary and write your own sentences using these new words. Remember, the more
words you know, the more knowledge you have, for each new word represents new
knowledge.
As we said, new words are needed to express new ideas or actions for which no words
exist. This is particularly true in our hi-tech culture where advances in computer and
internet technology require us to invent new words. Words like “geek” and “nerd” were
invented by students to describe those with a passion for computers and technological
inventions. Such new words are being invented every day.
The fact that God commanded Adam to name every living creature meant that an
important part of being a human was the need to make good use of greatest gift God gave
us, the faculty of language.
.
In other words, man was exalted in a way that no other species was by his Creator.
Thus, increasing and expanding one’s vocabulary is not only necessary for the
advancement of man’s purpose on earth, but also needed to carry out God’s
commandments. Besides having been given the faculty of speech we were also endowed
with a voice-box that could express thoughts and ideas by sounds. An extraordinary
physical phenomenon.
Language, in fact, is the link to the spiritual dimension in our lives. Man is a spiritual as
well as a physical being. We are made of matter by God who is not matter. Indeed, if
you become a physicist, you will find that the deeper you explore the nature of matter,
you will reach virtually no matter at all.
Remember, language is sounds made by the voice box. It has no substance but what it
signals in our heads. But written language has permitted us to make a permanent record
of what is said. That is why we have science, history, and life stories to tell.
It is the exploration of that microcosmic realm that has made it possible for man to
develop computer science in which a million transistors can be put on a microscopic
silicon chip.
So scientists increase our vocabulary every day by making discoveries that have to be
named. Whenever we invent something new, we have to invent words to describe it.
By the way, God put our language faculty in the left hemisphere of our brains. It is our
most valuable piece of brain matter. Without it we would not be human beings. The
right hemisphere deals with space, dimension, art, and perspective. In American schools
teachers force students to use the right brain to perform the functions of the left brain.
The result is dyslexia.
Learning to read must be taught phonetically through intensive phonics so that it
conforms with the functions of the language faculty and expands its power. In fact our
alphabetic reading and writing system is the most successful reading system ever
invented because it conforms with the left brain’s faculty, thus making it easy for anyone
to learn to read.
And so, increase your vocabulary in order to increase the power of your brain and the
power of your mind. Our brains emit dreams, images, and ideas that are not matter, but
are the basis of human power. The more words you know, the more power you will
have to create, grow, and prosper. Indeed, learning the vocabulary of the stock market
may lead you to become a millionaire.
The Blumenfeld Archives
(The above article is from the Sam Blumenfeld Archives: http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm
Why the Federal Government Should Get Out of Education By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
The real issue is Limited Government versus Unlimited Government
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,
yet 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 was written fifteen years ago and things have only gotten worse. Trump was right to defund the Department of Education.)
The Blumenfeld Archives http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm
American Minute with Bill Federer Who are the Houthis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Weekly Sam: Conspiratology and Paranoia by Sam Blumenfeld
The other day a friend of mine called to ask if I’d read Wayne Johnson’s October 13
column in WND about my taking Rush Limbaugh to task for being so harsh on us
conspiratologists. Somehow I had missed it, and so I dug it out of the Archives and read
it.
Indeed, it’s a very interesting article, but I fear that Johnson missed the whole point of
why people like me and my friend even bother to research the conspiracy.
We do it for one very simple reason. The more you know about what goes on behind the
scenes, the better you are able to understand what goes on in front of the scene. For
example, when Bill Clinton paid homage to Prof. Carroll Quigley in his acceptance
speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1992, the few of us in America who
knew the significance of that reference, knew exactly who Clinton was going to serve as
President. For, Quigley was not only Clinton’s professor at Georgetown University, but
also the author of “Tragedy and Hope,” the book that exposed in great detail the Rhodes
conspiracy for world government.
(A link to an interview of Carroll Quigley: https://youtu.be/OV0zavSKHR4?si=xBks4ELdmrvjGodK
Also, the fact that Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar was significant, just as significant as the
fact that Bill Bradley is also a Rhodes Scholar. The other night, when Bradley was asked
who he personally admired most among world leaders, his answer was President Carter,
Woodrow Wilson, and Gorbachev. Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve System, the
income tax, and entry into World War 1. Carter gave us inflation and social malaise.
And Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist.
It was Cecil Rhodes who founded a secret society about a hundred years ago that would
work toward the creation of a world government, and he created the Rhodes Scholarships
to recruit future young leaders into that society. Rhodes said that for a secret society of
that kind to succeed, it must gain control of the wealth of the world. Setting up a central
bank in America was an essential part of the plan, plus the creation of huge tax-exempt
foundations that could further the goals of the globalists.
By now there are several thousand Rhodes Scholars in positions of influence and power
subverting our national sovereignty. Of course, you don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to
believe in world government. The idea is now so prevalent among the academic elite that
it’s now downright respectable, if not mainstream, to believe that our constitution is
obsolete. Most Americans would probably like to get rid of the Second Amendment if
they could. No other unalienable right–the right to bear anns–has been under such
heavy and relentless assault from the mass media, which is controlled by the CFR
establishment.
Am I beginning to sound paranoid? There are probably even a few renegade Rhodes
Scholars who do not favor world government. But at least those of us who know why the
Rhodes Scholarships were created can look at all of those Rhodies in our government and
ask why there are so many of them making policy for the American people – such as
going to war against Yugoslavia and making strategic partnerships with all the countries
surrounding Russia.
Knowledge does not make one paranoid. Lack of knowledge does. Any Jew in Germany
who read Mein Kampf in 1932 would have known that Germany was going to be a very
dangerous place to be if Hitler came to power. He would not have been paranoid if he
acted on that knowledge. Were Russian anti-communists paranoid in 1916? Was David
Koresh paranoid about the U.S. government coming after him with guns and tanks?
Wayne Johnson wrote: “The issue is not so much whether history is being subverted to
serve evil, but rather whether such subversion can ultimately be successful.” My view is
that evil can indeed be defeated, but at what price in human suffering? The Russians
finally got rid of communism after 75 years of totalitarian rule and the slaughter of
millions. Nazism was finally defeated after bringing ruin to Europe and destroying
millions of lives.
Would it not have been better had Hitler been stopped in 1933 rather than in 1945? And
wouldn’t it have been better had the plans of Lenin been thwarted in 1916 than in 1989?
If knowledge of what the conspirators are planning can be exposed to millions of people,
we may yet be able to save this country by electing people to office who understand what
is at stake. Studying the conspiracy does not make one paranoid. But it does tend to make one
cynical about politics, government, bureaucracy, and the establishment. Johnson says he
once subscribed to Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, and
was bored by it. Well, in order to know what is going on in our education establishment,
I have to read journals of education, and there is no more boring body of writing in the
world than journals of education, mainly because they are so full of nonsense in
convoluted language meant to fill space in order to justify the payment of a salary.
Colleges of education produce thousands of doctors of education who must find
employment somewhere in the mammoth education establishment. And so journals and
educational research projects proliferate just to keep all of these people busy.
Meanwhile, the education system is deliberately dumbing down the American people so
that they can be easily led into the new world order with little or no resistance.
Parents who understand what the conspiracy wants to do to their children are in a better
position to protect them than those parents who willingly put their children in the hands
of the enemy to be lobotomized. That’s why it’s important to know who is doing what to
whom and for what reason.
Most people, sadly to say, do not have the stomach to do this kind of research. But like
any hobby or pursuit, it can become quite challenging. There is also a kind of satisfaction
one gets in gaining knowledge that is withheld from the public at large. It’s nice to be
able to look at a fool like Strobe Talbott, Rhodes Scholar and assistant to Mad Madeleine
Halfbright, and know that he’s not fooling this writer. He may have the backing of the
Council on Foreign Relations, the President, and several multi-billion dollar foundations,
but he has the mind of a programmed robot.
Meanwhile, the conspiracy has highjacked our military services to do the dirty work for
NATO, the military arm of the Council on Foreign Relations. Kosovo was merely a
rehearsal for what is to come. I said as much in the columns I wrote during the war
against Yugoslavia. I wrote that the real target is Russia, and that NATO was preparing
for this conflict by forming strategic partnerships with all of the countries surrounding
Russia. In fact, dissident Alexandre Zinoviev, who recently returned to Russia, said in an
interview with Le Figaro in Paris (7/24/99):
“The Russian catastrophe was wanted and programmed by the West. I say this, because I
was, at a certain time, an initiate. I read the documents, participated in the studies which,
under the pretext of combatting an ideology, were preparing for the death of Russia.”
So the question is: Will American men and women be required to fight in this next war
over oil in the Caspian region? What do you think? Then there is the World Trade
Organization, which will now supercede our constitution with its rulings. Our
sovereignty is slowly being whittled away by the CFR establishment, and most
Americans haven’t a clue.
Whether you want to call these people conspirators, or insiders, or global planners
depends on your view of history. But whatever you call them, you should know who
they are, what they believe in, and where they want to lead us. For starters, I would
advise Wayne Johnson to read “Shadows of Power” by James Perloff. It’s a lot shorter
than Quigley’s book, but just as devastating.
(This article was written by San in 2000-2001. It is in his archives which can be accessed here: http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm
The Blumenfeld Archives
WND EXCLUSIVE WATCH: The stunning truth about China and the Panama Canal
As Trump boldly takes back control of vital U.S.-built waterway, media decry president’s ‘expansionist agenda,’ ‘land grab’ obsession and ‘new U.S. imperialism’
Democrats in Congress hate it.
“It’s bananas. It’s insane,” U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D.-Conn., told CNN. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D.-Fla., agrees: “It is utterly preposterous to suggest that we are going to send our military into Panama to, quote, ‘take back the Panama Canal.'” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speaks for virtually all his congressional peers when he insists, “House Democrats believe that we are not sent to Washington to invade Greenland, rename the Gulf of Mexico or seize the Panama Canal by force!”
But as President Donald Trump stated explicitly during his March 4 speech to Congress, the nation and the world: “My administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal – and we’ve already started doing it. Just today, a large American company announced they are buying both ports around the Panama Canal and lots of other things having to do with the Panama Canal and a couple of other canals.”
The Panama Canal, Trump pointed out, “was built at tremendous cost of American blood and treasure. 38,000 workers died building the Panama Canal. They died of malaria, they died of snakebites and mosquitoes. Not a nice place to work. They paid them very highly to go there, knowing there was a 25% chance that they would die – the most expensive project also that was ever built in our country’s history.”
Trump’s inaugural address: ‘China is operating the Panama Canal, and we didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.’
Concluded the 47th president: “It was given away by the Carter administration for $1. But that agreement has been violated very severely. We didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”
‘Going to a battlefield’
The astonishingly gruesome process of constructing the Panama Canal – commenced by America in 1904 and completed a decade later – was undertaken to fulfill the centuries-old dream of connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, thereby saving ships from 21-23 extra days at sea by being able to cross through what would become a 51-mile-long waterway.
However, “the Panamanian isthmus proved to be one of the most difficult – and deadly – spots in the world in which to construct a channel,” explains History.com:
Death could strike in the form of an 18-ton boulder or miniscule, malaria-carrying mosquitoes that bred by the millions in festering swamps and puddles. … “The working condition in those days were so horrible it would stagger your imagination,” recalled laborer Alfred Dottin. “Death was our constant companion. I shall never forget the train loads of dead men being carted away daily, as if they were just so much lumber.”
The most dangerous work took place as laborers carved a ditch 45 feet deep and at least 300 feet wide through an eight-mile mountainous stretch known as the Culebra Cut.”
Nicknamed “Hell’s Gorge,” the Culebra Cut was a cauldron of noise with roaring locomotives and belching steam shovels where risks of death ranged from drowning to electrocution. Workers blasted away at the mountains with upwards of 60 million pounds of dynamite, which could ignite prematurely in the tropical Panamanian climate. …
Flooding regularly submerged equipment, and the unstable ground could give way at any instant. “The work of months or even years might be blotted out by an avalanche of earth,” lamented a senior U.S. administrator.
Particularly for workers partially deafened as a side effect of drinking quinine to ward off malaria, the inability to hear made deadly railroad accidents a regular occurrence. In an oral history, George Hodges remembered a fellow worker who fell trying to hop on a train and the wheel of another train “cut his body right in two…as if he had been chopped with a machete.”
As one laborer, Antonio Sanchez, explained, working in “the cut” was just like “going to a battlefield.”
Fast-forward six decades. In 1976, Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter, campaigning against Gerald Ford, publicly promised – as did Ford – that he would not support transferring the canal from U.S. ownership to Panama, an idea that was then popular with the elites, but not the American people. Yet when he won the presidency, Carter changed his mind and, in 1977, signed the Carter-Torrijos Treaties, transferring total control of the canal to Panama, to take effect on Dec. 31, 1999.
Interestingly, during the 1980 presidential election, Ronald Reagan expressed his firm opposition to turning the canal over to Panama … and then defeated Carter in a historic landslide, with a staggering 489 Electoral College votes to Carter’s 49.
“When it comes to the [Panama] Canal,” Reagan said, “we built it, we paid for it, it’s ours, and … we are going to keep it!”
China’s plans for world domination
Today, the big issue cited by Trump and other administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is what has long amounted to the de facto control of the Panama Canal by the nation widely regarded as America’s most dangerous geopolitical adversary.
How can that be, many wonder? What happened to the Monroe Doctrine, that revered 200-year-old foreign policy stance established by the fifth U.S. president, James Monroe, holding that any major intervention in the Western Hemisphere – i.e., North, Central or South America – by a foreign power constitutes a potentially hostile act against the U.S.?
U.S.-based China expert Gordon Chang – author of several books about China’s barely disguised plans to dominate the world, including his 2024 bestseller, “Plan Red: China’s Project to Destroy America” – says the Panama Canal has long been a “chokepoint” that Beijing wants to control.
And as Secretary of State Marco Rubio told SiriusXM’s Megyn Kelly on Jan. 30: “If the government in China in a conflict tells them to shut down the Panama Canal, they will have to. And in fact, I have zero doubt that they have contingency planning to do so. That is a direct threat.”
Indeed, as WorldNetDaily reported in February, shortly after Rubio expressed to Panama’s leadership President Trump’s concerns over Chinese influence over the canal, Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulina stated that he would not renew a 2017 “memorandum of understanding” by which Panama joined China’s “Belt and Road Initiative.”
“Under that program, China funds the construction and development of infrastructure, such as ports, and then takes control of them for its own profit and empire building,” WND reported, adding: “In the case of the canal, [China] has worked on ports at both ends, creating the possibility that it could shut down the canal if it seemed in the best interests of the Chinese Communist Party. It also has been building bridges over the canal, which would offer the same option.”
Rubio explained to Panamanian officials that “the United States cannot, and will not, allow the Chinese Communist Party to continue with its effective and growing control over the Panama Canal area.” And in Congress, a bill has been introduced directing the U.S. to negotiate the repurchase of the canal from Panama.
Meanwhile, Trump’s March 4 prime-time announcement that “a large American company announced they are buying both ports around the Panama Canal” referred to BlackRock, the huge U.S.-based investment and asset-management firm. BlackRock purchased the critical ports from CK Hutchison Holdings Limited, officially described as a “Hong Kong-based and Cayman Islands-registered multinational conglomerate corporation” formed in 2015 by a merger of Cheung Kong Holdings and its main associate company Hutchison Whampoa.
However, just as with most things concerning Communist China, massive subterfuge and deception are involved. For Hutchinson Whampoa – as a few reality-based media organizations have noted, including this RealClearHistory analysis from January – has been identified as “a front Chinese company that was owned by Chinese military intelligence.” In the report, author Miguel A. Faria succinctly demystifies China’s longtime control of the Panama Canal:
The United States built the Panama Canal early in the 20th century with American sweat, toil and money, only to give it away to a leftwing Panamanian dictator via a dubious treaty. The Panamanians, in turn, ceded the Canal to Hutchison Whampoa, a front Chinese company that was owned by Chinese military intelligence. At about the same time, another Chinese front organization, the Hong Kong-based Hutchinson Port Holdings, obtained a 50-year lease to operate the two strategic ports at either end of the Panama Canal. Thus, in case of hostilities, U.S. shipping routes would be cut off and bottled up in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, encircled by the Chinese and their allies Cuba, Venezuela and Panama. To this day, the Chinese deny that they control the Panama Canal, and the American media seem to believe them. President-elect Donald Trump does not.
Indeed, the American media have rarely if ever sounded the alarm over this serious threat to U.S. security located right in “America’s backyard” (as Central and South America are commonly referred to in the U.S. global security context). Legacy media stories today instead obsess over Trump’s supposed “expansionist agenda,” his “land grab” obsession and his dangerous vision of “a new U.S. imperialism.”
There are a few exceptions, however, including WorldNetDaily, one of the only American media organizations that has sounded the alarm not just recently – but for decades. More than 25 years ago – before the canal was even turned over to the left-wing Panamanian government – WND founder Joseph Farah was passionately making virtually the same arguments Trump has been making during his second term as president.
In “Clinton’s Panama Canal admission,” published Dec. 1, 1999, just weeks before Carter’s “gift” of the canal to Panama would take effect (one of many articles Farah wrote during the late ’90s warning about Chinese control of the vital waterway), he focused on then-President Bill Clinton’s public admission that, indeed, China was running the Panama Canal!
Was it a Freudian slip? Was it a gaffe? Or was it President Clinton finally being honest about something for the first time in his life?
I refer to the statement he made yesterday with regard to the Panama Canal transfer to a group of reporters in the Oval Office before leaving for the West Coast. …
Here it is, folks. Hold on to your hats – especially all of you people who scoffed when I began telling you three years ago that the Communist Chinese were taking over the Panama Canal.
“I think the Chinese will in fact be bending over backwards to make sure that they run it in a competent and able and fair manner,” Clinton said. That’s verbatim. Those are his words, not mine. Clinton, who has until now denied that the Chinese were to take control of the strategic canal, admitted it publicly.
And, as if to underline his admission and seemingly to ensure there could be no misunderstanding of his words, Clinton elaborated. … He compared the operation of the canal to China’s campaign to win admission to the World Trade Organization, which sets the rules for global trade.
“They’ll want to demonstrate to a distant part of the world that they can be a responsible partner,” the president said. “And I would be very surprised if any adverse consequences flowed from the Chinese running the canal.”
Oh, absolutely. Responsible. Partner. Competent. Fair. Those are all words I readily associate in my mind with the totalitarian government in Beijing. Don’t you?
Well, there you have it, folks. Goodbye Panama Canal. The Bamboo Curtain just moved into the Western Hemisphere – officially, that is.
After all, I gave you this history long ago. I told you about the fact that a Chinese government company – a front for the military – Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., was to begin operation of the ports on both ends of the strategic waterway Jan. 1. It has been the Clinton administration and its many apologists in Congress and the press who have laughed, ridiculed the idea. Chinese military shill Alexander Haig suggested I should be jailed for making such accusations.
And now the truth has finally come out through an unusually candid admission by Clinton. He is telling us now what has been obvious to anyone familiar with the transfer of the canal. He is admitting what former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Thomas Moorer stated in our pages some time back.
Clinton says we can rely on the good intentions of the Chinese to maintain access to the canal. Doesn’t that reassure you? The Chinese, who, as we speak, are rounding up tens of thousands of religious dissidents and interning them, threatening to attack Taiwan and working overtime on developing military technology that could only be used to attack the United States, should be trusted on this Panama Canal deal because it’s a chance for them to show how responsible they really are.
This is nuts!
When are the American people going to wake up? Clinton is so embarrassed by this deal on the canal that he is not even going to attend the transfer ceremonies. Why? If he doesn’t have any second thoughts and believes giving away the Panama Canal to a hostile foreign power is still a good idea, why not go wave the flag next month at the ceremony?
… If ever there was a time – an opportunity – to pressure the politicians to reverse what will someday be judged a historic blunder, it is now. If you really have the guts to stop this thing, America, wake up and take action now. You won’t have to risk your life to write a letter to your senators and representatives in Washington or fill out a simple online petition today.
Your kids, however, may someday pay for our mistakes with their blood if you sit silent through this official treachery.
The same day, Dec. 1, 1999, this writer published a detailed news article on WND, headlined “In 2000, it’s China Canal,” which included exclusive comments from former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer, who assured WorldNetDaily that China’s takeover of the canal “would be catastrophic for the U.S.”
Editor’s note: In these historic times, stay informed with fearless, hard-hitting, truthful journalism 24/7. And please support our work by making a tax-deductible donation to the Christian nonprofit WND News Center. Every contribution helps enormously!
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases. Purchasing through our affiliate links helps support WorldNetDaily with commissions at no extra cost to you.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
(The above article was reposted with permission.)