Camp Constitution 18th Annual Family Camp is one month away. It will be held at the Singing Hills Christian Camp https://www.singinghills.net/ Plainfield, NH. from Sunday July 12 to Friday July 17, 2026 We still have rooms available. We have to give Singing Hills a final headcount on July 3. So, if you are planning on attending, please let us know.
Returning instructors include Pastor David Whitney of the Institute on the Constitution, Catherine White of The Constitution Decoded, Alex Newman, author and host of the Sentinel Report, Kurt Hyde, retired U.S. Air Force Lt, Col, and Rev. Steve Craft, Camp Constitution’s chaplain.

Guest instructors include Julie Wilkinson who played in the movie “”UnPlanned: The Abby Johnson Story.” In addition to the classes, the camp will offer marksmanship courses, martial arts, hiking, basketball, volleyball, wiffleball, and optional field trip and swimming, chess, gaga and corn hole tournaments. Campers and staff end the day with an evening campfire.
Our theme: Celebrating our nation’s 250th Birthday
Camp Constitution’s annual camp is a family camp open to entire families, unaccompanied minors, and adults. The cost for the week which includes lodging, meals and class handouts is $300 for those 13 and over. $200. For campers 12 and under, and three and under with parents are free. A link to the camp registration: https://campconstitution.net/camp-registration/
Can’t attend but would like to help a worthy youngster or family attend camp? Please consider making a donation to Camp Constitution. Donations can be made via our PayPal account accessed from our website’s homepage https://campconstitution.net/ or by check payable to Camp Constitution and mailed to Camp Constitution C/O Hal Shurtleff 146 Powder Mill Rd. Alton, NH 03809.
For more information contact Hal Shurtleff (857) 498-1309 campconstitution1@gmail.com

Because we live in such a highly secularized society, we cannot believe that America could ever become
involved in a religious war in this day and age. Yet ferocious religious wars have been going on all over the
place: in Northern Ireland, in Israel, in the Balkans, in Sudan, in India, in Kashmir, and in Russia. But
history is a very harsh taskmaster and refuses to let us Americans escape into our secular fantasies and
liberal hot houses for long. Thus, it is vitally important for us to reconnect with the human race’s never
ending history of religious struggle. That a group of Islamic terrorists, trained in a remote war-torn, famine
ridden, hell-hole in Asia, could organize the kind of mind-boggling attack against America that took place on
September 11, 2001, means that America is not only not exempt from history, but has been dragged
kicking and screaming back into the middle of it.
Back in 1588, Christopher Marlowe, master of historical drama, wrote his famous Tamburlaine 2. In it there
is a fascinating scene in which the Christian King Sigismund of Hungary and Orcanes, the Muslim King of
Natolia, both former enemies, decide to establish peace between them in order to join forces to defeat
Tamberlaine the Great, the cruel, pagan conqueror of Asia.
Both men confirm their commitment with an oath. King Sigismund vows:
“By Him that made the world and sav’d my soul,
The Son of God and issue of a maid,
Sweet Jesus Christ, I solemnly protest
And vow to keep this peace inviolable!”
King Orcanes vows:
“By sacred Mohamet, the friend of God,
Whose holy Alcoran remains with us,
Whose Glorious body, when he left the world,
Clos’d in a coffin mounted up the air,
And hung on stately Mecca’s temple-roof,
I swear to keep this truce inviolable!”
But as the story goes, it was King Sigismund who later broke the truce and was defeated and killed by the
Muslims.
While the history of the struggle between Christians and Muslims for control of Europe was for a time
settled after the Muslims were expelled from Spain in 1492, and driven back from the gates of Vienna to
Asia and Africa, the Islamic enclaves that remained in the Balkans led to the recent wars in Bosnia and
Kosovo. The Serbs had considered themselves as the Christian bulwark against further Islamic incursions
in Europe, and therefore could not understand why they were being bombed by fellow Europeans and
Americans.
You had to know history to understand what Bosnia and Kosovo were all about and what bin Laden’s men
were doing in the Balkans. That conflict proved that the war between Christianity and Islam has never
ended. Over the ages, it simply took on different forms. The rise of European power put a lid on Islamic
ambitions and the Muslim world became the backwater of history until the discovery of oil in the twentieth
century. But in the nineteenth century, the Islamic Barbary states of North Africa could still make trouble for
the Infidel. They took possession of American and European commercial vessels, held their crews for
ransom, and enslaved other Christians. Our first war after independence was fought during the Jefferson
administration against the Muslim pirates and kidnappers of Tripolitania. It is known in the history books as
the Barbary War, in which U.S. Marines staged their first invasion of foreign soil. Hence, the Marine
anthem: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.”
In order to finally put an end to the piracy and barbarism coming out of North Africa, France decided to take
over Algeria. During the 1830s and 1840s, the French imposed their rule over the territory, encouraging
Europeans to settle there. The result was a flourishing French colony and an end to Barbary piracy. France
maintained order in North Africa until the end of World War II, when the anti-colonialist movement got
underway. Both liberals and communists joined in forcing the European powers to give up their colonies.
In Algeria, however, over a million Europeans had settled in the territory and the coastal departements
were considered an integral part of France. However, when Charles de Gaulle gained power at the height
of the Algerian uprising, he decided that France should quit Algeria because the Moslems could never
become true Frenchmen. And so France abandoned Algeria, and a million Europeans took to the boats.
Today, the invasion has been reversed. Five million Muslims, mostly Algerians, live in France. They make
up ten percent of the population and are part of the resurgent Islamic power in Europe. Christianity is now
so weak in France that one wonders if it is capable of resisting the assumption of Islamic power.
We have been told by our leaders and the media that we are not at war against the Islamic religion. We
are at war against terrorism. But what they all prefer not to recognize is that the spiritual power behind that
terrorism, the power that drives otherwise intelligent human beings to undertake suicidal missions against
the infidel is the religion of Islam. Of course, there are millions of Muslims who just want to lead normal
lives. Unfortunately, after September 11, 2001, nothing is “normal” anymore.
In an alarming article in the November issue of Commentary magazine, Daniel Pipes contends that
Islamist militants are serious about their plan to conquer America. He writes:
“The first missionaries for militant Islam, or Islamism, who arrived here from abroad in the
1920’s, unblushingly declared, “Our plan is, we are going to conquer America.”
The audacity of such statements hardly went unnoticed at the time, including by Christians who
cherished their own missionizing hopes. As a 1922 newspaper commentary put it:
“To the millions of American Christians who have so long looked eargerly
forward to the time the cross shall be supreme in every land and the people
of the whole world shall have become the followers of Christ, the plan to win
the continent to the path of the ‘infidel Turk’ will seem a thing unbelievable.
But there is no doubt about its being pressed with all the fanatical zeal for
which the Mohammedans are noted. Pipes writes further:
“As a teacher at an Islamic school in Jersey City, near New York, explains, the “short-term
goal is to introduce Islam. In the long term, we must save American society.” Step by step,
writes a Pakistan-born professor of economics, by offering “an alternative model” to
Americans, Muslims can transform what Ismail Al-Faruqi referred to as “the unfortunate
realities of North America” into something acceptable in God’s eyes.”
The irony in all of this is stunning. For years the Christian right has been trying to get Americans to live
godly lives, but with very limited success. The fact that 85% of American parents put their children in pagan
public schools is an indication of how strong our liberal secular culture is. It controls the curriculum in our
schools and universities. It controls most of the print media, the electronic media, and most of what comes
out of Hollywood. And American schools are now teaching American children all about Islam. While the
Bible has been eliminated from the classroom, apparently the Koran hasn’t. How else can you teach about
Islam?
Recently, the Reverend Franklin Graham, president of Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian relief agency, called
Islam “wicked and violent.” He said, “I don’t believe this is a wonderful, peaceful religion. When you read
the Koran and you read the verses from the Koran, it instructs the killing of the infidel, for those that are
non-Muslim.”
As the son of Billy Graham, Franklin is the designated successor to his father’s longtime evangelical
ministry. He delivered the benediction at Bush’s inauguration. But now he’s in trouble with the White
House, which sponsored a Ramadan dinner for 50 ambassadors from Islamic countries with a traditional
meal and prayer. Also, the Muslim chaplain of Georgetown University recently officiated at the opening
prayers of the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill.
The moral seems to be that if Islamist terrorists bomb the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and kill
5,000 Americans, other Islamists get invited to the White House for a special dinner prepared to their
specifications: no pork. Now that Americans are being invited to be kind to Muslims, where will all of this
lead?
Graham said, “It wasn’t Methodists flying into those buildings, it wasn’t Lutherans. It was an attack on this
country by people of the Islamic faith.” And that’s why the latter are now favored guests at the White
House! Of course, the President is doing this to keep the Islamic states in line while we war against the
terrorists which these states harbor.
But if we are being encouraged by our born-again President to be kind to our Muslim neighbors, shouldn’t
Christians see this as a missionary opportunity? Why not introduce Muslims to the loving grace of Jesus
Christ? One of the reasons why Americans find it difficult to become friendly with Muslims is because
sooner or later their rabid hatred of Israel will surface. Americans in general don’t like to hate anybody, and
they are uncomfortable with people who are haters.
Christianity preaches love. Islam preaches hate. That is why hatred of Israel fills the psyche of so many
Muslims. Abnormal, pathological hatred is not healthy. It requires constant energy to be sustained at the
level it exists among Muslims. And that is why life is so miserable in many Islamic countries. And that is
why Palestinian refugees have preferred to remain in refugee camps for 50 years rather than do something
constructive with their lives. They prefer to live with festering, enduring hatred, and teach it to their
children, rather than accept forgiveness and peace. No true Christian could ever waste his life that way.
Yet, the United Nations aid agency accepts these refugee camps as perfectly normal for the Arab Muslims.
After World War II, millions of displaced persons found new constructive lives in countries all over the
world. But in the Middle East, Palestinian hatred is used to torment the world about Israel.
It is to be hoped that one of the first things the new government of Afghanistan might do is recognize Israel
and establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. It would signal a dramatic change in the attitude of
Muslims toward Israel.
Indeed, let us be loving and concerned with the well being of our Muslim citizens, and let us convey to
them that Jesus will save them from their sickening hatred and grant them life renewed.

The Blumenfeld Archives http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(First Published in Gay Community News, Feb. 15-21, 1987 and also put into the Congressional Record. Author – Michael Swift)
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.
All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.
All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.
Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.
There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.
We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.
We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.
Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.



|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()


![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

One soldier was Orval William Epperson.

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

“My fellow Americans: … I ask you to join with me in prayer:
Almighty God, Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization …
Give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces …
We know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph … Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.”
![]()

In 1998, Michael Blassie’s remains were reburied at Jefferson Memorial Cemetery, St. Louis, Missouri.

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()

![]()
![]()


![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()
On Memorial Day Weekend, members of Veterans groups distribute red poppies which have come to symbolize sacrifice in battle.
The tradition goes back to World War I and the Battle of Flanders in Belgium where despite, death of 87,000 Allied soldiers, and destruction, the red poppies still bloomed. Canasdian Amry surgeon Colonel John McCrae who was on hand during the battle, wrote the poem. He didn’t survive the war, however. He died of pneumonia in 1918.
On September 27, 1920, the first chapter of The American Legion made the poppy its official flower to memorialize those who fought and died. A few years later, the Veterans of Foreign Wars began national distribution programs around the country to support the cause, and in 1924, the American Legion did as well.
We, at Camp Constitution in keeping with our motto “Honoring the Past…Teaching the Present…Preparing the Future” recite the poem during our evening campfires at our annual family camp.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

![]()
![]()
![]()

Today, May 2, 2026 marks the 4th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 9-0 “Shurtleff v Boston” decision which was a victory for religious liberty and free speech. Since the decision, dozens if not hundreds of towns and cities were forced to change or adopt a flag policy. Many towns and cities decided to end flying anything but the U.S. and state flags while others allowed flying the Christian flag. But more importantly, it helped repeal the 1971 “Lemon v. Kurtzman” decision.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the City of Boston violated the Constitution by censoring a private flag in a public forum open to “all applicants” merely because the application referred to it as a “Christian flag.” The High Court stated that it is not government speech, and because the government admitted it censored the flag because it was referred to as a Christian flag on the application, the censorship was viewpoint discrimination, and there is no Establishment Clause defense.
Justice Breyer wrote the opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion in the judgment, in which Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion in the judgment, in which Thomas joined.
In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Liberty Counsel represents Boston resident Hal Shurtleff and his Christian civic organization, Camp Constitution. Shurtleff and Camp Constitution first asked the city in 2017 for a permit to raise the Christian flag on Boston City Hall flagpoles to commemorate Constitution Day and Citizenship 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.

“We do not settle this dispute by counting noses—or, rather, counting flags. That is so for several reasons. For one thing, Boston told the public that it sought ‘to accommodate all applicants’ who wished to hold events at Boston’s ‘public forums,’ including on City Hall Plaza. App. to Pet. for Cert. 137a. The application form asked only for contact information and a brief description of the event, with proposed dates and times. The city employee who handled applications testified by deposition that he had previously ‘never requested to review a flag or requested changes to a flag in connection with approval’; nor did he even see flags before the events. Id., at 150a. The city’s practice was to approve flag raisings, without exception. It has no record of denying a request until Shurtleff’s. Boston acknowledges it ‘hadn’t spent a lot of time really thinking about’ its flag-raising practices until this case. App. in No. 20–1158 (CA1), at 140 (Rooney deposition). True to its word, the city had nothing—no written policies or clear in[1]ternal guidance—about what flags groups could fly and what those flags would communicate,’” the Court wrote.
In addition, the Court wrote, “Here, Boston concedes that it denied Shurtleff ’s request solely because the Christian flag he asked to raise “promot[ed] a specific religion.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 155a (quoting Rooney deposition). Under our precedents, and in view of our government-speech holding here, that refusal discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause” (emphasis added).
There are three flagpoles outside City Hall that fly the U.S., Massachusetts and Boston flags, plus a fourth flag on Congress Street, which runs parallel to City Hall. For 12 years from 2005-2017, Boston approved 284 flag-raisings by private organizations with no denials on the flagpoles that it designated as a “public forum.” Had the flag been referred to as anything but Christian, the city would have approved it. The flag itself was not the problem; it was the word “Christian” describing it in the application that was the issue. The year before Camp Constitution’s application (2016-2017), Boston approved 39 private flag-raising events, which averaged three per month. In 2018, Boston approved 50 private flag raising events, averaging nearly one per week. One included a flag of a private credit union.
The Justices commented on the longstanding test known as the “Lemon Test” which has been used to determine if a law violates the First Amendment. Its name comes from Lemon v. Kurtzman, in which the Court ruled that a Rhode Island law that paid some of the salary of some parochial school teachers was unconstitutional. This test has proven to be unworkable and has led to inconsistent and contradictory decisions on the constitutionality of 10 Commandment monuments and cross monuments like the “Peace Cross.”
Justice Gorsuch, joined in a concurrence with Justice Thomas, stated, “It’s time to let Lemon lie in its grave.”
Justice Gorsuch continued, “How did the city get it so wrong? To be fair, at least some of the blame belongs here and traces back to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971). Issued during a “‘bygone era’” when this Court took a more freewheeling approach to interpreting legal texts, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 8), Lemon sought to devise a one-size-fits-all test for resolving Establishment Clause disputes. That project bypassed any inquiry into the Clause’s original meaning. It ignored longstanding precedents. And instead of bringing clarity to the area, Lemon produced only chaos. In time, this Court came to recognize these problems, abandoned Lemon, and returned to a more humble jurisprudence centered on the Constitution’s original meaning. Yet in this case, the city chose to follow Lemon anyway. It proved a costly decision, and Boston’s travails supply a cautionary tale for other localities and lower courts. The only sure thing Lemon yielded was new business for lawyers and judges.”
“Ultimately, Lemon devolved into a kind of children’s game. Start with a Christmas scene, a menorah, or a flag. Then pick your own “reasonable observer” avatar. In this game, the avatar’s default settings are lazy, uninformed about history, and not particularly inclined to legal research. His default mood is irritable. To play, expose your avatar to the display and ask for his reaction. How does he feel about it? Mind you: Don’t ask him whether the proposed display actually amounts to an establishment of religion. Just ask him if he feels it “endorses” religion. If so, game over,” wrote Gorsuch.
In his concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “A government violates the Constitution when (as here) it excludes religious persons, organizations, or speech because of religion from public programs, benefits, facilities, and the like.”
In his concurrence, Justice Alito wrote, “I agree with the Court’s conclusion that Boston (hereafter City) violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech when it rejected Camp Constitution’s application to fly what it characterized as a “Christian flag.” But I cannot go along with the Court’s decision to analyze this case in terms of the triad of factors—history, the public’s perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has exercised control over speech—that our decision in Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. 200 (2015), derived from Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460 (2009). See ante, at 6–12. As the Court now recognizes, those cases did not set forth a test that always and everywhere applies when the government claims that its actions are immune to First Amendment challenge under the government-speech doctrine. And treating those factors as a test obscures the real question in government-speech cases: whether the government is speaking instead of regulating private expression.”
Justice Alito continued, “But courts must be very careful when a government claims that speech by one or more private speakers is actually government speech. When that occurs, it can be difficult to tell whether the government is using the doctrine “as a subterfuge for favoring certain private speakers over others based on viewpoint,” id., at 473, and the government-speech doctrine becomes “susceptible to dangerous misuse….To prevent the government-speech doctrine from being used as a cover for censorship, courts must focus on the identity of the speaker. The ultimate question is whether the government is actually expressing its own views or the real speaker is a private party and the government is surreptitiously engaged in the “regulation of private speech.” Summum, 555 U. S., at 467…. Consider first “the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the expression.” Ante, at 6. Government control over speech is relevant to speaker identity in that speech by a private individual or group cannot constitute government speech if the government does not attempt to control the message. But control is also an essential element of censorship.”
Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court strikes a victory for private speech in a public forum. This case is so much more significant than a flag. Boston openly discriminated against viewpoints it disfavored when it opened the flagpoles to all applicants and then excluded Christian viewpoints. Government cannot censor religious viewpoints under the guise of government speech.”

TIMELINE
BRIEFS OF LIBERTY COUNSEL AND CITY OF BOSTON
Reply Brief For The Petitioners
Petition for Certiorari
Opposition to Petition for Certiorari
Reply Brief in Support of Petition for Certiorari
Brief for Petitioners Camp Constitution
Brief for Respondent City of Boston
Reply Brief of Petitioners Camp Constitution
AMICUS BRIEFS:
In Support of Liberty Counsel
Brief-Amicus-(ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Advancing-American-Freedom-et al).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(American-Cornerstone-Institute).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(American-Legion).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Becket Fund for Religious Liberty).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Bronx-Household-of-Faith).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Catholicvote-org).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(CPCF, et al.).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Foundation-for-Moral-Law).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Multi-States).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(National Legal Foundation, et al.).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Notre Dame L. Sch. Rel. Lib. Initiative).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Pacific Legal Foundation).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Protect-the-First-Foundation).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Rutherford-Institute).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Thomas-More).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(United States).pdf
In Support of City of Boston
Brief-Amicus-(Anti-Defamation League).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(FFRF).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Jewish Alliance for Law, et al).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Local Governments).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(Multi States).pdf
Brief-Amicus-(National Council of Churches, et al.).pdf
READ MORE:
SCOTUS Rules 9-0 in Favor of Christian Flag Case
U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Religious Viewpoint Discrimination
Supreme Court Heard Religious Viewpoint Case Today
Religious Viewpoint Case Goes to SCOTUS Tomorrow
Events Surrounding Shurtleff v. City of Boston SCOTUS Oral Argument
Religious Viewpoint Case Will Affect Everyone
LC Files Reply Brief at SCOTUS in Religious Viewpoint Case
Religious Viewpoint Case at SCOTUS Will Set National Precedent
USA and 12 States Support LC in Free Speech Case
Boston’s Christian Flag Debate Heading to US Supreme Court
Liberty Counsel Files Opening Brief at SCOTUS in Religious Viewpoint Case
U.S. Supreme Court Takes Christian Flag Case
Next Step for Christian Flag: U.S. Supreme Court
Christian Flag in Boston Before Court of Appeals
Boston Censorship Continues
Christian Flag Goes Back to Court
Boston Should Fly Christian Flag
Boston Discriminates Against Christian Flag
Stop Censorship of Christian Flag
Boston Sued for Censoring Christian Flag
Group sues Boston for banning Christian flag, approving 284 others
Boston Sued For Booting Christian Flag, While Allowing Islamic Symbols
Boston Sued for Banning Christian Flag, Allowing 284 Others
284 flags including China’s OK in Boston, but not Christian banner
Boston Sued for Banning Christian Flag, Allowing 284 Others
Banned in Boston — the Christian Flag
Stop Censorship of Christian Flag
Fly the ‘Christian’ flag? Sorry, no can do
The Point: Boston Bars the Christian Flag
Boston’s Censorship of the Christian Flag – Mat Staver – Episode 31
Explore the truth behind the blatant government censorship of the Christian faith, and learn what you can do to protect your religious freedom! – Originally premiered Feb 27, 2022 on GoodLife45 – visit https://www.tv45.org
Standing Up for Judeo-Christian Values – Hal Shurtleff – Episode 29
As Liberty Counsel prepares to defend a religious viewpoint censorship case before the U.S. Supreme Court, it all started with the Christian flag. Hal Shurtleff of Camp Constitution joins Mat Staver to explain more on this episode of Freedom Alive.™ – Originally premiered Dec 12, 2021 on GoodLife45 – visit https://www.tv45.org