The Mordecai Mission: An Interview with Pastor William Green

I had the honor to interview Pastor William Green, founder of The Mordecai Mission on Camp Constitution Radio.  Pastor Green reached out to us thanks to Barbara from Harlem and asked Camp Constitution to be involved with The Mordecai Mission.  Pastor Green can be reached via E-mail:          A link to an audio version of the interview: 









Happy Birthday U.S. Constitution


September 17 marks the 234th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. After its approval by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution was sent to the 13 states for ratification; 3/4ths of the states were needed for ratification.   Delaware was the first state to ratify it on December 7, 1787, with all its 30 delegates at its state ratifying convention approving it, and on June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution making it the law of the land.


 Background to the Convention:

The United States became an independent nation on July 4, 1776.    The Continental Congress approved of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union-our nation’s first constitution.  It was ratified by the states in March of 1781.   The Articles of Confederation had many weaknesses which included:

It had no means to enforce its laws

It was authorized to conduct foreign policy including making treaties conduct war, receive, and send ambassadors but it had no way of enforcing any of it actions

States could impose its own tariffs.

It did not have a steady stream of revenue and could not pay down its debts or pay its bills.

Congress rarely had a quorum, and any changes in the Articles needed all states to concur.

A number of people realized that the Articles was defective.  An early attempt to address the issue took place at the Annapolis Convention held in September 1786.  Delegates from five states attended which wasn’t enough for a quorum.  However, the delegates proposed that a full convention be held.  Congress asked the states to send delegates to a convention in Philadelphia.  Twelve states agreed to send delegates to Philadelphian.   On May 25, the Constitutional Convention began.

The delegates were made up of the most qualified America had to offer.   All together there were 55 delegates that participated in the convention.  They included George Washington, the “Indispensable Man” who served as of the president of the convention, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, who became known as the “Father of the Constitution,” Roger Sherman, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason.

There was much debate and compromise between states with large populations vs. states with small populations including how the chief executive was to be chosen, how the senate would be chosen, and counting slaves in the census.  Today, there are many that believe that the delegates considered blacks to be less that human, hence counting five blacks as three men.  States with large slave populations wanted to count slaves as full people which would have given slave states more members in the House of Representatives.  Free states and states with small slave populations objected which resulted in the 3/5ths compromise which was repealed when the 14th Amendment was passed.

There were times when the convention almost dissolved, but by mid-September the debates were over and on September 17th, 39 delegates signed the constitution.  The Constitution was sent to the 13 states for ratification in which 3/4ths of the states were needed for ratification.   Delaware was the first state to ratify it on December 7, 1787, with all its 30 delegates at its state ratifying convention approving it.  and on June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution making it the law of the land.

Comments on the U.S. Constitution:

“The Adoption of the Constitution will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it.”  George Washington

“I regard it [the Constitution] as the work of the purest patriots and wisest statemen that ever existed, aided by the smiles oof a benignant Providence…It almost appears as a Divine interposition in our behalf.”  Daniel Webster

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  John Adams

Recommended reading:  Miracle at Philadelphia:  The Story of the Constitutional Convention by Catherine Drinker Bowen.


A Worthy Company by M. E. Bradford

On the Experimental Vaccine by Theophilus

– Is it effective? – It has been claimed that this “ shot “ would bring an end
to the pandemic. It has also been admitted by the authorities that it WOULD
NOT stop the spread or infection of the Corona virus or its variants. Many
people who are hospitalized today were fully vaccinated. So why are people
being vaccinated for a virus that has an over 99% recovery rate without
vaccination? This shows the lack of efficacy of the vaccine and lies of the WHO
and CDC. There are effective treatments other than vaccines and the “curve”
was “flattened” before the “vax”. Natural immunity is always preferable to a
vaccine. Vaccines are not necessary for those who are naturally immune.
There seems to be no legitimate reason to be vaccinated, considering the


-Is it safe? – The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)
reports about 500,000 vaccine injuries in the U.S. from the Covid vaccine, many
very serious and permanent. This includes about 13,000 deaths through August
13, 2021. These numbers are far higher than the combined injuries from all
other prior vaccines combined. Some studies indicate that the VAERS data
only reflects 1% of the actual injuries meaning they actual number could be 100
times higher. Reconsider this particular “vaccine” for its danger. In a state of
panic and fear, manipulation through lies and coercion are harmful.

Some passages from the Jay Green translation of the New Testament.
– ”.. the truth will set you free” ( John 8:32 ). “… he has not stood in the
truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from
his own things, because he is a liar, and the father of it. “ ( John 8:44). “Jesus
says.. I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father if
not through me.” ( John 14:6). “ Jesus said… Come to me, all those laboring and
being burdened, and I will give you rest.” ( Mathew 11:28). For those who trust
Jesus and come to him he says,” My peace I give to you, not as the world gives I
give to you. Let not your heart be agitated, nor let it be fearful.” ( John 14:27).
“God is light, and no darkness is in Him, none! “ ( 1 John 1:5 ).
“… not any could buy or sell, if not the one having the mark, or the name of the
beast, or the NUMBER OF ITS NAME…its number is six hundred and sixty-six.”
(Revelation 13:17-18)

Bill Gates’ patent #WO/2020/060606 is for a system which will measure
and reward your activity in crypto currency. It potentially would measure and
record biometric ( medical ) data. The 666 patent system would be fundamental
to a cashless system which would be foundational to a total control
government tyranny system. If our natural rights come from God, is a “ vaccine
passport ” required to retain them? Will we need that to carry on our routine
life activities? I hope we trust God over man. –

We Will Never Forget 9-11: Tri-County Republicans Commemorate the 20th Anniversary of the Al Queda Attack

Camp Constitution was honored to participate in the Tri-County Republicans’ candlelight vigil that took place in Alton Village, Alton, NH to commemorate the terrorist attack on 9-11, and the recent tragic deaths of American servicemen and women at the Kabul Airport.  The event was led by Priscilla Terry, director of the Tri-County Republicans, and the speakers included Greg Anthes, Ric Perrault, and Jason English.  Mr. Russ Sample led the attendees in “America the Beautiful”  “God Bless America,” and “Amazing Grace.”  Pastor Sam Hollo of the Community Church of Alton offered the prayer.

For more information on the Tri-County Republicans:



Open letter: A recent Climate Feedback “fact-check” article makes multiple false and misleading claims about a new study and newspaper coverage of it


Dear Drs. Vincent and Forrester,

We are writing this open letter to you because it has recently come to our attention that your Climate Feedback website has published an article making multiple false or misleading claims about an Epoch Times newspaper article (by Alex Newman) that reported on a new peer-reviewed paper we co-authored. Your website’s “fact-check”/”feedback” also made false or misleading claims about our paper.

This means your website is effectively spreading the very misinformation that you purport to be trying to fight. Additionally, because your website is currently one of Facebook’s approved “independent fact-checkers”, anybody who shared or tries to share a link to the Epoch Times article now receives a warning like the following:

Inline image

In other words, not only is your “fact-check” promoting misinformation, but you are effectively hindering the public from sharing important information with their friends and family.

We are writing to you to ask you to immediately correct this erroneous “fact-check” and to inform any groups that may have been using your website as an “independent fact-checker” (including Facebook) of the error.

We are also cc’ing and bcc’ing various parties who are either directly affected by the consequences of this “fact-check” or may be more generally concerned about the arbitrariness of the “fact-checks” offered by websites such as yours, and the problem of “who will ‘fact-check’ the fact-checkers?”

We believe the discussion below is of relevance for everybody given the recent trend of the media, social media and internet search engines towards using “independent fact-checkers” like yourselves for down-ranking, suppressing or even deleting content. Therefore, we have chosen to make this an open letter. We encourage people to share our letter and our accompanying “fact-check fact-check” with the public – although we ask people to first redact the e-mail addresses.

The article in question is this one edited by Dr. Lambert Baraut-Guinet: Link here

Dr. Baraut-Guinet claims to have “fact-checked” an Epoch Times newspaper article (Link here) by Alex Newman which compared the findings of our recent scientific review paper (Link here) to the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 1’s recent 6th Assessment Report (AR6, link here).

Baraut-Guinet alleges that Newman made false claims that were “incorrect” and “misleading” in his reporting. He similarly asserts that several other media outlets publishing articles repeating some of Newman’s reporting were “incorrect” and “misleading”. Baraut-Guinet also asserts that our peer-reviewed paper makes “incorrect” and “misleading” claims.

Background to Newman’s article:

Our paper that Newman was reporting on is a detailed scientific review on the complex challenges of establishing how much of a role solar activity has played in northern hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century (and earlier). It was co-authored by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries and was published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). If you don’t have time to read the full article, here is a short press release summary: Link here

The title of our paper is, “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate”, and it was published online in early August. Coincidentally, a few days later, the UN’s IPCC AR6 was published. While the IPCC AR6 had concluded that it was “unequivocal” that recent climate change was human-caused, our findings were much more circumspect and cautious, e.g., from the abstract of our RAA paper:

For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural). It appears that previous studies (including the most recent IPCC reports) which had prematurely concluded the former, had done so because they failed to adequately consider all the relevant estimates of TSI and/or to satisfactorily address the uncertainties still associated with Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates. Therefore, several recommendations on how the scientific community can more satisfactorily resolve these issues are provided.

That is, the IPCC was offering a remarkably confident claim about the “attribution” of recent climate change, whereas we were explicitly warning that it was too premature to be drawing such conclusions. Our analysis found an alarmingly wide range of plausible estimates for a solar contribution (in the paper itself we elaborate on how plausible estimates for the solar contribution range from 0%-100% of the long-term warming since the mid-19th century!).

Newman was apparently intrigued by the contrast between the two studies both coincidentally published at around the same time. He interviewed several of us to learn more about our findings. He also reached out to the IPCC for their response, as well as to other scientists who might disagree with our analysis as well as some who might agree. If you read his article, his efforts to carefully and openly present multiple perspectives are self-evident.

If you compare Newman’s ‘balanced reporting’ journalistic approach to the framework you provide at Science Feedback for informative reporting (Link here), it is clear that Newman was taking considerable care to avoid any of the aspects of misinformation that you identify as problematic. In contrast, as we will detail in the attached ‘fact-check fact-check’, Baraut-Guinet’s ‘fact-checking’ of Newman’s article is littered with almost all of the hallmarks of misinformation which your framework warns against.

Yet, ironically, Baraut-Guinet’s “fact-check” is currently being used by Facebook (and probably other platforms) as a justification for censoring Newman’s article.

According to your website’s “About” page “Our first mission is to help create an Internet where users will have access to scientifically sound and trustworthy information. We also provide feedback to editors and journalists about the credibility of information published by their outlets.” Therefore, we hope you share at least some of our concern about the fact that this article by Baraut-Guinet on your website is now promoting misinformation – and as a result effectively misleading editors, journalists and also several of your partners & funders that you list on your website, e.g., Facebook’s “Third Party Fact Checking program”.

We hope that after reviewing the information in this e-mail, you will get Baraut-Guinet to correct his erroneous analysis, update his flawed verdict of “Incorrect” & “Misleading” to “Correct” & “Accurate”, and also to contact the various groups (including Facebook’s fact checking program) who have mistakenly used his flawed analysis to warn them that your website had posted an erroneous “fact-check”.

Different scientific approaches of the IPCC and us

In our “fact-check fact-check” we explain how the approach we took to reviewing the scientific literature in our RAA paper was fundamentally different to that taken by the IPCC. We also explain that our objectives were fundamentally different too.

The IPCC explain on their website that they were set up by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) in conjunction with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) with the primary objective of providing “scientific information that [governments] can use to develop climate policies” (, accessed 5th September 2021). As we explain in the fact-check fact-check, the specific climate policies the IPCC are interested in are those that will help the UNEP in arranging international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

On the other hand, our primary objective was “to convey to the rest of the scientific community the existence of several unresolved problems, as well as to establish those points where there is general agreement”.

That is, the IPCC’s scientific assessments are carried out to help governments in implementing the UN’s political goals, while our scientific assessments are carried out to help the scientific community (of which all 23 of us are members) to improve our collective understanding of the causes of climate change.

So, different goals. But, we also used different methods.

The IPCC’s approach is a “consensus-driven” one of trying to identify a “scientific consensus” on each of the key issues. This approach works very well when there is indeed universal scientific agreement on the point. However, it is problematic whenever there is scientific disagreement on a given issue. And ironically, most scientific research occurs when there is ongoing scientific disagreement on the subject. Therefore, this is a surprisingly common occurrence. The IPCC’s general approach to dealing with scientific disagreement appears to be to use “expert judgement” to identify the most “likely” perspective on the subject (ideally one which best suits the UNEP’s aims) and then use “expert judgement” to dismiss those studies which dissent from that perspective.

Several researchers have praised the IPCC for this “consensus-driven” approach as they say it allows the IPCC to “speak with one voice for climate science” (e.g., see Beck et al. 2014Hoppe & Rödder 2019). This is very helpful for the UNEP’s goals, since it allows the governments to focus on their negotiations without being distracted by scientific disagreements within the scientific community. However, we believe that it is unfortunately hindering scientific progress and the process of scientific inquiry.

For this reason, we explicitly avoided the IPCC’s “consensus-driven” approach and instead chose “…to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement”. As Francis Bacon noted in the 17th century, “if we begin with certainties, we shall end in doubts; but if we begin with doubts, and are patient in them, we shall end in certainties.

These are different goals and different methods. So ultimately, it is not that surprising that we came to different conclusions on several key scientific questions.

When different scientists come to different conclusions by following different scientific approaches, it is very challenging to decide which one is “factual” and which is not. We appreciate that this can create problems for an “independent fact-checker” like your organization when asked to weigh in on a scientific disagreement. However, as we will discuss later, maybe this is not something that you should even be trying to do.

Science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other. Rather than trying to shut down one side of a given scientific disagreement as “incorrect” and promoting the other side as “correct”, maybe we should be welcoming the fact that scientists are still “doing science”.

Who has been cc’ed and bcc’ed

A major problem with the current set-up of your website is that you purport to provide “fact-checks” or “feedbacks” on articles, but if anybody disputes your “feedback”, the only formal mechanism you currently offer on the website is to submit a comment through your on-line “contact us” form. We were unable to find an e-mail address for Dr. Baraut-Guinet, the editor in charge of the article in question. However, you are currently listed on the Science Feedback website as the Founder & Director (Dr. Vincent) and Science Editor, Climate and Ecology (Dr. Forrester), and we were able to find your e-mails on-line. Therefore, we assume that you are the appropriate people from your website to contact, and that you can contact him.

We have also cc’ed and bcc’ed several people whose professional reputations have been directly attacked by Dr. Baraut-Guinet through his accusations, as well as several people whose reputations have directly or indirectly been used by Dr. Baraut-Guinet to justify his claims.

Specifically, we have cc’ed Alex Newman, since Dr. Baraut-Guinet is (falsely) accusing him of not having carried out his journalistic duties. We have also bcc’ed our 20 co-authors on the research paper in question (Connolly et al., 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics,, since Dr. Baraut-Guinet is smearing our scientific reputations by (falsely, as we explain in our ‘fact-check fact-check’) accusing us of making “incorrect” and “misleading” claims in our scientific research.

Additionally, we have bcc’ed Prof. Tim Osborn, Dr. Britta Voss and Prof. Patrick Brown. Dr. Baraut-Guinet has taken quotes from each of them from previous reviews on your website, and copied-and-pasted them the “Scientists’ feedback” for his “fact-check” on Alex Newman’s article.

Your Science Feedback framework claims that the “Scientists’ feedback” is needed before the editor can reach a verdict:

Process for deciding on a verdict

The final ruling regarding the verdict attributed to the claim is made by a Science Feedback editor based on suggestions by the scientists contributing to the review.”

Therefore, it should have been a warning flag that none of the three scientists listed in the “Scientists’ feedback” section had contributed suggestions specifically about Alex Newman’s reporting. Instead, their ”feedback” was copied-and-pasted from feedback on previous articles or claims.

We appreciate that Baraut-Guinet did include an explanatory note for each of them saying, “[ This comment comes from a previous review…”. But, many casual readers would miss this. Indeed, we have already heard from several friends who independently told us about the article and none of them had noticed this caveat.

At any rate, we have bcc’ed these three scientists to let them know that Baraut-Guinet is using quotes from them on different articles to imply that they had also directly commented on Alex Newman’s article.

We have also cc’ed Jonathan Lynn (Head of Communications and Media Relations of IPCC), the representative from the IPCC that provided statements to Alex Newman for his article, since Baraut-Guinet misleadingly implies in his article that Newman failed to present the IPCC’s position on the various points made. This is factually inaccurate as well as misleadinglacking in context and also a Strawman argument (i.e., 4 of the types of misinformation criticised by your framework), since Newman states clearly in his article that he specifically reached out to the IPCC for comment, and reported the IPCC’s responses. This included a clarifying statement from Prof. Panmao Zhai (co-chair of Working Group 1 AR6), who we have bcc’ed.

Finally, we have bcc’ed multiple people who we know are concerned about how influential “fact-checking” organizations like yours have become and are wondering “who will fact-check the fact-checkers?” We think they will find our “fact-check fact-check” of your fact-checker, Dr. Baraut-Guinet’s article helpful. We suspect they will also be interested to see how your organisation will respond to this problem.

Details on our “fact-check fact-check”

We have attached in both pdf and MS Word format our detailed “fact-check fact-check” on Dr. Baraut-Guinet’s “fact-check” of Newman’s article.

For convenience, we have summarized below the key relevant links:

1.       Dr. Baraut-Guinet’s “fact check”/“feedback”:

2.       Alex Newman’s article in The Epoch Times:

3.       Science Feedback’s “Framework for claim-level reviews” which Baraut-Guinet’s article claims was used for the fact-check:

4.       Our peer-reviewed paper in Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics that they were reporting on, i.e., Connolly et al. (2021):

5.       Link to the IPCC WG1 AR6 that they were also reporting on:

Our immediate recommendations to Climate Feedback

·         Recommendation 1: We recommend you correct the existing “fact-check”/”feedback” on Alex Newman’s article. Currently, your website asserts that his reporting was “Incorrect” and “Misleading”. This should be changed to “Correct” and “Accurate” immediately.

·         Recommendation 2: Those groups that are using Climate Feedback as a “fact-checker” should be contacted to let them know of your website’s erroneous analysis of this article.

·         Recommendation 3: All of your editors should be reminded that your “framework for claim-level reviews” was presumably not to be used as an inspiration for what to do, but rather for identifying misinformation.

However, once this is done, we would also encourage you (and others reading this open letter) to consider whether the very idea of “fact-checking” on science reporting is as good an idea as it might initially seem.

Commentary on whether this plan of “fact-checking” is working

Finally, we think that it is time for society to reflect on whether this recent trend in “fact-checking” is wise. We note that a lot of this trend can be specifically traced back to debates over journalistic approaches to the scientific reporting of climate change.

Specifically, in the early 2000s, some researchers who believed that the IPCC reports offered the definitive “scientific consensus” on climate change were frustrated that journalists would still report the perspectives of scientists who disagreed with the IPCC reports. In particular, the Boykoff & Boykoff (2004) paper argued that the journalistic norm of “balanced reporting” was leading to a ‘false balance’ by implying that the supporters of the IPCC reports and the critics represented a 50:50 split among the scientific community (abstract herepdf here).

This study (and more generally the argument) was highly influential and convinced many journalists that they had a duty to stop carrying out what they assumed was ‘false balance’ and instead only report on the scientific perspectives they believed were “correct”. That is, on any given scientific disagreement, the journalists would be obliged to find out what the “scientific consensus” was. If a scientific study disagreed with this consensus, it was not to be reported on.

This alternative journalistic approach is often referred to by its supporters as “reliable reporting”, although critics might call it “narrative-driven journalism” (or “ideological reporting” if the critic disagreed with the journalist’s political ideology).

A major problem with relying on this “reliable reporting” approach to journalism is that it effectively requires the journalist to act as the arbiter of an often complex scientific disagreement. When even the scientists themselves are in disagreement, this puts a very heavy burden on the journalist. Nonetheless, over the years, the argument about ‘false balance’ has convinced many journalists to abandon the classical ‘balanced reporting’ approach.

Today, it is very rare to find journalists like Alex Newman who continue to apply the ‘balanced reporting’ approach when covering scientific disagreements. As a result, over the last decade or so, it has become increasingly difficult to find open-minded and honest discussions on these scientific issues in the traditional media.

However, until recently, it was still relatively easy to find those discussions elsewhere by using social media and internet searches. Therefore, social media platforms and internet search engines are now being criticised for still allowing people to find out about ongoing scientific disagreements. As a result, these platforms are being increasingly pressured to actively suppress “misinformation”. Essentially, they are being pressured to adopt the same techniques of suppression described above which were applied to the media.

But, since the original premise of most social media platforms and internet search engines was to allow users to share and search for the information they wanted, if these platforms engage in this suppression, it is an especially draconian form of censorship.

To try and justify this censorship as “reducing the spread of ‘fake news’ and ‘misinformation’”, platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google/Youtube and others have started relying on “independent fact-checkers” such as Climate Feedback. However, as we demonstrated in our “fact-check fact-check”, attempting to “fact-check” on issues where there are ongoing scientific disagreements (as Dr. Baraut-Guinet did here) is very risky – and can easily result in generating misinformation (as Dr. Baraut-Guinet did here).

Therefore, we suggest that it is time for a re-think on the current reliance on “fact-checkers”, and also for journalists to re-think the “reliable reporting” approach.

Personally, we think that a return to encouraging “balanced reporting” would be a good option. However, we note that there was a recent paper by the Danish philosopher, Prof. Mikkel Gerken, which presents several options: Gerken (2020), “How to balance Balanced Reporting and Reliable Reporting”, Philosophy Studies, [The paper is paywalled. However, if you don’t have access, but are comfortable using the controversial “sci-hub” website, you could probably find a copy that way].

Gerken describes the above approaches to journalism when it comes to science reporting as follows:

1.       Balanced Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report opposing hypotheses in a manner that does not favor any one of them.

2.       Reliable Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report the most reliably based hypotheses and avoid reporting hypotheses that are not reliably based.

He agrees that there are valid concerns about both approaches. The first approach can potentially lead to “false balance”, while the second approach can potentially lead to narrative-driven journalism, or even propaganda.

Therefore, he suggests two potential compromises:

3.       Inclusive Reliable Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report hypotheses in a manner that favors the most reliably based ones by indicating the nature and strength of their respective scientific justifications.

4.       Epistemically Balanced Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report opposing hypotheses in a manner that reflects the nature and strength of their respective scientific justifications or lack thereof.

He favours the 4th option. However, either the 3rd or 4th option rules out the necessity for the 2nd option of suppressing the existence of genuine scientific disagreements, and also avoids the risk with the 1st option of potentially creating a ‘false balance’.

In our opinion, the public are not as prone to ‘false balance’ as the proponents of Option 2 insist. We think that most people recognise that if a journalist provides two competing perspectives on a scientific issue it does not necessarily mean that the scientific community is split 50:50 on it. However, for journalists who are concerned about the risk of ‘false balance’, options 3 and 4 might be suitable alternatives to option 1.

Indeed, arguably, Alex Newman’s approach in his Epoch Times article combines elements of Options 1, 3 and 4.

Importantly, it is only with Option 2 that there is a necessity for “independent fact-checkers” for science reporting. For the other options, the readers are made aware of the existence of differing scientific perspectives and it is up to them to investigate further if they are interested.

Dr Ronan Connolly, Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Michael Connolly

Dr. Ronan Connolly
Independent scientific researcher
Dublin, Ireland
Publications: ResearchGateGoogleScholar

The Weekly Sam: The Dangers of Charter Schools and Vouchers

Sam Blumenfeld, homeschool pioneer and author, gave this presentation at the 1998  annual convention of the Alliance of Separation  of School and State   After Sam’s presentation, former Congressman Willian Dannemeyer gives a rebuttal, and Pastor E. Ray Moore of the Exodus Mandate agreed with Sam’s position:



Abandoned to the Taliban
Afghanistan is only the latest in a long line of American Allies betrayed. As recently as the 8th of July, U.S. President Biden was adamant that the Taliban would not be able to overrun Afghanistan because Kabul had a well-funded and well-trained military. “The Afghan troops of 300,000 are well equipped – as well equipped as any army in the world – And an Air Force -against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable… I trust the capacity to the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped and more competent in terms of conducting war.” It only took the Taliban five weeks to prove Biden wrong and to expose the hypocrisy of America’s 20 years of “constructive engagement” in Afghanistan.

From Fighting Terrorism to Promoting Perversion
What began as a war against terrorism, targeting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan changed into “nation building” – promoting radical feminism, LGBTQ gay agenda and flying the rainbow flag from the US embassy in Kabul. Many Afghans who had welcomed the Americans as liberators in 2001 grew to resent the promotion of immorality and perversion.


Counting the Cost
How many Billions of dollars did the U.S. pour into Afghanistan? How many American soldiers and other Allied forces, were injured, crippled, or died, in that two-decade war? “For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them…and they shall not escape.” I Thessalonians 5:3

Slandering Their Allies
Considering that the Afghan National Army (ANA) lost over 66,000 men in combat fighting against the Taliban, it is neither honest nor fair to claim that they were not willing to fight to defend their own country! With the US closing their Bagram air base and withdrawing their logistical support, the supply chain, communications and air support essential for the Afghan National Army was terminated and collapse became inevitable. The US left behind vast quantities of high-tech weapons which have now fallen into the hands of the Taliban.

Reliability, Dependability and Credibility at Stake
America’s credibility as a reliable ally has suffered yet another devastating blow. Who can trust a government that has such a long trail of treachery, betraying not only their allies, but their own citizens and troops into the hands of some of the most merciless Marxists and, in this case, Jihadists? “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore, the wrath of the Lord is upon you.” 2 Chronicles 19:2

A Trail of Betrayal
Veteran Angolan Freedom Fighter, Jonas Savimbi, the leader of UNITA, observed: “It is better to be America’s enemy than America’s friend. If you are her enemy, you will probably be bought. If you are America’s friend you will certainly be sold.” I was a guest at Jonas Savimbi’s UNITA headquarters in Jamba in Free Angola. It was 1986. Jonas Savimbi was by no means anti-American. In fact, he loved American history and regularly would be quoting from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. He looked up to America as a city on a hill, an example of Faith and freedom that he hoped to emulate in Angola. However, he was referring to the US State Department and its trail of betrayal.

Exporting Revolution
Jonas Savimbi leaned across the breakfast table and asked: “Do you know why there hasn’t been a revolution in America for over 200 years?” His guests were at loss to know how to answer the question. The UNITA leader answered his own question: “The is no America embassy in America!” Everyone laughed and some squirmed in their seats.

Coup D’état in Iran for Oil
The involvement of American embassies in inciting, fostering and even organising coup d’états and revolutions around the world are well documented. Examples include the CIA Operation AJAX which orchestrated the 1953 coup d’etat overthrowing the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran. Oil companies were heavily involved in financing this street protests and buying of key leaders in Iran.

Coup in Guatemala for Multinational Company
In 1954, the CIA overthrew the President of Guatemala Jacobo Arbenz to establish a dictatorship which favored the American multinational: American United Fruit Company.

Coup in Dominican Republic
The coup d’etat in the Dominican Republic in 1962 was also organized by the CIA. (This was confirmed by the Church Commission in 1975.)

Assassination and Coup in South Vietnam
The 1963 assassination of South Vietnamese leader Ngodinh Dien was orchestrated by South Vietnamese generals who requested CIA’s support to bring about the coup d’etat.

Coup in Brazil
The 1964 coup d’etat in Brazil, including the street protests which ousted President Joao Goulard and replaced him with Brazilian Chief of Staff Humberto Castello Branco, whose forces were supplied with non-American weapons. National Security archives declassified documents confirm that President Lyndon Johnson planned this Brazilian coup with his advisors. The dictatorship managed to survive in Brazil until 1985.

Regime Changes
These and many other regime changes are documented in John Jacob Nuttar’s book The CIA’s Black Ops: Covert Action, Foreign Policy and Democracy published in 2000.

Subversion in South Africa
In 1977, South African journalist Aida Parker documented, in the Citizen newspaper, that the American Embassy Reading Room in Soweto was deliberately subversive, stocking books, pamphlets, magazines and films of Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Karl Marx, Che Guevare, Fidel Castro and other Marxist revolutionaries.

Americans Abandoned
I met Captain Eugene (Red) McDaniel of the US Navy and read his book Scars and Stripes – The True Story of One Man’s Courage Facing Death as a POW in Vietnam. After surviving six years of torture in captivity in Hanoi, Vietnam, he became involved the Vietnam war POW/MIA campaign to account for the thousands of Missing In Action Americans abandoned by their government. As Founder and President of the American Defense Institute (ADI) he sought to document the trail of betrayal of American Prisoners Of War or Missing In Action’s abandoned, not just in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, but in North Korea and China after the Korean War and in the Soviet Union after both the First and Second World Wars. He also introduced me to the book Kiss the Boys Goodbye – How the United States Betrayed Its Own POWs.

Deliberate Policy to List Living POWs as Dead
Lt. Col. Philip Corso, who had once served on National Security Council staff under President Dwight Eisenhower, testified to the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA affairs, in 1992, that it was “a deliberate policy” to list as dead many of those American GIs who were known to be captured alive by the North Koreans during the Korean Conflict. Altogether some 8,177 US servicemen were unaccounted for from the Korean War. In 1955 President Eisenhower decided that the unaccounted-for POWs be declared dead. Col. Corso also testified that there were journalists who accepted money from the CIA to report the party line and ignore the reports on American POWs shipped to the Soviet Union. “The fate of our prisoners fell through the cracks. It wasn’t an accident. It was policy.”

Americans Imprisoned in the Soviet Union
Col. Corso also testified that train loads of American prisoners were shipped to the Soviet Union. “None of those boys ever came back!”

A Pattern of Denial and Deceit
Senator Robert Smith (R-NH) concluded: “A large number of American servicemen at the end of the war…left behind were sent to communist China and to the Soviet Union. Internal documents and statements made at the time also show that our government believed that these men were still alive in captivity and until only a few months ago had kept that reality from the American people. It covered up what it knew through a pattern of denial, misleading statements and, in some cases, lies and by doing so with regard to the Korean conflict, it broke its commitment with the people who put on their uniform to fight for the freedoms and protection that we and our allies enjoy today.”

Declassified Soviet Documents Confirm US POWs Incarcerated and Executed in Russia
General Dmitri Volkogomov of the Soviet Red Army testified before the US Senate Select Committee in 1992 that American soldiers who had been POWs of Germany and found themselves on the territory of the USSR at the end of World War 2 were employed in Stalin’s GULAG labor camps and, on many cases, were summarily executed by the NKVD.

American POWs from Korea and Vietnam Sent to the USSR
They had also uncovered files of the interrogation of 49 American pilots who had been captured in North Korea and were held prisoner with 3,000 others near the Russian border. Also, US defectors from the Vietnam War were relocated for propaganda activity, with the agreement of the Peoples Republics of China and Vietnam.

Imprisoned and Executed by Their Allies
Many of the 22,000 American prisoners of war in camps “liberated” by the Soviets during World War 2 were made slaves in Soviet GULAG labor camps. He knew of 119 Americans who were believed to be either spies or collaborationists who were executed. At least six American prisoners from the Korean War were held at special camps in the Soviet Union where they were interrogated and held for eight years and then shot.

Many Records Missing of American POW’s and Executions in USSR
General Volkogomov said that his own father had been liquidated under Stalin and that he has still not found any record of the circumstances. He could not rule out the possibility that there had been even more mass transits of American Korean War and Vietnamese War servicemen to the USSR, but most of those records are still to be located.

American Civilian Enslaved in Stalin’s GULAG
John Noble wrote the book I Found God in Soviet Russia printed in 1959 and I was a Slave in Russia printed in 1961. American born US citizen John Noble was working in a camera factory in Dresden, 1945. He survived the 14 and 15 February 1945 fire-bombing by the RAF and USAAF and then, together with his father, was arrested by the Soviet Red Army occupation forces and incarcerated at the NKDV special camp number 2 located on the former Buchenwald concentration campsite. The Soviet COMESA appropriated the Noble family’s PRACTICA camera factory and stock of quality cameras. In 1950 John was sentenced to a further 15 years in the Soviet GULAG system in Siberia. As John was transferred across the Soviet Union, he saw a message written by American Major Frank Roberts (who was recorded as Missing In Action during WW 2). John Noble ended up at Vorkuta GULAG in the northernmost Urals, in Siberia. Noble managed to smuggle out a postcard which led to the intervention, in 1955, by President Eisenhower and brought about his release.

The GULAG Study Admits Policy of Suppressing POW Reports
The GULAG Study by the Pentagon concluded that American servicemen were imprisoned in the former Soviet Union. After ignoring volumes of documentation for over 50 years, the Pentagon finally admitted that it had been a matter of policy to suppress reports of U.S. POWs and MIAs incarcerated in the Soviet Union and Red China.

American POW’s Were Sent to the Soviet Union
Col. Simpson (USAF) revealed that while serving as an Air Force attaché at the US embassy in Hong Kong, he learned from Russian defectors that had personally witnessed hundreds of American servicemen from the Korean War being transferred by the Chinese to the Soviets at the Chinese/Russian border crossing point at Manchoulai. Simpson had filed a High Priority report to superiors and knew that it reached the hands of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles.

POW Reports Buried by Eisenhower
During the administration of President Ronald Reagan, Simpson’s original report was retrieved from the dark hole it had been tossed into decades before. Col. Simpson said that he had been told by a senior member of the Eisenhower Administration that President Eisenhower had concluded that “nothing could be done” to retrieve the men from their captivity and so the reports were buried.

Betrayed by Their Own Government
Reports have also been unearthed of American soldiers, who had been fighting against the Bolsheviks at the conclusion of World War 1, as part of a secret U.S. military expedition to Archangel, who had fallen into the hands of the Red Army. The government of President Woodrow Wilson suppressed those facts and kept the plight of these American soldiers from the electorate. “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” Galatians 6:7

Commander Jeremiah Denton Tortured in Vietnam
Another person I had contact with was US Senator Jeremiah Denton, who wrote the book When Hell was in Session. In 1965 Commander Denton, piloting an A-6 Intruder jet, was shot down over North Vietnam and captured. Denton was held prisoner for almost eight years, severely tortured as a POW in Hanoi, Vietnam. During a televised press conference, in 1966, he used the opportunity to send a distress message by repeatedly blinking his eyes in Morse code spelling out T-O-R-T-U-R-E.

Resistance Despite Torture
When questioned about his support for the US war effort in Vietnam, he replied: “Whatever the position of my government is, I fully support it. Whatever the position of the government, I believe in it. Yes, sir. I am a member of that government and it is my job to support it and I will as long as I live.” He was severely tortured for that resistance. As the senior member of the U.S. POWs, he was particularly targeted for special treatment by his tormentors.

Exposing the Communist Agenda
Senator Denton set up and chaired the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism which exposed Soviet KGB communist control of the African National Congress terrorist group in South Africa.

Missing in Action in Vietnam
Films like Hanoi Hilton, Chuck Norris’s Missing In Action series and Uncommon Valour depict some of the tortures and abuse which U.S. POWs and MIAs suffered in communist Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The reality, as Red McDaniels and Jeremiah Denton revealed, was far worse.

Betrayal by Rulers
Through America’s Ambassador to Romania, I met Michel Sturdza, former Romanian Foreign Minister, who authored Betrayal by Rulers. Prince Sturdza documents the pattern of treachery that cannot be explained by folly, stupidity, or accident. He indicts U.S. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson as treacherous, not only to their Allies, but to western Christian civilization. FDR and Winston Churchill’s betrayal of millions of Christians in Eastern Europe to Stalin’s brutal Soviet Union at the Teheran conference, at the Yalta conference and at Potsdam were some of the greatest blows against freedom in the history of the world. “Who plan evil things in their hearts; they continually gather together for war.” Psalm 140:2

Operation Keelhaul
From 1945 to 1947 over three million Russians, Ukrainians and other East Europeans were forceable repatriated to the USSR by British and American forces in Western Europe. This betrayal of men, women and children into the hands of Stalin’s NKVD was agreed to by Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt at the Yalta conference, but was kept secret for 30 years. Many of those betrayed to the communists had been born in Western Europe, the children of refugees who fled the Red Terror of 1917 to 1923.

Ally Betrayed – China
I also have the book Ally Betrayed: the Republic of China by David Rowe. Dr. Rowe professor of political science of Yale University and a specialist on Far East History, Politics and International Relations. As the leading American authority on China, he documented how the U.S. government betrayed free, nationalist China into the hands of Mao’s brutal Red China. The betrayal of the Republic of China into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party continues to have disastrous consequences to this day. “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Franklin D. Roosevelt

Ally Betrayed – Republic of Korea
Another book by Professor David Rowe on my shelf: Ally Betrayed… The Republic of Korea.

Ally Betrayed – Nicaragua
Another book on my shelf: Ally Betrayed – Nicaragua with the Foreword by U.S. Ambassador Beryl Smith and Postscript by U.S. Ambassador Turner Shelton. It quotes Lieutenant General Gordon Sumner “Nicaragua was subverted from within and attacked from without. The record is quite clear in this regard. The role of the Carter administration in this shabby affair…The Carter strategy of polarization using ‘Human Rights’ as the operative principle has succeeded in destroying the strategic position of the United States and the Caribbean Basin as well as the Western Hemisphere.

Politics of Deceit and Destabilzation
Nicaragua, a strategic country in Central America was lost as a member of the free world community of the nations and its democratically elected government overthrown by Marxist campaign of sabotage and terrorism which were supported by “the deliberate political destabilization of this freely elected government by the U.S. Administration headed by President Carter in 1979. The politics of deceit adopted by the U.S. Department of State and the massive Cuban support given to the Sandinista Communist terrorists were largely ignored by the U.S. media. The triumph of the Sandinista terrorist movement in Nicaragua encouraged Fidel Castro and Soviets to assist further revolutionary upheavals in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.”

Wall Street and the Bankrolling of the Bolshevik Revolution
Professor Anthony Sutton, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, wrote: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution which documents the shocking links between some New York bankers and many revolutionaries in what became the Soviet Union.

The Best Enemy Money Can Buy
Professor Sutton also wrote the book The Best Enemy Money Can Buy documenting how the Soviet Union and Red China were built up with Western Technology and aid.

Never Beaten by Our Enemies – Betrayed by Our Friends
Prime Minister Ian Smith of Rhodesia declared: “We were never beaten by our enemies, we were betrayed by our friends.” The title of his biography is: The Great Betrayal. The betrayal of Rhodesia to Mugabe’s Marxist Zimbabwe continues to have disastrous repercussions to this day. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:11

Freedom Betrayed
President Herbert Hoover, America’s 31st president, spent 20 years researching and writing a monumental documentation of U.S. State Department treachery. The title of his book: Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and its Aftermath. President Herbert Hoover documents the treacherous policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration in betraying the Christians of Central and Eastern Europe into the hands of Stalin’s brutal Soviet Union. “…for with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.” Luke 6:38

Uncomfortable Truths That Expose the Real Agenda of FDR
Hoover’s Freedom Betrayed is a 900-page encyclopaedia of uncomfortable truths that seriously challenge the traditional views of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Herbert Hoover documents that F.D.R.’s foreign policies were not merely disastrous and catastrophic, but treacherous. His shocking exposé has proved to become one of the key historical documents of the mid-20th century, a searing indictment of F.D.R. and the politicians around whom who lied prodigiously to conceal their nefarious agenda. “The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart; His words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords.” Psalm 55:21

The Betrayal of Iran
The Shah’s Story by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, documents the treacherous role of the U.S. State Department under President Jimmy Carter which led to the Islamic Revolution of 11 February 1979 and the end of over 2,500 years of continuous Persian monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. During the last Shah’s 38-year rule, Iran went through a series of economic, social and political reforms which transformed that country into a global power with its national income rising 423 times over. By 1977, Iran’s military had become the world’s 5th strongest armed forces. Iran’s economic growth rate exceeded that of United States, Great Britain and France. The destabilising and betrayal of Iran in 1979 continues to have disastrous repercussions to this day.

No Win Wars
On my first visit to United States of America in January 1988, I heard Col. Oliver North describe how he had time and again been commanded to lead his Marines to take a position in Vietnam, only to then be ordered to withdraw from that position. To then be told to retake that position, which by then was far more effectively defended. They would succeed the second time at greater loss of life. Only to be ordered to withdraw from that position. And then the third time be instructed to retake that same position, which now was further entrenched, with concrete, barb wire and more devastating weaponry. At greater loss of life U.S. Marines would succeed in taking that position a third time, only to be ordered to withdraw from that position again. I remember the horror and shock I felt listening to this first-hand testimony of the criminal short-sightedness, or malicious treachery, of U.S. government officials towards their own armed forces.

Our Creator and Eternal Judge will Bring Injustice to Light
“Woe to her who is rebellious and polluted, to the oppressing city! She has not obeyed His voice, she has not received correction; she has not trusted in the Lord, she has not drawn near to her God. Her princes in her midst are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves that leave not a bone till morning. Her prophets are insolent, treacherous people; her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the Law. The Lord is righteous in her midst, He will do no unrighteousness. Every morning He brings His justice to light; He never fails, but the unjust knows no shame.” Zephaniah 3:1-5

A View Within the Beltway of Washington D.C.
During my 1st visit to America in 1988, I met with a political leader who commented: “You must understand that there is some method in the madness. For every ally we betray we get a whole lot of new restaurants to choose from here in Washington, DC!” There standing on the street corner we looked over and we saw a Chinese restaurant, a Vietnamese restaurant and a Hungarian restaurant. I looked at him to see if this was some kind of sick joke. He gave me a bitterly frustrated look. He grieved that this was a truth spoken in jest. “But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:36-37

A Policy of Appeasing Enemies and Betraying Friends
No wonder our friend Jonas Savimbi had declared many years ago in Angola: “It is better to be America’s enemy than America’s friend. If you are her enemy, you will probably be bought. If you are America’s friend you will certainly be sold.” “So, I sought for a man among them who would make a wall, and stand in the gap before Me on behalf of the land, that I should not destroy it…” Ezekiel 22:30

The Treachery of Globalists Needs to be Exposed and Opposed
Many American people are good people, but they need to be aware that the Deep State, the Swamp, has the blood of many innocents on their hands. And those who will treacherously betray their friends and allies and others who trusted in them, who could even abandon their own military in Marxist hell holes and lie to cover it up, cannot be trusted. “Who will rise up for Me against the evildoers? Who will stand up for Me against the workers of iniquity?” Psalm 94:16

Dr. Peter Hammond
Frontline Fellowship
P.O. Box 74 Newlands 7725
Cape Town South Africa
Tel: 021-689-4480

Camp Constitution Ladies” Fall “Advance” Friday October 1 to Sunday October 3 at the Singing Hills Christian Camp Plainfield, NH

   Singing Hills Christian Camp  71 King Drive Plainfield NH (an hour north and west of Concord, NH) will again be the venue  for our Ladies Fall “Advance” which starts on Friday evening after 5:00 PM October 1, and ends after lunch on Sunday October 3.  Our main speaker will be Mrs. Paulie Heath (see bio below).  She is going to present the unique marriage of John and Abigail Adams,  and how it relates to present day relationships.  Without the strength of our founding mothers this country might have sorted out differently.
 As soon as you register for the event, we will send you your copy of Dearest Friend, the book based on the Adams’ relationship.  If you can  make a little time out of your busy schedule you can get a head start on the story  In addition, Edith Craft will be leading devotions, and we are hoping that Edith and Paulie will lead us in song.
  Maura Shurtleff  will teach us a wonderful craft and how to make bows for the holidays. Kathy Mickle will be updating us on public education and critical thought as well as the LGBT issues.  We will be going morning movement and campfire.  The food will be great as always, will a potluck on Friday night. Let us know what food and/or drink you plan to bring.
  The event will start after 5:00 PM on Friday.  The cost is $200. which includes five meals, materials, and two nights lodging.    A link to the release form:     Payments can be made via our PayPal account accessed from our web site’s homepage or by check payable to Camp Constitution and mailed to me 146 Powder Mill Rd. Alton, NH 03809.


Contact Roberta Stewart  with any questions  at 301.233.8613.

  Paulie Heath’s bio:
  Paulie Heath writes inspirational, contemporary Christian songs from the heart. Her soothing  voice and pointed lyrics are simply an outgrowth of what’s deep in her soul.  She studied music in college and performs throughout the Northeast United States and beyond… Paulie enjoys singing & speaking at ladies retreats,  Mother’s Day & Christmas  Teas, Girls’ Getaway Weekends, and in women’s prisons. 
  Hal Shurtleff, Director 
  Camp Constitution