The Racist Roots of Planned Parenthood and Its Legacy of Death
For years people have urged me, including my wife, to write a book. I would usually respond with “Why write a book when I can promote books already in publication and better than anything I can do.” Back in 2011, we started Camp Constitution Press and reprinted a chapter of a book titled “From Farm Boy to Financier” by Frank Vanderlip. The chapter concerned the secret meeting at Jekyll Island Georgia where the plot to create the Federal Reserve was hatched. Mr. Vanderlip was one of the attendees. Since then, we have reprinted and published a number or books including Color, Communism and Common Sense, On the Supposed Change of Temperature in Winter by Noah Webster. (That’s right, Noah Webster refuted global warning back in 1810.) and First Scout for General Patton written by my late friend from Laconia Bob Kingsbury. But since my visit the Harvard Medical School library in January of 2020, I need to publish what I discovered and uncovered.
It isn’t a massive tome-only 98 pages- and it consists mainly of transcribed letters between Margaret Sanger and Dr. Clarence Gamble with pictures of the originals. It also contains a little-known speech by Martin Luther King titled “Family Planning: A Special and Urgent Concern” which was read by his wife Coretta in 1966 at Planned Parenthood’s First Annual Margaret Sanger Award Ceremony. King was the first recipient of the award. The Corporate media will not make any mention of how King and many other black leaders collaborated with avowed racist Sanger to promote birth control and later abortion in the black community.
Background to the book:
I had learned about Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” in the book Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood by George Grant back in the late 1980s. Some years later, while doing some research for an article on Planned Parenthood, I found a copy of the letter written by Sanger to Dr. Gamble dated December 10, 1939, which Sanger writes about the ‘Negro Project” and the need to elicit the support of black doctors and clergy. She wrote:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighter out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
(Page 2 of the three page “Negro Project” letter)
Her supporters, which are legion in the United States. tell us that this has been taken out of context. But in her book The Pivot of Civilization Sanger advocated for “the elimination of human weeds” and for “the sterilization of genetically inferior races.” The fact that she had white supremacist and KKK member Lothrop Stoddard and Dr Ernst Rudin, the Nazi in charge of Germany’s forced sterilization collaborating with her belies the claims of her apologists-one of which is Hillary Clinton.
In 2018, I noticed that the letter address of the letter to Gamble was Adams St in Milton, a mile or so from Lower Mills, in Boston’s Dorchester section. In November of 2018, we sponsored some speaking engagements for Rev. Steve Craft, our camp chaplain in the Boston area. I asked Rev Craft if he would like to be in a video across the street from Gamble’s former home read the letter with commentary from the both of us. And, on Friday November 30, we did so. While recording the video it dawned on me that George H. W. Bush was born a short distance from the Gamble residence. Prescott Bush-H.W.’s father- was Planned Parenthood’s first treasurer. Interestingly enough, we got word that H.W. died that same day. The video is available on Camp Constitution’s YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/N3Hak6fw8CM?si=WR-dgmkQnPpdhi4D
I subsequently learned that Dr. Gamble’s papers were housed at the- Countway Library-Harvard University’s School of Medicine’s Library, the largest medical school library in the world located in Boston. I visited the library in January of 2020, and while I wasn’t able to find any letters between Bush and Gamble, I did find a batch of letters between Sanger and Gamble.
Who is Dr. Clarence Gamble?
Dr. Gamble was an heir to the Proctor and Gamble fortune. His grandfather was a co-founder of the company. He graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1920 He, like most of Sanger’s associates, was a supporter of eugenics and force sterilizations. He was an integral part of both the Negro Project and the Puerto Rican Project-a program that used Puerto Rican women as guinea pigs to test the birth control pill. In 1946, Gamble founded the North Carolina Human Betterment League. In 1957 he founded what is now known as Pathfinder International which gives “reproductive health” and services in Africa and Asia.
(Rev. Steve Craft with the former home of Dr. Gamble in the background.)
The book also has short biographies of people mentioned in the correspondence including Albert Lasker, the man who was the primary funder of the Negro Project. Lasker was known as “The Father of Modern Advertising.” Lasker was a Republican and his wife Mary, a close colleague of Sanger, was a Democrat. They both lobbied for socialized medicine and federal funding of medical research. They created the Lasker Foundation. If you go to the Lasker Foundation’s website, you will find glowing praise of its founders. I contacted the foundation asking for a statement on its racist roots, but I never heard back.
We were pleased and honored to get many endorsements for the book including actress Stacy Dash who starred in the move “Roe v Wade,” former abortion nurse Julie Wilkinson who played the abortion nurse in the movie ‘UnPlanned: The Abby Johnson Story, and Ed Martin of the Phyllis Schlafly Eagles.
I dedicated the book to my late friend Dr Mildren Jefferson, the first black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School. In the wake of the infamous but now repealed “Roe v Wade,” Dr. Jefferson said: I am not willing to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged and the planned have the right to life.”
Sanger has been successful beyond her wildest dreams. The black population in the United States is at a steady thirteen percent. In New York City almost half of black pregnancies end in abortion, and every single black Democrat in Congress supports abortion. While the founders of the modern Pro-Life Movement were primarily Catholic Democrats, as of this writing, there is only one Pro-Life Democrat in Congress-Henry Cuellar. There are many pro-abortion Republicans as well including Chris Sununu. The first two states to decriminalize abortion were NY and CA-both led by Republican governors. We hope that our book helps to shed some much-needed light on this dark chapter in our history.
Call to action: Get involved with a local or national Right to Life group, and volunteer and/or support a local crisis pregnancy center. And pray that God will change the hearts and minds of both those in the abortion industry and those who support it.
Dr. Jefferson with the author 1995
The book is available on Camp Constitution’s website https://campconstitution.net/product/the-racist-roots-of-planned-parenthood-and-its-legacy-of-death/ on Amazon.
Not Yours To Give: A Timeless Lesson on the U.S. Constitution
While this story may be historic fiction, it is nevertheless a timeless lesson on the U.S. Constitution, and one that more Americans need to learn. Congressman Davy Crockett is on his reelection campaign trial and meets a farmer who took Crockett to task for voting for a bill that was unconstitutional. Crockett publicly acknowledges the error of his ways, gets reelected, and returns to Washington to teach his colleagues the same lesson he learned.
One of Camp Constitution Press’ first reprints is available from our on-line shop: https://campconstitution.net/product/sockdolager-book/
The Weekly Sam: Our Radio Spot For the Blumenfeld Archive
Camp Constitution will be running a radio spot to promote the Sam Blumenfeld Archives-the work of the late homeschool pioneer Samuel L, Blumenfeld. They will start running on WRKO 6800 AM and WXKS FM from February 12 to February 25. When Sam passed away in 2015, he left most of his library, papers, and recording to Camp Constitution. We made a pledge to Sam on his deathbed that we will make sure that his rich legacy will influence future generations. The archive was created by Mark Affleck, who serves as our camp newspaper editor and our webmaster Eric Conover. Since its inception, hundreds of thousands of people around the world but mainly in the United States have visited the site and made us of the archived material including his Alpha-Phonics
A link to an audio version of the spot: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/shurtleffhal/episodes/2024-02-06T14_02_45-08_00
Camp Constitution’s 4th Annual Ladies Spring Fling April 12-14 at the Alton Bay Christian Conference Center
Camp Constitution Ladies’ Fourth Annual “Spring Fling” will be held at the Alton Bay Christian Conference Center, Alton Bay, NH https://altonbay.org/ from Friday April 12 to Sunday April 14, 2024
Our guest speaker will be Dr. Felecia Nace. Dr. Nace is the author of several books including book: Top Down Confusion: Is Gray the New Pink in Education? Her presentation explores mixed messages in education that filters down from the government which leaves educators Dr. Nace is a former language arts teacher of the Montclair Public School District, NJ. She was also employed as an Education Specialist for 13 years at the New Jersey Department of Education, worked for five years as an adjunct professor at Mercer County Community College, English Department and is currently the Executive Director of Partners 4 Educational Change, an education consulting firm.
Activities include arts and crafts, Bible studies, optional marksmanship training, and an evening campfire. The cost for the weekend which includes two nights of lodging, five meals and materials will be $200. per person. Payments can be made via our PayPal account accessed from our website’s homepage https://www.campconstitution.net or by check payable to Camp Constitution and mailed C/O Hal Shurtleff146 Powder Mill Rd. Alton, NH 03809. To get an application, bring list, or have any questions, please E-mail or call Hal Shurtleff at campconstitution1@gmail.com Tel (857) 498-1309
The Weekly Sam: Is Humanism a Religion by Sam Blumenfeld
The question we ask is important. For humanism is the world view of our educational
leaders, of the textbooks they write, of the psychologists who counsel our youngsters on
values, sex and death. In short, it is the world view of the curricula used in the public
schools. In fact, humanism forms the philosophical basis of what passes for teacher
education in our state colleges and universities.
Establishments of Religion
Thus, if humanism is indeed a religion, then what we have in our public schools and state
colleges and universities are government-supported establishments of religion, which are
patently unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
In fact, it should be pointed out that on March 4, 1987, U.S. District Judge W. Brevard
Hand, in Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Ala., ruled that
secular humanism is a religion. The 172-page ruling defines religion and concludes,
after reviewing the relevant aspects of humanism, that “For purposes of the First
Amendment, secular humanism is a religious belief system, entitled to the protections of,
and subject to the prohibitions of, the religious clauses.”
Three Key Documents
Judge Hand wrote:
“The entire body of thought has three key documents that furnish the text upon which the
belief system rests as a platform: Humanist Manifesto I, Humanist Manifesto II, and the
Secular Humanist Declaration.
“These factors … demonstrate the institutional character of secular humanism. They are
evidence that this belief system is similar to groups traditionally afforded protection by
the First Amendment religion clauses.”
The judge then went on to demonstrate that 44 textbooks being used in the public schools
of Alabama were written from the humanist point of view and thereby constituted an
illegal establishment of religion. The judge ordered the books removed from the
schools.
Judge Hand’s Order Reversed
On August 26, 1987, the 11th Circuit Court reversed Judge Hand’s order banning the 44
textbooks. The higher court did not address the question of whether secular humanism is
a religion for First Amendment purposes, but asserted that it was not being promoted in
the textbooks that were banned. Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. wrote:
“Use of the challenged textbooks has the primary effect of conveying information that is
essentially neutral in its religious content to the school children who utilize the books;
none of these books convey a message of government approval of secular humanism. …
“There simply is nothing in the record to indicate that omission of certain facts regarding
religion from these textbooks of itself constituted an advancement of secular humanism
or an active hostility towards theistic religion.”
And so the books were put back in the schools.
The Wrong Question
But the question is not whether the textbooks were humanistic or not, but whether the
entire government education system is an establishment of the humanist religion. All of
the rationales used to remove Bibles and other manifestations of the Judeo-Christian
theistic world view from classrooms are based on the First Amendment’s prohibition
against government establishments of religion.
But if it can be shown that the entire government system of education — from elementary
schools to the state colleges and universities — are establishments of the humanist
religion, the courts would have no choice but to order the closing down of these
institutions.
There can be no government establishment of religion in the United States, whether it be
in the form of a house of worship or of a school system embracing a religious dogma.
From Non sectarianism to Secularism
When the public schools were first established, the courts ruled that the schools had to be
nonsectarian, that is, not favoring any particular Protestant denomination. That they
were essentially Protestant in character was generally acknowledged. In fact, the reason
why Catholics established their own private parochial school system was because they
recognized the Protestant character of the government schools.
After the turn of the 19th century, however, as humanist progressives took control of the
government schools, no sectarianism gradually gave way to secularism. Secularists hold
that any government institution that promotes or supports belief in the existence of a
supernatural being is an establishment of religion.
As more and more judges adopted the secularist point of view, order after order was
handed down stripping the public schools of the last vestiges of nonsectarian Christianity.
Curricula were revised, new textbooks written, new programs instituted so that today’s
public schools not only no longer reflect the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage but now
constitute the most powerful educational machine for the propagation of humanism
among the American people.
Filling the Vacuum
The secularists had no intention of creating a neutral, nontheistic vacuum in our schools.
Their plan always was to get rid of Judeo-Christian values and replace them with their
own. In this way, the government schools have become, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
establishments of the humanist religion.
Today, humanist beliefs are inculcated through such programs and concepts as values
clarification, sensitivity training, situational ethics, evolution, multiculturalism,
globalism, transcendental meditation, sex education, death education, humanistic and
behavioral psychology, etc. All of these programs are marbleized throughout the
curriculum — in reading, language arts, math, social studies, health education,
psychology, art, biology, and other subjects. It is impossible for a student in a
government school to avoid or escape the all-pervasive influence of humanist ideas and
beliefs which confront and accost him daily every which way he turns.
That the plan of the humanists was to supplant traditional theistic religion with a new
secular man-centered religion of their own can be proven by simply quoting the
humanists themselves. The best source of these quotes is The Humanist magazine.
The Humanists Organize
The forerunner of The Humanist was The New Humanist which first appeared in 1928 as
a monthly bulletin of the Humanist Fellowship, an organization formed by Unitarian
students from the University of Chicago and its related theological schools. Its early
editors — Harold Buschman, Edwin H. Wilson, and Raymond B. Bragg — were young
Unitarian ministers. It was on the initiatives of Bragg that the drafting of A Humanist
Manifesto (1933) was begun. Professor Roy Wood Sellars wrote the first draft. The
Manifesto appeared in the April 1933 issue of The New Humanist.
The Manifesto was more than just an affirmation of the humanist world view, it was also
a declaration of war against orthodox, traditional religion. The Manifesto’s views
toward religion can be summed up as follows:
1. The purpose of man’s life is “the complete realization of human personality.”
“[T]he quest for the good life is … the central task for man.”
2. The humanist’s religious emotions are expressed in “social passion,” in a “heightened
sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.”
3. Humanists believe that “all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of
human life.” Therefore, “the intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and
direction of such associations and institutions … is the purpose and program of
humanism.”
In other words, the humanist must take over society’s associations and institutions in
order to transform them into instruments of humanist purpose. This includes the
institutions of traditional religion.
The Manifesto states: “Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms,
ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as
experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.”
A Messianic Mission
In other words, the messianic mission of the humanists is not to build new institutions of
their own, but to subvert and appropriate the institutions of others. This is not a new
idea among humanists. The Unitarians subverted Harvard and took it from the orthodox
followers of its Calvinist founders. Religious liberals have appropriated Yale, Princeton,
Dartmouth and other institutions founded by the orthodox.
The loss of these institutions, incidentally, has forced conservative Christians to create
new institutions of their own: Liberty University, Regent University, Bob Jones
University, Pensacola Christian College, Patrick Henry College, and others. The rise of
these new institutions has dismayed the humanists who believed that once the major
institutions of traditional religion were subverted and taken over, the influence of theistic
religion would fade forever. The hopeful demise of traditional theistic religion is a
theme frequently expressed by humanist writers.
Humanism as Religion
Roy Wood Sellars, who drafted Humanist Manifesto I, wrote in The Humanist (Vol. I,
1941, p. 5), an article “Humanism as a Religion,” in which he stated:
“Undeniably there is something imaginative and daring in bringing together in one phrase
two such profoundly symbolic words as humanism and religion. An intimate union is
foreshadowed in which religion will become humanistic and humanism religious. And I
believe that such a synthesis is imperative if humanity is ever to achieve a firm and
adequate understanding of itself and its cosmic situation….
“Religious humanism rests upon the bedrock of a decision that it is, in the long run, saner
and wiser to face facts than to live in a world of fable.”
The Worship of Humanity
Oliver L. Reiser, a signer of the Manifesto, writing in the same issue of The Humanist,
states:
“The one great hope for democracy lies in the development of a non-supernaturalistic
religion which, unlike other intellectual movements, will be non-academic in its appeal to
all civilized individuals. This new foundation for a coming world-order must be the
emergent outcome of the thought-content of a universalized culture….
“The god of this coming world-religion, that is, the object of reverence of scientific
humanism, is the spirit of humanity in its upward striving.”
Another signer of the Manifesto, William Floyd, wrote in The Humanist (Vol. 2, 1942, p.
2):
“The religious philosophy of humanism as a substitute for metaphysical theology will
enable men to realize the highest value in life without surrendering their minds to any
final dogma or any alleged revelation of the supernatural….
“To fill the need for a modern conception of religious foundations the Humanist
Manifesto was issued in 1933.”
Another signer, E. Burdette Backus, wrote in Vol. VI, p. 6 of The Humanist:
“[Humanism] is indeed a religion, and the extent to which it is capable of eliciting the
emotions of men is limited only by a degree in which those who have made it their own
shall succeed in embodying its full riches.”
Natural vs. Supernatural Religion
In an article, “Religion Without God, (The Humanist, Vol. VII, 1947, p. 9), Kenneth L.
Patton wrote:
“A naturalistic religion is just as inclusive of all that is within the world we know as is the
supernaturalistic or theistic religion.
“Whereas the theist pins his faith and hope in his God, the humanist and naturalist pins
his faith in the natural world, and in man as a creature within it, and his faith is no less
magnificent, courageous and hopeful than that of the believer in God.”
The Fourth Faith
In June 1951 The Humanist published an article by Manifesto signer Edwin H. Wilson,
“Humanism: The Fourth Faith.” He wrote:
“Today, I am suggesting that there is in the world as a present and potent faith, embraced
by vast numbers, yet seldom mentioned — a fourth faith — namely Humanism. This
fourth faith — with rare exceptions such as some Universalist or Unitarian churches, a
few independent Humanist Fellowships and the Ethical Societies — has no church to
embody it…. Theirs is a secular faith.”
According to Wilson, the other three faiths are Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism.
Since many of the signers of the Manifesto were Unitarians, it is not surprising that
Wilson identifies the Unitarian church as belonging to the fourth faith.
In 1952, The Humanist (Sept.-Oct.) published an article by Julian Huxley, “Evolutionary
Humanism: The World’s Next Great Religion.” Mr. Huxley wrote:
“Out of the needs of our time, through the evolutionary process, a new religion is rising.
By religion . . . I mean an organized system of ideas and emotions which relates man to
his destiny, over and above the practical affairs of every day, transcending the present
and the existing systems of law and social structure. . . . I believe we have nothing to lose
by using the word ‘religion’ in the broadest sense to include nontheistic formulations and
systems as well.”
In the next issue of The Humanist, Huxley wrote:
“The next phase of history could, and should, be a Humanist phase. Let us help toward
its emergence.”
The Glorification of man
In an article, “The Humanist Faith Today” (The Humanist, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1954, p. 180),
we read:
“Since humanism appears as a genuinely living option for many people, especially
among students, teachers, and intellectuals generally, it may be appropriately studied as a
religion. Indeed, it is not unfair to call it the fourth main religious option, along with
Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism, for thoughtful men in the contemporary
Western world….
“What remains of religion when the Humanist criticism has completed its work? The
Humanist replies that devotion to human and social values emerges as the essence of
religion. As [Corliss] Lamont has written, the Humanist postulates that ‘the chief end of
thought and action is to further earthly human interests in behalf of the greater happiness
and glory of man.’”
In 1959, George E. Axtelle, newly elected president of the American Humanist
Association, said:
“Ours is no revealed religion. It is a religion, an intellectual and moral outlook shaped
by the more sensitive and sympathetic souls of our time….Ours is a task, not a
doctrine….Our fundamental goal must be to make the Humanist Way of Life a reality in
our communities, our state and our nation.”
The New Religion
In the January-February 1962 issue of The Humanist, Sir Julian Huxley wrote an article,
“The Coming New Religion of Humanism.” He said:
“The beliefs of this religion of evolutionary humanism are not based on revelation in the
supernatural sense, but on the revelations that science and learning have given us about
man and the universe. A humanist believes with full assurance that man is not alien to
nature, but a part of nature, albeit a unique one…. His true destiny is to guide the future
course of evolution on earth towards greater fulfilment, so as to realize more and higher
potentialities….
“A humanist religion will have the task of redefining the categories of good and evil in
terms of fulfilment and of desirable or undesirable realizations of potentiality, and setting
up new targets for its morality to aim at….
“Humanism also differs from all supernaturalist religions in centering its long-term aims
not on the next world but on this….The humanist goal must therefore be … The
Fulfilment Society.”
Secularists Object
Not all humanists agreed with Huxley. Harry Elmer Barnes and Herbert T. Rosenfeld
responded with an article of their own in the July-August 1962 issue. They wrote:
“In our opinion, Sir Julian has set forth not the Humanist ideology of today, but a truly
noble and eloquent Unitarian sermon. It is Unitarian doctrine, pure if not simple….
“It was, of course, frequently argued in earlier decades of our century that Humanism is a
secular religion, but in the light of the history of thought and culture, the terms ‘religion’
and ‘secular’ are, in our view, mutually exclusive….If there is any one thing which
characterizes and justifies Humanism it is complete and undeviating secularism….
“If Humanism is identical with the latter [Unitarianism] in its ideology, we see little basis
for a separate Humanist movement or organization.”
Unitarian minister Edwin H. Wilson, one of the founders of the humanist movement,
responded to the Barnes-Rosenfeld article in the Nov.-Dec. 1962 issue. He told of how
the magazine was founded by Unitarian theological students. He went on:
“The American Humanist Association itself was organized soon thereafter by a group
composed primarily of liberal ministers and professors who were predominantly
Unitarians and considered themselves as religious humanists. At the time of its
incorporation in 1941, the decision was made not to try to establish humanist churches
but to function as an educational movement among humanists wherever they were found.
“The early literature of the movement was devoted chiefly to the development of
Humanism as a distinctly religious position….
“Of the 34 persons who signed the Humanist Manifesto in 1933, all but four can be
readily identified as ’religious humanists’ who considered Humanism as the development
of a better and truer religion and as the next step ahead for those who sought it….
“My conviction is that a probe into what is actually believed would show that the ‘liberal
Unitarian position’ and what is generally presented as Humanism — whether as a religion
or as a philosophy — differ very little….
“One minister who belongs to the A.H.A. said: ‘We Unitarians in my church have no
ideological conflict with the American Humanist Association. Naturalistic Humanism is
our position.’
“Barnes and Rosenfeld question whether a secular religion is possible. Not to make any
one word too important, one could argue that today’s Unitarian Universalism is a secular
religion….
“Now for expediency. In the Torcaso case the court recognized Buddhism, Taoism,
Ethical Culture and Secular Humanism as religions existing in the United States which do
not teach what is traditionally considered belief in God. We should at least ask
ourselves whether there are not practical advantages to be had by accepting this
decision.”
And so, to Wilson, and many other humanists, “secular religion” was not a contradiction
in terms. The words defined a nontheistic faith. Comments by readers of the articles
appeared in the January-February 1963 issue. Opinion was divided. The hard-core
atheists objected to the use of the word “religion,” while the Unitarians agreed with
Wilson.
Humanist Manifesto II
In 1973 the humanists produced Humanist Manifesto II, an affirmation of the earlier
document with updated views on the world’s social problems. The new Manifesto was
as hostile to traditional theistic religion as the earlier one. It said:
“As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the
prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their
prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith.
Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with
false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival….
“We believe…that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation,
God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human
species….We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of the supernatural; it
is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the
human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity….
“[We] can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there
is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No
deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”
Ethics and Sexuality
Manifesto II also spelled out the social and political agendas for humanists:
“We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is
autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction….We strive
for the good life, here and now….
“In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox
religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth
control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized….Short of harming others or
compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual
proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire.”
World Government
The humanists again committed themselves to the goal of World Government.
Manifesto II states:
“We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a
turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national
sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors
of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of
world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.”
Anyone who bothers to study the curriculum of American public education will find in
virtually every course and program the tremendous influence of humanist philosophy. It
almost seems as if the public schools have become the parochial schools of humanism
wherein American youngsters are aggressively indoctrinated in humanist values and
ideas.
In fact, humanist editor Joe R. Burnett suggested as much in the Nov.-Dec. 1961 issue of
The Humanist (p. 347) when arguing in favor of federal aid to education. He said:
“Humanists obviously have a vital interest in the passage of a strong bill for federal aid to
public education. Without wanting to push the analogy too far, one might say that public
education is the parochial education for scientific humanism.”
If that was the case in 1961, it is even moreso today. In short: Public education today is
a government-supported establishment of the humanist religion.
(This article was written by the late Sam Blumenfeld in the early 1990s, and is part of the Sam Blumenfeld Archives-a free on-line resource: http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm
The Blumenfeld Archives
Camp Constitution Director On A New Hampshire Left-Wing Hate List
Recently, The Granite Grok published a list of over 500 conservative activists from around New Hampshire created by former New Hampshire State Senator Jeanne Dietsch: https://granitegrok.com/blog/2024/01/are-you-on-the-list-of-right-wing-extremists-in-new-hampshire-i-am Dietsch labeled those on her list an “anti-Democratic extremists.” She also has a link on her website where people can request additions to her “anti-Democrat extremists” list.
Among the names on this hate list is your truly. Dietsch has me listed as a “Christian Nationalist” who directs “a far right Evangelical camp.” It appears that Ms. Dietch is following the lead of Congresswoman Maxine Waters who urged people to confront Trump supporters. Her goal is to have those on the list, silenced, intimidated, canceled, fired, boycotted or worse. While I can’t speak on behalf of the other people on her hate list, many of whom I know personally and consider then friends, I think this list will only motivate those on the list to work harder to promote liberty and freedom. While I am not concerned about my personal safety, and my son’s, I am worried about the safety of wife and daughters who may be targeted as a result of this list. If, so, I will hold her legally responsible,
Ms. Dietsch is certainly no moderate. She supports open borders, opposed to fossil fuels, and thinks the Koch Brothers control New Hampshire. In June of 2020, her elitism and anti-Democratic worldview was on display when she was quoted at a House Education Committe meeting: “this idea of parental choice, that’s great if the parent is well-educated. There are some families that’s perfect for. But to make it available to everyone? No. I think you’re asking for a huge amount of trouble.”
Cenk Uygur and His Conservative Supporters
Meet Cenk Uygur host of the Young Turks which was named after a group of Muslims who committed genocide against the Christian Armenians from 1915-1923 where 600,000 to 1.5 million souls including women and children were murdered. Uygur has denied that the Armenian Holocaust happened. He was born in Istanbul, Turkey in 1970, and at the age of eight moved to the United States. As a young man, he was conservative but since then has become a hard leftist. He was raised in a secular Muslim home but now considers himself an agnostic. He harbors a particular contempt for conservative Evangelical Christians.
This Progressive paragon of virtue supports the legalization of bestiality “where the animal is being pleasured” which even surprised his self-loathing, foul-mouthed side-kick Ana Kasparian. In 2019-2020, he ran twice-for California’s 25th Congressional district. The first election was a special election to fill the vacant seat, and the second was the general election. All the left-wing PAC money couldn’t get him a seat in Congress. He initially was endorsed by Bernie Sanders, but ‘The Bern” withdrew his endorsement after learning of Uygur’s racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic comments he has made over the years. He is a 2024 candidate for President of the United States knowing full well that he is Constitutionally unqualified.
(Uygur and Lessig at Harvard 2011)
In September of 2011, I encounter him at an event at Harvard University’s School of Law called A Conference on the Constitutional Convention that was co-hosted by Mark Meckler and leftist Harvard law professor Larry Lessig. Cenk was interviewing Lessig, and they both hoped for a “runaway” Article V convention. I videotaped the conversation. Readers can find that video on Camp Constitution’s YouTube channel. In the wake of the Harvard event, Uygur formed Wolf PAC-a group that is lobbying for an Article V Convention. Mark Meckler followed by forming Convention of States (COS), and Lessig founded the May Day PAC.
The goal of Wolf PAC ostensibly is to hold an Article V Convention to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would end “corporate personhood” and give the federal government more power over elections. They were able to get five states pass Article V applications, but two of the states have wisely rescinded leaving only RI, VT, and CA with extant Wolf PAC resolutions. In the 2016, and 2018, election cycles, Wolf PAC used 80% of its funds for salaries and expenses.
What is an Article V Convention?
Our founders gave us two ways to amend the U.S. Constitution found in Article V of the U.S. Constitution:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress…”
While the first method has been used a number of times, the second method where states apply for a convention has never happened and for good reason.
Since its inception, Wolf PAC lobbyists have tried unsuccessfully to get their Article V Resolutions passed in New Hampshire. Convention of States and now Term Limits USA have been collaborating closely with Wolf PAC. COS, which enjoys the support of many well-meaning conservatives, have vociferously denied working with Wolf PAC, but such an alliance was on full display on January 19 at the New Hampshire State House where the House Committee on State and Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs held hearing on HCR 8 and HCR 9.
HCR 8 is a vaguely written resolution, sponsored by Wolf PAC that calls for New Hampshire to pass an application for an Article V Convention to introduce amendments that would end corporate personhood and have free and fair elections-a euphemistic term that, in reality, would give more power to the federal government over elections. The electoral college would also be on the chopping block. HCR 9 is a resolution to rescind New Hampshire’s only application for an Article V–a resolution which I fully support. While an accurate number of extant applications depends on how they are counted, it appears that Congress is looking at those that are similarly worded. We may be just a few states away from the 34 needed.
Despite the wording, a resolution applying for an Article V Convention cannot limit a convention. Supporting amendments that would give the federal government more power over anything should be strongly rejected by conservatives, and any self-respecting person or organization on any side of the political spectrum should have nothing to do with Cenk Uygur. But not in the Granite State where we witnessed the New Hampshire director of COS along with some of its supporters, as well as Mr. Ken Quinn, the out-of-state lobbyist for Term , testifying for the Wolf Pac resolution, and against the resolution to rescind.
Mr. Quinn, who spends a good portion of his time trashing conservatives who oppose his well-funded agenda, harbors a particular hatred of The John Birch Society (JBS), an organization that has done much to thwart his desire for an Article V Convention. He engages in childish antics like superimposing tin foil hats on pictures of JBS leaders. (As an aside, the late New Hampshire Governor Mel Thomson was not only a member of the JBS but served on its national council.) Back in 2016 while Quinn was a lobbyist for COS, its New Hampshire group sent out an E-mail accusing the JBS of bribing State Senator Kevin Avard. This was a bold-faced lie which was exposed by a friend who was receiving unsolicited E-mails from COS. COS has been involved in other dirty tactics around the nation. In South Dakota, State Senator Mark Willardsen returned a $1,000 donation to COS when he learned that COS was running attack ads against his opponent that were “full of half-truths, innuendos and outright lies.” This may explain why COS leadership have a cozy alliance with Cenk Uygur.
Quinn, ostensibly advocating for a limited convention, defended the idea of the need for structural change in the U.S. Constitution. John Adams once quipped that “facts are stubborn things.” If he were around today, he may have added “And so are screen shots:
It is important to point out that the vast majority of the supporters of COS and Term Limits USA are decent and honorable people that would have no part in COS tactics nor ally themselves with Cenk Uygur.
An Article V Convention, which we have never held, cannot be limited to a single amendment or topic. There are no laws guiding a convention, and rules and laws cannot be passed by state legislator. It is the job of Congress under the necessary and proper clause of Article 1, Section 8 to make laws or rules that would guide a convention. While I share many of the concerns that supporters of an Article V Convention, holding a convention and adding amendments to a constitution that is regularly ignored by Congress is not the solution. Readers are asked to contact their state reps urging them to oppose HCR 8 and vote for HCR 9. For those who would like more information on this critical issue, feel free to contact me. My E-mail is campconstitution1@gmail.com
A Federal Government Publication Affirms That Education is “A matter reserved for the states’
A special thank you to Alex Destino of Gloucester, MA who motivated me to write this article and make the short video embedded below:
About ten years ago, I stopped in a library in Medfield, Massachusetts, a town about 40 miles West and South of Boston. At its book sale, I found “Formation of the Union Under the Constitution” in 1943 which was published to celebrate the Sesquicentenial-150 years of the U.S. Constitution. It was published by the U.S Government Printing Office which was totally controlled by the New Deal Democrats. It is an excellent book that contains the History of the United States detailed information on how the U.S. Constitution was formed, copies, a circular letter from Governor John Hancock expressing his opposition to an Article V Convention, and a chapter of Liberty Documents from the Magna Carta to the Monroe Doctrine. Starting on page 121 of the book, we find a series of questions and answers. One of the most interesting questions in the book is found on page 128: “Where, in the Constitution is there mention of education? And the answer in this New Deal publication: “There is none; education is a matter reserved for the states.”
Since there hasn’t been any amendment added to the Constitution to make federal funding constitutional, the Department of Education, and all funds going to school and colleges are unconstitutional. The Department of Education should be abolished, and all federal government funding of schools must end. Sadly, there isn’t much political will to make this happen. But that can change. Let’s begin by letting elected officials at all levels know that we have a federal document published under a New Deal Democrat Administration that those who vote for and accept federal funds for education are violating their oaths of office.
While the book is out-of-print and there are a limited number of hard back copies available, Camp Constitution makes the book available as a free PDF: https://campconstitution.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/History-of-the-Formation-of-the-Union-Under-the-Constitution.pdf
Here is a short video I made on the subject:
The Weekly Sam: Let the Counter-Revolution Begin! Implementing the Tea Party Agenda
The first American Revolution officially began on July 4th, 1776, when the Thirteen
Colonies declared their independence from Great Britain. And it didn’t end until 1781,
when General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, and the Treaty of Paris was signed
with Great Britain in 1783. In other words it took seven years of hard struggle before
the colonists could become the free and sovereign United States of America.
At first the new government was ruled by the Articles of Confederation, ratified by the
states in 1781, which provided virtually no power to the central government. The leaders
of the new confederation then decided to construct a more efficient and viable form of
government under a new Constitution. The result was a Federal Republic in which power
was effectively separated into three branches: the Executive headed by a President, the
Legislative composed of a Congress with a Senate and a House of Representatives, and
the Judiciary, a federal court system headed by the Supreme Court.
Thus, was formed a government of limited powers in which the basic freedoms of
American citizens were constitutionally protected against encroachment by any branch of
government. All of this worked fairly well until the turn of the last century when
socialists began a long-range conspiracy to change America from a Constitutional
Republic with limited powers into a European style Social Democracy with unlimited
powers, thus abolishing our God-given individual liberties. This was done through
incremental steps that expanded the power of the federal government in all areas
Which brings us to the present. The socialists finally took complete legislative power in
Washington with the election of Barack Obama as President and a Democrat controlled
Congress. Their plan was to end our Constitutional Republic. But what the socialists
didn’t count on was the rising up of the majority of the American people in opposition to
their scheme. That uprising became the Tea Party Movement, made up of ordinary and
extraordinary Americans who are determined to restore America’s form of government to
what the Founding Fathers gave us.
And in November 2010 the Tea Partiers gained control of the House of Representatives,
marking the beginning of their Counter-Revolution. But the socialist revolutionaries
used the lame-duck Congress to push through as much of their agenda as possible.
What should the Tea Partiers do when they take their seats in Congress in January of
2011? First, they must repeal all of the socialist legislation that virtually ended our
Constitutional Republic. This initial effort may be vetoed by our Alinsky-trained
President. But in 1012 the Tea Partiers may be able to get rid of this Marxist
revolutionary at the top. Next, they must begin to dismantle all of those federal
departments and bureaucracies created by previous liberal administrations to expand the
control of government over the lives and activities of the American people. But where
to start? A good place to start is by abolishing the U.S. Department of Education, created
by Jimmy Carter in 1979 via the Department of Education Organization Act, approved by
a liberal Congress.
Actually, a Department of Education had been created in 1867, but a year later was
reduced to a mere Office collecting education statistics, a minor bureau in the Department
of the Interior. In 1939, the bureau was transferred to the Federal Security Agency where
it became known as the Office of Education.
Upgrading the Office of Education into a cabinet level department was opposed by
Republicans who saw the Department as unconstitutional since the Constitution didn’t
even mention education. But when Ronald Reagan became President in 1981 and tried
to abolish the Department, he was prevented by a Democrat dominated House of
Representatives. He was also sabotaged by his own RINO statists.
During the 1980s, the abolition of the ED, as it is now called, was part of the Republican
Party platform, but President George H. W. Bush declined to implement the idea. In
1996, the Republican Party made abolition of the Department a cornerstone of their
campaign promises, calling it an unconstitutional federal intrusion into local, state, and
family affairs. The GOP platform stated:
“The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school
curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the
Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family
choice at all levels of learning.”
During Bob Dole’s run for the presidency in 1996, he promised to abolish the ED. And
in 2000, the Republican Liberty Caucus passed a resolution to abolish the Department.
But when George W. Bush became President, instead of initiating an effort to abolish the
Department, he joined with liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy to enact the No Child Left
Behind act, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
passed by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society administration.
It was George W. Bush’s big government Republicanism which disillusioned many
conservatives with the GOP and led to the election of Barack Obama. But what makes
the abolition of the Department of Education much more possible now are two things: the
huge federal debt and the need to cut the cost and size of government; and the fact that
the Department has not improved education. In fact, it has made it worse.
Indeed, it was Charlotte Iserbyt, a former Senior Policy Advisor in the Department of
Education during the Reagan years, who blew the whistle on the ED’s nefarious activities
by writing the Deliberate Dumbing Down of the American People, based on
documentation she found in the Department‘s own files. In her expose she proved that the
Department was financing the dumbing down of Americans through grants to socialist
academics in our universities. In other words, the Department of Education had become
destructive of the American mind, and therefore should have long been abolished for that
reason alone. (Iserbyt’s book can now be downloaded free of charge on the Internet.)
So there is now more than enough evidence that the Department of Education is a
destructive force with power to dictate what goes on in American schools. The sooner it
is gotten rid of, the sooner Americans will be able to achieve one of the Tea Party’s chief
goals: a free nation, enjoying the benefits of educational freedom, without federal control
over our schools.
Yet read the Constitution and you discover a document that carefully creates a national
government with limited and enumerated powers. In contrast to state governments,
federal authority is constrained. Washington does not have general jurisdiction, or the
so-called police power, authorizing it to intervene in any matter not explicitly barred by
law or constitution.
None of the 27 amendments expanded federal power in this regard. The 13th, 14th, and
15th Amendments, passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, did transform
federal-state relations: the United States went from being a plural aggregation to a single
unit. National power expanded insofar as it protected individual liberty in the states. The
constitutional changes did not expand Washington’s authority to infringe the liberty of the
same individuals.
John McManus writes:
For decades, our federal government has annually poured tens of billions into education
and the product continues to worsen. The same elected geniuses started a Department of
Energy when imports totaled 30 percent. The import total is now 70 percent. Federal
housing policies convinced many Americans they could own a home with little or no
down payment and the resulting housing crisis ushered in the current recession. Other
geniuses started providing food stamps for several hundred thousand in the 1960s while
assuring everyone that the number of recipients would never grow larger. Now, over 40
million — one in seven Americans — are on this form of handout. We could go on. But it
has to be obvious that whatever the Federal government undertakes beyond its
constitutionally authorized powers turns out to be a bust.
What Shall We Cut?
Abortion may soon be more readily available than ever before, thanks to a new
requirement from Planned Parenthood that more of its centers nationwide offer the
service. At least one local chapter so far has decided to withdraw from the network rather
than comply.
A local office of Planned Parenthood in South Texas is dropping out of the nationwide
network of “America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care” starting
January 1.
According to local news reports, Planned Parenthood is planning on standardizing all of
its agencies, which includes requiring that every single one offer abortion services. The
CEO of the Coastal Bend office, however, said in a media interview that her center has
never provided abortions in the past, and doing so now is unnecessary.
“Our position is that if that is a need in your community, fine,” said CEO Amanda
Stukenberg. “There are far greater needs in our area than abortion. We feel that women
here have options. We don’t need to duplicate services.”
When contacted by The Daily Caller, Lisa David, senior vice president of Health
Services Support for Planned Parenthood, said that the organization is implementing a
broad “new patient services initiative.”
“From well-woman exams to lifesaving breast and cervical cancer screenings, more
patients will now have access to the full range of Planned Parenthood services,” said
David in a statement. “To meet the needs of our patients, Planned Parenthood affiliates
will now offer a unified set of core preventive services.”
In the next year, according to David, Planned Parenthood will expand immediate access
to testing for HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STI’s). During the next two years,
all Planned Parenthood centers will begin to “provide the full range of birth control
method options, such as the IUD, in addition to well-woman exams including critical
cancer prevention screenings.”
She went on to say that abortion services will be offered in at least one clinic per affiliate.
However, a waiver may be obtained in the case of “unique local circumstances.”
Some, however, argue that the expansion of abortion services is more about lining
pockets than making women feel safe and secure. “Planned Parenthood claims they’re
concerned with women’s health and family planning,” a spokesperson for the Family
Research Council, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that advances “faith, family and
freedom,” told TheDC.
“We’ve been hearing rhetoric lately that abortion should be safe, legal and rare, but [with
this requirement] we can see the writing on the wall. The bottom line is there is no place
in the U.S. where a woman would have difficulty getting abortion if they want to.”
The spokesperson went on to say, “This is about expanding services and bringing in more
money…they try to create a public image where everything focuses on STD’s, family
planning, etc, but abortion is a profitable endeavor.”
Right now, Planned Parenthood has 817 health clinics throughout the U.S. One hundred
seventy-three of those already perform surgical abortions, and 131 perform chemical
abortions. The Planned Parenthood network is made up of 87 locally-government
regional centers, which then oversee hundreds of other clinics.
The Blumenfeld Archives
(The above article was written in 2010, and is found in the Sam Blumenfeld Archives: http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm
Climate and energy fantasy and tyranny
Models, myths and misinformation on climate drive models, myths and misinformation on energy
It’s mystifying and terrifying that our lives, livelihoods and living standards are increasingly dictated by activist, political, bureaucratic, academic and media ruling elites, who disseminate theoretical nonsense, calculated myths and outright disinformation.
Not only on pronouns, gender and immigration – but on climate change … and energy, the foundation of modern civilization and life spans.
We’re constantly told the world will plunge into an existential climate cataclysm if average planetary temperatures rise another few tenths of a degree, due to using fossil fuels for reliable, affordable energy, raw materials for over 6,000 vital products, and lifting billions out of poverty, disease and early death.
Climate alarmism implicitly assumes Earth’s climate was stable until coal, oil and gas emissions knocked it off kilter … and would be stable again if people stopped using fossil fuels.
In the real world, climate has changed numerous times, often dramatically, sometimes catastrophically, and always naturally. Multiple ice ages and interglacial periods, Roman and Medieval warm periods, a Little Ice Age, major floods, droughts and dust bowls all actually happened – long before fossil fuels.
Data for tornados, hurricanes and other extreme weather events prove they are not getting more frequent or intense. You might argue that Harvey and Irma marked a sudden increase in major hurricanes in 2017 – but that’s only because after Wilma there’d been a record twelve years of zero Category 3-5 hurricanes.
We need to ignore the fear-mongering, look at actual historic records, and recognize that more dangerous, unprecedented calamities upward trends simply aren’t there. We need to insist that alarmists distinguish and quantify human influences versus natural forces for recent temperature, climate and weather events – and show when, where and how human activities replaced natural forces. They haven’t done so.
The only place manmade temperature and climate catastrophes exist is in Michael Mann and other GIGO computer models. These climate models are worthless for policymaking because they aren’t verified by actual measurements, don’t account for urban heat island effects, and cannot incorporate the vast scale and complexity of atmospheric, planetary and galactic forces that determine Earth’s climate.
In reality, people and planet are threatened far more by global cooling than warming. Even a couple degrees drop in average global temperatures would drastically reduce growing seasons, arable land, plant growth, wildlife habitats and agricultural output – especially if it’s accompanied by reductions in plant-fertilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Plants, animals and people would face starvation.
We’re also told ruling elites could prevent this imagined crisis by switching us to wind, solar and battery power. (They also want to eliminate cows and modern agriculture, over misplaced concerns about methane and fertilizer, but that’s an udder discussion.)
Build a coal, gas or nuclear power plant – and unless governments shut it down or cut off fuel supplies, the plant provides plentiful, reliable, affordable electricity nearly 24/7/365 for decades. Build a massive sprawling wind or solar installation, and you have to back up every kilowatt with coal, gas or nuclear power – or with millions of huge batteries – for every windless, sunless period.
The economic and ecological effects would be ruinous.
Coal, gas and nuclear plants can be built close to electricity-intensive urban centers. Tens of thousands of wind turbines and billions of solar panels must go where there’s good wind and sunshine, far from urban areas, connected by high voltage transmission lines. In fact, for Net Zero, says the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world would need 50,000,000 miles of new and upgraded transmission lines by 2040!
All those “clean, green, renewable, sustainable, affordable” wind, solar and battery systems, backup generators, transmission lines and electric vehicles would require millions of tons of iron, copper, aluminum, manganese, cobalt, lithium, concrete, plastics and numerous other metals and minerals.
Onshore wind turbines require nine times more materials per megawatt – and offshore turbines need fourteen times more – than a combined-cycle natural gas power plant, the IEA calculates. Solar panels and EVs have the same problem.
To get these materials, billions of tons of overlying rock must be removed to reach billions of tons of ores – which then must be processed in huge industrial facilities that use mercury and toxic chemicals … emit vast quantities of greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants … and are powered by coal or natural gas. Many components for these “green” technologies are derived from oil and natural gas.
US and other Western facilities control and recycle these pollutants. Chinese and Russian facilities pay little attention to air and water pollution, workplace safety, or fossil fuel use, efficiency and emissions – yet they supply over 80% of “renewable” energy raw materials, because the West increasingly bans mining and processing and makes energy prohibitively expensive to operate mines and factories.
Pseudo-renewable energy worldwide would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, would have to be subsidized by trillions of taxpayer dollars, and would dramatically increase electricity rates.
Electric vehicle, appliance and heating mandates would double or triple all these infrastructure, materials, mining and land use requirements, ecological impacts and costs.
American residential electricity prices in 2023 ranged from 10.4¢ per kilowatt-hour (Idaho) to 28.4¢ per kWh (California). British families paid 47¢ per kWh! UK factories and businesses paid up to three times what their US counterparts did. German families, factories and businesses are in the same capsizing boat.
But EU industrial leaders say energy prices must continue rising, to cover the soaring costs of the “energy transition.” If they don’t, factories, jobs and emissions will move overseas. But if they do, families will freeze jobless in the dark.
What many call the Climate Industrial Complex has a monumental stake in perpetuating this situation. Collectively, its members have incredible power, control much of government and education, hold enormous financial stakes in green tech subsidies, and often censor contrarian viewpoints.
Just as ominous, if it becomes clear that the Brave New World of Net Zero Energy cannot provide sufficient affordable electricity and other necessities for modern industries, healthcare and living standards, two-thirds of America’s ruling elites favor food and energy rationing to combat climate change and retain their anti-capitalism, anti-growth agenda. It’s likely the same in Europe and Canada.
The Biden Administration and other governments are already dictating the kinds of vehicles we can drive and what appliances and heating systems we can use. They’re already exploring ways to limit the kind and size of homes we can live in, how warm and cool we can keep them, how often we can travel by air, the kinds and amounts of meat we can eat, and many other aspects of our lives.
Meanwhile, China, India, Indonesia and dozens of other countries are building hundreds of coal and gas generating units – further underscoring the insanity and futility of trying to control energy sources, quantities and emissions.
This is what America’s 2024 state and national elections are about – and elections in Europe, Canada, Australia and elsewhere. The longer these elites remain in power, the more our liberties, lives and living standards will resemble life a century ago under authoritarian regimes. Vote accordingly.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environmental, and human rights issues.
