The Weekly Sam: What is Wrong with Government Education by Sam Blumenfeld
The enormous failure of our government school system was nicely
summed up by a Boston high school teacher in a recent issue of Education
Week (12/9/98). He said:
“I have about 30 kids in my U.S. history class. They come from nine
different countries; most of them can’t read. Even if they can read the text,
they don’t know what it means. How am I supposed to teach U.S. history to
kids who can’t read? I could come in here every day for 20 years and still
not figure out how to do it.”
different countries; most of them can’t read. Even if they can read the text,
they don’t know what it means. How am I supposed to teach U.S. history to
kids who can’t read? I could come in here every day for 20 years and still
not figure out how to do it.”
Obviously, this particular teacher had no idea how these kids got into
high school without knowing how to read. He had no idea what goes on in
primary school that prevents these children from learning to read, and he
had no idea what to do with older students who are functionally illiterate.
Clearly, the teacher himself is part of the problem. His ignorance of how the
system functions prevents him from helping his students get through it in
one piece . In other words, the compartmentalization of teachers explains
why so many of them have no idea of how the total system works and why
the system can lurch from crisis to crisis without any effective change taking
place.
high school without knowing how to read. He had no idea what goes on in
primary school that prevents these children from learning to read, and he
had no idea what to do with older students who are functionally illiterate.
Clearly, the teacher himself is part of the problem. His ignorance of how the
system functions prevents him from helping his students get through it in
one piece . In other words, the compartmentalization of teachers explains
why so many of them have no idea of how the total system works and why
the system can lurch from crisis to crisis without any effective change taking
place.
The real blame for the system’s dysfunction, however, must lie with the
professors of education, the state departments of education , and the
administrators who have all conspired to create the functional illiteracy that
plagues the public schools of America — once considered the most literate
and advanced nation on earth. Deliberately induced illiteracy among
students is a vital part of the plan to dumb down Americans so that they will
be unable to resist the imposition of social and political control by an
arrogant universitarian elite determined to create a new world order based
on humanist-socialist values.
professors of education, the state departments of education , and the
administrators who have all conspired to create the functional illiteracy that
plagues the public schools of America — once considered the most literate
and advanced nation on earth. Deliberately induced illiteracy among
students is a vital part of the plan to dumb down Americans so that they will
be unable to resist the imposition of social and political control by an
arrogant universitarian elite determined to create a new world order based
on humanist-socialist values.
This “education” plan is part of the utopian socialist agenda set down
by the progressives at the turn of the century. The progressives were
members of the Protestant academic elite who no longer believed in the
religion of their fathers. They put their new faith in science, evolution, and
psychology. Science explained the material world (matter in motion),
evolution explained the origin of life (organisms crawling out of the
primordial ooze), and psychology explained human nature and provided
the elite with the scientific means of controlling human behavior.
primordial ooze), and psychology explained human nature and provided
the elite with the scientific means of controlling human behavior.
These men were also socialists. Why? Because they had to deal with
the problem of evil. The Bible tells us that evil is the result of man’s innate
depravity, his innate sinful nature. But since the progressives did not
believe in the Bible, they decided that evil was caused by ignorance,
poverty, and social injustice. And what was the cause of social injustice?
Why, it was this horrible capitalist system with all of its inequities. Socialism,
it was believed, would remove these inequities and thereby solve the
problem of evil. By the way, the progressives did not get their model of
socialism from Karl Marx. They got it from an American by the name of
Edward Bellamy whose book, Looking Backward, published in 1888,
projected the fantasy of a socialist America in the year 2000.
the problem of evil. The Bible tells us that evil is the result of man’s innate
depravity, his innate sinful nature. But since the progressives did not
believe in the Bible, they decided that evil was caused by ignorance,
poverty, and social injustice. And what was the cause of social injustice?
Why, it was this horrible capitalist system with all of its inequities. Socialism,
it was believed, would remove these inequities and thereby solve the
problem of evil. By the way, the progressives did not get their model of
socialism from Karl Marx. They got it from an American by the name of
Edward Bellamy whose book, Looking Backward, published in 1888,
projected the fantasy of a socialist America in the year 2000.
And so, the progressives, dedicated to their utopian ideal, decided to
do all in their power to change America from an individualistic, capitalist,
and religious society into a socialist, collectivist, humanist or atheist society.
How were they to accomplish that? Through the education system. They
would change the curriculum and teaching methods in the public schools so
that American children would emerge as young socialists willing to change
our way of life into a socialist one.
do all in their power to change America from an individualistic, capitalist,
and religious society into a socialist, collectivist, humanist or atheist society.
How were they to accomplish that? Through the education system. They
would change the curriculum and teaching methods in the public schools so
that American children would emerge as young socialists willing to change
our way of life into a socialist one.
The socialists realized that the transformation might take as much as a
hundred years to complete. In fact, John Dewey wrote in 1898: “Change
must come gradua.lly. To force it unduly would compromise its final success
by favoring a violent reaction .” Dewey then outlined the long-range strategy
which the progressives were to adopt:
hundred years to complete. In fact, John Dewey wrote in 1898: “Change
must come gradua.lly. To force it unduly would compromise its final success
by favoring a violent reaction .” Dewey then outlined the long-range strategy
which the progressives were to adopt:
What is needed in the first place is that there should be a full and frank statement
of conviction with regard to the matter from physiologists and psychologists and from
those school administrators who are conscious of the evils of the present regime.
Educators should also frankly face the fact that the New Education, as it exists today, is
a compromise and a transition: it employs new methods but its controlling ideals are
virtually of the Old Education. Wherever movements looking to a solution of the
problem are intelligently undertaken, they should receive encouragement, moral and
financial , from the intellectual leaders of the community. There are already in
existence a considerable number of educational “experiment stations,” which
represent the outposts of educational progress. If these schools can be adequately
supported for a number of years they will perform a great vicarious service. After such
schools have worked out carefully and definitely the subject-matter of the new
curriculum, –finding the right place for language-studies and placing them in their right
perspective, the problem of the more general educational reform will be immensely.
simplified.
One hundred years later we can see how successful the Dewey plan
has been in transforming our educational system into one that serves the
needs of the atheist socialist state. Dewey was aided and abetted by a
cadre of reformers that included such luminaries as Edward L. Thorndike,
James McKeen Cattell, Elwood P. Cubberly, George D. Strayer, Charles
Judd, James R. Angell and a host of others. Thorndike, Cattell, and Strayer
ran educational mafia out of Teachers College (Columbia), Cubberly
reigned at Stanford, and Angell became president at Yale.
has been in transforming our educational system into one that serves the
needs of the atheist socialist state. Dewey was aided and abetted by a
cadre of reformers that included such luminaries as Edward L. Thorndike,
James McKeen Cattell, Elwood P. Cubberly, George D. Strayer, Charles
Judd, James R. Angell and a host of others. Thorndike, Cattell, and Strayer
ran educational mafia out of Teachers College (Columbia), Cubberly
reigned at Stanford, and Angell became president at Yale.
Change in the curriculum of public education has happened so
gradually that most parents haven’t the faintest idea what is happening to
their children, four million of whom are being drugged daily with Ritalin so
that they can sit in their classroom seats and be socialized without
resistance.
gradually that most parents haven’t the faintest idea what is happening to
their children, four million of whom are being drugged daily with Ritalin so
that they can sit in their classroom seats and be socialized without
resistance.
What is truly amazing is the coherence and continuity of the
progressive agenda which is as much alive today at it was when Dewey and
company were pontificating. For example, The Whole Language Catalog, a
sort of bible of the whole-language movement published in 1991, has 15
entries for John Dewey in its index. After citing his debt to Dewey, Kenneth
Goodman, the leading guru of whole-language philosophy, writes:
progressive agenda which is as much alive today at it was when Dewey and
company were pontificating. For example, The Whole Language Catalog, a
sort of bible of the whole-language movement published in 1991, has 15
entries for John Dewey in its index. After citing his debt to Dewey, Kenneth
Goodman, the leading guru of whole-language philosophy, writes:
Whole language picks up where the progressives left off . … [It] takes the
philosophy and positive, child-centered view of the progressive educators and adds
the knowledge of language, of learning, of child development, and of teaching, and
builds a strong scientific base under them . It is this combination of science and
humanistic educational and social philosophy that forms the foundation for whole
language curriculum . … We use the psychological concepts of Piaget and Vygotsky to
underscore Dewey’s concept of learning as transaction: pupils making sense of their
world and being changed themselves in the transactions. (p. 281)
philosophy and positive, child-centered view of the progressive educators and adds
the knowledge of language, of learning, of child development, and of teaching, and
builds a strong scientific base under them . It is this combination of science and
humanistic educational and social philosophy that forms the foundation for whole
language curriculum . … We use the psychological concepts of Piaget and Vygotsky to
underscore Dewey’s concept of learning as transaction: pupils making sense of their
world and being changed themselves in the transactions. (p. 281)
In the early days, the progressives were mainly supported by the major
philanthropic foundations. Today, the reforms are being underwritten by
federal and state governments. Three recent federal programs are funding
the massive restructuring of American education in accordance with the
progressives’ plans: Goals 2000 (enacted 3/31/94), School-to-Work
Opportunities Act (enacted 5/4/94), and the Improving America’s Schools
Act, a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (enacted 10/20/94) . Thus, the Congress of the United States has
become an accomplice in the progressive plan to restructure American
education in the socialist mold.
Apart from needing the funds to carry out their plan, the progressives
also realized that coherence and continuity of their agenda over a hundred
years was vitally necessary if the plan was to be successful. Thus, in 1901
they created the National Society for the Study of Education, wherein the
progressive leaders would be able to formulate their programs of reform,
debate their effectiveness and pass on the baton to their loyal disciples. By
studying their yearbooks, the first of which was published in 1902, one can
follow the inexorable progress of the socialist takeover of American
education.
also realized that coherence and continuity of their agenda over a hundred
years was vitally necessary if the plan was to be successful. Thus, in 1901
they created the National Society for the Study of Education, wherein the
progressive leaders would be able to formulate their programs of reform,
debate their effectiveness and pass on the baton to their loyal disciples. By
studying their yearbooks, the first of which was published in 1902, one can
follow the inexorable progress of the socialist takeover of American
education.
All of this was accomplished by tenured professors of education and
behavioral psychologists, working within a maze of well funded professional
organizations, publishing journals, writing textbooks, holding hundreds of
conferences, seminars, and conventions each year. None of this has been
visible to the average parent who puts a child in a public school. Parents
assume that their schools are run by local school boards, superintendents,
principals, and teachers. What they don’t see is the invisible hand behind
this constant pressure for reform that keeps recreating the curriculum .
The average teacher may feel that there is some kind of invisible hand
at work, but teachers would rather blame failure on cultural trends,
excessive television viewing, dysfunctional parents, and such student
disabilities as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia.
behavioral psychologists, working within a maze of well funded professional
organizations, publishing journals, writing textbooks, holding hundreds of
conferences, seminars, and conventions each year. None of this has been
visible to the average parent who puts a child in a public school. Parents
assume that their schools are run by local school boards, superintendents,
principals, and teachers. What they don’t see is the invisible hand behind
this constant pressure for reform that keeps recreating the curriculum .
The average teacher may feel that there is some kind of invisible hand
at work, but teachers would rather blame failure on cultural trends,
excessive television viewing, dysfunctional parents, and such student
disabilities as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia.
Obviously, this is a system of education that cannot be supported by
any Christian. Local control no longer exists. It was inevitable that a
government education system would become a federal system controlled
by those who have been leading us toward totalitarian socialism. Do I
exaggerate? To be convinced that the end goal is a totalitarian system, all
one has to do is read the Student Data Handbook for Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education (NCES 94-303). This is the official
guidebook for the computerized data-gathering system dreamed up by our
totalitarian bureaucrats. The data will include massive information on
health, family, religion, attitudes, psychological assessments, etc. For
example, the attitudinal test is described as: “An assessment to measure
the mental and emotional set or patterns of likes and dislikes or opinions
held by a student or a group of students. This is often used in relation to
considerations such as controversial issues or personal adjustments .”
All of this sensitive, personal data will be housed in a central computer
in Washington making it easy for “educators” to control just about everyone.
But the question is simply this: does the government of a free people have
the right to collect this kind of information on all of its citizens for its own
political or social purposes? Should the government of a free people record
the attitudes and opinions of its citizens so that it can engineer their r
personal adjustment?
the right to collect this kind of information on all of its citizens for its own
political or social purposes? Should the government of a free people record
the attitudes and opinions of its citizens so that it can engineer their r
personal adjustment?
The time has come for Christians to realize what has become of the
“land of the free and the home of the brave.” If Christians want to restore
the full measure of our freedoms, they will have to do what they are
reluctant to do: remove their children en masse from the public schools.
What is needed now is not accomodation to the plans of the American
Pharoah but a full-fledged exodus of Christian children. That’s the easiest
and most peaceful way to put an end to the socialist agenda and return
America to its basic constitutional principles. Will Christians have the
courage to do what must be done? That test will be upon us sooner than
anyone anticipated.
“land of the free and the home of the brave.” If Christians want to restore
the full measure of our freedoms, they will have to do what they are
reluctant to do: remove their children en masse from the public schools.
What is needed now is not accomodation to the plans of the American
Pharoah but a full-fledged exodus of Christian children. That’s the easiest
and most peaceful way to put an end to the socialist agenda and return
America to its basic constitutional principles. Will Christians have the
courage to do what must be done? That test will be upon us sooner than
anyone anticipated.
(The above article was written by Sam Blumenfeld back in the late 1990s. Sam predicted that government schools would get worse and he was right. Please visit and sign up for the Sam Blumenfeld Archives-a free on-line resource hosted by Camp Constitution: https://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/
The Fall of Minneapolis: An Interview with Liz Collin
Camp Constitution Radio hosted by Hal Shurtleff recently interviewed Liz Collin, a former Minneapolis news anchor and reporter, author of They’re Lying and the producer of the powerful documentary The Fall of Minneapolis:
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/shurtleffhal/episodes/2023-12-18T10_50_16-08_00
The Fall of Minneapolis features interviews of dozens of officers, witnesses, and experts who were there during the riots and the aftermath following the arrest and death of George Floyd. After years of in-depth research, we show the evidence that others have ignored or outright censored. This is everything they don’t want you to see. From George Floyd’s criminal history, to questionable witness testimony, and the media manipulation in between, get the facts and watch the lies fall apart.
The documentary can be viewed here: https://www.thefallofminneapolis.com/
Will Boston Human Right’s Commission take action against Mayor Wu and other city officials who participated in a non-whites city sponsored event?
Boston’s Human Rights Commission was established in 1985. It became dormant by the mid-1990s but in 2019, Mayor Marty Walsh reactivated it and appointed seven members. After reading their credentials, it is a safe bet that not one of them is a subscriber to Fox News. From its website:
“The Human Rights Commission advances equity, understanding, and respect for all.
“Our mission is to enforce Human Rights, to engage in relationships and partnerships that embody the principles of dignity and respect, and to create a culture of human rights compliance and accountability. We act as a driver for social change based on principles of substantive equality, equity, and inclusion for all.
“Our work includes public, community, and private partners. We provide outreach and information, education, and technical help. We refer discrimination complaints to the right entities for resolution. We also seek to find and understand patterns and practices of systematic discrimination.” And:
“The Commission has the power to conduct hearings and call witnesses and can issue reports and the results of investigations. The Commission also has the power to adopt rules and regulations and recommend legislation to the City Council and the Mayor.”
They have a “Respond to Hate”: toolkit where I found this:
Report to government anti-discrimination agencies.
Report to City of Boston Human Rights Commission.
Report to community organizations.
Support the victim(s)
I contacted the commission by E-mail and asked if they will take action against Wu and her racist colleagues. So far, the commission has not released a statement on the subject. Bostonians especially those that were victims of Wu and her colleague’s blatant racism have a duty to file a formal complaint with the commission and demand an investigation. If the commission refuses, its board members are nothing more than enables of what they profess to oppose and should resign, and the organization abolished.
Readers can give this august body a call 617-635-2328 or E-mail them HumanRights@Boston.Gov to file a complaint.
I was a victim of religious discrimination back in 2017 when Mayor Walsh refused to give me and my organization a permit to fly the Christian flag. It took almost five years to get justice but on May 2, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in our favor. http://www.lc.org/flag This act of discrimination cost the city a few million in legal fees. To my knowledge, Boston’s Human Rights Commission took no action on our case. Let’s hope it will take action against Wu and her associates.
P.S.: The commission has failed to release a statement on the surge of anti-Semitism in the wake of the Hamas’ atrocity against innocent civilians.
A bumper sticker a Boston resident recently gave to me.
Happy Bill of Rights Day
December 15th is Bill of Rights Day, the anniversary of the most successful assertion of individual rights and liberties ever written. The date is as obscure as it should be celebrated. If you watched the news this morning, they were more likely highlighting National Cupcake Day. But it’s also one of the most important dates in American history, because without the Bill of Rights the fledgling United States may not have survived.
Barely a decade after 1776, shortcomings in the Articles of Confederation brought about a political crisis among the states, culminating in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The new Constitution was ratified the following year, but that was not the end of the crisis, as a number of states made ratification contingent on a Bill of Rights being swiftly added to it.
With the fate of the Republic at stake, the two dominant political forces of the time – the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists – waged a public contest of ideas. It ended with the drafting by consensus of the first ten amendments to the new Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, which sealed the deal when Virginia became the 11th state to ratify, on this day in 1791.
The history of the document since then has been a stunning success. In a testament to the power of its ideas, the visionary principles embodied in the Bill of Rights that were considered radical by most of the outside world at the time – freedom of expression and belief, the presumption of innocence, due process and equality under the law – are today lauded as universal human rights.
The expanding reach of these principles in our own country has been no less breathtaking. When the Bill of Rights was ratified its provisions only fully applied to 5% of the people living here. They didn’t apply to slaves, native Americans, women, or white men of less than a certain means or property.
But the amendments themselves do not contain a single exclusionary clause. So as our understanding of freedom grew from the experience of it, along with the wrenching tragedy of a civil war, the Bill of Rights remained a clear beacon illuminating the path forward. Today virtually all Americans expect that these rights and freedoms belong to all equally.
There have been setbacks and reversals along the way. President Roosevelt declared the first Bill of Rights Day in 1941. Two months later he issued the executive order interning all Japanese Americans, one of the darker episodes in our history. Today’s headlines remind us just how perpetually fragile the idea of a free, just, and civil society is. As President Reagan pointedly observed “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.”
The Bill of Rights:
THE BILL OF RIGHTS – FULL TEXT
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
December 16, 2023, marks the 250th or Semiquincentennial of The Boston Tea Party
December 16, 2023, marks the 250th or Semiquincentennial of The Boston Tea Party where members of the Sons of Liberty-some dressed up as Mohawk Indians- boarded three ships docked at Griffins Wharf in Boston, and dumped 46 tons of tea into the harbor.
Background to the Tea Party:
The British Parliament passed the Townshend Act in 1767 which levied direct taxes against the Colonists. Prior to this, colonial governments elected by the people were the only entities that levied taxes. There was much opposition to the Townshend Act on both sides of the Atlantic. In 1770, Parliament repealed the Townshend Act with the exception the tax on tea. On May 10, 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act giving, for the first time, the East India Company a monopoly on the export of tea. The East India Company would appoint certain colonial merchants-consigners- the sole right to sell the tea to the detriment of other merchants who lost their livelihoods. While “Taxation without Representation” was one of the rallying cries of the Revolutionary War-along with “No King But King Jesus, the biggest objection Boston colonists had was that the tax was used to pay the salaries of the governor, and other colonial leaders, making these officials beholding and dependent to the Crown instead of the colonists.
In the fall of 1773, seven ships loaded with tea and other cargo sailed to America-four to Boston, one to Philadelphia, one to Charlestown, SC., one to New York City. Local Patriots in Philadelphia and New York convinced the consigners to resign, and the tea went back to England. In Charleston, S.C, the tea was never claimed and ended up rotting in storage. The Dartmouth was the first ship to arrive at Boston’s Griffin Wharf. By law, it had 20 days to land the tea, or it would be confiscated. Two other ships, the Beaver and Eleanor arrived a few weeks later. A fourth ship ran aground on Cape Cod. Colonists petitioned Governor Thomas Hutchinson to let the ships return the tea to England. His sons Thomas and Elisha just happened to be the consignees. Indeed, if the ships did not unload the tea, the owners were told that their ships would be fired upon as they sailed past Castle Island.
The Tea Party
The 16th of December fell on a rainy and chilly Thursday. It was the last day that the Dartmouth had to unload its cargo. The meeting at the Old South Meeting House was held in the morning where attendees were read letters of support from surrounding towns. The meeting ended and reconvened in the afternoon. The meeting lasted a few hours and instructed that the ship owners are to have an interview with Governor Hutchinson to get permission to sail without unloading the tea. At 6PM, close to forty percent of the 16,000 Bostonians arranged themselves in and out of the Old South Meeting House. No word as of yet from Hutchinson and the ship owners. Josiah Quincy (member of the Committee of Correspondence) spoke of the peoples’ resolve and popular acclamations of willing to gives their lives. Others spoke in similar tones to the attendees. Finally, around 7PM, they receive word that the ships must unload the tea.
Samuel Adams stands and says the words “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country,” In the back of the room and outside in the street, the Sons of Liberty- reacted to that remark by moving swiftly to Griffin’s Wharf and board the three tea ships Dartmouth, Eleanor, and Beaver. The men, some dressed as Mohawk Indians, extracted the tea from the cargo holds and disperse the leaves into the waters of the harbor. They were given strict orders not to do any damage or hurt any of the crew members of the three ships. Men were posted in small boats preventing anyone from taking the tea. The Caption of the Beaver, Hezekiah Coffin, turned over the keys to the storage holds and encouraged his men to participate in “Tea Party.” Forty-sic tons of tea worth approximately $2 million in today’s money ended up in the Harbor.
The British government’s response to the “Tea Party” was the passing of what became known as The Intolerable Acts which included the closing of Boston Harbor. This helped further unify the colonies and led our nation’s independence.
I highly recommend a visit to the Tea Party Museum located on Congress St and close to the location of the Tea Party. The museum has two replicas of the ships-the Beaver and Eleanor, reenactors with attendee involvement and a multi-media presentation that brings history alive. Among the museum’s collection is an original tea chest recovered from the event. Their website: https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/
In 2018, I had the opportunity to attend the Tea Party Reenactment with media credentials. A link to the video of the event:
In 1874, Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote a poem entitled “A Ballad of the Boston Tea Party” A portion of that poem is found at an historic plaque at the site of the original location of the Tea Party on Boston’s Atlantic Ave.
Hanukkah: Festival of Lights, Rededication of Second Temple c.164 BC – American Minute with Biill Federer
LISTEN (text to speech)
The origin of lights at this season can be traced back to the Jewish Festival of Lights, or Feast of the Dedication, in Hebrew called “Hanukkah.”
Solomon’s week-long dedication of the First Temple began on the 1st day of the Hebrew month Tishri, in the 10th century B.C., ending on the 8th day of Tishrei. First Kings 8; Second Chronicles 7.
The Babylonians destroyed the First Temple on the 9th day of the month of Av, circa 587 B.C.
Jews were taken away from Jerusalem and held captive in Babylon, 597-581 B.C.
The prophet Jeremiah wrote in chapter 25:
“And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord.”
And Jeremiah wrote in chapter 29:
“For thus saith the Lord, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.”
The prophet Daniel read Jeremiah’s prophecy and wrote in chapter 9:
“In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.”
In 539 B.C., Cyrus of Persia captured Babylon, the ancient world’s largest city. Shortly after, Cyrus let Jews return to Jerusalem after 70 years of captivity.
The Book of Ezra, chapter 6, recorded how Jews built the Second Temple and dedicated it circa 516 B.C.
Around 334 B.C., Alexander the Great invaded from the west and speedily conquered the Medo-Persian Empire.
The prophet Daniel foretold in chapter 8:
“The male goat was coming from the west over the surface of the whole earth without touching the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes.
He came up to the ram that had the two horns, which I had seen standing in front of the canal, and rushed at him in his mighty wrath … and he struck the ram and shattered his two horns.”
At the height of his power, Alexander the Great suddenly died and his four generals divided up his empire.
Daniel had foretold:
“The male goat magnified himself exceedingly. But as soon as he was mighty, the large horn was broken; and in its place there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.”
The common understanding is that Alexander’s Empire, after numerous “Diadochi” battles, was divided up thus:
- Lysimachus ruled Thrace & Asia Minor;
- Cassander ruled Macedonia and Greece;
- Ptolemy ruled Egypt and into the Middle East;
- Seleucus ruled the rest of the Middle East, Syria, Babylon, Persia, and parts of India, collectively known as the “Seleucid Empire.”
Around 167 B.C., out of the Seleucid Empire, there arose an aggressive king, Antiochus the Fourth Epiphanes.
Daniel wrote further:
“Out of one of them came forth a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land.”
Best-selling author Joel Richardson presents the thought, that with modern-day Iran threatening Israel, there may yet be a future element to Daniel’s prophecy: “Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end.”
Antiochus attacked Jerusalem, as reported in 2nd Book of Maccabees 5:11-14:
“The king … thought that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses.
… There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants …
In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery.”
The prophet Daniel foretold in chapter 11:22-27:
“While returning to his land with great riches, his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant … and return in rage against the holy covenant, and do damage …
And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation.”
Antiochus the Fourth Epiphanes tried to force the Jews to abandon their beliefs and adopt the Greek culture, as recorded in 2 Maccabees 5:11-14:
“Not long after this the king sent an Athenian senator to force the Jews to abandon the customs of their ancestors and live no longer by the laws of God; also to profane the temple in Jerusalem and dedicate it to Olympian Zeus …
They also brought into the temple things that were forbidden, so that the altar was covered with abominable offerings prohibited by the laws …
A man could not keep the sabbath or celebrate the traditional feasts, nor even admit that he was a Jew …
… Women … arrested for having circumcised their children were publicly paraded about the city with their babies hanging at their breasts and then thrown down from the top of the city wall …
Others, who had assembled in nearby caves to observe the sabbath in secret, were betrayed … and all burned to death.”
Though they were persecuted, Daniel prophesied:
“But the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits.”
Around 167 B.C., Mattathias and his sons began the Maccabean Revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes. Judas Maccabaeus was finally successful in driving the enemy out circa 164 B.C.
When the Second Temple was cleansed of all pagan defilement, a week long re-dedication began on the 25th day of Kislev, circa 164 B.C.
There was a problem — there was only found enough holy olive oil to light the golden lamp stand – the menorah, for one day, and it would take a week before more could be made.
The decision was made to relight it anyway, and miraculously, the light burned for eight days.
This is celebrated annually as the Feast of Dedication, also known as the Festival of Lights, or HANUKKAH, which is the Hebrew word for “dedication.”
Flavius Josephus wrote in the Jewish Antiquities (12.7.6-7 316-325) that circa 164 BC:
“The generals of Antiochus’ armies having been defeated …
Judah Maccabee assembled the people and told them that after the many victories which God had given them they ought to go up to Jerusalem and purify the Temple …
But when he with the whole multitude came to Jerusalem and found he Temple deserted, its gates burned down, and plants growing in the Temple of their own accord because of the desolation, he and those with him began to lament …”
Josephus continued:
“He had carefully purged it he brought in new vessels — the menorah, the table and the incense altar, which were made of gold …
… And on the 25th day of the month Kislev, which the Macedonians call Apellaios, they lighted the lights that were on the menorah, and offered incense upon the altar, and laid the loaves upon the table, and offered whole burnt offerings upon the new altar.
As it happened, these things took place on the very same day on which, three years before, the divine worship had been reduced to an impure and profane form of worship;
for the Temple had remained desolate for three years after being made so by Antiochus …”
Josephus concluded:
“And so Judah and his fellow citizens celebrated the festival of the restoration of the sacrifices of the Temple for eight days …
They honored God, and delighted themselves with psalms of praise and the playing of harps.
Indeed, they were so very glad at the revival of their customs and, after so long a time, having unexpectedly regained their right to worship, that they made it a law for their posterity that they should keep a festival celebrating the restoration of their Temple worship for eight days.”
The New Testament Book of John, chapter 10:22-23, recorded that even Jesus observed the Feast of Dedication:
“At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon.
The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, ‘How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.'”
The many centuries of Hanukkah candles being lit during the winter might have been an inspiration for the Christian tradition of putting lights in tree branches to depict the sky above Bethlehem.
Various U.S. Presidents acknowledged Hanukkah:
Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote to Samuel I. Rosenman, President of the Jewish Education Committee in New York, December 16, 1940:
“Dear Sam, Please convey my best wishes to your co-workers in the Jewish Education Committee of New York, at the annual Hanukkah Dinner …
Our modern democratic way of life has its deepest roots in our great common religious tradition, which for ages past has taught to civilized mankind the dignity of the human being, his equality before God, and his responsibility in the making of a better and fairer world …
The world – is – … engaged in a great spiritual struggle to test whether that ancient wisdom is to endure, or whether … some few men shall dominate multitudes of others and dictate to them their thinking, their religion, their living …
We need the sustaining, buttressing aid of those great ethical religious teachings which are the heritage of our modern civilization.
For ‘not upon strength nor upon power, but upon the spirit of God’ shall our democracy be founded.”
In 1951, President Harry S. Truman received a presentation of a Hanukkah menorah from Israel’s Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion.
On December 17, 1979, President Jimmy Carter was the first President to participate in Hanukkah. He walked from the White House to Lafayette Park to light the National Menorah erected by the American Friends of Lubavitch.
Carter commented:
“It’s a real honor for me to come from the White House here to this ceremony celebrating the commencement of Chanukah, last night, the Feast of Lights.
As many of you know, the season of Chanukah commemorates the victory of religious freedom …
At the commencement of the celebration of this annual event, this season of thanksgiving and closeness to God, there was a miracle within which the candle which was supposed to only burn a short time burned for 8 days and nights …
This miracle showed that God meets our needs. If we depend on Him, He will meet our needs. This also shows that there is a need to celebrate courage and to remember that hope in one’s breast need never die …
… The first candle that I lit, the shammes candle, has given its light now in this glass cage to five other candles.
It has not itself been diminished. It shows that when we give life and love to others, the life and love in our own hearts is not diminished … It grows the more we share it.
So, tonight we pray that our closeness to God, our memory of these fine commitments of human beings down through the ages will strengthen our desires to share our life and our love …
I’m very grateful that this beautiful menorah has been dedicated for the commemoration of the season of Chanukah, and I’m very grateful as President to be partaking in this commemoration of a season when human beings are drawn closer to God and, in that spirit, have confidence that the future will bring us a better life with God and with one another.”
President Ronald Reagan stated in his Hanukkah Message, 1983:
“Whether we be Americans or Israelis, we are all children of Abraham, children of the same God. The bonds between our two peoples are growing stronger, and they must not and will never be broken.
President George H.W. Bush stated in his Hanukkah Message, 1991:
“When Judah Maccabee and his followers prepared to rededicate the Temple in Jerusalem, they found … only enough oil to light the menorah for one night. Miraculously, it lasted eight.”
In 1996, the U.S. Postal Service unveiled the first stamp commemorating Hanukkah.
President Bill Clinton stated in his Hanukkah Message, 1997:
“From the days of the ancient Maccabees down to our present time, tyrants have sought to deny people the free expression of their faith and the right to live according to their own conscience and convictions …
Hanukkah symbolizes the heroic struggle of all who seek to defeat such oppression and the miracles that come to those full of faith and courage.
This holiday holds special meaning for us in America, where freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of our democracy.
The coming year will mark the 50th anniversary of the State of Israel, where the story of the first Hanukkah took place so many centuries ago …
May the candles of the menorah light our way to a true and lasting peace for the people of the Middle East.”
President George W. Bush remarked lighting the Hanukkah Menorah in the White House, December 10, 2001:
“Tonight, for the first time in American history, the Hanukkah menorah will be lit at the White House residence … The magnificent menorah before us was crafted over a century ago in the city of Lvov …
The Jews of Lvov fell victim to the horror of the Nazi Holocaust, but their great menorah survived. And as God promised Abraham, the people of Israel still live …
We’re reminded of the ancient story of Israel’s courage and of the power of faith to make the darkness bright.
We can see the heroic spirit of the Maccabees lives on in Israel today, and we trust that a better day is coming, when this Festival of Freedom will be celebrated in a world free from terror.”
President Donald J. Trump remarked on Hanukkah, December 12, 2017:
“The miracle of Hanukkah began more than 2,000 years ago, when the practice of Judaism was made punishable by death. A small band of Jewish patriots rose up and reclaimed their Jewish identity by vanquishing a mighty army.
In their pursuit to rededicate their holy temple, the Jewish heroes found only enough oil to light the temple’s menorah for one night. However, a miracle occurred and with God’s grace the oil lasted for eight days.
On this holiday, we are proud to stand with the Jewish people who shine as a light to all nations. We also stand with the people of Israel, the Jewish State, which has itself a miraculous history of overcoming the tallest of odds.
We hope that those observing the holiday here, in Israel, and around the world have a wonderful holiday.”
—
American Minute is a registered trademark of William J. Federer. Permission granted to forward, reprint, or duplicate.
Reposted with permission from American Minute
U.S. Supreme Court Frees Christmas From the “Lemon Test” by Liberty Counsel
The following is a news release from Liberty Counsel. We at Camp Constitution are honored and humbled that God choose us to take a role in the undoing of “The Lemon Test” and brough the incredible men and women of Liberty Counsel http://lc.org/flag into our lives
“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.” 1 Corinthians 1:27
ORLANDO, FL – The return of the Christmas season prompts a return of the annual scrutiny of Christmas expressions in the public square. For years, opponents to religious expression and activist courts have fought using the U.S. Supreme Court created “Lemon Test” to remove the Ten Commandments, crosses, Nativity scenes, and other religious symbols and displays from public property. However, the “Lemon Test” had been inconsistently applied through the years and the High Court recently abandoned it in favor of the original and historical textual meanings of the Constitution. The ruling changed the legal landscape in America where the public and private sector cannot censor religious expression.
The “Lemon Test” Is Dead
The “Lemon Test” was a three-part test developed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 (Lemon v. Kurtzman) to evaluate if government actions would favor one religion over another and violate the Establishment Clause. The test was designed to be a universal way to resolve cases arising under the First Amendment Establishment Clause, and whether they involved government expression of religious speech, such as legislative prayer, public funding that flows to religious groups, religious displays, etc.
For 51 years, the “Lemon Test” had been used by courts to distort the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause to remove religious symbols and displays from the public square. However, all that changed in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the “Lemon Test” over a series of rulings favoring a new “test” of “historical practices and understandings” to determine the extent of religious expression in the public square.
On May 2, 2022, Liberty Counsel received a 9-0 decision by the U.S Supreme Court in Shurtleff v. City of Boston which struck down censorship of Christian viewpoints within the public forum the City of Boston had created for flag raisings. The High Court unanimously ruled that the City of Boston violated the Constitution by censoring a private flag in a public forum open to “all applicants” merely because the application referred to it as a “Christian flag.” The High Court soundly rejected Boston’s use of the “Lemon Test” to justify censoring Christian viewpoints in public.
The Shurtleff case paved the way for a later decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, where Liberty Counsel argued in an amicus brief that the school could not suppress Coach Joe Kennedy’s private religious speech to silently pray on the football field after games. On June 27, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Coach Kennedy. Relying on both the First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the High Court ruled that the Bremerton School District violated Coach Kennedy’s constitutional rights by firing him for prayer on the football field after games. In the ruling, the High Court buried the court-made “Lemon Test,” citing Liberty Counsel’s decision in Shurtleff involving the Christian flag.
In place of the “Lemon Test,” the High Court instituted a new “test” of “historical practices and understandings” meant to resolve constitutional conflicts through the original meanings of the Constitution’s text and common historical practices.
Today, the law is clear. The First Amendment does not permit any city, state, or the federal government to eliminate religious viewpoints regarding a federally and state recognized holiday.
Christmas Expression in Public Is Allowed
Liberty Counsel has addressed and overturned hundreds of attempts to censor Christmas in the private and public sector. These instances include:
- Retracting unconstitutional bans on Christmas holiday symbols, decorations, and expressions for city employees within public buildings.
- Lifting bans on public school students wearing red and green colors and acknowledging Christ’s birth in their classrooms.
- Restoring Nativity scenes that had been banned from public property.
- Returning Christmas carols to seniors who were silenced in their nursing homes.
With the death of the “Lemon Test,” a multitude of questions still arise about whether it is legal to include Christmas symbols, decorations, and expressions in public to celebrate the season.
Nativity scenes that are publicly sponsored and displayed on public property are constitutional under the “history and traditions” test now recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. These displays can, but are not required to, include a secular symbol of the holiday. Privately sponsored Nativity scenes or religious symbols are also permissible on public property that has been opened to the public for expressive activity. No secular symbol is necessary.
In government spaces, the First Amendment and Free Exercise Clause protects Christmas holiday symbols, decorations, and expressions by employees.
As for public schools, they are not religion-free zones that must be devoid of Christmas expression. Classroom discussion of the religious aspects of the holidays is permissible. A holiday display in a classroom may include a Nativity scene or other religious imagery. Public school music teachers have the freedom to include both religious and secular Christmas songs in their musical programs. A choral performance may include religious songs and does not have to contain an equal number of religious and secular music. If the students select their own songs independent of the direction of school officials, then there is no requirement that the songs include secular songs.
Students may distribute religious Christmas cards to their classmates during noninstructional time, before or after school or between classes. If the students are not required to dress in uniform, then they may wear clothing with religious words or symbols or don religious jewelry.
Recently, Liberty Counsel sent demand letters to the City of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin as well as Holt Public School District in Michigan demanding they rescind their unconstitutional bans on Christmas holiday symbols, decorations, and expression within public buildings.
While the City of Wauwatosa quickly backpedaled and rescinded their ban, they originally advised for decorations to be “neutral” without “favoring any particular belief system.” As for Holt Public Schools, it has currently issued directives focused on “Decentering Christmas” and “Racial Justice” that not only prohibits the celebration of the Christmas holiday through symbols, decorations, and expression, but promotes hostility on the basis of religion and race.
Christmas holiday bans such as these violate the U.S. Constitution and the Free Speech and Exercise Clauses by showing hostility toward Christianity. It does not matter what the motive might be, the First Amendment does not permit government entities to eliminate the traditional elements, symbols, or expression of a federally and state recognized holiday such as Christmas.
Learn more in Liberty Counsel’s legal memorandum detailing how courts and our Constitution preserve the freedom to celebrate Christmas and religious holidays.
As a result of unconstitutional censorship of religious holidays, Liberty Counsel launched its annual Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign in 2003 designed to educate and, when necessary, litigate to ensure religious viewpoints are not censored from Christmas and holiday themes. In addition, the campaign also provides a Naughty and Nice List that catalogs some of the stores that are censoring Christmas and some that are publicly celebrating it.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The First Amendment protects religious viewpoints from being censored by the government. Religious symbols and displays consistent with the Christmas holiday season are appropriate and constitutional on public property, including in public schools. Christmas is a recognized federal and state holiday. It makes no sense to pretend it does not exist or that the holiday should be stripped of Christian symbols and themes.”
Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.
TAKE ACTION
Post Office Box 540774
Orlando, FL 32854
(407) 875-1776
Contact: COVID Vax & LEGAL HELP
Contact: Other Issue/Question
SIGN UP TO STAY INFORMED!
Liberty Counsel is a 501(c)(3), tax-exempt nonprofit organization. Contributions are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.
View our Privacy Policy.
©Copyright 1995 – present. All Rights Reserved.
The Incredible Untold Story behind the Attack on Pearl Harbour
To listen to an audio presentation of this lecture, click here: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=123211023337674
To listen to a radio interview on this subject, click here.
To view a video of this presentation, click here: https://vimeo.com/245379712As my history teacher, Mr Rees-Davies, MP, in Rhodesia cautioned us: “Beware the victor’s version of history!” The story of what led up to the Japanese attack on the US Navy at Pearl Harbour is both fascinating and surprising.
To listen to a radio interview on this subject, click here.
To view a video of this presentation, click here: https://vimeo.com/245379712As my history teacher, Mr Rees-Davies, MP, in Rhodesia cautioned us: “Beware the victor’s version of history!” The story of what led up to the Japanese attack on the US Navy at Pearl Harbour is both fascinating and surprising.
Battle of Taranto
On the night of 11 to 12 November 1940, British Naval forces under Admiral Andrew Cunningham, including Aircraft Carrier HMS Illustrious, launched Fairey Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers in the Mediterranean Sea to attack the Regia Marina Battle Fleet at anchor in the harbour of Taranto. Despite the shallow depth of the water, the aerial torpedoes proved devastatingly effective, crippling the Italian Navy, which lost half of its capital ships in one night.
Naval Air Power
The Royal Navy raid on Taranto Bay marked the ascendency of air power over sea power. The Fleet Air Arm proved to be the Navy’s most devastating weapon.
Trained by the Royal Navy
As the Imperial Japanese Navy had initially been trained by the Royal Navy and studied the Royal Navy’s tactics and strategies most carefully, it should have been obvious that the Imperial Japanese Navy, the third most powerful Navy in the world in 1941, with 10 Fleet carriers, would begin practicing with torpedo bombers and carefully evaluate the possibility of them being used against the American Pacific Fleet based in Pearl Harbour. Japan had the largest and most modern carrier Fleet in the world in 1941. By comparison the USA had 7 aircraft carriers (only 3 of which operated in the Pacific) and Britain had 8 aircraft carriers (of which only one operated in the Indian and Pacific Oceans).
The Danger of Torpedo Attack
The claim that no one could have anticipated torpedo attacks in the shallow waters of a harbour before 7 December 1941, is false. The British had proved that torpedoes could be effective in their attack on the Italian Navy at Taranto, 11 November 1940. The Royal Navy used Swordfish Bi-planes to deliver the torpedoes. The US Navy had discussed this new threat in a June 1941 Memorandum. Torpedo nets were considered to be installed in Pearl Harbour as a precautionary measure.
Overruled by Politicians in Washington D.C.
Admiral Kimmel and his staff testified that the decision not to install torpedo nets and booms had been made by the Navy Department in Washington DC, not in Hawaii.
Classified Documents Denied to the Public
There are many documents relating to Pearl Harbour which are still classified by the United States government and have not yet been made public. Many of the documents were destroyed during the war. Some of the public records of the United Kingdom containing Churchill’s “Most Secret” war time intelligence briefs, were marked as “closed for 75 years”, including the sections dealing with events from November 1941 through March 1942.
Was the Japanese Raid on Pearl Harbour Unprecedented?
Mers-El-Kébir
Seventeen months before Pearl Harbour, the British Royal Navy attacked the French Fleet at anchor on the coast of French Algeria. The Battle of Mers-el-Kébir on 3 July 1940, resulted in the deaths of 1,297 French servicemen, the sinking of a French battleship and the damaging of 5 other ships. The combined air and sea attack was carried out against Britain’s official ally – France.
Attacking an Ally
The attack remains controversial and created much hostility between France and Britain. Britain argued that “the times were desperate; invasion seemed imminent; and the British government simply could not afford to risk Germany seizing control of the French Fleet… the prominent British motive was thus dire necessity and self-preservation.” However, the French insisted that, as their terms of surrender with Germany did not require them handing over their Fleet, which was still in French controlled territory, the British action was treacherous.
Swift and Surprising Action
French ships that were in Alexandria and believed that they were allies of Britain were shocked to be blockaded, boarded and seized by the Royal Navy at the same time. Also, on 3 July, French ships in Plymouth and Portsmouth, England, were boarded and captured. This included the French submarine, Surcouf (the largest submarine in the world at that time), four other submarines, the battleships Paris and Courbet, destroyers Triomphant and Leopard. Some officers and sailors were killed in the struggles. These attacks were justified by the British strategy of Copenhagening the Fleet.
Copenhagening the Fleet
Admiral Horatio Nelson’s famous battle of Copenhagen on 2 April 1801 was a clear inspiration for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, 1941. Although Denmark was officially neutral during the Napoleonic Wars, Britain feared that her Navy may be seized by the French, if Denmark fell to the French.
Targeting Neutrals
The Battle of Copenhagen was a result of multiple failures of diplomacy. With Britain enforcing a strict blockade of France and any country trading with France, even neutral nations, such as Denmark, Sweden and Prussia, were regarded as legitimate targets.
The Battle of Copenhagen
Admiral Sir Hyde Parker and Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson led the attack on the Danish capital, Copenhagen. The British attack, during which Admiral Nelson famously placed his telescope to his blind eye ignoring a command to withdraw, was, from the British perspective, spectacularly successful. 1,600 Danish soldiers and sailors were killed, or wounded and most of the Danish Navy either sunk, severely damaged, or captured.
The Second Battle of Copenhagen
Although ostensibly neutral, Denmark was again attacked by the Royal Navy 16 August – 5 September 1807, when the Royal Navy bombarded Copenhagen, seized the Danish Fleet “as a precaution” in case Denmark did choose to join the French. 3,000 soldiers and civilians, including 195 children, in Copenhagen died as a result of the bombardment. As the majority of the Danish Army was at the Southern border to protect against a possible attack from the French, this second assault on a neutral country was a scandal at the time.
Ignoring Historic Precedents
Knowing that the Imperial Japanese Navy was modelled on the Royal Navy, these famous battles, strategies and tactics of Copenhagening the Fleets of even neutral countries where a potential threat was perceived, including against Britain’s French allies and most tellingly at the Battle of Taranto where aircraft launched from aircraft carriers using torpedoes had crippled a battle Fleet, should have been taken into consideration.
Deception by Entertainment
As modern American films such as Tora! Tora! Tora! and Pearl Harbour tend to ignore these historic precedents and pretend that the attack on Pearl Harbour was both “unprecedented” and “unexpected” and “the first surprise attack by aircraft on ships,” generations have been deceived into thinking that Pearl Harbour was a treacherous, unexpected and unprecedented attack “A day that will live in infamy!”
“Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted… Now all these things happened to them as examples and they were written for our admonition…” 1 Corinthians 10:6-11
Desperately Seeking War
William Henry Chamberlin in America’s Second Crusade (1950) wrote: “It is scarcely possible, in the light of this and many other known facts, to avoid the conclusion that the Roosevelt Administration sought the war which began at Pearl Harbour. The steps which made armed conflict inevitable would take months before the conflict broke out.” (Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoovers Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath).
Failing to Give US Servicemen a Fighting Chance
General Albert C. Wedemeyer is quoted by Herbert Hoover in Freedom Betrayed as stating: “When on, December 6, our intercepts told us that the Japanese were going to attack somewhere the very next day, whether in the Central Pacific, or to the South in the Philippines and Dutch East Indies, the president of the United States, as Commander in Chief of our Military Forces… could have gone on the radio and broadcast to the wide world that he had irrefutable evidence of an immediate Japanese intention to strike. This would have alerted everybody from Singapore to Pearl Harbour. Even though inadequate in some cases to defend effectively, nevertheless, our forces would have been able to take a toll, which would have blunted the Japanese attack. In Hawaii, the capital ships might have been moved out of the congested harbour to sea, where Admiral Kimmel at least had the foresight to keep the far more vital aircraft carriers. Furthermore, our Carrier taskforce in the mid-Pacific might have attacked the Japanese task force when its planes were aloft. There are many possibilities which could have given our men a fighting chance.”
Blind Service to Stalin and the Soviet Union
“Roosevelt ignored the whole communist infiltration into his administration. Much of it was to be exposed before his death. But of more importance, he ignored the whole international purpose of communism and its morals in international relations. Its purposes and methods had been blatantly stated to the world ever since 1917 and its statements in books were widely distributed in the United States. Roosevelt was not a communist. His leanings towards Stalin and blindness to communistic activities arose partly from his own Leftist-leaning and partly from the usefulness of the communists in support of his administration politically throughout his 13 years in office.”
Co-operating with Communism
“His leanings towards Stalin and the communist began with the recognition of the Soviet Union immediately upon taking his office in 1933… During 15 years prior to the recognition, Democratic and Republican administrations alike had barred any relations with a country which had returned huge numbers of mankind to slavery and was constantly conspiring against the welfare of other peoples. By recognition, Roosevelt gave the Soviet Union certain respectability in the family of nations, but also of importance. By that act, he had opened the door to communist penetration and conspiracies in the United States.” “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.” Proverbs 17:15
A Madman’s Desire to Get US into War
In Herbert Hoover’s Freedom Betrayed, General Douglas McArthur’s views are reported that: “the whole Japanese war was a madman’s desire to get us into war.” McArthur was convinced that the “Financial sanctions in July 1941 were not only provocative but that Japan was bound to fight even if it were suicide, unless they could be removed, as the sanctions carried every penalty of war except killing and destruction and no nation of dignity would take them for long.”
An Unnecessary War
McArthur said that: “Roosevelt could have made peace with Konoye in September 1941 and could have obtained all of the American objectives in the Pacific and the freedom of China and probably Manchuria. Konoye was authorized by the Emperor to agree to complete withdrawal.”
Callous Indifference to the American Army Beleaguered in the Philippines
McArthur was bitter about: “Roosevelt’s starvation of supplies to him at a time when the whole fate of the South Pacific and their allies in Asia was at stake.” “Roosevelt had shown his vindictiveness in many ways.”
The Truth about Pearl Harbour
In September 1944, John Flynn, a member of the America First Committee, published The Truth about Pearl Harbour:
Provoking Japan to Get America into the War
Rear Admiral Frank Beatty, who at the time of the Pearl Harbour attack was an aide to the Secretary of the Navy, Frank Knox, testified: “Prior to 7 December, it was evident even to me… that we were pushing Japan into a corner. I believe that it was the desire of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill that we get into the war, as they felt their allies could not win without us and all our efforts to cause the Germans to declare war on us had failed. The conditions we imposed upon Japan were so severe that we knew the nation could not accept them. We were forcing her so severely that we could have known that she would react towards the United States. All her preparations in a military way – and we knew their overall import – pointed that way.”
“Worth the Price”
Jonathan Daniels, Roosevelt’s administrative assistant at that time of Pearl Harbour, presented an eye-witness viewpoint: “The blow was heavier than he had hoped it would necessarily be… But the risks paid off; even the loss was worth the price…” (“1941: Pearl Harbour Sunday: The End of an Era”).
To Save the Soviet Union from Collapse in Europe
In Day of Deceit, by Robert Stinnett, a memorandum prepared by Commander McCollun stated that a memorandum issued in the immediate pre-war period declared that only a direct attack on US interests would sway the American public, or Congress, to favour direct involvement in the European war. Anderson and Secretary Knox, offered eight specific plans to aggrieve the Japanese Empire “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt active war, so much the better.” The McCollun memo of 7 October 1940, remained classified until 1994.
Reckless and Irresponsible
Admiral James Richardson was fired by President Roosevelt for complaining about the president’s order to station the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbour. Admiral Richardson blamed the president for the “initial defeats in the Pacific” as “direct, real and personal.” Richardson believed that stationing the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbour made the ships “extremely vulnerable to attack” and provided “a poor and nonstrategic defence.”
A Travesty of History
“No reasonably informed person can now believe that Japan made a villainous unexpected attack on the United States. An attack was not only fully expected, but was actually desired. It is beyond doubt that President Roosevelt wanted to get his country into the war, but for political reasons, was most anxious to ensure that the first act of hostility came from the other side; for which reason he caused increasing pressure to be put on the Japanese, to a point that no self-respecting nation could endure without resort to arms. Japan was meant, by the American President, to attack the United States. As Mr Oliver Lyttelton, then British Minister of Production, said in 1944: ‘Japan was provoked into attacking America’s Pearl Harbour. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war’.” – British Historian Captain Russell Grenfell Main Fleet to Singapore as quoted by President Herbert Hoover in Freedom Betrayed.
Dereliction of Duty
Captain L.F. Safford, US Navy, in charge of the Communications Security Section of Naval Communications in Washington, testified before the Admiral Hart Board that: “On 4 December 1941, we received definite information from two independent sources that Japan would attack the United States and Britain… at 9pm Washington time, 6 December 1941, we received positive information that Japan would declare war against the United States at a time to be specified thereafter. This information was positive and unmistakable and was made available to Military Intelligence virtually at the moment of its decoding. Finally at 10:15am Washington time, 7 December 1941, we received positive information from Signal Intelligence Service, War Department, that the Japanese Declaration of War would be presented to the Secretary of State at 1 pm, Washington time that date; when it was 1pm in Washington, it would be day break in Hawaii and approximately midnight in the Philippines, which indicated a surprise air raid in Pearl Harbour in about three hours. President Roosevelt had ample time to broadcast a warning.”
Criminal Negligence
An Army Enquiry conducted July to October 1944, condemned negligence by General Marshall and other senior officers for having prior knowledge of the attacks from the intercepts and for not having alerted the Military Commander at Pearl Harbour. Congress was not satisfied with the Military investigations and reports and from November 1945 to May 1946, the Congressional Pearl Harbour Investigation, a Minority Report by Senate Members of the Committee condemned the endeavour to “throw as soft a light as possible on Washington.”
Attempted Cover-Ups
“The Roberts Commission Report was so hasty, inconclusive and incomplete. Some witnesses were examined under oath, others were not. Much testimony was not even recorded… several records were missing and most inadequate explanations were supplied… Army and Navy information indicated growing imminence of war was delivered to the highest authorities… including the President. The fatal error of Washington was to undertake a world campaign and world responsibilities without first making provision for the security of the United States, which was their prime constitutional obligation. High Washington authorities did not communicate to Admiral Kimmel and General Short adequate information of diplomatic negotiations and of intercepted diplomatic intelligence, which, if communicated with them, would have informed them of the imminent menace of a Japanese attack in time for them to fully alert and prepare the defence of Pearl Harbour… the failure to perform the responsibilities indispensably essential to the defence of Pearl Harbour rest upon Franklin D. Roosevelt, Henry L. Stimson, Frank Knox and George C. Marshall…” (Freedom Betrayed)
Dragging a Reluctant America into War
George Morgenstern in his book, Pearl Harbour: The Story of the Secret War, published in 1947, wrote: “With absolute knowledge of war, they refused to communicate that knowledge clearly, unequivocally and in time, to the people in the field, upon whom the blow would fall… Pearl Harbour provided the American War party with the means of escaping dependence on a hesitant Congress in taking a reluctant people into war… Pearl Harbour was the first action of the Acknowledged War and the last battle of a Secret War, upon which the administration had long since embarked.
The Secret War of Deception and Propaganda
“The Secret War was waged against nations which the leadership of this country had chosen as enemies’ months before they became formal enemies, by declaration of war. It was waged also by psychological means by propaganda and deception against the American people… the people were told that acts which were equivalent to war were intended to keep the nation out of war. Constitutional processes existed only to be circumvented. Until finally the war making power of Congress was reduced to the act of ratifying an accomplished fact.”
Rejecting Every Overture for Peace
Herbert Hoover declares in his book Freedom Betrayed: “It can never be forgotten that three times during 1941, Japan made overtures for peace negotiation. America never made one unless a futile proposal to the Emperor the day before Pearl Harbour could be called peace. A peace could have been made in the Pacific that would have saved China from ravishment and would have protected the American Pacific flank. If Roosevelt was still determined to carry on his undeclared war with Germany, until it provoked reprisals, that Pacific protection was the only sane course. It would have limited our engagement in any case to the European theatre. As a result of this policy – an undeclared war upon Japan – we suffered the greatest military defeat in our history – with immeasurable consequences.
Fanning the Flames of Hate by a Mass of Lies
“Public opinion was overwhelmingly against our being involved in the war up to the day of Pearl Harbour… America came into World War One 33 months after its outbreak. She came into World War Two 27 months after it started. The processes and the months of lag were the same: the appeal to crusade for freedom, for independence of nations, for lasting peace; the same pictures of atrocities; the fanning of hate and above all, the mass of lies and stimulation of fear of invasion – they were identical. But in World War Two the people believed much less of it and they believed much more that they were being deliberately pushed into the war. They dimly recognised that they were being ground in the mills of power politics and the personal ambitions of men.”
Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt’s War
“The First World War had been conducted in the Allied side in the name of ‘the peoples’. This war was in the name of Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt. At times the whole political and military scene seemed their personal property – as it was.” (Herbert Hoover, Freedom Betrayed). “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption …” 2 Peter 2:19
Many Recognised They Were Being Forced and Deceived into War
“In the first World War, our sons marched to war with flowers in their rifles. Bands and cheering people were on every platform. There were no bands, no flowers and no cheers on the railway platforms to World War Two. There was little singing of war ballades by soldiers or civilians, except at the urging of paid conductors of propaganda. The station platforms were stages for grieving and tears. The promises, the speeches, the propaganda filled the air as in World War One, but this time the people received it grimly and with little believing.” – Herbert Hoover.
Double Standards
President Herbert Hoover in Freedom Betrayed documents: “Roosevelt’s contemptuous refusal of Prime Minister Konoe’s proposals for peace in the Pacific of September, 1941 was a lost opportunity. The acceptance of these proposals was prayerfully urged by both the American and British Ambassadors in Japan. The terms Konoye proposed would have accomplished every American purpose except possibly the return of Manchuria – and even this was thrown open to discussion. The cynic will recall that Roosevelt was willing to provoke a great war on his flank over this remote question and then gave Manchuria to Communist Russia.”
The Threat of Communism
Herbert Hoover documents in Freedom Betrayed that American Military officials strongly urged FDR to accept the Three Months’ Stand-Still Agreement offered by the Emperor of Japan in November 1941. Japan was alarmed at the threat of the Soviet Union and a 90-days delay could have kept war out of the Pacific. Secretary of War, Stimson, in his Diary, disclosed that Roosevelt and his officials were seeking for a method to stimulate an overt act of aggression from the Japanese.
Betraying Asia to Communism
“Then, Secretary of State, Hull, issued his foolish ultimatum and we were defeated at Pearl Harbour. By Roosevelt insisting that Chinese Premiere Chiang Kai-shek include Mao Tse-Tung’s communists in a Coalition government and Roosevelt’s Secret Agreement at Yalta to betray Mongolia and Manchuria to Russia, future generations were betrayed. All of China was sacrificed to the communists in the years of President Truman – at the insistence of his Left-wing advisors and General Marshall. The Second World War ended with 450 Million Asiatic peoples betrayed under communist dictatorship.” (Freedom Betrayed). “It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, for a throne is established by righteousness.” Proverbs 16:12
The Only Beneficiary was Communism
Herbert Hoover in Freedom Betrayed declared: “I had warned the American people time and again against becoming involved. I stated repeatedly its only end would be to promote Communism over the earth; that we would impoverish the United States and the whole world. The situation of the world today is my vindication.” “… Should help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you.”
2 Chronicles 19:2
Christian Resistance
“Despite these physical losses and these moral political disasters and these international follies… Despite the drift to collectivism, despite degeneration in government, despite the demagogic intellectuals, despite the corruption in our government and the moral corruptions of our people, we still hold to Christianity, we still have the old ingenuity in our scientific and industrial progress.”
The Public-School Front
“We have 35 million children marching through our schools and 2.5 million in our institutions of higher learning…
Hope in the Homes
“The promise of a greater America abides in the millions of cottages throughout the land, where men and women are still resolute in freedom. In their hearts the spirit of America still lives. The boys and girls from those homes will someday throw off these disasters and frustrations and will re-create their America again.” “Hate evil, love good; establish justice in the gates.” Amos 5:15
Forewarned is Forearmed
In order to anticipate problems and threats in the future we need to study the past.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana.
“If we do not know our own history, we will simply have to endure all the same mistakes, sacrifices and absurdities all over again.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Truth does not fear investigation
“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32
In His service
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
| Frontline Fellowship News | Frontline – Behind Enemy Lines | ||
 |
 |
 |
Please pray for and support Give Send Go Frontline Fellowship Priority Projects: https://www.givesendgo.com/frontlinefellowship
Click here to see the Frontline News: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/67668888/frontline-fellowship-news-edition-1-of-2023
See also:
Mitsuo Fuchida – From Pearl Harbour to Calvary
Were Atomic Bombs Necessary to End World War Two?
The Assassination of General George S. Patton
The Weekly Sam: Moyers on Christian Reconstruction By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
It was nice to see so many familiar faces on prime-time
television — R. J. Rushdoony, Rev. Morecraft, Bob Thoburn, Arnie
and Barbara Simkus. And everyone looked good and sounded good.
Technically, it was a beautiful job — from the bucolic views of
Vallecito to the sunny Simkus kitchen. It showed people —
specifically, Christians — in the process of reconstructing America,
not just talking about it: writing books, building churches, teaching
children, getting involved in politics. But hovering over the
entire presentation was the question: are these people a danger to
democracy?
The questions Moyers posed Rush were the expected ones, the
difficult ones concerning the Bible’s references to capital offenses,
and Rush answered them forthrightly. The punishments called for in
the Bible were not necessarily those Rush preferred or advocated.
In any case, he made it qaite clear that he opposed coercion and
that a reconstructed America could only corne about when and if the
vast majority of people had voluntarily accepted the Bible as their
moral standard.
Moyers focused on the issue of democracy because that is the
liberal skewer on which all values are cooked. And that’s probably
why Moyers never adequately defined democracy, because in America
the word evokes aromas, feelings, and images but not much thought.
Moyers ignored the fact that the Founding Fathers warned us of the
perils. of democracy • it seems as if Rush were the first in
American history to cite the dangers of majority rule. And of course
virtually no time was given to showing what majorities can do to
minorities when not restrained by God’s law. After all, Hitler was
put into power by a majority of Germans voting under the most
democratic and permissive government the Germans had ever had, the
Weimar Republic.
Also, there was no one to correct Norman Geisler’s mis representations of Christian Reconstruction. The idea that Reconstructionists
can, or even want to, impose their rule over the United States against
the will of the majority is so preposterous as to be laughable.
Unfortunately, many people will believe Geisler or, at the least, use
Geisler’s words as justification for their wildest nightmares about
the religious right.
And so the major issue that was bandied about was the potential
use of coercion by civil government to impose the rule of “the
righteous.” Obviously, “the righteous” were referred to in the
pejorative sense: self-styled Biblical moralists who want to impose
their moral values on others. Yet, no mention was made of the coercion
liberals are presently using against Christian schools and home schoolers
in this tolerant, humanistic democracy. The stories of harassment,
prosecution and jailing of Christian parents have found no responsive
chord among the celebrants of pluralism and variant lifestyles .
Democracy, Moyers inferred, is a system of tolerance, in which
variant lifestyles and values systems live side by side in competitive
but brotherly harmony. Such a system might indeed be ideal if all
lifestyles were acceptable to God. But the Bible clearly tells us
what is permissible and what is not.
Not surprisingly, Gary North emerged as the heavy in this
debate, even though he refused to be taped or interviewed by Moyers.
Moyers simply quoted North at his worst, and that was enough to set
the skewer. spinning and the juices boiling.
Yet, on the whole, what emerged from the video was, I believe,
basically positive — all the criticism of Christian Reconstruction
notwithstanding. What emerged was an image of Christians in control
of themselves, leading productive lives, providing lifesaving spiritual
answers to a society in the throes of social, cultural, and moral
disintegration.
Yet, nothing can come of the movement if people are repelled by it.
And it obviously has repelled such moralists as Norman Geisler
But Rushdoony wrote in Intellectual in 1961,
“For Scripture, the godly man is the saved man, not the self-consciously
good man. It is not a contrast between moral and immoral but between
godly and ungodly, holy and wicked, and the moral man, as witness
the Pharisees, can epitomize ungodliness.”
What attracts people to Christian Reconstruction is its adherence
to Biblical principles, its reliance on God’s word as a guide to
living, its uncompromising stand on the vital moral issues of the day,
its strong support of family life, its advocacy of economic freedom,
its vision of Christian liberty, its hope for the future. It is a
movement of godly parents anxious to raise a new godly generation.
That is why Christian Reconstruction is particularly strong among
home schoolers.
Another positive point made by Moyers is that the Reconstruction
movement is attracting people from all denominations, from all
races. It is even attracting Jews. The scenes in the Atlanta
church gave the impression of enormous potential power to Reconstructionism when fired with charismatic energy.
Obviously , Moyers
viewed this potential development more with apprehension than joy. So the positive seemed to outweigh the negative in this
production. Even though this is not what Moyers may have intended.
Clearly, what we saw was Christian Reconstruction seen through the
eyes of a troubled liberal, sophisticated enough not to see modern
Calvinists as witch-burning bigots, but betraying his prejudices
by way of his focus. I came. away feeling that Moyers is of two
minds concerning Christian Reconstruction: he liked Rushdoony but
tended to believe Geisler. Which means there is hope for Moyers.
He may convert!
(This article was written in the mid 1990s.) For more of Sam’s work please visit his archive: https://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/
Joe Scarborough, Before He Became a Mouthpiece for the Deep State…
Joe Scarborough, as a freshman member of Congress, co-sponsored Ron Paul’s bill to get the United States out of the United Nations. So, it was no surprise that he would be invited to speak at a John Birch Society (JBS) meeting. Joe spoke at a February 1996 JBS Council Dinner and was enthusiastically received by the attendees. In his introductory remarks, Joe referred to a JBS Council member and his wife as close friends and praised the work of the JBS.
But something changed. Today, he is little more than a mouthpiece for the Establishment he once opposed. He even married the daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was one of the Deep State’s top operatives. He recently ranted on his Morning Joe Show that if Trump gets reelected Trump will execute his enemies and made a nauseating panegyric to Joe Biden.
A link to a downloadable audio of the speech: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/shurtleffhal/episodes/2023-03-29T16_16_44-07_00