The Weekly Sam: Colonial Education: Superior to Today’s Public Schools By Samuel Blumenfeld
When the Puritans arrived in the wilderness of New England, they set a high standard of
education for the colonists, and the rest of the English colonies followed suit so that
literacy was virtually universal. The need for biblical literacy was the driving force
behind education since it was religious freedom they sought in coming to the New World.
Their vision was of creating a truly Christian civilization in the wilderness.
With thoughts always of the future, the aim of the Puritan leadership was to establish and
sustain the religious foundations of the Commonwealth, which included the highly
democratic, Calvinistic form of church governance, Congregationalism. Thus, in
Massachusetts education was based more on a religious foundation than a secular one.
Because of the emphasis on education, Massachusetts gained a reputation for having the
best schools in the colonies. The Puritans founded Harvard College as a Calvinist
institution in 1636. But the other colonies were not far behind. All of the Protestant sects,
most of which were Calvinist in theology, placed high value on learning the languages of
theology: Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, as well as the secular subjects that were taught at
Oxford and Cambridge and at the Law schools.
Colleges were also founded in Virginia (1693), Connecticut (1701), New Jersey (1746
and 1766), New York (1754), Pennsylvania (1755), Rhode Island (1764), and New
Hampshire (1770). All were private colleges, and there were usually private academies in
the towns to prepare students for higher education.
We can get a good picture of the various forms of education available during the colonial
period by surveying the education that formed the mindset of the 89 men who signed the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. According to
author Lawrence Cremin:
“Of the 56 signers of the Declaration, 22 were products of the provincial colleges, two
had attended the academy conducted by Francis Alison at New London, Pennsylvania,
and the others represented every conceivable combination of parental, church,
apprenticeship, school, tutorial, and self education, including some who studied abroad.
Of the 33 signers of the Constitution, who had not also signed the Declaration, 14 were
products of the provincial colleges, one was a product of the Newark Academy, and the
remainder spanned the same wide range of alternatives.”
The fact is that the men who founded the United States were educated under the freest
conditions possible, with colonial governments offering little more than moral
encouragement. George Washington was educated at home by his father and half-brother.
Benjamin Franklin was taught to read by his father and attended a private school for
writing and arithmetic. Thomas Jefferson studied Latin and Greek under a tutor. Of the
117 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and
the Constitution, one out of three had had only a few months of formal schooling, and
only one in four had gone to college.
And that is probably why the Constitution made no mention of education. It was
considered a parental, religious, and private matter beyond the jurisdiction of
government. There were some statesmen, like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams who
advocated free, state-supported education on a modest scale to insure universal literacy.
But they were clearly in the minority. Thus, at the beginning of the American nation,
except for some town-supported common schools in New England, education was on a
completely laissez-faire, free-market basis.
Contrast the highly effective educational freedom and high literacy that existed then to
what we have in America today: completely centralized and regulated education by the
government-supported education establishment, plus compulsory school attendance laws,
plus highly unionized teachers with enormous political clout that keeps taxes as high as
possible.
And what are the American people getting for their money? The drugging of over four
million children by their educators to cure Attention Deficit Disorder, a steep decline in
literacy, and an anti-Christian philosophy of education. Indeed, what we have are
government schools that do not truly educate. If it were not for the growth of the
home-school movement and the restoration of educational freedom by this dedicated
remnant, this country would in time become a totalitarian society, controlled by
behavioral psychologists and corrupt politicians. In fact, with the election of socialist
Barack Obama, the nation has reached that brink where ending our Constitutional
Republic of limited powers and replacing it with atheistic Social Democracy with
unlimited powers is about to take place unless stopped by an alarmed and activated
American people.
That is why it is so important for Americans to know the history of education in this
country so that they can see our current trends in their proper foreboding context. Our
nation was founded by Christian men and women who believed in educational freedom
because it produced the young men and women capable of maintaining a free society.
Our freedom depends on our nation’s willingness to adhere to biblical morality and high
literacy. Because without them, we shall continue to founder in a sea of ignorance,
barbarism, and moral depravity.
(Radio Spot Promo for the Sam Blumenfeld Archive)
The Weekly Sam: Subscribe to the Blumenfeld Archive-a Free On-Line Resource for Homeschoolers, Educators, and Historians
In this 2019 interview of Hal Shurtleff by Dr. Duke Pesta of the Freedom Project, Mr. Shurtleff discusses the Sam Blumenfeld Archive which contains much of the writings, and recordings of the late homeschool pioneer. The archive includes Sam’s “Alpha-Phonics” with all 128 lessons in audio and video, cursive lessons, Sam’s monthly newsletters, and publications from American Friends of Algeria and the Society of Jewish Americanists. Here is a link to subscribe to the archive: http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm
How Democratic Party Politicians Destroyed Gloucester’s Fishing Industry Over Decades The sellout of a working waterfront and the people who built it
The Slow Destruction of a Working City
For decades, the fishing industry in Gloucester was not destroyed by the ocean. It was dismantled by government, year by year. Regulations piled up. Fishing grounds were closed. Seasons were compressed.
Fishermen were forced into narrower windows, making one of the most dangerous jobs in America even more dangerous. Boats disappeared. Permits vanished. A working waterfront was hollowed out.
All of this happened in my lifetime. I grew up in Rocky Neck, watching fishing boats come in and out of the harbor. Over the years, there were fewer boats, fewer trips, and less activity on the waterfront. It wasn’t sudden. It was steady. I watched the fishing industry disappear in real time.
The fishing industry was already shrinking before I was born. Every election cycle brought promises from Democratic politicians to protect it. The outcome tells the story.
As Fishing Shrunk, Government Grew
At the center of this story is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal government agency that regulates commercial fishing through quotas, closures, and rules about when and where fishermen can work.
As Gloucester’s fishing fleet shrank, NOAA expanded. It built a massive federal building in Gloucester, added staff, and grew its budget. It now pays long-term government pensions. The industry declined while the government bureaucracy flourished.
The Local Betrayal
What happened to the fishing industry in Gloucester was not driven only by federal policy. It was enabled locally. Mayors, city councilors, and state representatives supported the political environment that allowed regulation to pile up year after year.
Many of those local officials were Democrats. Many came from fishing families. They understood the docks, the boats, and the risks of the job. Over time, many left that world, entered government and political institutions, and worked against the fishermen they claimed to represent.
Those local Democratic politicians sold a lie. They told fishermen that more regulation meant safety and sustainability, even as the fleet shrank, seasons were compressed, and fishing became more dangerous.
Publicly, they talked about protecting fishermen. In practice, they aligned themselves with federal agencies and political priorities instead of the people who built this city. The industry was dismantled, boat by boat, permit by permit, while local leadership stayed silent or actively supported the process.
That same mindset showed itself clearly in 2020, when the City of Gloucester issued a permit allowing a Black Lives Matter protest at the Fishermen’s Memorial. That decision was approved by local officials who knew exactly what that memorial represents.
The Fishermen’s Memorial exists to honor men lost at sea and to give their families a place to remember them. It is not a general-use space and it is not meant for political events. Allowing a political protest there showed a clear disregard for fishermen and for the families who lost loved ones on the water.
The loss of the fishing vessel Lily Jean and all seven crew members brings that reality into focus. For people who do not live here, the Fishermen’s Memorial may look like a landmark. For Gloucester families, it is personal. It carries names, loss, and history. A younger generation should understand what that memorial means to this community and to the families left behind.
The only local politician I can think of who consistently stood up for the fishing industry was Gus Foote. He opposed the direction things were heading more than forty years ago. He was mocked for his stance, outvoted, and ignored. Looking back, he was right.
The Federal Timeline
This didn’t begin with Barack Obama, but under his administration the mindset became unmistakable.
In 2016, Obama permanently closed a massive offshore area to commercial fishing by creating the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. It was done without meaningful input from fishermen and reflected a belief that government control mattered more than working people.
Under Donald Trump, that mindset briefly changed. Trump reopened those waters to commercial fishing. It didn’t bring the industry back, but it mattered. It showed a different way of thinking—fishermen as people who work, not problems to be managed.
Then Joe Biden reversed course and reinstated the Obama-era restrictions.
When Trump returned to office in 2025, he reopened the waters again. And just yesterday, President Trump signed a proclamation to unleash commercial fishing in the Atlantic, advancing America First fishing policy by restoring access to 4,900 square miles of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument located off the coast of New England.
The timeline is clear. One approach favors government control. The other favors freedom to work.
The Truth
Gloucester fishermen will tell you this now. Even if every restriction were lifted tomorrow, Gloucester no longer has the processing plants, buyers, or supply chain to support a real comeback. Rebuilding would take decades. For people alive today, that era is gone. That is the cost of decades of political decisions.
Seeing It Clearly Now
For a long time, people here were told one story while living another. Regulation was sold as protection. Decline was framed as inevitable.
More people in Gloucester are starting to see that clearly now. Once you see it, it doesn’t go away.
Clarity doesn’t bring back what was lost. But it does change what comes next.
Subscribe to The Destino Doctrine
By Alexander J Destino · Launched 2 months ago
For My Family. For My Community. For Anyone Who Cares About the Truth.
By subscribing, you agree Substack’s Terms of Use, and acknowledge its Information Collection Notice and Privacy Policy.
Constitutional Illiteracy and Wokeness in the U.S. Military: An Interview with Dr. Chase Spears
Hal Shurtleff, host of the Camp Constitution Report, interviews Dr. Chase Spears on Constitutional illiteracy and wokeness in the U.S Military.
Dr. Chase Spears is a combat veteran who served as a U.S. Army public affairs officer for 20 years, retiring from Fort Leavenworth on October 1, 2023. He turned down promotion to Lieutenant Colonel and chose to depart military service as a Major (Promotable) believing that he can serve the nation’s defense more effectively in a civilian capacity. Chase started his military career as an enlisted man and was quickly encouraged to apply for a commission through officer candidate school. He went on to serve 17 years as an officer and paratrooper at the 55th Combat Camera Company, 4th Brigade (Airborne) – 25th Infantry Division, U.S. Army Alaska Headquarters, and the Mission Command Training Program at Fort Leavenworth. He deployed to Kuwait and served a combat tour in Afghanistan, in addition to serving partnership mission in Canada, Mongolia, Jordan, and Australia. In recognition of excellence in service, he was selected for a competitive U.S. Army fellowship to Georgetown University in 2017. The Army next selected him to attend the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College resident course, which is limited to the top 49% of officers. Chase’s is the recipient of awards from the Command and General Staff College, Georgetown University, the International Public Relations Research Association, the interdisciplinary national honor society Phi Kappa Phi, and the International Association of Business Communicators (Kansas City chapter).
Dr. Spears is passionate about holding the military accountable to its Constitutional purpose. He is widely published on civil-military and political topics in publications that include The American Mind, Real Clear Defense, The Washington Post, and The Baltimore Sun. He has also authored chapters about communication professionalism in two books. Chase is often sought out for expert perspective by media organizations including News Nation, The Gateway Pundit, and American Family News. Chase holds a Ph.D. in leadership communication from Kansas State University, where his research focused on the political realities of military norms, culture, and actions. He recently founded a leadership practice that coaches principled leaders to find their spines, man up, ignore critics, lead boldly, and build substantive legacies.
American Minute with Bill Federer History of Iran Part 3 WWI in Middle East to Khomeini’s Revolution
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Threatening” Congress with Article V Applications
After almost a decade of insisting that Congress will never term-limit itself by proposing a constitutional
amendment, US Term Limits (USTL) did a 180 in 2024—apparently to sidestep the “runaway convention”
objection. Now they insist there won’t be a convention—so it can’t run away! Either way, USTL’s solution
to save America is for State Legislatures to vote to pass USTL’s applications asking Congress to call a
convention under Art. V.
USTL lobbyist Constantin Querard testified in
Alaska: “While it’s an Article V application, this issue
is never going to a convention. Our goal is NOT a
convention. We’re gonna do what’s worked for the last
240 years. And that is to use the process to pressure
Congress to write the Amendment itself.” (Emphasis
added.) 1
North Carolina State Sen. Todd Johnson, in presenting
the USTL application to a Senate committee, agreed:
“…As history has proven, a convention on (term limits) or any issue is highly unlikely to ever actually
happen…just as occurred with the 17th, 21st, and 22nd Amendments to the US Constitution—as the number
of states signed-on approaches the required 34 states, Congress decides to take action…because they
ultimately want the control over the Amendment.”2
Meanwhile, the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) groups are selling the same false narrative:
Idaho State Sen. Doug Ricks (R), testified3 that “[The Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA)
Campaign’s] main goal is NOT to call a convention. … [It] intends to use the threat of a
convention achieved at 33 states to force Congress to act and propose their own BBA.”
Loren Enns, President of Balanced Budget Now, echoed Ricks at the same Idaho
hearing, “Nobody really wants a convention, if it can be avoided.”4
The new narrative credits states’ pressure from A5C applications for Congress’s proposing the Bill of
Rights, presidential tenure, women’s right to vote, electing US Senators by popular vote, repeal of
prohibition, etc.
But history proves no such thing. There is virtually no correlation between States’ passing
applications and Congress’s proposing related Amendments! See Table on page 2.
Passing Art. V convention applications appears to have played a role in Congress’s proposing the 17th
Amendment. But state applications to Congress were too few in number to have played a role in any other
Amendment. Moreover, several applications came close to passing in the required number of states,
without Congress’s passing an Amendment.
Playing chicken with Congress isn’t a good gamble. And State Legislators who vote for applications while
trusting that Congress will never call a convention, are risking our Constitution.
1 Testimony (Querard) @ 03:11:35, Alaska House State Affairs Committee on HJR 13 (Term Limits), Feb. 1, 2024.
2 Transcript (Johnson) before the North Carolina Senat
2024.
3 Testimony (Ricks) @ 05:30 before the Idaho Senate (Standing) Judiciary & Rules Committee, SCR 115 (BBA), Mar. 1, 2024.
Enter hearing information in drop down menus.
4 Testimony (Enns) @ 09:00 before the Idaho Senate (Standing) Judiciary & Rules Committee, SCR 115 (BBA), Mar. 1, 2024.
Same link as above, after Ricks.
5 According to the unofficial Article V Library, the highest number of States that ever held non-rescinded applications on the
subject at the same time; in parentheses is the # of States needed to apply at the time (2/3 of the States). Note that Congress
determines which applications are valid in order to count the number of States that applied—not the Article V Library or the
convention lobby.
Understanding Minneapolis
What we see happening in Minneapolis is an old and effective tactic from the communist playbook with a few updates. It was used by Martin Luther King in the 1960s and by left-wing labor unions in the 1920s and 1930s. The tactic is called direct action. And it goes like this:
1, Get people into the streets with a grievance real or imagined. To cause maximum disruption, ensure that demonstrators don’t have a permit.
2, Police or counter protesters clash causing deaths and/or injuries.
3, A sympathetic media, reports that either the police, local and federal, or counterdemonstrators are responsible. for the deaths, injuries and property damage.
4, A demand is made to support the cause of the demonstrators. In the case of Minneapolis, get ICE agents out and let dangerous illegal alien criminals remain in the United States.
5, Pass federal legislation to address the situation. In this case, abolish ICE.
The books The Whole of Their Lives and And Not A Shot is Fired are two important resources to help people understand what is happening in Minneapolis. The Whole of Their Lives was written in 1948 by Bengamin Gitlow, a former communist who became disillusioned by communist tactics. He recounts a rent strike where communists were on the street protesting, while communists on the roof, unknown to the street demonstrators, were throwing debris down at the communists below. The goal was to create martyrs. The title of the book was what the communists expected from their members.
And Not a Shot is Fired by Jan Kosak, a Czechoslovakian communist, explains how a free nation is taken over via subversion without the need of a violent revolution. It was an internal strategy paper for the Czechoslovak Communist Party and reprinted in English by the United States House Committee on Un-American Activities. Over the years, numerous conservative organizations reprinted the book. Camp Constitution reprinted it in the Spring of 2020 with a foreword by our friend John Perna. Back in 2020, during the height of the Black Lives Matter, Antifa riots, copies of the small booklet were selling for over $200.
We have it available for $20. shipping included: https://campconstitution.net/product/and-not-a-shot-is-fired-the-communist-strategy-for-subverting-a-representative-government-by-jan-kozak/
For a free PDF version of The Whole of Their Lives, E-mail me at campconstitution1@gmail.com
National School Choice Week January 25-31– Over 32 Governors Issue Proclamations Supporting School Choice
This week is National School Choice Week. Our choice is homeschooling, but we appreciate the organization National School Choice Week https://schoolchoiceweek.com/ that is trying to help parents become aware of options to government schools.
From their website:
National School Choice Week: Celebrating Momentum and Meaningful Wins
National School Choice Week helps families learn more about the education options
available for their children. We raise equal awareness of traditional public, public
charter, public magnet, private, online, home, and nontraditional learning environments.Since 2011, National School Choice Week has shined a positive spotlight on opportunity
in K–12 education through 235,000 independent events hosted by schools, nonprofits,
and parent leaders. In 2026, NSCW will take place January 25–31.
available for their children. We raise equal awareness of traditional public, public
charter, public magnet, private, online, home, and nontraditional learning environments.Since 2011, National School Choice Week has shined a positive spotlight on opportunity
in K–12 education through 235,000 independent events hosted by schools, nonprofits,
and parent leaders. In 2026, NSCW will take place January 25–31.
Our Organization
National School Choice Week is a charitable program of the National School Choice
Awareness Foundation (NSCAF) and the National School Choice Resource Center
(NSCRC), both 501(c)(3) nonprofits.
NSCAF and NSCRC show parents how K–12 school choice can change their children’s
lives, and then guides them through each step of the school search process. NSCAF
and NSCRC also oversee the Navigate School Choice and Conoce tus Opciones
Escolares charitable programs, which provide families with free resources to help them
succeed in their school choice journeys.
NSCAF is nonpolitical and does not advocate for or oppose legislation at any level of
government.
Over thirty governors issued proclamations celebrating National School Choice Week: https://schoolchoiceweek.com/proclamations/
The Weekly Sam: How to Use Education Reform Effectively as a Campaign Issue By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
All candidates for office promise to “improve education,” but when they are elected, they
haven’t the faintest idea of how to proceed from there. That’s because the whole idea of
education reform is based more on the deliberate falsehoods produced by the educators
than on the reality of why our schools are the way they are.
I have been writing critically about education for the last forty years. My books include
The New Illiterates, How to Tutor, Alpha-Phonics, NEA: Trojan Horse in American
Education, The Whole Language Fraud, Homeschooling: A Parents Guide to
Teaching Children, The Victims of Dick and Jane, and Revolution via Education.
In those books I showed that every problem we have in public education today has been
deliberately caused by the educators themselves, and that no true education reform is
possible as long as we rely on the educators to create and implement those reforms.
Here are the realities that you as a candidate or concerned citizen should be aware of:
1, The public schools were taken over in the early 20th century by a cabal of progressive
educators whose goal it was to use the schools as a means of turning children into little
socialists who would then bring about a socialist society. The plan for all of this was
outlined by John Dewey in an article entitled “The Primary-Education Fetich”
written in 1898 and published in Forum magazine, May 1898. In it, Dewey
advocated changing the way children were taught to read so that they could be
deliberately dumbed-down. High literacy was considered an obstacle to socialism
because it developed independent, individualistic intelligence not conducive to
collectivist group think.
2, The new “sight” or “look-say” method of teaching reading was put in the schools in
the 1930s, and by 1955 the reading situation had become so bad that Dr. Rudolf Flesch
was compelled to write Why Johnny Can’t Read. In it he explained, “The teaching of
reading–all over the United States, in all the schools, in all the textbooks–is totally
wrong and flies in the face of all logic and common sense.” And believe it or not, the
situation is as bad today as it was in 1955. In fact, in 2007 the National Endowment for
the Arts issued a report on America’s declining literacy, Reading at Risk. Endowment
Chairman Dana Gioia stated: “This is a massive social problem. We are losing the
majority of the new generation. They will not achieve anything close to their
potential because of poor reading.”
3.
In order to implement these new socialist programs in the schools, the Progressive
Cabal decided to take over the National Education Association and turn it into a powerful
political instrument in order to pressure the Federal Government to pour billions of
dollars into the public schools. Their success has been achieved. Back in 1967, the
NEA’s executive secretary proclaimed: “NEA will become a political power second to no
other special interest group….NEA will organize this profession from top to bottom into
logical operational units that can move swiftly and effectively and with power unmatched
by any other organized group in the nation.” In short, the NEA is a political
organization attached to the radical left-wing of the Democratic party.
4.
The Progressive program has been fully implemented in the public schools, paid for
by the taxpayer who is barely aware of what is going on. Thus American children are at
risk in four ways in the public schools: academically, spiritually, morally, and physically.
Academically because of the reading programs that create dyslexia and reading failure;
spiritually, because of the undermining of the children’s religious beliefs through the
philosophy of secular humanism; morally, because pornographic sex ed, drug ed, and
moral relativism; and physically, because of school shootings and massacres, violence,
and school-bus accidents.
5.
So what is a conservative candidate to do or say when it comes to education? He or
she must support the idea of educational freedom, the right of parents to home-school,
and the right of entrepreneurs and religious denominations to create good private schools.
A conservative can support the idea of the charter school, which in reality is a public
school, provided that the charter issuing board will approve of schools with traditional
teaching programs.
As for the public schools, the conservative candidate should advocate the complete
reform of the primary school curriculum so that it includes intensive, systematic phonics,
cursive writing instruction, and basic arithmetic. It is in the primary school where the
greatest damage is done to the children. Therefore a detailed plan to completely revamp
the primary school curriculum should be the basic educational reform offered by a
conservative candidate. Such advocacy would be an excellent way to gain the support of
parents in the community. It would be very difficult for your opponents to argue against
such reforms.
The above article came from the Blumenfeld Archive: http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm
The Blumenfeld Archives
Louisiana Appeals Ten Commandments Ruling to Full Fifth Circuit
(This is a news release from our friends at Liberty Counsel. Our case is mentioned in it.
Jan 20, 2026
In June 2024, Louisiana became the first state to require all its public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. Gov. Jeff Landry signed the law which directs all public classrooms from kindergarten to state-funded colleges and universities to post the Ten Commandments in “large, easily readable font” on a poster or framed document. The law states the purpose of these displays is to educate the public on “historically significant documents” that shaped both “American and Louisiana law.”
The outcome of Louisiana’s case will also affect a similar challenge to Texas’ 2025 Ten Commandments law, which is under the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction. In Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, several Texas families successfully sued the state receiving a preliminary injunction blocking the Ten Commandments in Texas schools.
Recent Supreme Court precedents show that displaying the Ten Commandments is not necessarily a religious endorsement. In American Legion v. American Humanists Association, the High Court wrote that the Ten Commandments “have historical significance as one of the foundations of our legal system” and represents a “common cultural heritage.” Then, in 2022, the cases of Shurtleff v. City of Boston and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District rejected and overruled the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. The High Court replaced the “Lemon Test” by returning to a traditional First Amendment standard where courts must interpret the Establishment Clause by “reference to historical practices and understandings.”
Throughout this case, Louisiana officials have defended the Ten Commandments law as constitutionally valid by arguing that it has a historical and educational purpose. They cite the Decalogue’s “historical role” in developing American law and education, which displayed alongside other historical documents, would be permissible under the First Amendment. Since HB 71 also required public school classrooms to display the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance, the state’s legal team has argued that the law’s intent is not to endorse a religion but to teach where America’s longstanding moral values in civic life originate.
Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The Ten Commandments is a universally recognized symbol of law and has indelibly shaped the Western Legal Tradition and American government. There are more than 50 displays of the Ten Commandments inside and outside the United States Supreme Court. The Ten Commandments are ubiquitous and their central role in law and government pre-date the U.S. Constitution. Passive Ten Commandments displays do not compel religious exercise, so there is no Establishment Clause violation. The en banc Fifth Circuit has a chance to correct a terribly flawed ruling and restore the Ten Commandments to public school classrooms.”
For media interviews, please email media@LC.org.