Cinco de Mayo preceded by Dos de Mayo, Spain, Napoleon, Mexico, Maximillian, & Juárez – American Minute with Bill Federer
Napoleon made an alliance with the Muslim Ottoman Empire in 1806 and Persia in 1807.
Napoleon’s victories across Europe caused Spain’s King Charles IV to be unstable in his position regarding France:
- first against, 1793;
- then for, 1796;
- then against, 1803;
- then for, 1807.
In 1807, Napoleon finally invaded Spain, beginning the draining Peninsula War.
Frustrated Spanish citizens forced King Charles IV to abdicate on March 19, 1808, and replaced him with his son, King Ferdinand VII.
French troops proceeded to occupy of Madrid.
When Spaniards gathered in protest, Napoleon brought in the Muslim Mameluke cavalry to subdue them.
In 1808, on May 2, the “Dos de Mayo,” the Mamelukes charged on horseback brandishing their scimitar swords, slashing into the Spanish crowd.
Over 500 protestors were hacked to death, crushing the “Dos de Mayo Uprising.”
Immediately afterwards, on May 6, 1808, Napoleon forced King Ferdinand VII to abdicate.
Napoleon then installed his reluctant brother, Joseph Bonaparte, as the new King of Spain.
Spanish America questioned if it should remain loyal to the Spanish throne with the French brother of Napoleon on it.
Compounding the situation, New Spain was Catholic and Napoleon had been excommunicated by Pope Pius VII, June 10, 1809.
Soon, in 1810, Spanish America began to declare independence from French-controlled Spain.
Simon Bolivar led the revolution, which eventually gave independence to:
- Venezuela;
- Colombia; (which included Panama);
- Ecuador;
- Peru (with the help of Don José de San Martín); and
- Bolivia (named for him).
A Constitution was written, similar to that of the United States, to create a “Gran Columbia” of former Spanish States.
It fell apart when Simon Bolivar insisted on being president for life.
U.S. President William Henry Harrison referred to Simon Bolivar in his Inaugural Address, March 4, 1841:
“This is the old trick of those who would usurp the government of their country.
In the name of democracy they speak, warning the people against the influence of wealth and the danger of aristocracy.
History, ancient and modern, is full of such examples … Bolivar possessed himself of unlimited power with the title of his country’s liberator.”
The United State’s experience was different.
For a century and a half prior to independence citizens had been schooled by pastors and church leaders in self-government.
Simon Bolivar accused Spain of having kept the people of New Spain for centuries under a “triple yoke of ignorance, tyranny, and vice.”
As a result, in was therefore necessary that any new government “will require an infinitely firm hand.”
In Mexico, September 16, 1810, a priest named Miguel Hidalgo, gave a speech, “The Cry of Dolores,” calling people to revolt against the Napoleon-controlled Spanish elites.
Hidalgo gathered nearly 90,000 poor farmers.
Unfortunately, they were quickly defeated by the Spanish trained military at the Battle of Calderon Bridge in 1811.
Hidalgo was executed.
The Revolution continued, though, until Spanish General Agustín de Iturbide switched sides.
With his leadership, Mexico soon gained independence in 1821.
Unfortunately, rather than setting up a constitutional republic, like the United States, Agustín de Iturbide set up a Mexican Empire with himself ruling as the Emperor.
In 1824, Mexico adopted a Constitution.
In the following decades, Mexico struggled through the instability of 50 different governments.
Santa Anna rose to power.
In his 40 year career, called by some historians the Age of Santa Anna, he ruled as Mexico’s President for 12 non-consecutive terms.
He finally laid aside Mexico’s Constitution and made himself a despotic dictator.
Santa Anna told the U.S. minister to Mexico Joel R. Poinsett:
“A hundred years to come my people will not be fit for liberty …
A despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one.”
Modeling himself after Napoleon, he called himself “The Napoleon of the West.”
Santa Anna crushed dissent, resulting in Texas declaring independence in 1836:
“The late changes made in the government by General Antonio Lopez Santa Anna,
who having overturned the constitution of his country, now offers, as the cruel alternative, either abandon our homes … or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny.”
General Santa Anna led the Mexican military, losing the Mexican-American War, 1846-1848, resulting in the Mexican Cession, 1848, and Gadsden Purchase, 1854.
In 1853, Santa Anna exiled a young leader who challenged his power — Benito Juárez.
The next year, Benito Juárez returned to led the Revolution of Ayutla, ousting Santa Anna.
An aspect of Mexican politics involved the Church.
Originally, the Catholic Church in Latin America saw its political responsibility as limited to being a conscience to the ruling elites, reminding them to treat the poor fairly as someday they too will face judgement.
Revolutionaries, though, wanted immediate change, and therefore accused the Church as being somehow complicit in maintaining the status quo.
In 1856, Benito Juárez, backed by Freemason leaders, led a War of Reform against the Church.
Religious orders were suppressed, church property was confiscated and religious clergy were denied rights.
Once he became President, Benito Juárez stopped paying interest on Mexico’s debt to Spain, Great Britain and France in 1861.
This resulted in those European countries planning an invasion of Mexico.
With the United States occupied in a Civil War, French troops landed in Mexico in 1862, actually being supported by various Mexican financial leaders and church leaders.
On MAY 5, 1862 – “CINCO DE MAYO” – the French Army suffered a minor setback at the Battle of Puebla.
The French went on to capture:
- Mexico City,
- Guadalajara,
- Zacatecas.
- Acapulco.
- Durango,
- Sinaloa and
- Jalisco.
It is speculated that had the French not experienced the set-back of the Battle of Puebla, they would have taken Mexico sooner, and been in a position to alter the America Civil War by supplying arms to the Confederacy.
Numerous Mexican leaders traveled to Europe to plead with Maximillian I to come to Mexico and restore order, to which he agreed in 1863.
Maximillian was the younger brother of Emperor Franz Joseph I, one of the world’s most powerful leaders.
Franz Joseph ruled the Austro-Hungarian Empire — which, after Russia, was the largest empire in Europe, consisting of:
- Austria,
- Hungary,
- Bohemia (Czech),
- Croatia,
- Poland,
- Slovenia,
- Slovakia,
- Bosnia,
- Herzegovina, and
- parts of Serbia, Romania, Italy, Montenegro, and Ukraine.
Emperor Franz Joseph ruled for almost 68 years, making him one of the longest reigning monarchs in history.
In 1910, Theodore Roosevelt met him.
In 1914, Emperor Franz Joseph’s nephew, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, was assassinated, starting World War I.
Franz Joseph’s younger brother, Maximillian, was known for being a forward thinker with liberal ideas, advocating progressive reforms in favor of common people.
He spoke six languages and was commander of the Austrian Navy, sending out the first Austrian ship to circumnavigate the globe.
Maximillian was supported in going to Mexico by England’s Queen Victoria and France’s Napoleon III, along with the blessing of Pope Pius IX,
He had the backing of many Mexican leaders, led by José Pablo Martínez del Río.
Maximillian arrived at Veracruz on May 21, 1864, to enthusiastic crowds.
He created an avenue through the center of Mexico City, known now as the famous boulevard Paseo de la Reforma.
Maximillian’s wife, Carlota, was shocked by the living conditions of the lower classes, so she raised money from wealthy Mexicans to help poor houses.
Maximilian immediately abolished child labor and reduced working hour for laborers.
He canceled all debts for peasants over 10 pesos, restored communal property and broke the monopoly of Hacienda stores.
He forbade all forms of corporal punishment and decreed that poor people could no longer be bought and sold for the price of their debt.
To the dismay of the wealthy, Maximilian upheld liberal policies of land reforms, religious freedom, and extended the right to vote beyond the landholding class.
The United States Government did not want European powers in the western hemisphere, as stated in the Monroe Doctrine.
The U.S. put diplomatic pressure on Napoleon III to abandon support of Maximillian and withdraw French troops from Mexico.
Lincoln instructed General Grant to send the order to Sheridan:
“Concentrate in all available points in the States an army strong enough to move against the invaders of Mexico.”
The U.S. secretly supplied guns to Mexican gangs, conveniently “losing” arms and ammunition at El Paso del Norte near the Mexican border.
General Philip Sheridan wrote in his journal:
“We continued supplying arms and munitions to the liberals, sending as many as 30,000 muskets from Baton Rouge alone.”
With the threat of a possible U.S. invasion in support of Benito Juárez, the supporters of Maximilian began to abandon him.
Maximillian’s wife, Carlota, went to Europe desperate for help but was denied everywhere and suffered an emotional collapse.
Napoleon III urged Maximillian to flee Mexico, but he refused to desert his Mexican followers, fearing the fate they would suffer.
He let his followers decide whether or not he should abdicate.
Faithful Mexican generals Miguel Miramon, Leonardo Márquez, and Tomás Mejía fought with an army of 8,000 Mexican loyalists.
In 1867, they withdrew to Santiago de Querétaro, but Colonel Miguel López was bribed to open a gate to let a raiding party in.
Maximilian was captured.
Leaders around the world begged Benito Juárez to spare Maximillian’s life.
Italy’s reformer, Giuseppe Garibaldi, sent telegrams to Benito Juárez on behalf of Maximillian.
Even eminent French author Victor Hugo, author of Les Misérables and The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, pleaded for Maximillian’s life.
Benito Juárez refused and had Maximillian shot on June 19, 1867.
He even photographed him in his coffin.
Maximillian’s last words were:
“I forgive everyone, and I ask everyone to forgive me.
May my blood which is about to be shed, be for the good of the country. Viva Mexico, viva la independencia!”
Benito Juárez died of a heart attack five years later, after putting down a revolt led by a young leader who challenged his power — Porfirio Diaz.
Porfirio Diaz was President till there was another revolt led by a young leader who challenged his power named Francisco Madero.
Madero was murdered in a coup d’Etat in 1913 by Victoriano Huerta, which started another civil war.
A quote contrasting the stability of the United States with that of other countries was made by 13th President Millard Fillmore, December 6, 1852:
“Our grateful thanks are due to an all-merciful Providence …
Our own free institutions were not the offspring of our Revolution. They existed before.
They were planted in the free charters of self-government under which the English colonies grew up …
… (Other) nations have had no such training for self-government, and every effort to establish it by bloody revolutions has been, and must without that preparation continue to be, a failure.
Liberty unregulated by law degenerates into anarchy, which soon becomes the most horrid of all despotisms …
We owe these blessings, under Heaven, to the happy Constitution and Government which were bequeathed to us by our fathers, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit in all their integrity to our children.”
(Reposted with permission with American Minute https://americanminute.com/ )
Former Late Term Abortion Nurse Julie Wilkinson Now a Pro-Life Activist Discusses Her Experience
Recently, Camp Constitution hosted a presentation titled “From Darkness to Light: The Julie Wilkinson Story” at the Lane House in Lexington, MA. She also spoke at Liberty Church in Lexington and has several other speaking engagements over the next few days in New Hampshire.
Julie was raised in an intact but quite liberal home. In 1983 after breaking up with a boyfriend, moved to Boulder, CO where a nursing school classmate and friend lived. Accepted a position as abortion assistant at a late term abortion clinic, run by Warren Hern MD. Left after about 2 years there. Experienced a heart change by the grace of God, and partly due to employment in an NICU in Denver. Married in 1987 and moved to Cheyenne. Did not share with friends her dark secret of working in the abortion industry for many years. Moved to Oklahoma in 1996.
Eventually made contact with Abby Johnson who had herself managed an abortion clinic but left the business and went on to create outreach for abortion clinic workers. She gained the courage to share her sad story, in the hope it might help women rethink their plans to end their children’s lives. Today, she shares to her story with anyone that is interested. She played the abortion nurse in the movie “UNPLANNED” (which was filmed in Oklahoma) and it is Abby Johnson’s story of redemption. Her prayer is that her story may convince others that ending innocent children’s lives is never the answer.
The website of Abby Johnson’s organization Pro-Love: https://proloveministries.org/
The Weekly Sam: Are Compulsory School Attendance Laws Good for America? By Samuel Blumenfeld
Should a child be forced to attend a public school that will turn him into a functional
illiterate? Since no public school will guarantee that a child will be taught to read in a
manner that will help him achieve high literacy, why should a parent send a child to that
kind of school? Indeed, why should compulsory school attendance laws force parents to
do something that wil1 harm their children?
It is assumed by the vast majority of Americans that the issue of compulsory school
attendance is a settled matter, part and parcel of every civilized nation-state, and a
prerequisite of a democratic society. We all acknowledge that a representative form of
government requiTes an educated electorate for its survival.
But what happens when that government’s schools no longer know how to teach children
to read and write, when those schools turn children not into civilized citizens, but into
barbarians? What happens when millions of parents feel compelled to remove their
children from government schools in order to make sure that their children do get an
education? What happens is that the basic premises of compulsory attendance and
government education come into question.
The glaring fact is that despite our compulsory attendance laws, we now have more
illiteracy and more ignorance among Americans than before such laws were enacted. The
first compulsory school attendance law was passed in Massachusetts in 1852 and by 1918
every state in the Union had such a law. Yet, the fact is that these laws have merely
increased the amount of time children spend in school, not the amount of learning or
knowledge they acquire.
The Way It Was
To find out how much better educated Americans were before compulsory attendance
laws and government schools existed, all we have to do is read DuPont de Nemours’
fascinating little book, National Education in the United States of America, published in
1812. He writes:
“The United States are more advanced in their educational facilities than most countries.
They have a large number of primary schools; and as their paternal affection protects
children from working in the fields, it is possible to send them to the school-master–a
condition which does not prevail in Europe.
“Most young Americans, therefore, can read, write and cipher. Not more than four in a
thousand arc unable to write legi bly–even neatly .. ..
“England, Holland, the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland more nearly approach the
standard of the United States, because in those countries the Bible is read; it is considered
a duty to read it to children; and in that form of religion the sermons and liturgy in the
language of the people tend to increase and formulate ideas of responsibility.
Controversy, also has developed argumentation and has thus given room for the exercise
of logic.
“In America, a great her of people read the Bible, and all the people read a
newspaper. The fathers read aloud to their children while breakfast is being prepared–a
task which occupies the mothers for three quarters of an hour every morning. And as the
newspapers of the United States are filled with all sorts of narratives… they disseminate
an enormous amount of information.”
Obviously, back in the very early days of this republic, education was a family affair
closely connected to religious practice. A nation built on Biblical principles had to ba a
highly literate one. In addition, all of this education was achieved without any
government involvement, without any centralized educational bureaucracy, without any
professors of education, or accrediting agencies or teacher certification. And, most
significantly, without any compulsory attendance laws.
The Way It Is
Contrast that happy picture of complete educational freedom and high literacy with the
present situation in which the State has asswned the function of educator, at great
expense to the taxpayer, with all sorts of laws and regulations forcing the population to
patronize a system that is turning out functional illiterates by the millions.
According to an article in the Spring 1989 issue of Education Canada, published by the
Canadian Education Association:
“It is currently estimated that one million Canadians are almost totally illiterate and
another four million are termed ‘functionally illiterate.’ In the United States these figures
are estimated respectively at 26 million and 60 million.”
Both Canada and the United States have had compulsory attendance laws for decades.
The purpose of these laws was to make certain that every child was educated. The laws
were particularly aimed at the children of the poor, and yet it is they who have suffered
the most at the hands of government education.
Even Secretary of Education Cavazos, in 1989, admitted in the frankest terms that the
government education system was failing the American people. In his sixth annual report
card on American schools, he repeated the well-known litany of failures that still plague
American education: declining SAT scores, declining interest in math and science,
declining literacy, and a soaring dropout rate in Washington, DC. He said that we were
still wallowing in a ”tide of mediocrity,” and that “we must do better or perish as the
nation we know today.”
Has anything changed since 1989? Yes, it has all gotten worse. In fact, it was an
alarming report on American literacy issued in 2007 by the National Endowment for the
Arts that informed Americans that the reading problem had deteriorated further since
Secretary Cavazos issued his own alarming assessment. The chairman of the
Endowment, 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.”
The Endowment report revealed that the number of 17-year-olds who never read for
pleasure increased from 9 percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 2004. Almost half of
Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 never read books for pleasure. Why? Because
reading has become a painful, tortuous exercise that they wish to avoid.
The simple truth is that literacy is not at all difficult to achieve, provided the schools use
the right phonetic teaching methods. Indeed, the home-school movement has already
proven that parents can actually do a better job of teaching reading than our high-priced
professionals.
It has also been shown that children progress better academically when taught at home,
and that the cost of educating a child at home is less than $1,000 a year.
So why do we need compulsory attendance laws? We need them so that the ruling liberal
elite can dumb down the population and make sure they can’t read. For proof of this,
listen to the words of Professor Anthony G. Oettinger of Harvard University, given in a
lecture to an audience of Telecom executives in 1982:
“The present ‘traditional’ concept of literacy has to do with the ability to read and write.
But the real question that confronts us today is: How do we help citizens function well in
their society? How can they acquire the skills necessary to solve their problems?
“Do we, for example, really want to teach people to do a lot of sums or write in ‘a fine
round hand’ when they have a five-dollar hand-held calculator or a word processor to
work with? Or, do we really have to have everybody literate–writing and reading in the
traditional sense–when we have the means through our technology to achieve a new
flowering of oral communication?
“What is speech recognition and speech synthesis all about if it does not lead to ways of
reducing the burden on the individual of the imposed notions of literacy that were a
product of nineteenth century economics and technology?
“It is the traditional idea that says certain forms of communication, such as comic books
are ‘bad.’ But in the modem context of functionalism, they may not be all that bad.”
I doubt that there are any parents in America who send their children to school to learn to
read comic books. If anything, they want their children to be taught to read and write in
the traditional manner. They don’t consider learning to read as a “burden imposed on the
individual.” Rather, if taught in the proper phonetic manner, learning to read becomes a
joyful experience for children eager to expand the use of their minds and language.
Although the compulsory attendance laws were enacted to make sure that everyone
learned to read, their new application by the likes of Professor Oettinger and his liberal
colleagues is to make sure that the population can be controlled and manipulated by
schools that serve the agenda of the ruling elite.
There is no longer any need for compulsory attendance laws since the ruling class no
longer believes that literacy is for everyone, the poor and the rich. In reality, the
compulsory attendance laws are the linchpin in the plan for a socialist world government.
Such laws have been used by every modern dictator to control the people and mold the
minds of the children. Such laws are not only not needed in a free society, but ultimately
lead to its demise.
Proof of the Illuminati
On May 1, 1776, Adam Weishaupt founded the Illuminati in Bavaria. In 1784, writing of the Illuminati were intercepted in Bavaria, the organization was banned ,and Weishaupt fled Bavaria. Two books, Proofs of a Conspiracy by Professor John Robinson and Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism by Abbe were published in the mi to late 1790s. In 1802, Reverend Seth Payson of Rindge, NH wrote Proof of the Illuminati and exposing the Illuminati was part of in Rev. Payson’s State Senate successful campaign.
Camp Constitution Press put it back in print. Here is the foreword to the book:
This work, Proof of the Illuminati, was first published in 1802 under the longer title Proofs of
the Real Existence, and Dangerous Tendency, of Illuminism. It was printed in Charlestown,
Massachusetts by Samuel Etheridge for the author, Seth Payson. Reverend Seth Payson, D. D.
was born in 1758 and died in 1820. He, like his father, Rev. Phillips Payson, and several of his
brothers, became a Congregational preacher. After graduating from Harvard, he was appointed.
as the minister of the Congregational church in Rindge, New Hampshire in 1782, and held this
post for the rest of his life. At least one of his sons also followed him into the ministry. Payson
was very active in establishing new churches for communities in northern New England,
including the church in Coventry, Vermont. He was the author of numerous sermons, several of
which were published and had a modest distribution. Additionally, Payson helped educate and
provide for Sophia Sawyer, a woman who would later become famous for establishing the
Fayetteville Female Academy. Rev. Payson served in the New Hampshire State senate from
1802-1805. He was a staunch Federalist supporter. Along with its alarming message regarding.
both religion and state, Proof of the Illuminati was also a part of Payson’s campaign platform.
A link to a free PDF download of the book:
And to purchase a copy from our on-line bookstore: https://campconstitution.net/product/major-general-john-stark-hero-of-bunker-hill-and-bennington-1728-1822/
The Weekly Sam: Book Proposal by Samuel L. Blumenfeld Is Your Child Attending a Zoo? Or, How to Evaluate Your Child’s School
Sam had dozens of book proposals and man of they were incorporated into other. Here is just one of them:
Introduction: One of the most important decisions parents must make is choosing a
school for their child. For most parents, the choice is pretty limited to the public school a child is
assigned to. In some communities, parents do have a choice among schools. But how are parents
to know which school is the best one? What should they look for? What kind of questions should
they ask? This book will help parents evaluate a school so that they can make a decision based on
personal observation and objective information.
Chapter One:
Where do we start? First you must find out if the school has a well-articulated philosophy of education that determines what is taught and how it is taught. You must
find out if the school operates within the framework of a mandated reform program assisted by the
federal government, requiring a specific fonn of curriculum. If this is the case, then the purpose of
the school is to serve the needs of the government ratber than the needs of your child. If the
schools in your town are so conducted, then you may want to consider a private school or
homeschooling. Government directed school reforms will be discussed in a later chapter.
Chapter Two:
The physical environment. Whether parents know it or not, the
physical environment of a building and classroom can have a positive or negative effect on the
child. The parent must ask: Would I enjoy being in this building or classroom six hours a day, five
days a week, for a whole school year? Is tbe atmosphere in this classroom conducive to learning
or is there too much noise and distraction? Ask for permission to actually sit in a classroom for an
hour or two to see what goes on among the students and how the teacher handles the kids.
The seating arrangement is also important. If the children are seated in rows and the teacher
is the focus of attention in front of the class, then the class will probably be conducted in a
traditional manner. If the children are seated behind little tables grouped together so that they can
openly socialize and do group work then the class will be conducted along “progressive” lines.
Because there is significant difference between the traditional and the progressive models, a
parent should know which model the school has adopted. Some schools try to combine both
models. The school you’re looking at may be one of those.
Chapter Three:
The Traditional Model. What is its philosophical basis? The emphasis
is usually on teaching academic skills, maintaining classroom discipline, sometimes having a dress
code, using textbooks, teaching subject matter as separate disci plines. In the kindergarten and
primary grades reading is usually taught with phonics, and arithmetic is learned primarily by rote
memorization. Few public schools today adhere to the traditional model. To find that model,
parents may have to consider private alternatives. The advantage of the traditional model is that
children learn their basics pretty well and student behavior is well controlled.
Chapter Four: The Progressive Model. Most schools today have adopted the
progressive model of education. You will know it the moment you enter a first-grade classroom.
The children will be seated around tables, chatting or working in groups. The walls will be
decorated with all sorts of posters, pictures of animals, etc. The teacher will not be the focus of
attention. She is now a facilitator. Occasionally she will read to a group of kids seated on the floor
and will have a dicussion with them. Her teaching program usually includes whole-language,
invented spelling, the new math, etc. Subject matter will be interdisciplinary. The atmosphere may
seem chaotic, but it is believed that each child is learning on his or her own. The advantage of this
model is its informality and general permissiveness.
Chapter Five:
Teachers. When you put a child in a school you are entrusting that child
to a complete stranger. Most parents assume that their child’s teacher is qualified and certified. But
experience, sometimes painful, has taught us that some of today’s teachers may not only be
incompetent, but also immoral. How can parents know what kind of individual is their child’s
teacher? If possible, get background information on the faculty: colleges attended, degrees earned.
If the school does not have such information, you might talk with the teacher and elicit the
information you want in a chatty, friendly, non-threatening way.
Chapter Six:
Teaching Reading. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
That certainly applies to the field of reading instruction. Faulty teaching methods can cause reading
problems, and it behooves parents to find out how reading is being taught in the school. This
chapter will explain the various ways reading is being taught, how to evaluate different programs
and what questions to ask. Although educators have declared that the reading war between
phonics and whole language is over, it is doubtful that it really is. Thus, it is most important to
know what to look for in a school’s reading program.
Chapter Seven:
Writing and Spelling. You would think that such subjects would be
taught in a way that would virtually satisfy all parents. Unfortunately, that is not the case. One of
the questions most often asked by parents is how to improve an older child’s spelling. More often
than not that child was taught writing by the invented spelling method, which, unfortunately,
creates spelling problems. Again, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you teach
spelling in a logical, rational way, you can avoid developing bad spelling habits. Also, find out
how your child will be taught to write: cursive first or print first? The proper sequence makes all
the difference.
Chapter Eight:
Math. Millions of children emerge from our schools with poor
mathematical skills. Usually the problem can be traced back to the first and second grades and
how the child was taught arithmetic. Again, prevention can guard your child against mathematical
dysfunction. There are good ways and bad ways to teach arithmetic. This chapter will help
parents recognize the good and the bad ways.
Chapter Nine:
The new federally mandated curriculum. Most parents are not aware of
the sweeping reforms that are being implemented in schools across the nation. These radical
changes may persuade you to seek alternatives for your children. The new curriculum is the result
of three important pieces of legislation passed by Congress in 1994: Goals 2000; School-to-Work
Opportunities Act; and the Improving America’s Schools Act. It is important for parents to
understand the ramifications of these acts. They are changing the goals of schooling and what
children are to be taught. They also include gathering extensi ve personal data about your child
which will become a permanent record in a federal computer in Washington.
Chapter Ten:
Music, Art, and Foreign Language. Most parents want their children to
be exposed to the arts and some study of music. Does the school teach art? Does the school teach
children to play musical instruments? If not, does it at least teach music appreciation? Does the
school have a band or a chorus? Foreign language is another way of expanding a child’s cultural
horizons. Find out what languages the school offers. For some parents, cultural education is an
important way to instill love and appreciation of the arts and reading. It provides nourishment for
the soul. If a school is deficient in this area, you may not want to put your child there.
Chapter Eleven: Computers in the classroom. Is the school technologically up to date?
About the Author
Samuel L. Blumenfeld has written ten books on education, including:
The New Illiterates
How to Tutor
Alpha-Phonics: A Primer for Beginning Readers
Homeschooling: A Parents Guide to Teaching Children
He is considered one of the world’s top authorities on reading.
He has lectured in all fifty states as well as in Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand.
He is very well known among homeschoolers and has spoken at many
homeschool conventions over the last fifteen years.
Dr. Blumenfeld also edited The Blumenfeld Education Letter for ten
years, keeping a close watch on the growing illiteracy problem.
He presently is a columnist for World Net Daily and several other
internet websites and writes regularly for Practical Homeschooling.
Prior to becoming a full-time writer, Dr. Blumenfeld was an editor
in the book publishing industry in New York.
He worked at Rinehart & Company, The Viking Press, The World
Publishing Company, and Grosset & Dunlap.
He decided to write this book after reading an article about Tom
Cruise’s struggle to learn to read. Tom says:
“When I was about 7 years old, I had been labeled dyslexic. I’d try to
concentrate on what I was reading, then I’d get to the end of the page
and have very little memory of anything I’d read. I would go blank,
feel anxious, nervous, bored, frustrated, dumb. I would get angry. My
legs would actually hurt when I was studying. My head ached. All
through school and well into my career, I felt like I had a secret.”
Tom was a victim of the faulty teaching methods in his school. Had
his parents known how he was being taught at school, his years of
agony and failure could have been avoided.
Camp Constitution’s “Early Bird” Registration Ends May 1st Save $50. off of each camp fee
Our 15th annual family camp is less than three months away. We offer a $50. discount for each camp fee if we receive the application before or on May 1.
|
Constitutional Minute #22 Amendments and Critical reading skills – Part 3 of 3
Examples of reading amendment language. We’ll provide the interpretation. You decide.
Sample #1: “Section 1. Total outlays of the government of the United States shall not exceed total receipts of the government of the United States at any point in time unless the excess of outlays over receipts is financed exclusively by debt issued in strict conformity with this article.” Source: H. J. Res. 32, Mar. 19, 2021
This says: “We will not spend more than we take in unless we find a way to spend more than we take in.”, yes? Next……………..
Sample #2: “No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a roll call vote”. Source: S. J. Res. 12, 105th Congress, Jan. 28, 1997
This says we will not raise taxes unless, of course, we vote to raise taxes, yes? Next…………….
Sample #3…. ‘‘Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly
chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress…”
Source: S. J. Res., Hyde-Smith, Feb. 2021
Where is there any authority in the Constitution for Congress to link spending to the GDP? So, this is no restriction at all! It is a new authority to spend (linked to GDP), not restricted to the “enumerated powers” only!
Sample #4: Amendment suggested to get rid of the unconstitutional executive (administrative) agencies:
“All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate. ”This says that as long as these unconstitutional executive agencies are reauthorized, they stay! In effect, they legalize agencies that are currently unlawful.
Source: Constitutional Lawyer Mark Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy” (Page 99-100 The Liberty Amendments). He has five more in his book that do the opposite of what he claims. Some constitutional expert!
For more on this, you can go here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/mark-levins-liberty-amendments-legalizing-tyranny/
Your taxes at work: ‘eco-anxiety’ counseling Climate doomsayers and cancel culture work to justify counseling for bureaucrats’ climate grief
US Fish and Wildlife Service employees are struggling to cope with feelings of trauma and loss over the world’s changing climates and imperiled environments. Their work repeatedly confronts them with ecological changes, but even a sense of “anticipated loss” perhaps decades from now requires compassionate help. Or so the FWS and American Psychological Association tell us.
The FWS is thus offering paid leave to employees who attend “eco-anxiety” and “climate grief” training. When the House Natural Resources Committee called the sessions a colossal waste of money, the agency downplayed their cost and scope. But naturally the “woke” programs don’t end there.
FWS Director Martha Williams is also pushing diversity-equity-inclusion-LBGTQ programs as the agency’s “number one priority” (or perhaps number two, after climate change). Employees can take as much paid time off as needed for DEI and “gay pride” programs and eco-anguish counseling.
There’s no word about programs to help employees deal with widespread habitat and wildlife destruction that will result from millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels and tens of thousands of miles of new transmission lines, due to “net zero” policies implemented in the name of averting the “climate crisis.” Apparently no programs offer paid leave to participate in “conservative pride” campaigns or study Earth’s historic ice ages, warm periods, little ice ages and decades-long droughts.
That’s hardly surprising. The FWS and Interior Department were getting eco-centric and anti-fossil-fuel when I worked there 35 years ago. Like American and Western society in general, their culture has simply gotten more noticeably and intolerantly devoted to extreme environmentalist agendas since then.
Movies, television and news stories, constant instruction in what to think, rather than how to think, an absence of religion and ethics in many schools and homes, and incessant themes of inequality, victimhood and global doom foster widespread tension, anxiety and depression. They leave too many children, teens and adults unable to cope with life and setbacks, less respectful of authority and human life, inured to violence, and aggressively intolerant of opinions that differ from their own ideologies and agendas.
Even before they were forced to endure Covid-induced lockdowns, nearly 20% of Americans were taking antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs, some linked to precipitating acts of violence; a third of high school students experienced prolonged anxiety, depression and hopelessness; and almost one in five teenagers had contemplated suicide.
Social isolation, minimal physical and outdoor activity, video games and reading self-selected online media have amplified depression and “chronic incapacitating mental illness” in America and many Western countries. Also hardly surprising, the problems are increasingly blamed on climate change.
“Climate grief is real,” self-proclaimed experts insist, and it’s spreading rapidly among young people. “The future is frightening,” 77% of 10,000 young people ages 16-25 from the USA and other countries told “climate anxiety” and “climate depression” investigators. Many children have climate nightmares.
“The climate mental health crisis” already affects people who have “lost everything in worsening climate infernos,” claims a NASA scientist and climate activist who’s certain we face “the end of life on Earth as we know it.” He’s not alone in being convinced that every extreme weather event and ecological calamity today is due to or made worse by fossil fuel and agricultural emissions.
“I don’t want to be alive anymore,” wailed a four-year-old who’s clearly been indoctrinated already. “The animals are all going to die, and I don’t want to be here when all the animals are dead.”
Parents fantasize about killing their children, over fears of a “climate-ravaged future.” Parents, teens and even children increasingly consider suicide.
At least one psychologist has based his entire practice on addressing climate psychoses. The Climate Psychology Alliance provides an online directory of “climate-aware therapists,” and a “peer support network” offers grief therapy modeled on twelve-step drug addiction programs.
There’s only one real solution to this epidemic, other “experts” insist: Governments must “take action now” to “end the climate crisis,” to eliminate “the death knell of climate chaos” that threatens us. Otherwise the epidemic of anxiety, depression, pills, climate grief and suicide will steadily worsen.
This is nonsense, insanity. We don’t have a climate crisis. We have a climate fear-mongering crisis.
We don’t need to “fix” exaggerated and over-hyped climate problems. We need to end the junk science, the indoctrination dominating news stories and classroom discussions about energy and climate change, the censorship that prevents alternative, reality-based facts and voices from being heard, the massive government funding of one side of this crucial debate.
Claims of “unprecedented” temperatures and extreme weather, floods and droughts have no basis in real-world evidence. The “climate crisis” exists in greenhouse-gas-focused computer models, headlines and hype, not in reality. There is no unprecedented upward trend in the frequency of violent US tornados, or US landfalling hurricanes, for example – though the 12-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes hitting the United States between Wilma (October 2005) and Harvey (August 2017) is an all-time record.
Unfortunately, viewpoints, evidence and experts challenging climate crisis claims are too often banished from school curricula, news and social media, and government policy discussions.
President Biden’s “national climate advisor” worked closely with Big Tech and news organizations, to suppress facts about climate change, fossil fuels, and the acreage, raw materials and mining required for wind, solar and battery power. Meta (Facebook), YouTube, pre-Musk Twitter and other companies routinely help to deplatform, demonetize and censor anyone contesting crisis-promoting claims.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “summaries for policy makers” often misrepresent scientific findings and advance frightening but unsupported scenarios about Earth’s future climate. The IPCC also ignores studies that demonstrate how increased atmospheric carbon dioxide improves plant growth and wildlife habitats, how climate has changed repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, and that eliminating fossil fuels would result in extensive ecological damage from wind, solar, battery and transmission line mining and installations.
China, India and other countries are rapidly expanding their oil, gas and coal use, to improve their economies and lift billions out of poverty. China dominates raw material and “green tech” supply chains, making the West increasingly reliant on China for energy, economy and national defense needs – via Chinese mines, processing plants and factories that operate under minimal standards for pollution control, habitat destruction, and slave and child labor. As a result:
* Nothing the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia do will have any effect on global fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions.
* Western foreign and domestic policy options will be restricted by reliance on adversarial nations for pseudo-renewable energy materials and technologies.
* Prices for energy, goods and services will skyrocket, because every megawatt of wind and solar must be duplicated with backup batteries or generators.
* Politicians and bureaucrats – egged on by loud, often violent mobs – will increasingly dictate our energy consumption, living standards, home sizes, vacations, and what we can eat, drink, drive and buy.
These are the real existential threats to democracy, society, humanity and planet. Parents, voters, legislators and judges concerned about our future must take action now to stop this insanity.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, climate change, environmental policy and human rights.
Exposing Earth Day
This morning, I received numerous E-mails from companies- national and local- from Best Buy to Miles Kimball to the Monadnock Ledger -pushing Earth Day. I flipped on my TV to see that even Fox News is also in on the Earth Day hustle. No surprise. Fox News also promotes “Pride Month.” But instead of going along with the fraud, we at Camp Constitution will expose it.
The first Earth Day was observed on April 22, 1970 which just so happened to be the 100 Anniversary of the birth of Lenin, a syphilitic, mass murdering psychopath that members of the American Left loved and admired.
Gary Allen, author and journalist wrote an expose of Earth Day titled “Ecology Government Control of the Environment” which was published in the May 1970 edition of “The American Opinion”: Here is an excerpt:
Nobody is willing to admit who
selected the date of April twenty-second
for the “Earth Day” teach-ins. That is,
after all, the one -hundredth anniversary
of Lenin’s birth. A coincidence you
think? The student activists just picked a
convenient weekend? Hardly. April
twenty-second falls on a Wednesday. For
months the radical and Communist Press
has been detailing plans to celebrate
Lenin’s centennial birthday with worldwide demonstrations.
April twenty second is as familiar a date to these people as Washington’s Birthday is to real
Americans. The selection of this date as
“Earth Day” provides an excellent indication of who is running the campus ecology movement.
I telephoned the Teach-In’s national
coordinator, Denis Hayes, to ask him how
April twenty-second happened to be
selected for the ecology festivities. Mr.
Hayes, late of Harvard ‘s Graduate School
of Government, had obviously memorized his answer: “It also happens to be
William Shakespeare’s birthday , Queen
Elizabeth’s birthday, Maryanna Kaufman’s birthday and her Aunt Ann’s birthday, but I am sure that none of those
entered into Gaylord Nelson’s thoughts
when he and the steering committee or
whoever it was chose that date .”
Mr. Hayes should avoid lying about
matters so easily checked. The date settled upon as the natal day of William
Shakespeare is April 23 , I564 ; Queen
Elizabeth was born on April 21 , 1926.
Which leads one to suspect that even
Hayes’ friends Maryanna Kaufman and
her aunt (if they exist) might well have
been born on some Friday the thirteenth
for all he knows. What else do you
suppose Mr. Hayes lies about?
Here is a link to the article in its entirety: https://s3.amazonaws.com/camppictures/CampArchive/Domestic/Ecology.pdf
The greatest polluters are governments especially in communist countries where there is no private property. An excellent read on the subject is Troubled Lands The Legacy of Soviet Environmental Destruction.
Camp Constitution believes that we are stewards of God’s Earth, and we have a duty and obligation to be good and wise stewards of God’s Earth, but we do not worship the Earth nor do we think that allowing governments unlimited powers over property will insure a clean and healthy environment. Last year, we became a sponsor of two miles of highway in Alton, NH where we organize two clean-ups a year. We encouraged local left-wing groups to do likewise but they have not risen to the challenge, Perhaps they are too busy holding signs at the local rotary on Saturday morning urging the killing of unborn babies.
The Weekly Sam: Why the Federal Government Should Get Out of Education By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
The real issue is Limited Government versus Unlimited Government.
Most Americans want less government, smaller government and lower taxes. The only
way to accomplish this is by abolishing federal departments and bureaucracies. As far
back as the Reagan administration, Republicans promised to abolish the Department of
Education. They couldn’t do it then because they lacked a majority in Congress. But
whatever happened to the plan to abolish the Department of Education when Republicans
became the majority? Not only did they forget their promise, but in September 1996 they
passed the single largest increase in federal education funding: $3.5 billion. Who were
the Republicans trying to impress? The National Education Association?
The basic question is: Can good education be provided in the U.S. without the help or
intrusion of the federal government? The answer is clearly yes. In fact, there is ample
evidence indicating that the present decline in educational quality is a direct result of
federal funding which has been used by the educators to fund more and more expensive
educational malpractice.
A little historical background will help us understand why the federal role in education in
America is more of an aberration than a natural development. There is no mention of
education in the U.S. Constitution. However, in 1785 and 1787, while the United States
were still under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress passed the
Northwest Ordinance Acts which provided for the orderly settlement of the Northwest
Territory and encouraged the establishment of schools in the territory by stating:
“Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be encouraged.” The
new states were required to set aside the 16th section of each township to be used for
educational purposes. But there was no requirement that the schools be government
owned and operated.
Seventy-five years later, in 1862, Congress passed and President Lincoln signed the
Morrill Land Grant Act providing each loyal state with 30,000 acres of land for each
Senator and Representative, the land to be used for agricultural and mechanical schools
under a measure proposed by Senator Justin S. Morrill of Vermont. Five years later, in
1867, a federal Office of Education was established. Its purpose was:
“To collect such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the
several States and Territories, and to diffuse such information respecting the organization and
management of schools and school systems, and methods of teaching as shall aid the People of
the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and
otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country.”
It should be noted that the National Education Association had been founded ten years
earlier in 1857 and that its members called for the establishment of a federal department
of education at the founding convention. And it is obvious that in that statement of
purpose was an expansionist view of the government’s future role in education.
After World War I, the NEA began a long range campaign to get federal aid for public
education. From 1867 to 1940–a period of 73 years–the Congress passed about 11 minor
pieces of legislation related to education. The fear of federal control of schools kept most
legislators from voting for federal aid to public education. But resistance was gradually
broken down by such acts as the National School Lunch Act of 1946, the School Milk
Program Act of 1954.
But it was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 passed during the
Johnson administration which opened the floodgates of the U.S. Treasury for the benefit
of the education establishment. From 1965 to 1983–18 years–there were 43 education
acts passed by the Congress, including the establishment in 1979 of a U.S. Department of
Education with cabinet status. In the year 1994 alone, there were about 180 educational
restructuring bills before Congress! The three most important bills enacted were the
Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the Improving America’s
Schools Act, a reauthorization of the ESEA of 1965. All of this legislation was passed
with much Republican help. In short, the Congress launched an avalanche of bills which
virtually amounted to a cultural revolution.
It seemed as if all restraints had been removed on government expansion and intrusion
into education, and the Republican Congress did nothing to reverse the trend. That is
why the federal government has become a government of unlimited power.
We must return to the principle of limited government if we wish to reduce the cost of
government and its unwarranted intrusion in the education of our children. A limited
federal government does only those things that cannot be done by the states or the private
sector. The purpose of taxes is to pay for government not change society.
There is no doubt that the federal intrusion in education has harmed education and
produced the dumbing down effect. Test scores attest to this bizarre phenomenon. Since
1962, SAT verbal scores have declined despite billions of federal dollars pumped into
public education. In September 1993, the U.S. Department of Education revealed that
some 90 million adult Americans have grossly inadequate reading and writing skills,
despite compulsory school attendance. The more federal money Congress pumps into
education the worse it gets. Why? Because educational malpractice is very expensive,
and without federal funding we’d have much less of it.
The simple truth is that federal education programs cost the taxpayers billions of dollars,
yet not one of these programs has actually improved education. Claims have been made
that Headstart is a successful program. But research indicates that whatever gains
children make in Headstart are lost by the third grade.
Federal education grants subsidize a liberal academic elite with its secular humanist,
socialist agenda, thus violating the Constitutional prohibition against establishing a state
religion: Humanism.
The Data Collection System of the National Center for Education Statistics threatens
family privacy and freedom. Children are not a “national resource” to be monitored and
controlled for use by the state or industry. They are individuals whose lives belong to
themselves, not to “the economy.”
The federal government has institutionalized educational malpractice by supporting
unsound educational theories and practices which have found their way into the public
schools via the federally funded National Diffusion Network. Federal aid to public
education simply reinforces a socialist, government owned and operated education system
which distorts market values and encourages monopoly union practices.
Meanwhile, the education establishment continues to grow and prosper. In 1982, the
average public school teacher’s salary was $19,274. In 1995 it was up to $37,643., and in
2008 it us up to $47,602. In 1982, per pupil expenditure was $2,726. In 1995-96 the
national average was up to $6,213, and in 2009 it was up to $9,963. In 1984, total
expenditure for public education was $134.5 billion. In 2002 it had risen to $420 billion.
In short, never has public education been more generously supported by the taxpayer and
never have our schools seen more violence, academic disarray, and parental
dissatisfaction than the present. What is even more shocking is that over four million
students must be drugged daily with Ritalin in order to be able to attend class.
Today, well-connected change agents like Mark Tucker are busy imposing on America
the new Human Resources Development System, exuberantly described by Tucker in an
18-page letter to Hillary Clinton when her husband was elected President. Tucker
described his system as “a seamless web of opportunities to develop one’s skills that
literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone–young and old,
poor and rich, worker and full-time student.”
And so, in place of academic excellence, we have Outcome Based Education, Whole
Language, Multiculturalism, Skinnerian Mastery Learning, National Teaching Standards
and Certification, School-Based Clinics, Attitude Assessments, Global Citizenship, and
Socialized Medicine for every student.
What is actually taking place is a cultural revolution engineered by behavioral
psychologists, hwnanist educators, and socialist change agents using a whole galaxy of
education programs to implement their agenda, fmanced by the federal government.
And much of this has taken place when Republicans were in control of Congress. And
that accounts for the extreme frustration of conservatives who vote Republican but get
liberal results. When will this change?
The takeover of the White House and the federal government by radical leftists has finally
awakened the American people to what has happened to this country since we started
allowing the federal government to exceed all limits placed on it by the Constitution. But
in order to succeed in restoring the principles of government held by our founding fathers,
we must return to limited government. This can only be done if the American people
realize the potential for tyranny inherent in a government education system.
The most important institution in a socialist state is a government owned and controlled
school system wherein children can be indoctrinated to accept a socialist way of life. And
the best way to prevent this from occurring is to return to the concept of educational
freedom in which the federal government has no role in education.
Local public schools can easily become private institutions governed by local trustees and
supported by tuition fees. This would greatly reduce the tax burden on home owners and
provide more than enough resources to pay for the tuitions of poor families. The costs of
education would decrease dramatically since education would once more become reality
based wherein the fundamental academic subjects would be taught without the added
costs of educational malpractice. Individual intelligence would be enhanced, while
collectivist group-think would be discarded.
Can this be done? Only if America’s conservative leaders demand that it should be done.
The home-school movement has already proven that parents can actually teach better
than our high-priced professionals, that children progress better academically when taught
at home, and that the cost of educating a child at home is less than $1,000 a year.
If Americans want to once more experience what it means to be free, they must burst out
of the high-priced straitjacket imposed on them by the socialist education tyrants. If they
want better education at lower cost, then the prescription for success is simple: get the
government out of education.
The above article was written more than 20 years ago. Please visit and subscribe to the Sam Blumenfeld Archives: https://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/