The Weekly Sam: The Miracle of Alpha-Phonics A Teacher’s Testimonial by Paul Lukawski
(Mr. Lukawski wrote this testimonial of Sam Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics in May of 2008)
I have been a high school English teacher for 14 years. I remember in college wanting to know how to teach children to read. I went to a teacher college established in 1910. The school had one of the oldest teachers colleges in the country. Its College of Education enjoyed an excellent reputation. I asked three different professors how do you teach reading I received three different vague responses. After I completed my second year of teaching. I realized that my students could not read. I taught grades nine through twelve. The second year, I had three classes of ninth graders. I assigned the novel To Kill a Mockingbird for them to read. I rea1ized that most of my students could not read the novel’s literate narrative.
It was during this time that I heard Samuel Blumenfeld interviewed on shortwave radio. At this time the Rodney King verdict had come in and there was rioting in the streets of LA. He said that the reason the people were rioting was that they did not have jobs. They did not have jobs because they were illiterate. He said you could tell they were illiterate by listening to lyrics of the songs they listened to and by the way they talked. I was intrigued by what he said because it verified my experience as a high school teacher. He then said the schools were at fault because of the way they taught reading. I was again intrigued because of my experience in college trying to determine how to teach children to read. I was never taught it in college. Mr. Blumenfeld had made two provocative statements on the radio, but I knew them to be true because of my personal experience. I then decided to buy a couple of his books, including Alpha-Phonics.
My third year of teaching, I had a class of ninth graders that consisted of the worst performing students in the school These students were in the dropout prevention program. They were waiting until they turned sixteen to drop out of school. I teach in our state’s poorest county and our district at that time had a high dropout rate. Also in the class were several students from Mexico and one from Haiti. These students were speakers of other languages (ESOL). Their only problem was that they had a limited understanding of English. Every day in the class was a struggle with disruptive behavior; and if I could finish class without one being sent to the office for discipline problems, I considered it a success. The students had chronic discipline problems; they had trouble with the law, and every problem you could imagine.
After two months of getting absolutely nowhere with the students, I decided that I would try an experiment. I was going to use Alpha-Phonics beginning with lesson one to teach those that wanted to learn how to read. I told the class that those that wanted to learn would sit on this side of the and those that did not were to sit on the opposite side of the room. The only rule was a student could not interfere with the Alpha-Phonics lessons. Until this time, everyone sat scattered around the back of the room, as I did not have a seating chart.
Any student, when given the option, would not sit in the front of the room with the teacher. The stage being set, I began the first day by reading the directions from the “Teachers Manual” to Alpha-Phonics and beginning with lesson one. I wondered what response I would get. I was shocked by the response of the students. Nothing could have prepared me for what happened. If someone had told me what would happen, I would not have believed them. With the exception of a few students who sat on the other side of the room because they did not want to participate, all of the students followed along as I wrote the lessons on the board. I would write the lesson on the board, read it out loud, and then have them read. The students leaned forward in their desks and followed along. The next day the students all sat in the front of the room. Everyone would raise their band and want to read. Indeed, after the first few days, the students would fuss among themselves to read out aloud. They fought over who could write the lessons on the board. Everyone wanted to read aloud. Everyone sat in front of the room. There were no discipline problems. The entire class had been transformed. I had discovered a disturbing truth.
We worked through the book; and about halfway through the book, we began reading Sounder and The Old Man and the Sea. One youth in the class who could not read, and who had been a behavior problem told me that every night he would sit with his dad as his dad read the sports section of the papers. He said he always wanted to read the paper with his dad, but he could not because he did not know how to read. A few weeks after starting Alpha-Phonics, he entered the class one day and told me that as he was driving down the road be began to sound out the words on the signs. He was excited because he was never able to do that before.
We had started Alpha-Phonics in October and the semester ended in December. I would not be seeing the students anymore. We had completed about three-fourths of the book and read the two novels. I would begin each class by doing about 15 minutes of Alpha Phonics and then read from the novels. The students were eager and well behaved. The youth who began reading the signs told me that in evening he could now sit with his dad and read the sports section along with him. They would talk. about what they had read. Three Spanish-speaking students learned English this way.
The following year, I tried another experiment. I had one student who was identified as having ADD/ADHD. He was notorious. He was a ninth grader. This was his first year at our school. I had another student who was in trouble with the dean’s office constantly. I gave both of them Sam’s Blumenfeld Oral Reading Test (BORAT), and they scored between the Ist and second grade levels. I made an arrangement with other teachers to have both students come to my class fifteen minutes while I did an Alpha-Phonics lesson with them. Because I began in August, I was able to finish the whole book with them by Christmas.
I gave both students the BORAT test. One boy had doubled his reading score, and the other was close behind him. The boy with ADO/ ADHD was never antsy or hyperactive when he was working on the lesson. He was a completely different child when he was with me. Indeed, his teacher would often allow him to stay the whole hour with me because he had many behavior problems in her class. He never bad a behavior problem when working on Alpha-Phonics, neither did the other child who was constantly getting into fights and being When these two youngsters worked on Alpha-Phonics with me they were different children.
The following year, I worked with some other children. I had developed a system where I would set aside ten minutes each class period and do a few lessons while the rest of the class would work: quietly on their own at their desks. I would use the BORAT to Identify the illiterates in my class. I would then ask them if they bad ever had an A in English. Invariably they would say, “‘No.” I would ask them if they would want one. They would say, “Yes.” I then would say that all they had to do was work with me for ten minutes a day on Alpha-Phonics until we were done with the book. When we were done with the book, I would choose several pages at random for them to read from. If they could read the pages to me., they would receive an A. I told them that that was all they had to worry about in the class as I was not interested in what they did regarding the usual course work.
That was the incentive I offered them. It was up to them. One youth had failed the ninth grade and was taking his ninth-grade English class over again with me. He was also taking his tenth-grade English class. His tenth-grade class met next door to mine first period. He would then come to my class second period. His tenth-grade teacher was the same one he took the year before, the class, which he had failed. He was working ten minutes a day on Alpha-Phonics for several weeks, when one day the door that communicated between my room and the neighboring room opened. It was his tenth-grade teacher. She called me over to her and asked what it was I was doing with him. I told her Alpha-Phonics. She said, “Look!” The whole class was watching Channel One and chatting. It was during homeroom. The whole class, except this youth, who was busy reading a book I had given him. The teacher was flabbergasted. She knew he was illiterate and could not believe that he was able to read.
One day I was working with this boy at my desk when we had a new student enter the class. He had just been released from a juvenile detention. He knew the youth I was working with and sat by him as we worked together. He was curious about what we were doing, and I explained it to him. He said that he could not read either. He explained that he started having trouble reading in the third grade. He said that when the time came to read aloud be would intentionally get into trouble so he would be sent to the office so that he would not have to read. He could not take the embarrassment. He did not want anyone to know that he could not read. The boy I was working with chimed in and said that he was the same way. They both recounted events when they would get into trouble on purpose so they could avoid reading. They would even start fistfights. The boy who had been in juvenile detention was sent there because be had set fire to the junior high school.
The following year, I had finally established my regular ten-minute routine in my class, and every year after that I would have students who would participate. One year, I was in a staffing meeting for a boy who was labeled as a special education student with learning disabilities. The special education staffer, whom I had never met before asked me what I was doing with the boy. The reason she asked is that she was with the boy’s science teacher when the science teacher had reported that the boy began volunteering to read aloud. The science teacher was astonished. We Iive in a small community and the teacher had known the boy ever since kindergarten, and had known that he could not read, thus the placement in the special education program: Here he was volunteering to read aloud in her class. I told them what it was I was doing.
There is one case that haunts me. I had a big strapping youth who was seventeen years old. He had failed ninth and tenth grade English because he could not read. He was in my ninth-grade English class. I had given him the BORAT test, and he was at about the 1-2 grade level: A typical case. We began working ten minutes a day. After a month I gave him the book Sounder, and he told me he was reading it at home. We were about halfway through the book when he no longer showed up in my class. I learned that he had moved away. I do not know if he ever completely learned how to read. He was a decent well-mannered youth who would show up ever day, was polite and carried a big stack of books with him. He was waiting for someone to teach him to read.
My daughter was born in 1996. I remember seeing the little girl read in the Hooked-on Phonics commercials and wished my daughter could read like her. When she was two, I began to teach her how to read during my summer vacation. She would take naps then, and I followed the advice in the teacher’s manual. I set up a routine. Every day, before she took be- nap, we would sit together. Following Sam’s advice, I appealed to be- intellect. I said, “”It is time for our lessons.” I began by following the alphabet pre-reading exercise in the back of the book. Again, following Mr. Blumenfeld’s advice, I did not pressure her or scold her, regardless of her behavior. Some days, she would kick at the book and giggle. I would say, “You did a good job today!” And I put the book away. We would continue tomorrow. It went on like this for several months. When school started again, she would do the lessons with me before we went to bed. She enjoyed the routine and the lessons.
One evening, while my wife was in the room, she took out the book on her own and began reading from lesson two: “”Am, Sam, Hear the S sound,” she said Then, – “Sam Sal” – etc. My wife could not believe it. “Did she memorize those words?” She asked. “No,” l replied, and then explained the method. When she was three, we were driving down the road when she said, “Look Momma,” pointing to a sign, “‘Marshal’s, there is your store.’ My wife could not believe it. When she was three, there was one occasion when our daughter was at Sunday school. Her teachers were arguing over whether or not she was reading the colors on the crayons. ‘”She’s memorized them,” said one. “‘No, she is reading them,” said the other. The colors she was reading were purple~ fuchsia and magenta; Magenta was her favorite. The spring before my daughter began kindergarten, she could read fluently any word in front of her.
We were at a spring festival when my daughter and her friend bought soft drinks. My daughter” read the inside of the cap, which told whether or not you had won a prize advertised on the side of the can. My daughter read the label effortlessly, which included the words vacation and discovery. “‘She is a genius!” exclaimed the father. My daughter’s friend asked her dad to read the soft drink label to her. I told the girl’s father that his daughter could read if he used Alpha-Phonics with her. I said, “‘Follow the lesson manual and be patient, do not pressure your child, as Mr. Blumenfeld says, and in a year or so she will be like my daughter.” That fall I saw the girl’s parents and asked how she was doing. He said his daughter had not really taken to the book yet. (His daughter” had just started kindergarten, as mine had.). “Be patient and keep going. ”
Meanwhile, my daughter” was reading at 2nd grade level; and during kindergarten reading time, she would go to a second-grade class for reading instruction. The following year I saw the girl’s dad again and asked him how she was doing in first grade. He said that his daughter was reading at a second-grade level and was being tested for gifted and talented. Meanwhile my daughter entered the first grade and soon afterwards was referred to the gifted and talented program. She won the spelling bee and Math bash just as she did in kindergarten. I used Samuel Blumenfeld’s “How-to-Tutor” to instruct her in math. In second grade, she read at the seventh-grade level~ won all of the reading, spelling and math prizes and was elected to the school’s hall of fame. She has had straight A’s in every class. She learned to read with Alpha-phonics and learned math with How-to-Tutor.
While my daughter was in first grade, I was asked to sit on a parent teacher committee. While on the committee, the mayor of our town complained to the principal that be bad been on the committee for three years and that the committee was always talking about doing something outside of the box when it came to improving the school’s reading scores. Regardless of what the committee did to improve reading scores., they were always the same. The principal said that he was open for suggestions outside of the box. No one had any suggestions, so I said that I was familiar with the method of reading instruction in the public schools and that was what was at fault. I said that I had a method that worked better. Indeed, I said that I drop my daughter- off at school at 7:30, I could walk into any class, give a ten-minute lesson and still arrive at the high school where I teach in time to sign in a 8:00 am. I said that if anyone doubted me, I get a paycheck every two weeks with a comma in it. Let us put it on the table and keep the tourists out. I wanted to let them know my intentions were serious.
They took me up on the offer, and a first-year teacher volunteered her class. I began the first Monday after spring break. I only had six weeks to work with the children. I made transparencies of the Alpha-Phonics lessons and followed the teacher’s manual I only did a ten-minute lesson. The teacher combined her bottom ~ students with the reading teacher’s bottom students. After two weeks, the mother of one of the children approached me. She said, “‘I am glad you are working with my daughter. A while bad the school called me up to their office and told me there was something wrong with my daughter. She had a learning disability.” I cried for two days,” she said I told her not to listen to anything the schools told her, to be patient and to watch what happens. A week after school was over, I saw the mother again and I asked her how her daughter was doing. She said that the school had called her up again and told her that they had given her daughter an end of the year reading test showing that she had a 40% improvement in her reading: they and were going to put her into an advanced class.
The following year, I was asked to do the project again with a first-grade class. I worked ten minutes each morning. I was only able to complete three-fourths of the book. The school’s diagnostic test revealed that of the children who were able to complete the project successfully, not one had a reading disability. The makers of the diagnostic test said that you could expect 20% of the children to have reading disabilities.
I once was explaining to a student why children have reading problems. When I finished, a girl from the other side of the class, who I thought was not listening, said, “This is what happened to my brother. He is in the fourth grade, hates to read and gets stomach aches and headaches.” I told her that his troubles were over and gave her a copy of Alpha Phonics. Four months later, I asked how her brother was doing. She said be completed the book and reads just fine. I had the same success with students in special education, who were labeled as learning disabled or educatable mentally retarded. I have 100% per cent success with every student.
The only variable is the speed at which students progress. You must follow Dr. Blumenfeld’s advice and be patient. Do not pressure the child. I have many other- heartbreaking stories about children who have quit school because they did not know how to read, and no one will teach them. I have had children take a copy of Alpha-Phonics and keep it to teach friends they know, how to read. I encourage everyone to try Alpha-Phonics. The results you see in the child are truly miraculous. It must be seen to be believed.
(Copies of Sam’s Alpha-Phonics are available from our on-line shop: http://mpconstitution.net/product/alpha-phonics-by-sam-blumenfeld/ And, afree-donations accepted-PDF version is available here: https://campconstitution.net/product/alpha-phonics-workbook/
To sign up for Sam’s archive: https://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/
Camp Constitution Announces New Instructors for its 15th Annual Family Camp
Camp Constitution Announces New Guest Instructors Valery McDonnell, the Nation’s Youngest Elected Official, and Vince Ellison, author, and documentary producer for its 15th Annual Family Camp
Camp Constitution is pleased to announce that Miss Valery McDonnell of Salem, NH, the youngest elected official in the nation, and Mr. Vince Ellison, author of several books including 25 Lies.
Vince Everett Ellison was born on a cotton plantation in Haywood County, Tennessee. His parents at that time were sharecroppers. Through hard work and a belief in Jesus Christ, his parents pulled him and his seven siblings out of poverty. His family started the Ellison Family Gospel singing group, where Vince sang and played multiple instruments as a child and young adult. Vince worked for five years as a Correctional Officer at the Medium/Maximum Kirkland Correctional Institution in Columbia, SC. Afterward, Vince worked in the nonprofit arena.
In 2000, Vince received the Republican Party nomination for the South Carolina 6th Congressional District. In 2019, Vince wrote The Iron Triangle: Inside the Liberal Democrat Plan to Use Race to Divide Christians and America in their Quest for Power and How We Can Defeat Them, which became an Amazon #1 bestseller. He has appeared numerous times on Hannity, The Laura Ingraham Show, Newsmax, OAN, The Joe Pags Show, The Brian Kilmeade Show, The Howie Carr Show, and many other radio and television programs.
Vince is a member of Project 21 and has written numerous articles for American Greatness magazine, Bizpacreview.com, and other publications. He is the producer of the soon to be released documentary Will You Go to Hell For Me https://willyougotohellforme.com/
Valerie McDonnell was born to parents Brian McDonnell and Pauline McDonnell in 200 She is a native of Salem, New Hampshire[2]
McDonnell graduated from Salem High School in 2022 She is a . sophomore at Southern New Hampshire Universi, where she is majoring in political science with a minor in professional writing. In 2021 and 2022, McDonnell was the New Hampshire state champion and a National Finalist of the American Legion Oratorical Contest. Her website: https://mcdonnellforsalem.com/
Camp Constitution’s15th Annual Family Camp runs from Sunday July 16 tp Friday July 21 the Singing Hills Christian Camp.
Returning instructors include Pastor David Whitney of the Institute on the Constitution; Professor Willie Soon, world renowned astrophysicist and climate realist; Catherine White of The Constitution Decoded; Alex Newman, author and host of the Sentinel Report, and Rev. Steve Craft, Camp Constitution’s chaplain. Mrs. Edith Craft returns to direct the program for the Junior Campers. In addition to the classes, the camp will offer marksmanship courses, martial arts, hiking, basketball, volleyball, wiffleball, and optional field trip and swimming, chess, gaga and corn hole tournaments. Campers and staff end the day with an evening campfire.
Camp Constitution’s annual camp is a family camp open to entire families, unaccompanied minors, and adults. The cost for the week which includes lodging, meals and class handouts is $300 for those 13 and over. $200. For campers 12 and under, and three and under with parents are free. The camp offers an “Early Bird” discount of $50, per person by registering by May 1. A link to the camp registration: https://campconstitution.net/camp-registration/
Don’t plan on attending but would like to help send a young person or a family attend? Please consider a donation which may be made vis our PayPal account accessed from our website’s homepage https://www.campconstitution.net
Star-Spangled Banner author helped free slaves; Some Early Black American Leaders; & John Randolph who gave land to freed slaves – American Minute with Bill Federer
On SEPTEMBER 13, 1814, just weeks after they burned the U.S. Capitol, British forces attacked Baltimore, Maryland — the third largest city in America.
Francis Scott Key had actually written a similar song to the same tune nine years earlier in 1805, titled “When the Warrior Returns from Battle Afar,” to celebrate America’s victory over Muslim Barbary pirates:
In the conflict resistless, each toil they endured,
Remembering American history is necessary to counteract the socialist/communist tactic of deconstruction, or “cancel culture,” which is:
Jonathan M. Bryant wrote in Dark Places of the Earth: The Voyage of the Slave Ship Antelope (2015):
Lott Cary was joined by Colin Teague, also a slave who had purchased his freedom.
On January 16, 1821, Lott Cary and Colin Teague set sail on the ship Nautilus from Norfolk, Virginia, to Liberia, West Africa.
George Liele attended the Buckhead Creek Baptist Church, with his master, Henry Sharp, who was a deacon.
He refused to do business with any vessels involved with the slave trade.
Britain had the largest global empire in world history, controlling 13 million square miles — almost a quarter of the Earth’s land — and nearly half billion people — one-fifth of the world’s population at that time.
Out of nearly 200 countries in the world, only 22 were never controlled or invaded by Britain.
As the War of 1812 progressed, British soldiers marched toward Baltimore.
On their way, they captured an elderly physician of Upper Marlboro, Dr. William Beanes.
The town feared Dr. Beanes would be hanged so they asked attorney Francis Scott Key to sail with Colonel John Skinner under a flag of truce to the British flagship Tonnant in order to arrange a prisoner exchange.
Concerned their plans of attacking Baltimore would be discovered, the British placed Francis Scott Key and Colonel Skinner under armed guard aboard the H.M.S. Surprise.
They were transferred to a sloop where they watched 19 British ships fire continuously for 25 hours over 1,800 cannon balls, rockets and mortar shells at the earthen Fort McHenry.
An American soldier who helped defend Baltimore was John McHenry, whose father was Secretary of War James McHenry, the signer of the Declaration of Independence for whom Fort McHenry was named.
President James Madison, known as the “Chief Architect of the Constitution,” had declared a National Day of Prayer, July 9, 1812, stating:
“I do therefore recommend … rendering the Sovereign of the Universe … public homage … acknowledging the transgressions which might justly provoke His divine displeasure … seeking His merciful forgiveness …
and with a reverence for the unerring precept of our holy religion, to do to others as they would require that others should do to them.”
On July 23, 1813, Madison issued another Day of Prayer, referring to: “religion, that gift of Heaven for the good of man.”
During the Battle of Fort McHenry, the citizens of Baltimore extinguished every light in every window so that the British would not be able to use them to get their aim.
A thunderstorm providentially blew in and rained so hard the ground was softened, allowing most of the cannon balls to sink in the mud.
With the stormy darkness broken by slashes of lightning and the exploding cannon balls, Francis Scott Key saw the dramatic scene of “bombs bursting in air.”
On the morning of September 14, 1814, “through the dawn’s early light,” Key saw the flag still flying.
The first verse is well-known, but the fourth verse had an even more enduring affect, as it contained a phrase which became the United States’ National Motto:
O thus be it ever when free men shall stand,
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation;
Blest with victory and peace, may the Heaven-rescued land,
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just;
And this be our motto ‘IN GOD IS OUR TRUST’!
And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave,
Over the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Americans honor the flag, as it is the symbol of the “republic for which it stands.”
A “republic” is where THE PEOPLE are KING, ruling through their representatives — their public servants.
Instead of a king dictating to us, pledging allegiance to the flag is basically pledging allegiance to us being in charge of ourselves.
When someone dishonors the flag, what they are saying is they no longer want to be king, they are protesting this system where people rule themselves.
Francis Scott Key’s song, “The Defense of Ft. McHenry,” was printed shortly after the Battle of Fort McHenry in the Analectic Magazine (Vol. 4, 1814).
The song’s name was later changed to “The Star-Spangled Banner” and it became the United States National Anthem.
Francis Scott Key had actually written a similar song to the same tune nine years earlier in 1805, titled “When the Warrior Returns from Battle Afar,” to celebrate America’s victory over Muslim Barbary pirates:In the conflict resistless, each toil they endured,Till their foes shrunk dismay’d from the war’s desolation,
And pale beam’d the Crescent, its splendour obscured
By the light of the Star-Spangled flag of our nation.
Where, each radiant star gleam’d a meteor of war,
And the turban’d heads bow’d to the terrible glare;
Then mix’d with the olive the laurel did wave,
And form’d a bright wreath for the brows of the brave.
Sharia Muslim pirates had enslaved an estimated 180 million Africans and over a million Europeans.
Many African slaves brought to America had been purchased from Islamic slave markets.
In a twist of irony, those intent on removing symbols and reminders of past groups which participated in enslaving Africans should, to be consistent, remove Islamic symbols as their slaves markets sold Africans.
After the Battle of Fort McHenry, President James Madison proclaimed, November 16, 1814:
“The National Legislature having by a Joint Resolution expressed their desire that in the present time of public calamity and war
a day may be recommended to be observed by the people of the United States as a day of public humiliation and fasting and of prayer to Almighty God for the safety and welfare of these States, His blessing on their arms, and a speedy restoration of peace …
I … recommend … offering … humble adoration to the Great Sovereign of the Universe, of confessing their sins and transgressions, and of strengthening their vows of repentance …
that He would be graciously pleased to pardon all their offenses against Him … that He would in a special manner preside over the nation … giving success to its arms.”
Remembering American history is necessary to counteract the socialist/communist tactic of deconstruction, or “cancel culture,” which is:- say negative things about a country’s founders so students emotionally detach from them;
- then move students into a neutral position where they no longer remember where they came from;
then brainwashed them into a socialist/communist future.
Francis Scott Key fought legal battles to end slavery!
In 1820, a U.S. revenue cutter captured the slave ship Antelope off the coast of Florida with nearly 300 African slaves.
Francis Scott Key was defense attorney trying to free the Africans, many of whom were just young teenagers.
Spending his own money, Key fought to free them in an expensive legal battle which dragged on for seven years.
Arguing the before the Supreme Court in 1825, Henry S. Foote recorded that Key:
“… greatly surpassed the expectations of his most admiring friends … Key closed with … an electrifying picture of the horrors connected with the African slave trade.”
Jonathan M. Bryant wrote in Dark Places of the Earth: The Voyage of the Slave Ship Antelope (2015):“Most startling of all, Key argued … that all men were created equal …
If the United States had captured a ship full of white captives, Key asked, would not our courts assume them to be free? How could it be any different simply because the captives were black? …
Slavery was a dangerously hot subject, but Francis Scott Key stepped deliberately into the fire.”
Bryant continued:
“Key had unleashed all of his rhetorical weapons … This was a case he believed in and had worked personally to bring before the Supreme Court.
The Antelope was a Spanish slave ship that had been captured by privateers and then seized by a United States Revenue Marine cutter off the coast of Florida …”
Bryant added:
“Using clear precedent, poetic language, and appeals to morality, Francis Scott Key argued that the hundreds of African captives found aboard the Antelope should be returned to Africa and freedom.
United States law demanded it, he said. The law of nations demanded it, he said. Even the law of nature demanded it.
Key looked into the eyes of the six justices sitting for the case, four of whom were slave owners, and announced that ‘by the law of nature, all men are free.'”
The Supreme Court, in one of its many shameful decisions, chose to define slaves as property.
Only a portion of the slaves were returned to their homes in Africa, where they founded the colony of New Georgia in Liberia.
Key raised $11,000 to help them.
The movement to help freed slaves return to Africa was pioneered by a successful black ship owner, Paul Cuffee (1759–1817).
He was a Quaker Christian and activist in Boston.
His father was of the Ashanti tribe of Ghana, Africa, and his mother was of the Wampanoag Indian tribe of Massachusetts.
Cuffee advocated freeing American slaves and helping them return to their homeland.
The plan to settle them in the British colony of Sierra Leone initially gained support of free black leaders as well as the British government and members of Congress.
In 1815, Cuffee financed a trip himself. The following year, he took 38 American blacks to Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Before he died in 1817, he laid the groundwork for the American Colonization Society.
Lott Cary, who was born a slave in 1780 near Richmond, Virginia.
He heard the Gospel and gave his life to Christ at the age of 27.
Joining the First Baptist Church of Richmond, he listened to sermons from the church balcony and was stirred to preach to his own people.
He taught himself to read and study the Bible, then was licensed to preach.
Working as a craftsman, he saved up enough money to purchase his families’ freedom in 1813.
Two years later, at a time of “growing interest in world missions,” Cary, with the help of William Crane, founded the Richmond African Missionary Society, working together with the American Baptist Union.
Lott Cary was joined by Colin Teague, also a slave who had purchased his freedom.Teague had become an assistant minister at Richmond’s First African Baptist Church.
On January 16, 1821, Lott Cary and Colin Teague set sail on the ship Nautilus from Norfolk, Virginia, to Liberia, West Africa.They are considered the first black missionaries from the United States to Africa.
Lott Cary established the first Baptist church in Liberia – Providence Baptist Church of Monrovia.
He set up schools and founded the Monrovia Baptist Missionary Society to evangelize local tribes, and served as Liberia’s governor in 1828.
Another notable black leader was George Liele, born in Virginia, 1750, and taken to Georgia in 1752.
When he was 23, he heard Baptist preacher Rev. Matthew Moore and converted.
Liele later wrote that he “… saw my condemnation in my own heart, and I found no way wherein I could escape the damnation of hell, only through the merits of my dying Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
George Liele attended the Buckhead Creek Baptist Church, with his master, Henry Sharp, who was a deacon.Sharp encouraged George’s preaching and freed him.
Liele gained a following and organized them into the congregation of Silver Bluff Baptist Church in Beach Island, South Carolina, 1773, which is considered one of the first black congregations in America.
When the Revolutionary War threatened, George Liele and members of his congregation moved to Savannah, Georgia, where they met in Jonathan Bryan’s barn.
One of Jonathan Bryan’s slaves, Andrew Bryan, converted, was freed, and became the pastor of the congregation –– First Bryan Baptist Church –– one of the first black Baptist churches in North America.
In 1782, George Liele and his family went as missionaries to Jamaica, being considered the first foreign missionaries sent out from America.
Through Liele’s efforts, by 1832, there were 20,000 believers in Jamaica, which contributed to the country eradicating slavery by July 31, 1838.
One of George Liele’s converts in South Carolina was David George.
In 1778, when the British captured the city of Savannah during the Revolution, David George went with the British to Nova Scotia, where he founded a black Baptist church.
In 1792, David George went with the British to Freetown, Sierra Leon, and started another black Baptist church.
Francis Scott Key became a board member of the American Sunday School Union and the American Bible Society.
He told the Washington Society of Alexandria, March 22, 1814:
“The patriot who feels himself in the service of God, who acknowledges Him in all his ways, has the promise of Almighty direction, and will find His Word in his greatest darkness, ‘a lantern to his feet and a lamp unto his paths’ …
He will therefore seek to establish for his country in the eyes of the world, such a character as shall make her not unworthy of the name of a Christian nation.”
Key, in 1841, two years before his death, helped former President John Quincy Adams to win the Amistad case which freed 53 African slaves.
Key wrote a detailed account of the Battle of Fort McHenry to Thomas Jefferson’s cousin, John Randolph, October 5, 1814.
John Randolph was a U.S. Congressman from Virginia who went on to become a U.S. Senator, 1825-1828.
President Andrew Jackson appointed John Randolph as U.S. Minister to Russia, 1830.
Key wrote to John Randolph:
“May I always hear that you are following the guidance of that blessed Spirit that will ‘lead you into all truth,’ leaning on that Almighty arm that has been extended to deliver you, trusting only in the only Savior, and ‘going on’ in your way to Him ‘rejoicing.'”
Rep. John Randolph wrote to Francis Scott Key, September 7, 1818 (Hugh A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke, New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1853, Vol. II, p. 99):
“I am at last reconciled to my God and have assurance of His pardon through faith in Christ, against which the very gates of hell cannot prevail. Fear hath been driven out by perfect love.”
In 1817, John Randolph was one of the founders of the “The Society for the Colonization of Free People of Color of America” which helped found the country of Liberia, West Africa, in 1821-1822.
John Randolph wrote to Francis Scott Key, May 3, 1819, (Hugh A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke, New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1853, Vol. II, p. 106):
“I still cling to the cross of my Redeemer, and with God’s aid firmly resolve to lead a life less unworthy of one who calls himself the humble follower of Jesus Christ.”
Rep. John Randolph made Francis Scott Key the executor of his Will.
In his Will of 1819, John Randolph arranged for all his slaves to be freed after his death, writing:
“I give and bequeath to all my slaves their freedom, heartily regretting that I have ever been the owner of one.”
James Forten (1766–1842) grew up attending the African School run by Quaker Anthony Benezet.
Benezet founded the first ant-slavery society in America, of which Ben Franklin served as its president.
During the Revolution, at age 15, James Forten joined the Continental navy, sailing with Stephen Decatur, Sr., father of the War of 1812 hero.
Forten was a crewman on the ship Royal Lewis, which was captured by the British.
He was imprisoned on a British starving ship. After the war, Forten apprenticeship as a sailmaker in Philadelphia.
He began his own company, invented a sail-making device and made a fortune. Employing both black and white workers, his worth was estimated at over $100,000 by the 1830s, equivalent to over $2.5 million today.
Forten helped enlist 2,500 black volunteers to defend Philadelphia during the War of 1812.
He refused to do business with any vessels involved with the slave trade.He became a prominent advocate for abolishing of slavery, serving as vice-president of the American Anti-Slavery Society.
Forten at first supported Paul Cuffee’s vision to colonize Africa, but after meeting with Rev. Richard Allen, he supported freed blacks staying in America.
Rev. Allen stated:
“This land, which we have watered with our tears and our blood, is now our mother country, and we are well satisfied to stay where wisdom abounds and Gospel is free.”
As the movement to colonize Africa waned, John Randolph supported giving land to help freed slaves stay in America.
In his Will of 1822, Randolph also provided money for the purchase of land for his freed slaves to settle in the free State of Ohio, as well as funds for supplies and transportation.
Each slave above the age of 40 was to receive 10 acres of land.
Randolph’s Will was challenged in court but after a lengthy battle it was upheld.
The 383 former “Randolph Slaves” arrived in Cincinnati in 1846.
They overcame many difficulties and local prejudices, and eventually settled Rossville, Ohio, near the town of Piqua.
In Rossville and Piqua, they established Cyrene African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1853, Second Baptist Church in 1857, an African Baptist Church in 1869, and a Jackson African Cemetery in 1866.
In their Jackson African Cemetery, founded in 1866, one of the gravestones has engraved on it:
“Born A Slave — Died Free.”
From this settlement came some of the first African Americans to serve in the U.S. military during the Civil War.
During this time lived Free Frank McWorter (1777–1854).
He bought his freedom and started a saltpeter production operation – necessary for making gunpowder – which helped during the War of 1812.
His financial success enabled him to buy freedom for 16 family members, and after his death, his inheritance was used to free more.
Free Frank McWorter was the first black American to found a town – New Philadelphia, Illinois, in 1836.
Rep. John Randolph wrote to John Brockenbrough, August 25, 1818 (Collected Letters of John Randolph of Roanoke to Dr. John Brockenbrough, Kenneth Shorey, editor, New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1988, p. 17):
“I have thrown myself, reeking with sin, on the mercy of God, through Jesus Christ His blessed Son and our (yes, my friend, our) precious Redeemer; and I have assurances as strong as that I now owe nothing to your rank that the debt is paid and now I love God – and with reason.
I once hated him – and with reason, too, for I knew not Christ. The only cause why I should love God is His goodness and mercy to me through Christ.”
(The above article was reposted with permission from American Minute https://americanminute.com/
Presidents’ Day — George Washington’s Birthday – American Minute with Bill Federer
Presidents’ Day–George Washington’s Birthday
Presidents’ Day is actually Washington’s birthday, recognized by an Act of Congress for government offices in Washington, D.C., in 1879, and for all federal offices in 1885.
In 1971, the Uniform Monday Holiday Act to create more three day weekends moved the observance of Washington’s birthday to the third Monday in February.
As Abraham Lincoln was also born in February, so many States include him in the observance, and still other States include all the Presidents.
George Washington was born FEBRUARY 22, 1732.
He was:
- unanimously chosen as the Army’s Commander-in-Chief;
- unanimously chosen as President of the Constitutional Convention;
- unanimously chosen as the first U.S. President;
- unanimously re-elected to a second term.
George Washington was an Anglican, and, after the Revolution, an Episcopalian.
George’s great-great-grandfather, Rev. Lawrence Washington, was an Anglican minister who taught at Oxford.
Lawrence and his wife, Amphyllis Twigen, had a son named John.
When the the Puritans won the English Civil War in 1651, Anglican ministers were demoted. Lawrence was reduced to being an assistant minister – a vicar – at an impoverished parish in Essex, England.
It was during this time that John Washington, George Washington’s great-grandfather, apprenticed as a merchant in London.
He sailed as second officer on a ship to the Colony of Virginia to purchase tobacco.
In 1657, when a storm partially sank their vessel in the Potomac River, John swam ashore.
While the ship was being repaired, John stayed at the home of a planter Colonel Nathaniel Pope, and fell in love with his daughter, Anne. John never returned to England.
John and Anne married, and her father gave them 700 acres in Westmoreland County.
John Washington became a successful planter and a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses.
He was a militia leader during Nathaniel Bacon’s Rebellion against Governor William Berkeley in 1676.
A local Anglican church was renamed “Washington” in honor of John Washington.
When John died, he left to the church a tablet of the Ten Commandments. His Will stated:
“In the Name of God, Amen. I, John Washington, of Washington Parish, in the County of Westmoreland, in Virginia, gentleman, being of good and perfect memory, thanks be unto Almighty God for it,
and calling to remembrance the uncertain state of this transitory life, that all flesh must yield unto death, do make, constitute, and ordain this my last will and testament …
… First, being heartily sorry, from the bottom of my heart, for my sins past, most humbly desiring forgiveness of the same from the Almighty God, my Savior and Redeemer, in whom and by the merits of Jesus Christ, I trust and believe assuredly to be saved, and to have full remission and forgiveness of all my sins,
and that my soul with my body at the general resurrection shall rise again with joy.”
The oldest of John Washington’s sons was Lawrence, the grandfather of George Washington.
Lawrence married Mildred Warner, the daughter of Col. Augustine Warner, Jr., an ancestor of Queen Elizabeth II.
Lawrence and Mildred had three children, the second being Augustine, who would become George Washington’s father.
When Lawrence died in 1698, Mildred married George Gale and moved back to England with her children.
When Mildred died, a relative in America petitioned to get custody of her children, including Augustine, and they were returned to Virginia in 1704.
Augustine Washington served as a vestryman in the Anglican Truro Parish.
He and his wife Jane Butler had two sons live to adulthood, Lawrence and Augustine Jr.
Both Lawrence and Augustine, Jr., went back to England to study at the prestigious Appleby Grammar School.
Jane died in 1729.
Augustine married Mary Ball in 1731, and together they had 6 children, with the oldest, George Washington, being born February 22, 1732.
Augustine died in 1743 when George was only 11-years-old.
George hand copied the Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation, 1744, which included Rule #110:
“Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.”
George’s older half-brother Lawrence fought in the British navy under Admiral Edward Vernon, who had captured Porto Bello, Panama, from Spain in 1739.
When Lawrence returned to Virginia in 1742, he named his farm after his navy Admiral — Mount Vernon.
Lawrence married Anne Fairfax.
Her father, Col. William Fairfax, had been Collector of Customs in Barbados, and Chief Justice and Governor of the Bahamas, as well as a first cousin of Thomas Fairfax, who was the largest landowner in America with five million acres.
Lawrence arranged for George, at age 15, to begin a career in the British navy as a cabin boy, but his mother, Mary Ball Washington, refused.
George complied with his mother’s wishes and returned home.
In 1748, the 16-year-old George Washington was employed by Thomas Fairfax to survey the western area of his vast estate.
In 1751, Lawrence Washington contracted tuberculosis.
In hopes that a change of climate would help him recover, doctors recommended he travel to Barbados, where his father-in-law had been Collector of Customs.
He brought along his 17-year-old half-brother George.
This was the only time that George left the American continent.
In Barbados, George contracted smallpox, but recovered. This providentially inoculated George so that he was immune during the Revolutionary War, where it is estimated that more soldiers died of smallpox than in battle.
Lawrence died in 1752 and his Mount Vernon estate eventually was inherited by George, making him one of the youngest and largest landowners in Virginia.
George became vestryman in Truro Parish, and was godfather in baptism to several nephews and a niece.
From 1753-1758, George served in the French and Indian War.
He was a colonel under General Edward Braddock, Commander of the British forces in America.
George miraculously survived the Battle of Monongehela in 1755.Braddock was killed, leaving George in command.
On July 18, 1755, Washington wrote from Fort Cumberland to his brother, John A. Washington:
“By the All-Powerful Dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me!”
Colonel Washington wrote to Fort Loudoun, April 17, 1758:
“The last Assembly … provided for a chaplain to our regiment. On this subject I had often without any success applied to Governor Dinwiddie. I now flatter myself, that your honor will be pleased to appoint a sober, serious man for this duty. Common decency, Sir, in a camp calls for the services of a divine.”
In 1759, George fell in love Martha “Patsy” Dandridge Custis, a 26-year-old widow and mother with two children, John “Jacky” Parke Custis and Martha “Patsy” Parke Custis.
Martha had inherited five plantations totaling 17,500 acres.
Martha’s daughter Patsy died at age 16 of an epileptic seizure in 1773, while George held her in his arms. He wrote:
“The sweet, innocent girl entered into a more happy and peaceful abode than she had met in the afflicted path she had hitherto trod.”
In 1775, after the Battle of Bunker Hill, George Washington was commissioned as the General of the Continental Army.
He wrote to Martha, June 18, 1775:
“My Dearest … It has been determined in Congress, that the whole army raised for the defense of the American cause shall be put under my care, and that it is necessary for me to proceed immediately to Boston to take up command of it.
You may believe me, my dear Patsy, when I assure you, in the most solemn manner that, so far from seeking this appointment, I have used every endeavor in my power to avoid it …
But as it has been a kind of Destiny, that has thrown me upon this service, I shall hope that my undertaking it is designed to answer some good purpose …
I shall rely, therefore, confidently on that Providence which has heretofore preserved and been bountiful to me, not doubting but that I shall return safely to you in the fall.”
On July 4, 1775, General Washington ordered:
“The General … requires … observance of those articles of war … which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkenness; And … requires … punctual attendance of Divine Services.”
On October 2, 1775, General George Washington issued the order:
“Any … soldier who shall hereafter be detected playing at toss-up, pitch, and hustle, or any other games of chance … shall without delay be confined and punished …
The General does not mean by the above to discourage sports of exercise or recreation, he only means to discountenance and punish gaming.”
On February 26, 1776, General Washington issued the orders:
“All … soldiers are positively forbid playing at cards and other games of chance. At this time of public distress men may find enough to do in the service of their God and their country, without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality.”
Washington acknowledged God throughout the Revolution, as he wrote on May 15, 1776:
“The Continental Congress having ordered Friday the 17th instant to be observed as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, humbly to supplicate the mercy of Almighty God,
that it would please Him to pardon all our manifold sins and transgressions, and to prosper the arms of the United Colonies, and finally establish the peace and freedom of America upon a solid and lasting foundation;
the General commands all officers and soldiers to pay strict obedience to the orders of the Continental Congress;
that, by their unfeigned and pious observance of their religious duties, they may incline the Lord and Giver of victory to prosper our arms.”
On July 2, 1776, from his Head Quarters in New York, General Washington issued his General Orders:
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own;
whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them.
The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army.
Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore to resolve to conquer or die …”
He continued:
“Our own country’s honor calls upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world.
Let us rely upon the goodness of the cause, and the aid of the Supreme Being in whose hands victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions.”
When the Declaration of Independence was written, a copy was rushed out to Washington, who was fortifying New York City.
He had it read to his troops, then ordered chaplains placed in each regiment, stating July 9, 1776:
“The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.”
As recorded in The Writings of George Washington (March 10, 1778, 11:83-84, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), George Washington ordered:
“At a General Court Marshall … Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier…and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy.
His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Liett. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return.”
General Washington wrote at Valley Forge, May 2, 1778:
“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.”
To the Delaware Indian Chiefs who brought three youths to be trained in American schools, General Washington stated, May 12, 1779:
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.”
The tremendous victory at the Battle of Yorktown, October 19, 1781, securing America’s independence, was personally bittersweet for Washington, as his wife’s son, John Parke Custis, who had been an aide-de-camp, died there of camp fever, November 5, 1781.
Though never having children of his own, George agreed to adopt John Parke Custis’ two young children as his own: Eleanor “Nelly” Parke Custis and George Washington Parke Custis, whose daughter, Mary Anna, married Robert E. Lee.
When the Articles of Confederation proved inadequate for the new nation George Washington agreed to preside over the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
He opened the Constitutional Convention with the line:
“The event is in the hand of God.”
In 1789, he was sworn in as the first President of the United States.
President Washington thanked God for the Constitution, October 3, 1789:
“Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God …
I do recommend … rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks, for … the favorable interpositions of His Providence … we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war … for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government.”
On August 15, 1787, in a letter from Philadelphia to the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington wrote:
“I am not less ardent in my wish that you may succeed in your plan of toleration in religious matters.
Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church with that road to Heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest and easiest, and the least liable to exception.”
Washington sent a letters to the Jewish Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, and in Savannah, Georgia, stating:
“May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors, planted them in a promised land, whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation, still continue to water them with the dews of heaven.”
In 1794, during the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington became the only sitting President, as Commander-in-Chief, to lead the United States Army into the field.
Washington chose only to served two terms as President, leaving an example which every succeeding President follow till Franklin Roosevelt, necessitating the 22nd Amendment.
Washington continually had toothaches. By the time of his Inauguration, he had only one tooth.
Several dentists made make-shift dentures for him.
Washington had slaves from inheritance, marriage, and purchase, as did almost half of the founders.
As the influence of Baptists, Methodists and Quakers spread, many founders abandoned slavery — similar to today, how more and more pro-abortion supporters are becoming pro-life.
Washington freed his mulatto man William:
“And to my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom … I allow him an annuity of thirty dollars during his natural life…& this I give him as a testimony of my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary War.”
In his Will, Washington freed the rest of his slaves upon his wife Martha’s death. Martha freed them the year after Washington died.
In his Will, George also made provision that elderly and sick slaves were to be supported by his estate in perpetuity.
On May 10, 1786, George Washington wrote from to Marquis de Lafayette:
“Your late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view of emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity …
Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country.”
As the early country took shape, partisan politics became increasingly vicious, with Washington even being the victim of ungracious attacks.
He warned how ambitious politicians would be tempted to use crises as opportunities to usurp power.
In his Farewell Address, 1796, Washington warned of those who would usurp power and rule through executive orders:
“Disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual … (who) turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty …
The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism …
Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
The precedent (of usurpation) must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”
Earlier, in 1783, the American-born painter Benjamin West was in England painting the portrait of King George III.
When the King asked what General Washington planned to do now that he had won the war.
West replied:
“They say he will return to his farm.”
King George exclaimed:
“If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”
Poet Robert Frost once wrote:
“I often say of George Washington that he was one of the few men in the whole history of the world who was not carried away by power.”
Charles Francis Adams, the grandson of John Adams, wrote:
“More than all, and above all, Washington was master of himself. If there be one quality more than another in his character which may exercise a useful control over the men of the present hour, it is the total disregard of self when in the most elevated positions for influence and example.”
George Washington added a warning in his Farewell Address, 1796:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness.”
—
(This article was reposted with permission from American Minute, a registered trademark of William J. Federer. His website https://americanminute.com/
The Bible or the Axe: A Presentation by Pastor William Levi
Camp Constitution was honored to sponsor recent speaking engagements in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire for Pastor William Levi, founder of Operation Nehemiah Missions https://www.operationsnehemiah.org/ and the author of The Bible or the Axe https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Axe-Dramatic-Escape-Persecution/dp/080241138X
His presentation tells the extraordinary story of how he and his family of ten siblings fled Sudan during its first Civil War in the early to mid-1960s, his life in a refugee camp in Uganda and returning to a war ravished Sudan to rebuild. As a teenager, his grandfather, a Christian minister, showed him a Bible and an axe, and he asked young Willian to choose one. While he was tempted to choose the axe, he picked the Bible. He explained that while he supports self-defense and the right to bear arms, he believes that the Bible is the best weapon because the battle is spiritual. His Christian faith led to his arrest, imprisonment, and torture. His Muslim captors offered him his freedom if he would renounce Christianity and become a Muslim. His refusal led to more torture. He eventually escaped and made is way to Egypt where he found employment as a manager of a farm. While visiting Cairo, he met an American missionary wearing a T-shirt that read “Jesus Is Lord.” The missionary helped him to Turkey where he befriended a French Catholic priest who got him to France. He eventually made his way to the U.S. and lived with the missionary’s family in Milton, MA
Wanting to get his immigration status in order, he boarded an Amtrak train bound for Washington DC but got off in Newark, N.J. He found employment in New Jersey, got his Green card, and attended college graduating with a degree in electrical engineering. He explained that he was living the “American Dream” but God called him to create a ministry to help his fellow Christians in Sudan. He founded Operation Nehemiah Missions. The goal of the ministry is to rebuild the family, promote self-sufficiency, and most important, making disciples of Jesus Christ His ministry runs a 1,000-acre farm growing fruits, vegetables and grain, solar water pumps, a radio station, and a school with an enrollment of 500 students.
He became a proud US citizen and voted for the first time in the 2016 election. He explained that the recently created nation of the South Sudan has been under the malevolent influence of the United Nations with its anti-family and anti-freedom agenda, and warned that while he loves Muslin people, Islam is not a religion of peace. At the Community Church of Alton, he gave a copy of his book to the youngest attendee Dan Pack where he was challenged to write a book report on it and give an oral presentation.
Pastor Levi resides in Lanesboro, MA. He is married and the father of eight children. A special thanks to Pastor Sam Holo of The Community Church of Alton, and Pastor Bob Andrews of the First Parish Church of Lebanon, Maine.
A link to a similar presentation he gave at Camp Constitution’s annual family camp:
This Week Marks My Six Anniversary as Full Time Director of Camp Constitution
It was six years ago this week when I received a call from Rev. Steve Craft, my “Brother from Another Mother,” Camp Constitution’s chaplain, instructor and speaker. He urged me not to take a full-time job that I had been offered but instead told me to trust God and become Camp Constitution’s full-time director. With the full support of my family, I heeded his sage advice. And God has exceedingly blessed me and Camp Constitution.
It has been incredible six years, and I am confident that God will bless me with many more productive years as the director of Camp Constitution. I wish to thank all of you-too numerous to list here- that make my position and Camp Constitution’s mission to “Honor the Past….Teaching the Present…Preparing the Future.” May God Bless you.
The Weekly Sam: The Benefits of Cursive Writing By Sam Blumenfeld and a Link to Sam’s Cursive Tutorial
The teaching of handwriting has a low priority among educators these days. They believe
that handwriting is passe and that in the future everyone will be using worn processors to
do their writing. But have you noticed how easy it is to make errors when writing an email?
Parents can be quite confused by the subject of handwriting. So, whenever I lecture at a
homeschool convention on the second R. I always ask by a show of hands if parents think
that handwriting should be formally taught. Usually, the response is unanimously positive.
“So, you agree that teaching your child to write is an important part of your homeschooling
curriculum.” The next question I raise is: “If you believe that handwriting should be formally
taught, do you believe that your child should be taught manuscript – also known as ‘ball and-stick’ first or cursive first?” Most parents assume that ball-and-stick should precede cursive, because that’s the way they were taught in school. Besides, it is supposed to be
easier that way.
But then I tell them that when I was in primary school in the 1930s, like their grandparents,
we were all taught cursive handwriting, or what was then known as “penmanship,” using
pens dipped in real ink. That was before ballpoint pens were invented. We were actually
taught in the first grade that there was a correct way to hold a pen so that we would be
able write with ease and facility without tiring. Thus, in those ancient days, an important
part of the primary curriculum was the development of good handwriting, and we were
given plenty of drill to make that possible.
This surprises most parents who assume that print script always preceded cursive writing.
But when I tell them otherwise, I then have to explain why cursive should precede print
script and not vice versa. If you teach a child to print for the first two years, that child develops
writing habits that will become permanent. Thus, when you try to get your child to switch to cursive in the third
grade, you will find resistance to learning a whole new way of writing. That child may
continue to print for the rest of his or her life. Some children develop a hybrid handwriting
consisting of a mixture of both print and cursive. That seems to have become the dominant
form of writing in America. And there are those children who develop a good cursive
handwriting because they’ve always wanted to and practiced it secretly on the side.
Thus, experience dearly indicates that if you teach ball-and-stick first, your child may never
develop a decent cursive handwriting, while if you teach cursive first, your child can always
learn to print very nicely later on. In other words, cursive first and print later makes good
developmental sense.
An important and frequently overlooked benefit is that cursive helps a child learn to read.
With ball-and-stick, it is very easy to confuse b’s and d’s. But with cursive, a b starts like an
I, and a d starts like an a. The distinction that children make in writing the letters in cursive
carries over to the reading process. In addition, in writing print script,. the letter s may be all
over the page, sometimes written from left to right and from right to left. In cursive, where
all of the letters connect, the child learns directional discipline. This helps in learning to
spell, for how the letters join with one another creates habits of hand movement that
automatically aid the spelling process.
Of course, your child should also be taught to print. That can easily be done after your child
has developed a good cursive handwriting. Another important benefit of cursive first is if
your child is left-handed. A right-handed individual tilts the paper counter-clockwise in order
to give one’s handwriting the proper slant. With the left-handed child, the paper must be
tilted in an extreme clockwise position so that the child can write from the bottom up. If the
paper is not tilted clockwise, the left-handed child may want to use the hook. form of
writing. This usually happens when the child is taught ball-and-stick first with the paper in a
straight up position.
If you consider good handwriting or fine penmanship a desired outcome of your home
teaching, then you must teach cursive first. There are a number of good cursive programs
available on the market. The Abeka program from Pensacola Christian College is probably
one of the best currently available.
I am often asked if Italic is a good way of teaching a child to write. Italic script is more in
the class of calligraphy than handwriting, and therefore takes longer to learn and requires
more skill than a standard cursive handwriting. So, simply learn this simple principle:
cursive first. print later.
Sam created a cursive tutorial and we have made it available on his archive: https://campconstitution.net/blumenfelds-writing-tutor/
Legislators Beware: You May Be Smeared or Accused of Bribery if You Oppose An Article V Convention
The majority of people who belong to or support Convention of States and Term Limits USA are good and decent people who are rightfully concerned about the direction of our nation and earnestly believe that adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution will help solve our nation’s problems. Sadly, I cannot say that same about some of the leaders and their paid lobbyists. From Mark Meckler, founder of Convention of States who authored an article ridiculing the late Phyllis Schlafly’s age to Kenn Quinn, former lobbyist for Convention of States now working for Term Limits USA, who childishly superimposed tin foil hats on pictures of opponents of an Article V Convention, to outright accusations of bribery by Convention of States’ New Hampshire group, their leadership has a history of employing unsavory tactics to justify their agenda.
Back in 2016, I wrote an article that was posted on the New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition’s website http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2016/02/05/elected-officials-beware-you-better-support-an-article-v-convention-or-you-may-be-accused-of-bribery/ It concerned a lie manufactured by the leadership of New Hampshire’s Convention of States whose regional representative was Mr. Quinn:
Elected Officials Beware: You Better Support an Article V Convention or You May Be Accused of Bribery
Posted on Feb 5th, 2016 in Local Issues, News, State Legislation
by Bill McNally
An organization founded by Mark Meckler called “Convention of States” has its lobbyists in state houses across the United States promoting an Article V Convention. Their paid lobbyists and supporters have every right to promote one but what they don’t have a right to do is to smear honorable people who oppose one, and that is what they recently did in New Hampshire.
Recently, Hal Shurtleff, New England Coordinator for The John Birch Society, was contacted by a friend who shared the following E-mail sent out by the New Hampshire Convention of States:
“ Good Morning Supporters,
One of the members of the NH State Senate Committee Kevin Avard is now opposing SCR4 due to a donation he recently received for his campaign by the John Birch Society who is against us. Senator Avard is from District 12 which includes Brookline, Greenville, Hollis, Mason, New Ipswich, Rindge, & Wards 1, 2, & 5 in the City of Nashua. Make a call and leave a voice message to Senator Avard today at 603-271-4151 and tell him to support SCR4! Don’t forget to leave your name and the town you are calling from.
Priscilla Mills
Grassroots Coordinator
Convention of States Project
Senator Kevin Avard was informed off this outrageous slander and accusation of bribery and contacted Ms. Mills by email only to receive an arrogant reply to the effect that if he doesn’t like it, he shouldn’t be in politics. Senator Avard then contacted the New Hampshire director of Convention of States, and he went into damage control mode and issued this weak apology:
On behalf of Convention of States Action New Hampshire, I would like to publicly apologize to Senator Avard for the email message that was sent yesterday by our former volunteer Grassroots Coordinator, Priscilla Mills. The information in the message was inaccurate and I am truly sorry that it was sent. Please disregard it in its entirety. I believe that Senator Avard continues to seriously consider both sides of SCR4, and I hope that this recent error in judgment by one of our former volunteers will not prevent him from focusing his attention on the critical substance of this issue for our nation.
For the foreseeable future, I will be the only volunteer sending out communications on behalf of COS Action New Hampshire, and I will ensure that no further incorrect information is disseminated.
I sincerely hope that Senator Avard will forgive us and will not hold this error in judgment (made by one volunteer) against our entire statewide or national movement.
Sincerely,
John Therriault
New Hampshire State Director
Mr. Therriault called Ms. Mills smear “inaccurate information”, and her deed simply “an error of judgment.” Hal Shurtleff didn’t agree… “It was not inaccurate information, it was a bold face lie,” Shurtleff said, “An error of judgment?” No, it was a hateful attempt to destroy the reputation of an honorable elected official, and the good men and women who make up The John Birch Society.”
Readers should note that no apology was forthcoming to members of The John Birch Society. Mr. Shurtleff wanted to make it clear that the sponsor of the resolution calling for an Article V Convention, Senator Gary Daniels of Milford, NH is “an honorable man who has nothing to do with this ugly tactic.” Please note that if wasn’t for Mr. Shurtleff’s friend, this lie would not have been uncovered. It begs the question: How many E-mails of this nature went out to Convention of States supporters that were not detected?
Convention of States has enjoyed the support of many good, decent Americans who are well-meaning. Let us hope that they will do a little research into this group that is only a few years old. May I suggest a visit to this web site for starters:
http://www.livingroomconversations.org”
Our nation has never held an Article V Convention for good reason. Since 2013, the New Hampshire legislature, has wisely rejected all new applications for an Article V Convention. Let’s hope that they will continue to reject an Article V Convention
Mr. McNally lives in Windham, NH. He was the host of the radio show “Literacy Matters” heard on WSMN in Nashua on Mondays 9-10am, and the recipient of the NHCCS 2015 Loyalty Award (National Center for Constitutional Studies).
Article V Lobbyist Kenn Quinn Refuted by Shawn Meehan
New Hampshire legislators recently received an email from Kenn Quinn of TermLimits.org. Mr. Quinn appears to be cherry picking references, distorting them as if to practice law without a license. He projects certainty of how a convention might take place, which is dangerous and unfair to legislators that deserve facts, not marketing propaganda, so they may wisely choose their votes. His use of all block letters and the label “FACT” is demonstrative of hubris.
Numbers in brackets correspond to Endnotes that more fully provide original references supporting the statements made throughout this memo.
Term limits sound really great, but….
In these times of the uninformed emotional fervor, angst of We The People is being directed against the wrong problems. Term limits wrongly seems to be an easy solution to a problem caused by a society that has become shallow and uninterested except in times of crises.
Essentially, our problems are the results of We The People failing to be engaged, rather seeking quick emotional faux solutions to problems created because we’ve been thinking short term, only responding to emergencies, we have caused by previously only seeking emotional, short term solutions.
Term limits wrongly allows We The People to deny the problem is our fault
This is not true of course. We can go back to voting for whomever wears the badge of their party or buys the most TV commercials. To found America and keep her free, nearly 1.4 million Americans have given the ultimate sacrifice. They are dead. They died for us.
Without question we have a duty to slow down and get this right. Their sacrifices demand we have facts and integrity when we approach our Constitution.
We have a duty to meet candidates in our communities, coffee shops and churches. We have a duty to read their financial disclosures, shake their hands and look in their eyes. We have to duty to make every best attempt to elect honorable representatives, and, when the scallywags slip past our newly-affirmed efforts at Due Diligence, we must turn them out of office. We must do that, not rely on parchment barriers to do it.
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had term limits.
Why did the Founders not include them in the new Constitution? The framers of the Constitution knew term limits did more harm than good.
It is true that there are currently no rules controlling an Article V except in Article V.
To challenge this. Kenn falsely claims the 2017 Arizona Balanced Budget Amendment Planning Convention created rules for any Article V convention that is called. The American Legislative Exchange Council page describing the meeting clearly states they are draft rules and not binding. [1] “Delegates” attending from some states were not officially selected by legislatures, but hand picked, several state’s representatives, sent without formal legislative procedures. In no way was this meeting comparable to an Article V convention.
Kenn makes several broad statements absent any sourced references, claiming that numerous conventions have occurred and all followed rules. Convention promoters falsely say they have never violated rules or exceeded their authority. The following four Endnotes disprove this. [2] [3] [4] [5]
Kenn also does not seem to understand that federal laws are superior to state laws, as clearly codified in the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Congress has asserted themselves at least 41 times stating that they will call any Article V convention (just like the plain text of Article V [7] empowers them to) and that incidental to calling such, Congress will define the rules. [8] [9]
The Federal Convention Act of 1973 [10] was passed unanimously by the US Senate but never became law as the urgency to pass such bills fell away after states began to wisely rescind their Article V applications. This 1973 Act and other bill drafts are a fair indicator of Congress’ intent to define a convention. Such would exempt all delegates from any punishment for any speech, which would include votes and other actions.
This clearly means that any attempts to limit delegates or punish them, passed by their states, would be unenforceable, and therefore, a fraud to the People of such state as a marketing deception that any convention is safe and controlled by states. When US Term Limits filed suit in 1995 (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995)), the Supreme Court issued a clear rebuke of attempts by states to interfere in processes that were exclusively federally-defined as not existing prior to ratification of the Constitution. They were new powers states dd not have, and so could not delegate. The opinion’s excerpts are clear. [11]
Kenn claims “Chiafalo v Washington further proves the fact that state legislatures have full control over their appointed delegates and electors.” This is absurd as we have shown above that states may not add rules to the process. Further, “Chiafalo” deals with Article II, Section I, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment, specifically, presidential electors. The Constitution clearly grants state legislatures plenipotentiary authority to select how electors are selected. No such authority or specific guidance is offered to states via Article V, a completely different, unrelated process. Chiafalo is wholly unrelated and a sophomoric attempt to mislead.
Kenn continues, “Hamilton in Federalist 85 makes this crystal clear ; “ The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.” He actually thinks that means Congress has no input. What it actually means is that Congress must call the convention upon 2/3 of the states applying. They have no discretion and must call it.
Kenn also writes, “Any powers not expressly given to Congress under Article V falls to the States under the 10th Amendment.”
Well, except federal functions created in the Constitution. [8] [9] [11] He also claims these powers “falls to the states” under the Tenth Amendment. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the origin of the Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment. All powers pre-Constitution, belonged to the states. Those not given up, remained with the states. They didn’t fall, nor were they given to the states by anyone. They belonged to the states from the start. I’ve clearly shown that in powers created by the Constitution (not existing before it), the states have no power or authority beyond that which may be strictly pointed out.
A convention cannot be topic-limited
Kenn opposed the statement,”A convention cannot be limited to a single issue or topic,” by writing, “ FALSE, then FACT: …Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 85 specifically stated that the convention is limited to a particular amendment!” Kenn needs to stop making bold marketing statements with cherry picked references that are not true.
There are many robust references showing that an Article V convention may not be limited. [12] Further, there is an effort afoot by groups to consolidate any and all Article V applications without regard to subject. ALEC attorney Biddulph testified to this point in 2021 in South Carolina [13]
Under the Political Question Doctrine, Federal courts should refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. If in fact courts do not intervene [10], just who will have control? An Article V convention is a recipe for constitutional chaos. There are numerous states that would litigate to protect their rights in what would become an international embarrassment, further diminishing our Constitution’s illuminating light of Liberty. An Article V convention cannot be topic limited. [15]
Career politicians have, and can again, be defeated | Term limits not needed
Jun 10, 2014, in one of the most stunning primary election upsets in congressional history, the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, was soundly defeated by a Tea Party-backed economics professor David Brat, who had hammered him for being insufficiently conservative.
Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney was soundly beaten in her primary by Harriet Hageman after being censured by the Republican National Committee at its meeting in Salt Lake City on February 4, 2022.
Lauren Boebert defeated five-term incumbent Scott Tipton in the Republican primary in Colorado in 2019.
In 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was the first person since 2004 to challenge Joe Crowley, the Democratic Caucus Chair, in the primary. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign undertook grassroots mobilization and did not take donations from corporations.
Ocasio-Cortez received 57.13% of the vote (15,897) to Crowley’s 42.5% (11,761), defeating the 10-term incumbent by almost 15 percentage points on June 26, 2018.
Representative Bogert, please vote NO on the Term limits bill, delegate limitation bill, or any article V convention bill.
Respectfully,
<<Signed>>
Shawn Meehan, MSgt, USAF, Retired
Founder, Guard The Constitution
https://www.guardtheconstitution.com/category/article-v
shawn@guardtheconstitution.com
Postal: P.O. Box 34, Minden, NV 89423
Office (Voice/Text): 202-930-1750
Twitter: https://twitter.com/GuardTheConst
Facebook: facebook.com/GuardTheConstitution
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/shawnmeehan/
Endnotes:
[1]. “The rules prepared at the Arizona BBA Planning Convention are not binding upon a BBA amendment convention, as any convention can only recommend an action and every convention can adopt its own rules.”
The Arizona Balanced Budget Amendment Planning Convention, William H. Fruth, Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force, August 15, 2017
[https://alec.org/article/the-arizona-balanced-budget-amendment-planning-convention-one-of-the-most-important-assemblages-in-our-nations-history/]
[2]. Pennsylvania convention of 1873
“When the Pennsylvania convention of 1873 proposed a new constitution, along with changes in the bill of rights that went beyond what was sanctioned in the enabling act, suit was filed to prevent submission of the constitution for popular ratification . The Pennsylvania supreme court admitted that the convention had acted ultra vires, but before the case was decided the constitution had been submitted to the voters and approved by a large majority. Said the court: “The change made by the people in their political institutions, by the adoption of the proposed Constitution … forbids an inquiry into the merits of this case. The question is no longer judicial.”
— Constitutional Brinkmanship, Amending the Constitution by National Convention, By Russell L. Caplan, Oxford University Press, 1988, Page 155
[3]. New York Convention of 1821
“In any event the idea that because a convention is in some sense “sovereign” it may override its commission flourished in the state conventions of the nineteenth century. After adoption of the federal Constitution, the states, both original and newly admitted, held conventions to draft and revise their constitutions. At the 1821 New York convention, delegate Peter R. Livingston denied all limitations in an effort to show that the convention had the authority to disenfranchise blacks (a ploy to dilute their voting strength in New York City): the people are here themselves. They are present in their delegates. No restriction limits our proceedings….”
[4]. Illinois convention of 1847
“At the Illinois convention of 1847, Onslow Peters…We are here the sovereignty of the state. We are what the people of the state would be if they were congregated here in one mass meeting. We are what Louis XIV said he was- “We are the state.” We can trample the constitution under our feet as waste paper, and no one can call us to an account save the people.”
— Constitutional Brinkmanship, Amending the Constitution by National Convention, By Russell L. Caplan, Oxford University Press, 1988, Preface xii.
[5]. Illinois convention of 1862
“The Illinois convention of 1862 was pivotal for convention scholarship. That body had been called to propose a new state constitution, but in addition to submitting a charter for ratification-which was rejected-the assembly engaged in numerous unauthorized acts that were highly publicized and profoundly alienating to its constituents. Among other measures, the convention ratified a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution that Congress had stipulated was to be approved by the state legislatures, reapportioned the state’s congressional districts, approved a bond issue to aid wounded Illinois soldiers in the Union army, and began investigating the conduct of the state governor’s office.
…select committee of the convention was assigned to determine whether the assembly was bound by the limitations of its enabling act. The committee, influenced by the proceedings of the 1847 convention, announced in its report (adopted by the full membership) that a convention represents “a peaceable revolution of the state government . . . a virtual assemblage of the people of the state, sovereign within its own boundaries.” Accordingly, “after due organization of the Convention, the law calling it is no longer binding” and “the Convention has supreme power in regard to all matters incident to the alteration and amendment of the constitution.”
— Constitutional Brinkmanship, Amending the Constitution by National Convention, By Russell L. Caplan, Oxford University Press, 1988
[6]. “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
— Article VI, Clause 2, “Supremacy Clause” US Constitution [https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi]
[7]. “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
— Article V, US Constitution [https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html]
[8] “And the few cases that have been asked to deal with issues comparable to the one now tendered to this Court have uniformly held questions as to compliance with Article V’s requirements are within the sole province of Congress and not the courts — in the language that has come to characterize such issues, they are political” (that is, nonjusticiable) questions.”
— United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Wayne Wojtas, Defendant, No. 85 CR 48, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 611 F. Supp. 118; 1985 U.S. District. Lexis 19914, May 10, 1985
[9]. “As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, and Article V is no exception to the rule.”
— Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921)
[10]. The U.S. Senate passed Federal Convention Act of 1973 on July 9, 1973. Two key sections from that act are:
“SEC. 7. (a) A convention called under this Act shall be composed of as many delegates from each State as it is entitled to Senators and Representatives in Congress.”
“SEC. 7. (c) Delegates shall in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at a session of the convention, and in going to and returning from the same and for any speech or debate in the convention they shall not be questioned in any other place.”
When the Act was originally drafted and referred to the Judicial Committee, 7(a) called for one state, one vote, but was changed to this Electoral College model. As passed, it would handicap states.
7(c) makes it pretty clear that Congress intends to exempt all delegates from any potential prosecution upon their return to their state. Legislators also must consider that most parliamentary rules provide for “executive session” as was used for the entire 1787 Constitutional Convention. Delegates might not be able to be communicated with, controlled, or recalled. In executive session, the events within the convention would not be known so the states would have no knowledge of delegate performance and if a recall of delegates was necessary.
[11]. As Justice Story recognized, “the states can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out of the existence of the national government, which the constitution does not delegate to them. . . . No state can say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed.” 1 Story §627.
As Chief Justice Marshall pointed out, an “original right to tax” such federal entities “never existed, and the question whether it has been surrendered, cannot arise.” id., at 430. See also Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 46 (1868). In language that presaged Justice Story’s argument, Chief Justice Marshall concluded: “This opinion does not deprive the States of any resources which they originally possessed.” 4 Wheat., at 436. [n.15]
After the Constitutional Convention convened, the Framers were presented with, and eventually adopted a variation of, “a plan not merely to amend the Articles of Confederation but to create an entirely new National Government with a National Executive, National Judiciary, and a National Legislature.” Id., at 10. In adopting that plan, the Framers envisioned a uniform national system, rejecting the notion that the Nation was a collection of States, and instead creating a direct link between the National Government and the people of the United States.
As Justice Story observed, each Member of Congress is “an officer of the union, deriving his powers and qualifications from the constitution, and neither created by, dependent upon, nor controllable by, the states. . . . Those officers owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people.” 1 Story §627.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
[12]. Perhaps the most assertive expression of the open or general convention argument centers on the doctrine of “conventional sovereignty:” According to this theory, a convention is, in effect, a premier assembly of the people, a representative body charged by the people with the duty of framing the basic law of the land, for which purpose there devolves upon it all the power which the people themselves possess.
In short, that for the particular business of amending and revising our Constitution, the convention is possessed of sovereign powers and therefore is supreme to all other Government branches or agencies.”
— Brickfield, Problems Relating to a Federal Constitutional Convention, p. 16.
“In any event, even if Congress could specify that a convention was called to a single issue, that limitation would be unenforceable. I doubt that the Supreme Court would declare a ratified amendment void on the ground that the convention had gone beyond Congress’ instructions. The original Philadelphia convention went well beyond the purposes for which it was called and no one has suggested that the Constitution is a nullity for that reason.
Accordingly, I do not see how a convention can be limited to one topic once it has been called.”
— Robert Bork, a letter to Representative Reese Hunter, January 16, 1990
“Because no amending convention has ever occurred, an important question is whether a convention can be limited in scope, either to a particular proposal or within a particular subject. While most calls for amending conventions in the nineteenth century were general, the modern trend is to call for limited conventions. Some scholars maintain that such attempts violate Article V and are therefore void.”
— Spalding, Matthew; Edwin Meese; David F. Forte (2005-11-07). The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (p. 266). Regnery Publishing, Inc.
“Writing at the height of debate over the 1980s campaign for an Article V Convention to consider a balanced budget amendment, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger asserted that the Framers deliberately sought to provide a means of amending the Constitution that is insulated from excessive influence by either the state legislatures, or by Congress.”
His view of the convention’s authority is among the most expansive advanced by commentators on the Article V Convention: …any new constitutional convention must have the authority to study, debate, and submit to the states for ratification whatever amendments it considers appropriate (emphasis added). According to his judgment, an Article V Convention must be free to pursue any issue it pleases, notwithstanding the limitations included in either state applications or the congressional summons by which it was called:
If the legislatures of thirty-four states request Congress to call a general constitutional convention, Congress has a constitutional duty to summon such a convention. If those thirty-four states recommend in their applications that the convention consider only a particular subject, Congress still must call a convention and leave to the convention the ultimate determination of the agenda and the nature of the amendments it may choose to propose.”
— Walter E. Dellinger, “The Recurring Question of the ‘Limited’ Constitutional Convention,” Yale Law Journal, volume 88, issue 8, July 1979, p. 1624.
More recently, Michael Stokes Paulsen invoked original intent and the founders’ understanding of such a gathering. Asserting that they would have considered a “convention” to be a body that enjoyed broad powers, similar to the Constitutional Convention itself, he suggests: “Convention” had a familiar … public meaning in 1787. It referred to a deliberative political body representing the people, as it were, “out of doors.” Representatives or delegates to such a convention might well operate to some extent pursuant to “instructions” of the people thus represented, but a convention was not a pass-through or a cipher, but rather an agency ― a deliberative political body.”
— Michael Stokes Paulsen, “How to Count to Thirty-Four: The Constitutional Case for a Constitutional Convention, ”Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, volume 34, issue 3, 2011, p. 842.
[13]. 14 April 2021, ALEC Attorney David Biddulph, South Carolina Judiciary Hearing
Wednesday, April 14, 2021, in the 2:30 pm Senate Judiciary Subcommittee meeting on several directly related Article V bills, some significant non-factual testimony was offered. Hearing at: [https://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php], scroll to link titled, “Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:30 pm Senate Judiciary Committee — Senate Judiciary Subcommittee”
At Timestamp 1:28:00, Attorney David Biddulph, representing American Legislative Exchange Council, clearly and openly spoke about the planned aggregation of open Article V petitions by lawsuits from state attorneys general against Congress, to force them to call an Article V convention. This is essential to note as advocates promise states will control a convention, but they actually will not when the limited topics they approve are hijacked by this aggregation method, regardless of specific language specified by specific states. Congress will define the convention [1] and they have asserted such as reflected in the “Federal Convention Act of 1973” [2] which only the Senate passed, but it very clearly instructive that Congress will assert themselves as they have stated 41 prior times.[3]
Further, Mr. Biddulph shows how he is uninformed on the issue or dishonest when he claims Congress is not tracking Article V petitions. Congress currently does post and update valid Article V petitions from states under House of Representatives Rules, clause 3 of Rule XII here: [https://clerk.house.gov/SelectedMemorial]
“A New Strategy for the Article V Convention of States Movement // Recommendations. 1) The leaders of the different AV COS groups need to begin serious, realistic discussions concerning the future of the COS movement overall including the significance of the two aggregation studies described herein; the leaders need to begin cooperating and developing a unified approach toward convening a [GENERAL] COS by end of year 2022”
Principal author is Mr. Paul S Gardiner who served as Georgia Coalitions Director and National Veterans Coalitions Director for [COS PROJECT]. Source: https://huntforliberty.com/a-convention-strategy/
Term Limits call could trigger an open Article V convention, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) attorney that testified in 2021 in the South Carolina Judiciary Committee. They announced their plan to file a lawsuit to mandate Congress call a convention without regard to subject limitations. Term Limits resolutions gives them what they claim they need. See the proof: [https://huntforliberty.com/a-convention-strategy/]
[14]. An Article V convention has no “one state one vote” restriction and even Prof. Natelson admits such only when pressed: “Interstate conventions traditionally have determined issues according to a “one state/one vote,” although a convention is free to change the rule of suffrage.”
— Dr. Natelson writing in the ALEC Handbook, “Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States,” a Handbook for State Lawmakers, 2013 version, Section E, page 15.
[https://planetscape.github.io/noconcon/2013-article-five-handbook-1.pdf]
—
Shawn M. Meehan
2975 Santa Maria Street
Minden, NV 89423-7506
Direct Phone: 775-309-1050
Fax: 866-429-3403
EMail: airlifter2@gmail.com
Website: www.guardtheconstitution.com
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/shawnmeehan
Facebook: www.facebook.com/shawn.meehan
Twitter: shawnmeehan
The Weekly Sam: Should Christians Support Education Without God? by Samuel L. Blumenfeld
Back in 1849, when the organized Protestants of Massachusetts
debated whether or not to support the public-school movement, which was
then being heavily promoted by the Unitarians, they decided in favor of
support, but with well-expressed conditions. They wrote:
“The benefits of this system, in offering instruction to all, are so many and so great
that its religious deficiencies, –especially since they can be otherwise supplied, do not
seem to be a sufficient reason for abandoning it, and adopting in place of it, a system
of denominational parochial schools …. It is however a great evil to withdraw from the established system of common
schools, the interest and influence of the religious part of the community. On the
whole, it seems to be the wisest course, at least for the present, to do all in our power
to perfect as far as it can be done, not only its intellectual, but also its moral and
religious character.
If after a full and faithful experiment, it should at last be seen that fidelity to the
religious interests of our children forbids a further patronage of the system, we can
unite with the Evangelical Christians in the establishment of private schools, in which
more full doctrinal religious instruction may be possible.
But, until we are forced to this result, it seems to us desirable that the religious
community do all in their power to give an opportunity for a full and fair experiment of
the existing system, including not only the common schools, but also the Normal
Schools and the Board of Education.”
I don’t believe that any Christian can doubt that there has been a “full
and fair experiment” of public education for the last 150 years and that its
fidelity to the religious interests of Christian children has been proven to be
decidedly negative. In fact, thousands of Christian parents, without
knowledge of what was written in 1849, have already taken their children
out of the public schools and either decided to homeschool them or place
them in Christian schools. Their responsibilities as Christian parents have
led them to make the necessary decision for the sake of their children’s
spiritual wellbeing.
But what is disturbing is that most Christians still patronize a system
that is undermining the religious beliefs of their children. One wonders what
must happen before these parents realize the harm they are doing to their
children by keeping them in the public schools.
The simple fact is that the present government education system has
as its foundation an anti-Christian philosophy known as secular humanism.
All one has to do is read the Humanist Manifestos I and II to confirm the
truth of this assertion. Humanist Manifesto I was written in 1933 by young
Unitarian ministers who believed that the spiritual power of orthodox
religion was in decline and should be replaced by a rational, man-centered,
nontheistic religion. They wrote:
“Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science
makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values ….
Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the
end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. .. .
Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the
fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and
direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of
human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions,
their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be
reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the
modern world.”
Humanism is the only religion in America that has as its purpose and
program the reconstitution of the institutions, rituals, and ecclesiastical
methods of other religions. This is an overt declaration of war against
Biblical religion. Forty years later, Humanist Manifesto II states:
“As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. [W]e can
discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species …. No deity will save
us; we must save ourselves.”
In the January/February 1983 issue of The Humanist magazine, a
young scholar by the name of John J. Dunphy expressed exactly what the
aim of humanists is in education:
“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in
the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the
proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the
spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must
embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for
they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey
humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level-
preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an
arena of conflict between the old and the new–the rotting corpse of Christianity,
together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent
in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy
neighbor’ will finally be achieved.”
The humanist war against Christianity is going on everyday in the
classrooms of America. But the real battle is being fought in the courtrooms
of the nation. In March 1987, U.S. District Judge W. Brevard Hand ruled in
Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County. Alabama that
the public school curriculum was based on the tenets of secular humanism,
and he thereby ordered that humanist textbooks to be removed from the
schools. Five months later this ruling was overturned by the Eleventh
Circuit Court which stated that “none of these books convey a message of
government approval of secular humanism.”
In other words, humanists are free to teach their dogma in the public
schools as long as the government does not convey a message of
approval. But that is the argument used to keep Christianity out. It is said
that the mere inclusion of anything Christian in a public-school curriculum
automatically implies government approval.
The notion that public schools are neutral when it comes to religion is
belied by the strong prejudice against Christianity as openly expressed by
such humanists as John Dunphy. What we have is not neutrality but
warfare. Until Christians recognize that the government schools are
establishments of religion, and that education is fundamentally a religious
activity, we shall not be able to deal realistically with our educational crisis.
The message for Christian parents must be loud and clear: putting a
child in a public school violates God’s commandment as given in
Deuteronomy 6 to educate a child in the love and admonition of the Lord.
There is no substitute for a godly education. In place of God, the public
schools offer evolution, sex education, death education, multiculturalism,
transcendental meditation, situational ethics, drug education, and other
forms of humanist teachings. These are the programs that are creating the
new nihilist, amoral barbarians that are devastating the lives of thousands
of parents. There is hardly a Christian family that has not lost a child to the
satanic culture that grows in the public school environment.
If Christians wish to restore America as a nation under God, they shall
have to educate their children in schools that revere Him .•