Proof of the Illuminati
On May 1, 1776, Adam Weishaupt founded the Illuminati in Bavaria. In 1784, writing of the Illuminati were intercepted in Bavaria, the organization was banned ,and Weishaupt fled Bavaria. Two books, Proofs of a Conspiracy by Professor John Robinson and Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism by Abbe were published in the mi to late 1790s. In 1802, Reverend Seth Payson of Rindge, NH wrote Proof of the Illuminati and exposing the Illuminati was part of in Rev. Payson’s State Senate successful campaign.
Camp Constitution Press put it back in print. Here is the foreword to the book:
This work, Proof of the Illuminati, was first published in 1802 under the longer title Proofs of
the Real Existence, and Dangerous Tendency, of Illuminism. It was printed in Charlestown,
Massachusetts by Samuel Etheridge for the author, Seth Payson. Reverend Seth Payson, D. D.
was born in 1758 and died in 1820. He, like his father, Rev. Phillips Payson, and several of his
brothers, became a Congregational preacher. After graduating from Harvard, he was appointed.
as the minister of the Congregational church in Rindge, New Hampshire in 1782, and held this
post for the rest of his life. At least one of his sons also followed him into the ministry. Payson
was very active in establishing new churches for communities in northern New England,
including the church in Coventry, Vermont. He was the author of numerous sermons, several of
which were published and had a modest distribution. Additionally, Payson helped educate and
provide for Sophia Sawyer, a woman who would later become famous for establishing the
Fayetteville Female Academy. Rev. Payson served in the New Hampshire State senate from
1802-1805. He was a staunch Federalist supporter. Along with its alarming message regarding.
both religion and state, Proof of the Illuminati was also a part of Payson’s campaign platform.
A link to a free PDF download of the book:
And to purchase a copy from our on-line bookstore: https://campconstitution.net/product/major-general-john-stark-hero-of-bunker-hill-and-bennington-1728-1822/
The Weekly Sam: Book Proposal by Samuel L. Blumenfeld Is Your Child Attending a Zoo? Or, How to Evaluate Your Child’s School
Sam had dozens of book proposals and man of they were incorporated into other. Here is just one of them:
Introduction: One of the most important decisions parents must make is choosing a
school for their child. For most parents, the choice is pretty limited to the public school a child is
assigned to. In some communities, parents do have a choice among schools. But how are parents
to know which school is the best one? What should they look for? What kind of questions should
they ask? This book will help parents evaluate a school so that they can make a decision based on
personal observation and objective information.
Chapter One:
Where do we start? First you must find out if the school has a well-articulated philosophy of education that determines what is taught and how it is taught. You must
find out if the school operates within the framework of a mandated reform program assisted by the
federal government, requiring a specific fonn of curriculum. If this is the case, then the purpose of
the school is to serve the needs of the government ratber than the needs of your child. If the
schools in your town are so conducted, then you may want to consider a private school or
homeschooling. Government directed school reforms will be discussed in a later chapter.
Chapter Two:
The physical environment. Whether parents know it or not, the
physical environment of a building and classroom can have a positive or negative effect on the
child. The parent must ask: Would I enjoy being in this building or classroom six hours a day, five
days a week, for a whole school year? Is tbe atmosphere in this classroom conducive to learning
or is there too much noise and distraction? Ask for permission to actually sit in a classroom for an
hour or two to see what goes on among the students and how the teacher handles the kids.
The seating arrangement is also important. If the children are seated in rows and the teacher
is the focus of attention in front of the class, then the class will probably be conducted in a
traditional manner. If the children are seated behind little tables grouped together so that they can
openly socialize and do group work then the class will be conducted along “progressive” lines.
Because there is significant difference between the traditional and the progressive models, a
parent should know which model the school has adopted. Some schools try to combine both
models. The school you’re looking at may be one of those.
Chapter Three:
The Traditional Model. What is its philosophical basis? The emphasis
is usually on teaching academic skills, maintaining classroom discipline, sometimes having a dress
code, using textbooks, teaching subject matter as separate disci plines. In the kindergarten and
primary grades reading is usually taught with phonics, and arithmetic is learned primarily by rote
memorization. Few public schools today adhere to the traditional model. To find that model,
parents may have to consider private alternatives. The advantage of the traditional model is that
children learn their basics pretty well and student behavior is well controlled.
Chapter Four: The Progressive Model. Most schools today have adopted the
progressive model of education. You will know it the moment you enter a first-grade classroom.
The children will be seated around tables, chatting or working in groups. The walls will be
decorated with all sorts of posters, pictures of animals, etc. The teacher will not be the focus of
attention. She is now a facilitator. Occasionally she will read to a group of kids seated on the floor
and will have a dicussion with them. Her teaching program usually includes whole-language,
invented spelling, the new math, etc. Subject matter will be interdisciplinary. The atmosphere may
seem chaotic, but it is believed that each child is learning on his or her own. The advantage of this
model is its informality and general permissiveness.
Chapter Five:
Teachers. When you put a child in a school you are entrusting that child
to a complete stranger. Most parents assume that their child’s teacher is qualified and certified. But
experience, sometimes painful, has taught us that some of today’s teachers may not only be
incompetent, but also immoral. How can parents know what kind of individual is their child’s
teacher? If possible, get background information on the faculty: colleges attended, degrees earned.
If the school does not have such information, you might talk with the teacher and elicit the
information you want in a chatty, friendly, non-threatening way.
Chapter Six:
Teaching Reading. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
That certainly applies to the field of reading instruction. Faulty teaching methods can cause reading
problems, and it behooves parents to find out how reading is being taught in the school. This
chapter will explain the various ways reading is being taught, how to evaluate different programs
and what questions to ask. Although educators have declared that the reading war between
phonics and whole language is over, it is doubtful that it really is. Thus, it is most important to
know what to look for in a school’s reading program.
Chapter Seven:
Writing and Spelling. You would think that such subjects would be
taught in a way that would virtually satisfy all parents. Unfortunately, that is not the case. One of
the questions most often asked by parents is how to improve an older child’s spelling. More often
than not that child was taught writing by the invented spelling method, which, unfortunately,
creates spelling problems. Again, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you teach
spelling in a logical, rational way, you can avoid developing bad spelling habits. Also, find out
how your child will be taught to write: cursive first or print first? The proper sequence makes all
the difference.
Chapter Eight:
Math. Millions of children emerge from our schools with poor
mathematical skills. Usually the problem can be traced back to the first and second grades and
how the child was taught arithmetic. Again, prevention can guard your child against mathematical
dysfunction. There are good ways and bad ways to teach arithmetic. This chapter will help
parents recognize the good and the bad ways.
Chapter Nine:
The new federally mandated curriculum. Most parents are not aware of
the sweeping reforms that are being implemented in schools across the nation. These radical
changes may persuade you to seek alternatives for your children. The new curriculum is the result
of three important pieces of legislation passed by Congress in 1994: Goals 2000; School-to-Work
Opportunities Act; and the Improving America’s Schools Act. It is important for parents to
understand the ramifications of these acts. They are changing the goals of schooling and what
children are to be taught. They also include gathering extensi ve personal data about your child
which will become a permanent record in a federal computer in Washington.
Chapter Ten:
Music, Art, and Foreign Language. Most parents want their children to
be exposed to the arts and some study of music. Does the school teach art? Does the school teach
children to play musical instruments? If not, does it at least teach music appreciation? Does the
school have a band or a chorus? Foreign language is another way of expanding a child’s cultural
horizons. Find out what languages the school offers. For some parents, cultural education is an
important way to instill love and appreciation of the arts and reading. It provides nourishment for
the soul. If a school is deficient in this area, you may not want to put your child there.
Chapter Eleven: Computers in the classroom. Is the school technologically up to date?
About the Author
Samuel L. Blumenfeld has written ten books on education, including:
The New Illiterates
How to Tutor
Alpha-Phonics: A Primer for Beginning Readers
Homeschooling: A Parents Guide to Teaching Children
He is considered one of the world’s top authorities on reading.
He has lectured in all fifty states as well as in Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand.
He is very well known among homeschoolers and has spoken at many
homeschool conventions over the last fifteen years.
Dr. Blumenfeld also edited The Blumenfeld Education Letter for ten
years, keeping a close watch on the growing illiteracy problem.
He presently is a columnist for World Net Daily and several other
internet websites and writes regularly for Practical Homeschooling.
Prior to becoming a full-time writer, Dr. Blumenfeld was an editor
in the book publishing industry in New York.
He worked at Rinehart & Company, The Viking Press, The World
Publishing Company, and Grosset & Dunlap.
He decided to write this book after reading an article about Tom
Cruise’s struggle to learn to read. Tom says:
“When I was about 7 years old, I had been labeled dyslexic. I’d try to
concentrate on what I was reading, then I’d get to the end of the page
and have very little memory of anything I’d read. I would go blank,
feel anxious, nervous, bored, frustrated, dumb. I would get angry. My
legs would actually hurt when I was studying. My head ached. All
through school and well into my career, I felt like I had a secret.”
Tom was a victim of the faulty teaching methods in his school. Had
his parents known how he was being taught at school, his years of
agony and failure could have been avoided.
Camp Constitution’s “Early Bird” Registration Ends May 1st Save $50. off of each camp fee
Our 15th annual family camp is less than three months away. We offer a $50. discount for each camp fee if we receive the application before or on May 1.
|
Constitutional Minute #22 Amendments and Critical reading skills – Part 3 of 3
Examples of reading amendment language. We’ll provide the interpretation. You decide.
Sample #1: “Section 1. Total outlays of the government of the United States shall not exceed total receipts of the government of the United States at any point in time unless the excess of outlays over receipts is financed exclusively by debt issued in strict conformity with this article.” Source: H. J. Res. 32, Mar. 19, 2021
This says: “We will not spend more than we take in unless we find a way to spend more than we take in.”, yes? Next……………..
Sample #2: “No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a roll call vote”. Source: S. J. Res. 12, 105th Congress, Jan. 28, 1997
This says we will not raise taxes unless, of course, we vote to raise taxes, yes? Next…………….
Sample #3…. ‘‘Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly
chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress…”
Source: S. J. Res., Hyde-Smith, Feb. 2021
Where is there any authority in the Constitution for Congress to link spending to the GDP? So, this is no restriction at all! It is a new authority to spend (linked to GDP), not restricted to the “enumerated powers” only!
Sample #4: Amendment suggested to get rid of the unconstitutional executive (administrative) agencies:
“All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate. ”This says that as long as these unconstitutional executive agencies are reauthorized, they stay! In effect, they legalize agencies that are currently unlawful.
Source: Constitutional Lawyer Mark Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy” (Page 99-100 The Liberty Amendments). He has five more in his book that do the opposite of what he claims. Some constitutional expert!
For more on this, you can go here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/mark-levins-liberty-amendments-legalizing-tyranny/
Your taxes at work: ‘eco-anxiety’ counseling Climate doomsayers and cancel culture work to justify counseling for bureaucrats’ climate grief
US Fish and Wildlife Service employees are struggling to cope with feelings of trauma and loss over the world’s changing climates and imperiled environments. Their work repeatedly confronts them with ecological changes, but even a sense of “anticipated loss” perhaps decades from now requires compassionate help. Or so the FWS and American Psychological Association tell us.
The FWS is thus offering paid leave to employees who attend “eco-anxiety” and “climate grief” training. When the House Natural Resources Committee called the sessions a colossal waste of money, the agency downplayed their cost and scope. But naturally the “woke” programs don’t end there.
FWS Director Martha Williams is also pushing diversity-equity-inclusion-LBGTQ programs as the agency’s “number one priority” (or perhaps number two, after climate change). Employees can take as much paid time off as needed for DEI and “gay pride” programs and eco-anguish counseling.
There’s no word about programs to help employees deal with widespread habitat and wildlife destruction that will result from millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels and tens of thousands of miles of new transmission lines, due to “net zero” policies implemented in the name of averting the “climate crisis.” Apparently no programs offer paid leave to participate in “conservative pride” campaigns or study Earth’s historic ice ages, warm periods, little ice ages and decades-long droughts.
That’s hardly surprising. The FWS and Interior Department were getting eco-centric and anti-fossil-fuel when I worked there 35 years ago. Like American and Western society in general, their culture has simply gotten more noticeably and intolerantly devoted to extreme environmentalist agendas since then.
Movies, television and news stories, constant instruction in what to think, rather than how to think, an absence of religion and ethics in many schools and homes, and incessant themes of inequality, victimhood and global doom foster widespread tension, anxiety and depression. They leave too many children, teens and adults unable to cope with life and setbacks, less respectful of authority and human life, inured to violence, and aggressively intolerant of opinions that differ from their own ideologies and agendas.
Even before they were forced to endure Covid-induced lockdowns, nearly 20% of Americans were taking antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs, some linked to precipitating acts of violence; a third of high school students experienced prolonged anxiety, depression and hopelessness; and almost one in five teenagers had contemplated suicide.
Social isolation, minimal physical and outdoor activity, video games and reading self-selected online media have amplified depression and “chronic incapacitating mental illness” in America and many Western countries. Also hardly surprising, the problems are increasingly blamed on climate change.
“Climate grief is real,” self-proclaimed experts insist, and it’s spreading rapidly among young people. “The future is frightening,” 77% of 10,000 young people ages 16-25 from the USA and other countries told “climate anxiety” and “climate depression” investigators. Many children have climate nightmares.
“The climate mental health crisis” already affects people who have “lost everything in worsening climate infernos,” claims a NASA scientist and climate activist who’s certain we face “the end of life on Earth as we know it.” He’s not alone in being convinced that every extreme weather event and ecological calamity today is due to or made worse by fossil fuel and agricultural emissions.
“I don’t want to be alive anymore,” wailed a four-year-old who’s clearly been indoctrinated already. “The animals are all going to die, and I don’t want to be here when all the animals are dead.”
Parents fantasize about killing their children, over fears of a “climate-ravaged future.” Parents, teens and even children increasingly consider suicide.
At least one psychologist has based his entire practice on addressing climate psychoses. The Climate Psychology Alliance provides an online directory of “climate-aware therapists,” and a “peer support network” offers grief therapy modeled on twelve-step drug addiction programs.
There’s only one real solution to this epidemic, other “experts” insist: Governments must “take action now” to “end the climate crisis,” to eliminate “the death knell of climate chaos” that threatens us. Otherwise the epidemic of anxiety, depression, pills, climate grief and suicide will steadily worsen.
This is nonsense, insanity. We don’t have a climate crisis. We have a climate fear-mongering crisis.
We don’t need to “fix” exaggerated and over-hyped climate problems. We need to end the junk science, the indoctrination dominating news stories and classroom discussions about energy and climate change, the censorship that prevents alternative, reality-based facts and voices from being heard, the massive government funding of one side of this crucial debate.
Claims of “unprecedented” temperatures and extreme weather, floods and droughts have no basis in real-world evidence. The “climate crisis” exists in greenhouse-gas-focused computer models, headlines and hype, not in reality. There is no unprecedented upward trend in the frequency of violent US tornados, or US landfalling hurricanes, for example – though the 12-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes hitting the United States between Wilma (October 2005) and Harvey (August 2017) is an all-time record.
Unfortunately, viewpoints, evidence and experts challenging climate crisis claims are too often banished from school curricula, news and social media, and government policy discussions.
President Biden’s “national climate advisor” worked closely with Big Tech and news organizations, to suppress facts about climate change, fossil fuels, and the acreage, raw materials and mining required for wind, solar and battery power. Meta (Facebook), YouTube, pre-Musk Twitter and other companies routinely help to deplatform, demonetize and censor anyone contesting crisis-promoting claims.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “summaries for policy makers” often misrepresent scientific findings and advance frightening but unsupported scenarios about Earth’s future climate. The IPCC also ignores studies that demonstrate how increased atmospheric carbon dioxide improves plant growth and wildlife habitats, how climate has changed repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, and that eliminating fossil fuels would result in extensive ecological damage from wind, solar, battery and transmission line mining and installations.
China, India and other countries are rapidly expanding their oil, gas and coal use, to improve their economies and lift billions out of poverty. China dominates raw material and “green tech” supply chains, making the West increasingly reliant on China for energy, economy and national defense needs – via Chinese mines, processing plants and factories that operate under minimal standards for pollution control, habitat destruction, and slave and child labor. As a result:
* Nothing the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia do will have any effect on global fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions.
* Western foreign and domestic policy options will be restricted by reliance on adversarial nations for pseudo-renewable energy materials and technologies.
* Prices for energy, goods and services will skyrocket, because every megawatt of wind and solar must be duplicated with backup batteries or generators.
* Politicians and bureaucrats – egged on by loud, often violent mobs – will increasingly dictate our energy consumption, living standards, home sizes, vacations, and what we can eat, drink, drive and buy.
These are the real existential threats to democracy, society, humanity and planet. Parents, voters, legislators and judges concerned about our future must take action now to stop this insanity.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, climate change, environmental policy and human rights.
Exposing Earth Day
This morning, I received numerous E-mails from companies- national and local- from Best Buy to Miles Kimball to the Monadnock Ledger -pushing Earth Day. I flipped on my TV to see that even Fox News is also in on the Earth Day hustle. No surprise. Fox News also promotes “Pride Month.” But instead of going along with the fraud, we at Camp Constitution will expose it.
The first Earth Day was observed on April 22, 1970 which just so happened to be the 100 Anniversary of the birth of Lenin, a syphilitic, mass murdering psychopath that members of the American Left loved and admired.
Gary Allen, author and journalist wrote an expose of Earth Day titled “Ecology Government Control of the Environment” which was published in the May 1970 edition of “The American Opinion”: Here is an excerpt:
Nobody is willing to admit who
selected the date of April twenty-second
for the “Earth Day” teach-ins. That is,
after all, the one -hundredth anniversary
of Lenin’s birth. A coincidence you
think? The student activists just picked a
convenient weekend? Hardly. April
twenty-second falls on a Wednesday. For
months the radical and Communist Press
has been detailing plans to celebrate
Lenin’s centennial birthday with worldwide demonstrations.
April twenty second is as familiar a date to these people as Washington’s Birthday is to real
Americans. The selection of this date as
“Earth Day” provides an excellent indication of who is running the campus ecology movement.
I telephoned the Teach-In’s national
coordinator, Denis Hayes, to ask him how
April twenty-second happened to be
selected for the ecology festivities. Mr.
Hayes, late of Harvard ‘s Graduate School
of Government, had obviously memorized his answer: “It also happens to be
William Shakespeare’s birthday , Queen
Elizabeth’s birthday, Maryanna Kaufman’s birthday and her Aunt Ann’s birthday, but I am sure that none of those
entered into Gaylord Nelson’s thoughts
when he and the steering committee or
whoever it was chose that date .”
Mr. Hayes should avoid lying about
matters so easily checked. The date settled upon as the natal day of William
Shakespeare is April 23 , I564 ; Queen
Elizabeth was born on April 21 , 1926.
Which leads one to suspect that even
Hayes’ friends Maryanna Kaufman and
her aunt (if they exist) might well have
been born on some Friday the thirteenth
for all he knows. What else do you
suppose Mr. Hayes lies about?
Here is a link to the article in its entirety: https://s3.amazonaws.com/camppictures/CampArchive/Domestic/Ecology.pdf
The greatest polluters are governments especially in communist countries where there is no private property. An excellent read on the subject is Troubled Lands The Legacy of Soviet Environmental Destruction.
Camp Constitution believes that we are stewards of God’s Earth, and we have a duty and obligation to be good and wise stewards of God’s Earth, but we do not worship the Earth nor do we think that allowing governments unlimited powers over property will insure a clean and healthy environment. Last year, we became a sponsor of two miles of highway in Alton, NH where we organize two clean-ups a year. We encouraged local left-wing groups to do likewise but they have not risen to the challenge, Perhaps they are too busy holding signs at the local rotary on Saturday morning urging the killing of unborn babies.
The Weekly Sam: Why the Federal Government Should Get Out of Education By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
The real issue is Limited Government versus Unlimited Government.
Most Americans want less government, smaller government and lower taxes. The only
way to accomplish this is by abolishing federal departments and bureaucracies. As far
back as the Reagan administration, Republicans promised to abolish the Department of
Education. They couldn’t do it then because they lacked a majority in Congress. But
whatever happened to the plan to abolish the Department of Education when Republicans
became the majority? Not only did they forget their promise, but in September 1996 they
passed the single largest increase in federal education funding: $3.5 billion. Who were
the Republicans trying to impress? The National Education Association?
The basic question is: Can good education be provided in the U.S. without the help or
intrusion of the federal government? The answer is clearly yes. In fact, there is ample
evidence indicating that the present decline in educational quality is a direct result of
federal funding which has been used by the educators to fund more and more expensive
educational malpractice.
A little historical background will help us understand why the federal role in education in
America is more of an aberration than a natural development. There is no mention of
education in the U.S. Constitution. However, in 1785 and 1787, while the United States
were still under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress passed the
Northwest Ordinance Acts which provided for the orderly settlement of the Northwest
Territory and encouraged the establishment of schools in the territory by stating:
“Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be encouraged.” The
new states were required to set aside the 16th section of each township to be used for
educational purposes. But there was no requirement that the schools be government
owned and operated.
Seventy-five years later, in 1862, Congress passed and President Lincoln signed the
Morrill Land Grant Act providing each loyal state with 30,000 acres of land for each
Senator and Representative, the land to be used for agricultural and mechanical schools
under a measure proposed by Senator Justin S. Morrill of Vermont. Five years later, in
1867, a federal Office of Education was established. Its purpose was:
“To collect such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the
several States and Territories, and to diffuse such information respecting the organization and
management of schools and school systems, and methods of teaching as shall aid the People of
the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and
otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country.”
It should be noted that the National Education Association had been founded ten years
earlier in 1857 and that its members called for the establishment of a federal department
of education at the founding convention. And it is obvious that in that statement of
purpose was an expansionist view of the government’s future role in education.
After World War I, the NEA began a long range campaign to get federal aid for public
education. From 1867 to 1940–a period of 73 years–the Congress passed about 11 minor
pieces of legislation related to education. The fear of federal control of schools kept most
legislators from voting for federal aid to public education. But resistance was gradually
broken down by such acts as the National School Lunch Act of 1946, the School Milk
Program Act of 1954.
But it was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 passed during the
Johnson administration which opened the floodgates of the U.S. Treasury for the benefit
of the education establishment. From 1965 to 1983–18 years–there were 43 education
acts passed by the Congress, including the establishment in 1979 of a U.S. Department of
Education with cabinet status. In the year 1994 alone, there were about 180 educational
restructuring bills before Congress! The three most important bills enacted were the
Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the Improving America’s
Schools Act, a reauthorization of the ESEA of 1965. All of this legislation was passed
with much Republican help. In short, the Congress launched an avalanche of bills which
virtually amounted to a cultural revolution.
It seemed as if all restraints had been removed on government expansion and intrusion
into education, and the Republican Congress did nothing to reverse the trend. That is
why the federal government has become a government of unlimited power.
We must return to the principle of limited government if we wish to reduce the cost of
government and its unwarranted intrusion in the education of our children. A limited
federal government does only those things that cannot be done by the states or the private
sector. The purpose of taxes is to pay for government not change society.
There is no doubt that the federal intrusion in education has harmed education and
produced the dumbing down effect. Test scores attest to this bizarre phenomenon. Since
1962, SAT verbal scores have declined despite billions of federal dollars pumped into
public education. In September 1993, the U.S. Department of Education revealed that
some 90 million adult Americans have grossly inadequate reading and writing skills,
despite compulsory school attendance. The more federal money Congress pumps into
education the worse it gets. Why? Because educational malpractice is very expensive,
and without federal funding we’d have much less of it.
The simple truth is that federal education programs cost the taxpayers billions of dollars,
yet not one of these programs has actually improved education. Claims have been made
that Headstart is a successful program. But research indicates that whatever gains
children make in Headstart are lost by the third grade.
Federal education grants subsidize a liberal academic elite with its secular humanist,
socialist agenda, thus violating the Constitutional prohibition against establishing a state
religion: Humanism.
The Data Collection System of the National Center for Education Statistics threatens
family privacy and freedom. Children are not a “national resource” to be monitored and
controlled for use by the state or industry. They are individuals whose lives belong to
themselves, not to “the economy.”
The federal government has institutionalized educational malpractice by supporting
unsound educational theories and practices which have found their way into the public
schools via the federally funded National Diffusion Network. Federal aid to public
education simply reinforces a socialist, government owned and operated education system
which distorts market values and encourages monopoly union practices.
Meanwhile, the education establishment continues to grow and prosper. In 1982, the
average public school teacher’s salary was $19,274. In 1995 it was up to $37,643., and in
2008 it us up to $47,602. In 1982, per pupil expenditure was $2,726. In 1995-96 the
national average was up to $6,213, and in 2009 it was up to $9,963. In 1984, total
expenditure for public education was $134.5 billion. In 2002 it had risen to $420 billion.
In short, never has public education been more generously supported by the taxpayer and
never have our schools seen more violence, academic disarray, and parental
dissatisfaction than the present. What is even more shocking is that over four million
students must be drugged daily with Ritalin in order to be able to attend class.
Today, well-connected change agents like Mark Tucker are busy imposing on America
the new Human Resources Development System, exuberantly described by Tucker in an
18-page letter to Hillary Clinton when her husband was elected President. Tucker
described his system as “a seamless web of opportunities to develop one’s skills that
literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone–young and old,
poor and rich, worker and full-time student.”
And so, in place of academic excellence, we have Outcome Based Education, Whole
Language, Multiculturalism, Skinnerian Mastery Learning, National Teaching Standards
and Certification, School-Based Clinics, Attitude Assessments, Global Citizenship, and
Socialized Medicine for every student.
What is actually taking place is a cultural revolution engineered by behavioral
psychologists, hwnanist educators, and socialist change agents using a whole galaxy of
education programs to implement their agenda, fmanced by the federal government.
And much of this has taken place when Republicans were in control of Congress. And
that accounts for the extreme frustration of conservatives who vote Republican but get
liberal results. When will this change?
The takeover of the White House and the federal government by radical leftists has finally
awakened the American people to what has happened to this country since we started
allowing the federal government to exceed all limits placed on it by the Constitution. But
in order to succeed in restoring the principles of government held by our founding fathers,
we must return to limited government. This can only be done if the American people
realize the potential for tyranny inherent in a government education system.
The most important institution in a socialist state is a government owned and controlled
school system wherein children can be indoctrinated to accept a socialist way of life. And
the best way to prevent this from occurring is to return to the concept of educational
freedom in which the federal government has no role in education.
Local public schools can easily become private institutions governed by local trustees and
supported by tuition fees. This would greatly reduce the tax burden on home owners and
provide more than enough resources to pay for the tuitions of poor families. The costs of
education would decrease dramatically since education would once more become reality
based wherein the fundamental academic subjects would be taught without the added
costs of educational malpractice. Individual intelligence would be enhanced, while
collectivist group-think would be discarded.
Can this be done? Only if America’s conservative leaders demand that it should be done.
The home-school movement has already proven that parents can actually teach better
than our high-priced professionals, that children progress better academically when taught
at home, and that the cost of educating a child at home is less than $1,000 a year.
If Americans want to once more experience what it means to be free, they must burst out
of the high-priced straitjacket imposed on them by the socialist education tyrants. If they
want better education at lower cost, then the prescription for success is simple: get the
government out of education.
The above article was written more than 20 years ago. Please visit and subscribe to the Sam Blumenfeld Archives: https://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/
Lexington & Concord, and the Right to Keep & Bear Arms “To Disarm the People is the Best Way to Enslave Them”-George Mason – American Minute with Bill Federer
The sun never set on the British Empire.
It was the largest empire in world history.
Out of nearly 200 countries in the world, only 22 were never controlled, invaded or attacked by Britain.
In April of 1775, the British Royal Military Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, sent 800 British Army Regulars, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, on a preemptive raid to seize guns from American patriots at Lexington and Concord.
George Mason of Virginia stated:
“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
A warning was sent from Boston’s Old North Church that the British were coming, as recounted in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem, “Paul Revere’s Ride”:
“Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the 18th of April, in 75;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
… He said to his friend, ‘If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light …
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm …
Through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight.”
Paul Revere was captured along the way, but William Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott continued the midnight ride.
Revere wrote:
“About 10 o’clock, Dr. Warren sent in great haste for me, and begged that I would immediately set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock & Adams were …
I got a horse of Deacon Larkin … and set off … It was then about 11 o’clock … After I had passed Charlestown Neck … I saw two men on horseback … When I got near them, I discovered they were British officers.
One tried to get a head of me, and the other to take me. I turned my horse very quick, and galloped … to Medford Road.
The one who chased me, endeavoring to cut me off, got into a clay pond, near where the new tavern is now built. I got clear of him …
I went through Medford, over the bridge, and up to Menotomy … I alarmed almost every house, till I got to Lexington …”
Revere continued:
“I … mentioned, that we had better alarm all the inhabitants till we got to Concord; the young Doctor much approved of it …
We had got nearly half way.
Mr. Dawes and the Doctor stopped to alarm the people of a house: I was about one hundred rods a head, when I saw two men … in an instant I was surrounded by four …
The Doctor being foremost, he came up; and we tried to get past them; but they being armed with pistols and swords, they forced us in to the pasture; -the Doctor jumped his horse over a low stone wall, and got to Concord …
Six officers, on horseback … ordered me to dismount … He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston …
Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, clapped his pistol to my head … and told me he was going to ask me some questions, and if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out.”
In a related story, four months earlier, on December 13, 1774, two British warships set sail for Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to seize gunpowder and weapons patriots had taken from Fort William and Mary.
Riding all night to warn the citizens of Portsmouth that the British were coming were Paul Revere and 29-year-old African American Wentworth Cheswell.
Cheswell was constable of Newmarket, New Hampshire, being considered the first African American elected to public office in U.S. history.
Paul Revere also described a spy, Dr. Benjamin Church, who leaked patriot plans to British General Gates before the Battle of Lexington:
“Dr. Church … appeared to be a high son of Liberty. He frequented all the places where they met …
I came across Deacon Caleb Davis. … He told me, that the morning Dr. Church went into Boston … General Gage and Dr. Church came out of a room, discoursing together, like persons who had been long acquainted.
He appeared to be quite surprised at seeing Deacon Davis there …
I was told by another person … that he saw Church go in to General Gage’s House … that he got out of the carriage and went up the steps more like a man that was acquainted …
He did not doubt that Church was in the interest of the British; and that it was he who informed General Gage … that a short time before the Battle of Lexington … Church had no money … and all at once, he had several hundred New British Guineas.”
On April 19th, “Patriots’ Day,” the British continued their march to Lexington and Concord intent on seizing arms and arresting Tea Party leader Samuel Adams and Massachusetts Provincial Congress president John Hancock.
On the way, the British passed through Arlington, Massachusetts.
They stormed the inn where lodged the patriots Elbridge Gerry, Azor Orne and Jeremiah Lee, who was America’s largest colonial ship owner and the wealthiest man in Massachusetts.
Jeremiah Lee was using his ships to smuggle in supplies to the patriots.
When the British stormed the inn, Gerry, Orne and Lee fled wearing only their night clothes and hid, laying on the cold ground in a wet cornfield for hours.
Jeremiah Lee caught a pneumonia and died a few weeks later.
John Hancock had previously experienced British tax collectors confiscating his merchant ship Liberty in 1768
Hancock had declared to the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, April 15, 1775:
“In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments …
a day … be set apart as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer … to confess their sins … to implore the Forgiveness of all our Transgression.”
Connecticut Governor Jonathan Trumbull, whom Washington called ‘the first of the patriots’, was the only colonial governor at the start of the Revolution to support the patriot cause.
Trumbull proclaimed a Day of Fasting, April 19, 1775, that:
“God would graciously pour out His Holy Spirit on us to bring us to a thorough repentance and effectual reformation that our iniquities may not be our ruin;
that He would restore, preserve and secure the liberties of this and all the other British American colonies, and make the land a mountain of Holiness, and habitation of righteousness forever.”
As the sun rose, April 19, 1775, there were 800 British regulars approaching Lexington’s town green.
To their surprise, they were met by Lexington’s militia, comprised of 77 men who were mostly members of the Church of Christ, pastored by Rev. Jonas Clark, whose wife was a cousin of John Hancock.
Patriot captain John Parker told the militia:
“Stand your ground; don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have War, let it begin here!”
It is disputed who fired first, but the British opened fire and killed or wounded eighteen of Captain Parker’s men.
In his sermon preached a year later, April 19, 1776, Pastor Jonas Clark described:
“Under cover of the darkness, a brigade of these instruments of violence and tyranny, made their approach …
They enter this town … like murders and cut-throats … without provocation, without warning, when no war was proclaimed, they draw the sword of violence, upon the inhabitants of this town,
and with a cruelty and barbarity, which would have made the most hardened savage blush, they shed INNOCENT BLOOD! …”
Pastor Clark continued:
“And the names of Munroe, Parker, and others, that fell victims to the rage of blood-thirsty oppressors, on that gloomy morning …
And from the nineteenth of April, 1775, we may venture to predict, will be dated, in future history, THE LIBERTY or SLAVERY of the AMERICAN WORLD, according as a sovereign God shall see fit to smile, or frown upon the interesting cause, in which we are engaged.”
The American militia retreated, growing to number 400, and took a stand at Concord’s Old North Bridge.
The British fired first, wounding four and killing two.
Militia commander John Buttrick yelled:
“Fire, for God’s sake, fellow soldiers, fire!”
Taking many casualties, the British began a hasty retreat 20 miles back to Boston, being ambushed along the way by John Parker’s militia in “Parker’s Revenge.”
Tragically, in the anger of their retreat, the British shot or bayoneted almost everyone in the town of Menotomy.
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow continued his poem:
“You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,—
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.”
Longfellow ended:
“So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,—
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
… In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.”
Though it took eight long years, Americans won their independence.
A century later, on April 19, 1875, at that same Old North Bridge, patriots were honored by the dedication of the “Minute Man Statue” designed by Daniel Chester French.
On the statue’s base is a stanza of the poem The Concord Hymn, written Ralph Waldo Emerson, April 19, 1860:
“By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled;
Here once the embattled farmers stood;
And fired the shot heard round the world.
The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps,
And time the ruined bridge has swept,
Down the dark stream that seaward creeps.
… On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We place with joy a votive stone,
That memory may their deeds redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.
O Thou who made those heroes dare,
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid time and nature gently spare,
The shaft we raised to them and Thee.”
Two months after the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the Continental Congress, under President John Hancock, declared, June 12, 1775:
“Congress … considering the present critical, alarming and calamitous state … do earnestly recommend … a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer,
that we may with united hearts … confess and deplore our many sins and offer up our joint supplications to the All-wise, Omnipotent and merciful Disposer of all Events, humbly beseeching Him to forgive our iniquities …
It is recommended to Christians of all denominations to assemble for public worship and to abstain from servile labor and recreations of said day.”
The Revolutionary War began with an attempt by government officials to seize citizens’ guns.
Patriots had prepared for this with the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, October 26, 1774, organizing their defenses with one-third of their regiments being “Minutemen,” men who were ready to fight at a minute’s notice.
This idea came from the Bible, where in Ancient Israel every man was armed and ready to defend his family and community:
David B. Kopel wrote in “Ancient Hebrew Militia Law” (Denver University Law Review, July 15, 2013):
“New Englanders intensely self-identified with ancient Israel … Thus, ancient Hebrew militia law is part of the intellectual background of the American militia system, and of the Second Amendment …
Every male ‘from the age of twenty years up, all those in Israel who are able to bear arms’ … were obliged to fight, to go forth ‘armed to battle.’
Men who failed this duty ‘sinned against the Lord.'”
E.C. Wines wrote in Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, 1853 (NY: Geo. P. Putnam & Co., 1853):
“Moses’ constitution made no provision for a standing army …
The whole body of citizens … formed a national guard.”
- “Thus says the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side” (Exodus 32:27);
- “They all hold swords, being expert in war: every man hath his sword upon his thigh” (Song of Solomon 3:8);
- “Every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side (Nehemiah 4:17-18).
James Madison wrote (Letters & Writings of James Madison, 1865, p. 406):
“The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprise of ambition …
Kingdoms of Europe … are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
Noah Webster wrote in An Examination into the leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed.”
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (2nd Edition, 1833, p. 125):
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium (safeguard) of the liberties of a Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.”
Machiavelli wrote in The Prince (trans. L. Ricci, 1952, p. 73, 81):
“An armed republic submits less easily to the rule of one of its citizens.”
Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Cooley wrote in The General Principles of Constitutional Law, 1891 (2nd Ed., 1891, p. 282):
“The Second Amendment … was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers …
The people … shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.”
Patrick Henry, the five-time Governor of the State of Virginia, wrote (Elliott, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions, 1836, 1941, p. 378):
“Let him candidly tell me, where and when did freedom exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people?
No nation ever retained its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse …
The great object is, that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul to Algiers and France, wrote in Advice to the Privileged Orders in the Several States of Europe, Resulting from the Necessity and Propriety of a General Revolution in the Principle of Government, 1792 (reprinted 1956, p. 46):
“The foundation of everything is … that the people will form an equal representative government … that the people will be universally armed …
A people that legislate for themselves ought to be in the habit of protecting themselves.”
Jeffrey R. Snyder, esq., wrote in “A Nation of Cowards” (The Public Interest, 1993, no. 113):
“Classical republican philosophy has long recognized the critical relationship between personal liberty and the possession of arms by a people ready and willing to use them.”
The Roman orator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, wrote (Cicero, Selected Political Speeches, trans. M. Grant, 1969, p. 222):
“There exists a law … inborn in our hearts … that if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”
Montesquieu wrote in The Spirit of the Laws (trans. T. Nugent, 1899, p. 64):
“It is unreasonable … to oblige a man not to attempt the defense of his own life.”
Machiavelli wrote in The Prince (trans. L. Ricci, 1952, p. 73, 81):
“It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willing one who is unarmed.”
Cesare Beccaria wrote in On Crimes and Punishment (trans. H. Paolucci, 1963, p. 87-88):
“False is the idea … that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it …
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature.
They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most scared laws of humanity, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity …
Such laws … serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Paine wrote (Writings of Thomas Paine, Conway, ed., 1894, p. 56):
“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self defense.
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order.”
Aristotle wrote in Parts of Animals (trans. A. Peck, 1961, p. 373):
“Animals have just one method of defense and cannot change it for another …
For man, on the other hand, many means of defense are available, and he can change them at any time …
Take the hand: this is as good as a talon, or a claw, or a horn, or again, a spear, or a sword, or any other weapon or tool it can be all of these.”
Aristotle wrote in Politics (trans. T. Sinclair, 1962, p. 274):
“Those who possess and can wield arms are in a position to decide whether the constitution is to continue or not.”
Sir Thomas More wrote in Utopia (trans. R.M. Adams, 1975, p. 71):
“Men and women alike … assiduously exercise themselves in military training … to protect their own territory or to drive an invading enemy out of their friends’ land or, in pity for a people oppressed by tyranny, to deliver them by force of arms from the yoke and slavery of the tyrant.”
Roman historian Livy wrote (trans. B. Foster, 1919, p. 148):
“Formerly — in the reign of Rome’s 6th king, Servius Tullius, 578-535 B.C. — the right to bear arms had belonged solely to the patricians — ruling class.
Now plebeians — common citizens — were given a place in the army …
All the citizens capable of bearing arms were required to provide their own swords, spears, and other armor.”
Machiavelli wrote in On the Art of War (trans. E. Farnsworth, 1965, p. 30):
“Citizens, when legally armed … did the least mischief to any state …
Rome remained free for four hundred years and Sparta eight hundred, although their citizens were armed all that time, but many other states that have been disarmed have lost their liberty in less than forty years.”
Machiavelli wrote in Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius (trans. L. Walker, 1965, p. 492):
“If any city be armed … as Rome was … all its citizens, alike in their private and official capacity … it will be found they will be of the same mind …
But, when they are not familiar with arms and merely trust to the whim of fortune … they will change with the changes of fortune.”
Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations (ed., Cannan, p. 309):
“Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous of liberty …
The standing army of Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic.
The standing army of Cromwell turned the Long Parliament out of doors.”
Earl Warren wrote in The Bill of Rights and the Military (37N.Y.U. L. Rev. 181, 1962):
“Our War of the Revolution was, in good measure, fought as a protest against standing armies …
Thus we find in the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment … specifically authorizing a decentralized militia, guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
Jeffrey R. Snyder, esq., wrote in “A Nation of Cowards” (The Public Interest, 1993, no. 113):
“Political theorists as dissimilar as Niccolo Machiavelli, Sir Thomas More, James Harrington, Algernon Sidney, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau all shared the view that the possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny, and that to be disarmed by one’s government is tantamount to being enslaved by it.”
Anti-socialist John Basil Barnhill stated in a debate with Henry M. Tichenor, 1914 (National Rip Saw Publishing Co., St. Louis, MO):
“Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.”
The Texas Declaration of Independence, March 2, 1836, stated:
“The late changes made in the government by General Antonio Lopez Santa Anna, who having overturned the constitution of his country, now offers, as the cruel alternative, either abandon our homes acquired by so many privations, or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny …
It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defense – the rightful property of freemen — and formidable only to tyrannical governments.”
Theodore Brantner Wilson described in The Black Codes of the South (Univ,ersity of Alabama Press, 1965, p. 56) laws passed by Democrat Legislators:
“Mississippi quickly passed one law … outlawing possession of weapons by Negroes. The militia proceeded to disarm the Negroes in such a brutal fashion as to cause much criticism.
Alabama Negroes were disarmed by similar methods with like results.”
Frederick Douglass, the African-American advisor to President Lincoln, stated:
“A man’s rights rest in three boxes: The ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box.”
Mahatma Gandhi wrote in An Autobiography of the Story of My Experiments with the Truth (trans. M. Desai, 1927):
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
Islamic sharia law forbids non-Muslims from possessing arms, swords or weapons of any kind.
Adolph Hitler acted similarly with his Edict of March 18, 1938:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.”
German Firearm Act of 1937 stated:
“Firearm licenses will not be granted to Jews.”
Richard Munday reported in “The Monopoly of Power,” presented to the American Society of Criminology, 1991, the Nazi order regarding arms, S.A. Ober Führer of Bad Tolz:
“S.A.–Storm Troopers, S.S.–para-military Gestapo, and Stahlhelm … Anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named organizations and who unjustifiably keeps his weapon … must be regarded as an enemy of the national government and will be brought to account without compunction and with the utmost severity.”
Democrat Vice-President Hubert Humphrey was quoted by David T. Hardy in The Second Amendment as a Restraint on State and Federal Firearms Restrictions (Kates, ed., Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, 1979):
“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
Jefferson wrote to George Washington, 1796 (The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, ed., New York & London, Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900, No. 2138, iv, 143; Paul Leicester Ford, ed., vii. 84):
“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”
Similar to the midnight ride of Paul Revere, when Jefferson was Governor of Virginia, British Colonel Tarleton led his cavalry to Charlottesville to capture him.
Jefferson barely escaped, June 3, 1781, thanks to 27-year-old Jack Jouett, Junior, the “Paul Revere of the South,” who rode all night to warn to warn him.
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration on the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 1775:
“We … most solemnly, before God and the world declare that … the arms we have been compelled to assume we will use with perseverance, exerting to their utmost energies all those powers which our Creator hath given us, to preserve that liberty which He committed to us in sacred deposit.”
–(Re3posted with permission from the American Minute https://americanminute.com/blogs/todays-american-minute
Camp Constitution Hosts Patriots Day Overnight
Camp Constitution hosted a Patriot’s Day overnight for several homeschool families at the Lane Learning Center in Lexington, MA-a few blocks from the Lexington Battle Green Sunday April 16 -Monday April 17.
The event began Sunday evening with a viewing the movie “Johnny Tremain, and then a walk to the Hancock- Clark House to watch the reenactment of the “Midnight Ride of Paul Revere” where we met up with Camp Constitution instructor and historical reenactor Rich Howell
Then back to the Lane House for a few hours’ sleep. At 4:30 AM, we took a walk to the Lexington Green to get a good spot for viewing the reenactment and the wreath laying ceremony at the gravesite of Lexington Militia leader Captain John Parker, and then back to the Lane House to warm up and enjoy a hearty breakfast cooked by Camp Constitution Director Hal Shurtleff
Camp Constitution offers tours of Lexington, Concord, Boston and Plymouth to homeschool and church groups.
The Weekly Sam: Going to School Back in the Great Depression by Sam Blumenfeld
One of the great advantages to being 83 years old is that I have lived through a great deal
of history and have a perspective on life that you, my younger readers, do not have. I
remember the days when I would look around and find myself perhaps the youngest
person in the crowd. I took great delight in that. Today I look around and I am usually
the oldest. But I know that God has kept me around for a purpose, and I suspect that He
wants me to keep doing what I have been doing for the last forty years: writing about
education and promoting homeschooling.
How different is education today from what it was when I first attended a public school
back in New York City in the early 1930s! That was during the Great Depression, but I
don’t remember anyone I knew being depressed. My father was in the produce business
and thus we always had plenty of food to eat. My mother actually made her own noodles
for chicken soup. I was able to walk to school and come home for lunch. I remember
admiring the smiling policeman who stopped traffic so that we could cross the avenue on
our way to school.
On Saturdays my friends and I went to the movies. Price of admission? Ten cents. In
those days a penny could get you a Tootsie Roll, a package of gum, a bun. Five cents
could get you a hotdog.
At school we all sat in desks bolted to the floor. The desks were arranged in rows so that
you only saw the back of the head of the pupil in front of you. If you coughed, you
didn’t cough in anyone’s face. Today, with kids seated around tables, they are coughing
into each others faces and spreading disease.
Back then, the teacher had her desk at the front of the class and she taught us all the same
thing. There was no such thing as an “individual learning plan.” We learned to read
with phonics because it was the Depression and the schools could not afford the new
Dick and Jane look-say books.
We were taught penmanship, cursive writing, which
helped us learn to read because it taught us directionality and manual discipline. By
connecting the letters in a word, we learned the word’s spelling and how different
combinations of letters made different sounds.
Back then in elementary school we were taught arithmetic, not math. Arithmetic is a
counting system. In addition you count forward. In subtraction you count backwards. In
Multiplication you count forward in multiples, and in division you count backwards in
multiples. The teachers knew then that only by memorizing the arithmetic facts could
you become efficient at using this ingenious place-value counting system. And so we
memorized the arithmetic tables. Mathematics, which dealt with relationships, came
later.
Of course, some of us learned the 3Rs better than others. Some of our teachers were not
terribly good at teaching. Others were great, and we loved them. I remember being
humiliated in front of a class because, for some reason, I could not remember some
simple arithmetic function, and that angered the teacher.
From that experience, I have always advised tutors and homeschooling parents to never
get angry when a child is having difficulty learning something. Be patient, and explain
what it is that you want the student to learn. The brain is a very remarkable instrument
and can do both amazing and silly things–often at the same time!
So we all learned reading, writing, and arithmetic. And because we could read, we then
learned history and geography.
We learned all about the history of New York and its
five boroughs. It was a happy time for us kids. No one had dyslexia, or ADD, or
ADHD. No one was on Ritalin. There was no sex ed or death ed, no multiculturalism,
no values clarification, no secular humanism. The schools did not try to undermine our
religious beliefs or morals. They were teaching us to become good patriotic Americans.
Since most of us came from immigrant families, becoming good Americans was very
important. The only decoration in our classroom was a portrait of George Washington.
Moreover, Biblical religion was respected, and the Principal recited the 23rd Psalm at
each assembly.
In Third Grade, we had Music Appreciation. The teacher brought out her hand driven
Victrola from the closet and played classical music for us. I still remember some of the
pieces she played: The Swan by Saint-Saens. March Slav by Tchaikovsky. And I know
that that’s where I acquired my taste for classical music.
So I had a very decent primary and elementary education. And the public school was an
institution which instilled great patriotic values and love of country. They did not dumb
us down; they lifted us up. But those days are long gone, and today I tell parents: do not
put your child in a public school. If you want to preserve their mental sanity, teach them
at home.
Today’s public schools have become criminal enterprises where children’s brains are
deliberately crippled by whole-language and look-say, where drugs are pushed on
millions of children who must ingest Ritalin, where a child’s religious beliefs are
undermined by the practices of behavioral psychology, where pornography is foisted on
the students in the name of sex education, where money is extorted from taxpayers to pay
for the dumbing down of the future generation. Children in such a system will suffer
lifelong deficits, and that is why home schooling is so important, and why homeschoolers
should bless their parents for keeping out of such a harmful system.
(This was written in 2009. For more gems like this, please visit Sam’s archives:
https://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/