Save the U.S. Constitution: Stop an Article V Convention
Since 2013, out of state lobbyist, on both sides of the political spectrum, have spent much time and money attempting to get New Hampshire to pass resolutions applying for an Article V Convention. Thankfully, they have been unsuccessful. However, they are back with two resolutions HCR 1 and HCR 4.
What is an Article V Convention?
Article V of the U.S Constitution lists the two ways to amend the Constitution. The first way is where 2/3rds of the U.S. House and Senate pass proposed amendments, and then these proposed amendments go to the states for ratification where 3/4ths of the states must ratify them by state legislators or by state ratifying conventions. Congress decides which mode of ratification to use. The other way, which we have wisely never used, is where 2/3rds of the states apply for a national convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments,” delegates to the convention propose amendments and then these proposed amendments will go to the states for ratification.
Here are a few reasons against an Article V Convention:
1, There are currently no rules or laws guiding an Article V Convention. There have been some “wayward delegate” bills introduced in some states, but they are unenforceable and unconstitutional. It is the job of Congress, under the “necessary and proper” clause of the U.S. Constitution, to make laws guiding a convention. Over the years, numerous bills to govern an Article V Convention have been proposed by Congress but never passed.
2, We have no idea who the delegates will be. Will the majority be made up of conservative constitutionalists who love the U.S. Constitution or “progressives” who tend to hate the U.S. Constitution and see it as an anachronistic racist relic? Will delegates include members of Congress who Article V supporters rightfully see as part of the problem?
3, We have no idea how delegate will be chosen. Will they be elected by the people, appointed by state legislatures or by governors? If they are to be elected, will out of state money be used to influence the outcome? Will we have to suffer another season of mind-numbing attack ads?
4, A convention cannot be limited to a single issue or topic. State legislators have no Constitutional power to limit a convention.
5, Wil the votes of the delegates be one state, one vote as Article V supporters content, or will it be based on electoral votes. I do not know and neither do supporters of an Article V Convention. If votes are based on electoral votes, New Hampshire will have four votes, California 55, and New York 29.
6, Bad amendments can not only pass a convention but can be ratified by 3/4th of the states. The 16th Amendment giving us an income tax and 17th Amendment that radically changed the state-federal balance of power were passed by the 3/4ths of the states. Mike Farris of Convention of States, who recently testified before a New Hampshire committee, is calling for structural change of the Constitution, including a 50-member Supreme Court-something he failed to tell committee members. Professor Larry Lessig, a colleague of Convention of States founder Mark Meckler, called for a rewrite of the U.S. Constitution. I actually videotaped an interview with him and Wolf PAC founder Cenk Uygur where he hoped for a “runaway convention.”
- All of the proposed balanced budget amendments, promoted by “conservative” supporters of an Article V Convention, have two escape clauses: war and a national emergency. This will incentivize permanent national emergencies and make them constitutional.
8, A term limits amendment proposed by “conservative” Article V supporters may “get the bums out” after 12 years, but will also limit good members of Congress. It will also give us a permanent “lame duck” Congress.
Article V Convention supporters incorrectly content that the Founders gave us the convention method to rein in an abusive federal government. The Founders gave us the convention method if Congress was unwilling to correct defects in the Constitution. Our problem is not a defective U.S. Constitution but defective elected officials and voters many of whom support an abusive federal government.
Without realizing it, Mark Meckler, founder of Convention of States, made an excellent argument against an Article V. In a statement made to an entity called Living Room Conversations, https://livingroomconversations.org/about-us/team/ where he is listed, along with Van Jones, as a “champion,” he said: “I have come to realize that the largest divide in this country is not between the citizens of one party or another but between the citizens and the Ruling Elite in Washington, D.C and the state capitols.” In my opinion, he is playing into the hands of the elites he claims to be against.
(Meckler with Joanne Blades of Living Roo
Living Conversations and the Soros funded
MoveOn)
Readers who would like more information on the subject are welcomed to contact me at campconstitution1@gmail.com
The Constitutional Minute #16: Does the Constitution prohibit the existence of the EPA?
Yes!! Same goes for all other Executive Department offices which make “rules” for us.
Here’s why.
Under our Constitution, only CONGRESS may make laws.
See Article 1, Sec. 1, cl. 1. Here it is:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Executive departments and agencies are not Congress!
The TSA, EPA, FCC, OSHA, FDA, Dept. of Education, Transportation, Labor, etc., etc. are unauthorized, unconstitutional, unlawful offices of the Executive Department, not Congress.
Additionally, our Constitution also does not give Congress permission to delegate their law-making authority to another branch. Congress alone is responsible for laws made.
Our Constitution is one of “enumerated powers only“. That means that…..If a power is not listed for Congress, then Congress cannot do it! Where in the Constitution is “environment” an enumerated power? Give Article, Section, and clause please.
When the EPA acts, they are unlawfully and unconstitutionally acting outside the powers We the People gave them!
…and we keep electing the same Congressmen who fund it?
To learn much more, go here or to https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/the-regulation-freedom-amendment-and-daniel-webster/
Bob Hilliard
Buffalo, Texas
www.buildingblocksforliberty.org
wethepeoplehandbook@gmail.com
U.S. Russian Collusion Exposed
Elements in the United States have been colluding with Russia since at least 1917. That collusion was exposed by a number of courageous Americans over the years, but their voices were censored by the Corporate Media known today as Fake News. Indeed, the American Left. Past and present, and whose members are found both major political parties, had a long-term love affair with the Russian communists which ended when its “lovers quarrel” with Putin. Walter Duranty of the “New York Times” was perhaps the most egregious of the bunch writing stories praising Stalin while witnessing forced famine and genocide. The late Professor Anthony Sutton of the Hoover Institute wrote numerous books on the subject including Wall St and the Bolshevik Revolution and National Suicide: Military Aid To The Soviet Union.
( Professor Anthony Sutton)
In 1954, a U.S. House of Representatives’ committee known as the Reese Committee investigated some of the United State’s largest foundations. Norman Dodd who served at the committee’s chief investigator, discovered that it was the job of Ford Foundation to promote a merging of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. This short video is a portion of a full interview conducted by author and journalist Ed Griffin prior to My Dodd’s death:
The Left, in its attempt to destroy Donald Trump, created the fake Steele Dossier but the real evidence of Russian collusion has been around for decades.
The Weekly Sam: Revolution Via Education by Sam Blumenfeld
In this video, Sam Blumenfeld discusses his book Revolution Via Education. This event took place April 9, 2011 at a book signing session in Concord, NH.
Sam makes the case that the so-called progressive educators are using government schools to destroy the minds of ourt nation’s children.
Sam passed away in June of 205 but his rich legacy lives on and some of that legacy is available at the Sam Blumenfeld Archives-a free on-line resource. Please visit the site, sign-up and share: https://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/
A Racist Statue in Boston?
The Theodore Parker Church in the West Roxbury section of Boston has a larger-than-life size statue of its namesake, Unitarian minister Theodore Parker, an ardent Abolitionist, and a member of the Secret Six. There is a relief or panel on the left side of the statue that depicts a white woman breast feeding a baby, and a black child reaching up to the woman. I noticed this panel some years ago when living in the neighborhood, and while thinking it weird, didn’t think the artist had any racist motives and I still don’t. However, over the past few years, the Left is on a secular crusade to expunge our history. During the riots that followed the death of George Floyd, ” “mainly peaceful protestors” led by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, not only ripped down and/or vandalized Confederate statues but statues of Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Fredrick Douglas. They even vandalized the statue honoring the Massachusetts’ 54th Regiment-an all-black Civil War regiment.
In December of 2020, The City of Boston removed a statue of Abraham Lincoln that has been there since 1879 because some “social justice warrior ” found it offensive. A petition was circulated by a Boston teenager who claimed that he walked by the statue on a daily basis and felt it offensive. It gained sympathetic media attention, and on cue, the members of the Boston Art Commission, with zero input from the residents of Boston, voted, in true Soviet politburo style, unanimously to remove the statue. I called and E-mailed members of the commission asking that the statue be donated to Camp Constitution where it will be placed in our soon to be opened Orwellian Memory Hole Museum. They never replied to me.
So, if we apply the same standards that the Boston Arts employs, shouldn’t the good progressives at the Theodore Parker church who proudly fly the Black Lies Matter banner remove the “racist” panel?
Rights of the Patient Under Fire In Wisconsin’s Supreme Court: John Zingsheim’s Fight for Life
John Zingsheim walked into a Wisconsin hospital in the Aurora Health Care system. He was not life-flighted or on a stretcher, but walked in, and tested positive for Covid. Within 10 minutes, the doctor told him, “Mr. Zingsheim, you’re going to die,” and placed him into the CMS (Medicare/Medicaid) hospital Covid protocol (aka “NIH protocol”). Without John’s knowledge or permission, they gave him remdesivir for two days before he called his family, “I think I’m in trouble, can you help me?”
This protocol for John included unproven Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) drugs baricitinib (causes blood clots and Sepsis, and says not to give it for upper respiratory infections) and remdesivir (which is toxic to the liver and kidneys).
John’s Power of Attorney (POA), his nephew Allen Gahl, demanded he be taken off the injurious drugs. Nevertheless, another effort at giving remdesivir to him was attempted, but according to my interview with the Gahls, they caught it on his charts and were able to stop it in time. John and his POA requested life-saving treatments ivermectin and high dose IV Vitamin C, but the hospital refused. The Gahls informed me, “On the Statutory HCPOA [Healthcare Power of Attorney] Form used by hospitals, which comes from Statute 155, it also requires the hospital to give ‘necessary treatments’ requested by the POA, but these were denied John.”
Under the the hospital’s protocol treatment, John’s kidneys failed, he was on dialysis, he had had Sepsis multiple times, and he was dying on the ventilator.
The hospital sent a hospice team to each family member trying to convince them to “pull the plug” on John, stating there was nothing more they could do at that point since they were claiming he had Multiple Organ System Failure, including his kidneys, and his lungs were scarred. They told them he would never be able to return to a livable quality of life. The family sought help from the legal system, and refused to end John’s life. And the hospital refused to give him ivermectin, even though he was dying.
Aurora argued that when a medical treatment falls beneath their standard of care for patient safety, then the court has no right to intervene for the patient.
The Waukesha Circuit Court was of a different opinion and granted the request of the family to have their Power of Attorney Statute upheld, and approved an outside doctor going into the hospital to administer the ivermectin to him.
The family rejoiced and they signed away any liability to the hospital for him receiving ivermectin, and the outside doctor was made ready. While the willing doctor was getting in the car to go to John to administer the ivermectin, the Appeals Court paused the order and took the case. So in effect, the outside doctor was barred admittance to administer the POA-requested Ivermectin.
Eventually the Appeals Court ruled that the Waukesha Circuit Court erred in their decision (to honor the POA and give this dying man the ivermectin in an attempt to save his life).
Beginning in October of 2021, people across Wisconsin protested for John’s life in front of the Aurora hospital in Oconomowoc. Christians across America prayed. Through a series of miraculous events, John Zingsheim shared, he was secretly given ivermectin, and with all the prayers going up on his behalf, beat the odds and survived the CMS protocol and the hospital’s “treatment” for over 10 months, more than 100 of those days on the ventilator.
Since many people have sadly died on the ventilator within 10 days, it is beyond astounding that John survived over 100 days on it. Today John is breathing on his own with a little help from supplemental oxygen, and his kidneys have both healed and come back to full function.
Having protested for him, prayed for him, cried for him, wrote about him, asked others to pray for him, it was such an honor to recently meet him, and surreal to talk with him, to converse with someone God fought for.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023, John Zingsheim’s court case, Allen Gahl v Aurora Health Care Inc., came before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Attorney Karen L. Mueller, founder of the Amos Center for Justice and Liberty, presented oral arguments on his behalf.
The courtroom was very full, including people in attendance whose loved ones had tragically died within Wisconsin hospitals, and who firmly believe their loved ones’ deaths were the result of the CMS protocol they were placed on.
These were Attorney Karen Mueller’s opening remarks:
This Court need not decide which form of treatment for Covid is best. Rather it is simply called upon to ensure that the Wisconsin Healthcare Power of Attorney Statute is properly interpreted so that the rights it proclaims are not merely suggestions that hospitals can ignore at their pleasure.
We ask this Court to reverse the Appeals Court Decision that changed the intention of the Legislature and effectively gutted the rights of patients protected by the WI Healthcare Power of Attorney, Wisconsin Statute 155. This statute declares that patients have the right to refuse treatments preferred by their hospital and receive medical treatments withheld by the hospital, even though they are necessary. These rights can be transferred to the Principal’s Healthcare agent, if the Principal becomes unable to make the medical decisions himself.
The plain meaning analysis of this statute under this Court’s settled precedents, is that these rights are not mere suggestions, but convey and protect actual rights….
Even though Mueller had correctly stated at the beginning that this case was not a discussion on the proper treatment for Covid, nevertheless, a discussion on ivermectin commenced. Justice Jill J. Karofsky engaged in a line of questioning that coincides with the mainstream narrative that ivermectin is unsafe per the CDC and FDA for the treatment of Covid, that anecdotal stories to the contrary cannot be trusted, and that it is a drug for parasites. Justice Rebecca Bradley said, “Perhaps to expedite this line of questioning, there is in fact a study, Appendix B of the Amicus File by the Veterans of Liberty Law Firm ‘Review of Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Covid-19.’”
(It’s also worth noting that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons [AAPS] and the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance [FLCCC] both submitted an Amicus Brief on behalf of Allen Gahl and the Standard of Care and included the efficacy and safety of ivermectin. In October of 2021, on the second day of the Waukesha trail court case Allen Gahl v Aurora, FLCCC co-founder Dr. Pierre Kory was there, prepared to testify.)
On January 17 of this year, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Justice Patience Roggensack weighed in on the ongoing ivermectin discussion, stating that she has read that Africa has had a very low Covid rate, and most of their people are on ivermectin prophylactically for parasites, and the article “suggested that was another reason we should look more carefully at using ivermectin.”
Attorney Mueller noted and read from the NIH (National Institute of Health) chart 2E, pages 333-334, which lists remdesivir as the first treatment for Covid-19 and states that its safety concerns are renal [kidney] and liver toxicity; and lists ivermectin as the second treatment for Covid-19 and describes its safety concerns as “generally well-tolerated.”
A day later, Vicki McKenna of WISN Radio interviewed Attorney Karen Mueller. Vicki McKenna asks (starting at the 43-minute mark),
Does that make sense to anybody? To deny access to a completely safe drug — we’re talking end of life risk here – completely safe, and instead you want to toxify his kidneys so that he has a harder time surviving ventilation?… Ivermectin is very safe, The National Institute of Health says it’s very safe….
Why don’t you explain to us, like we’re 5, why it’s better to give the guy the thing that’s going to shoot his kidneys rather than give him a drug that at worst, won’t help him?
Attorney Karen Mueller answered,
It makes no sense. The whole thing is nonsensical, unless you understand there is something going on here… That there are Covid-19 protocols that are coming out of the Federal government, and they’re coming out through Medicare and Medicaid, and so these are policies that are being set in the federal government, and basically the hospital makes deals with them … that if you’re going to get your Medicare reimbursement, then you will follow these Covid policies. And I have a number of witnesses, not necessarily in that hospital, but other hospitals, that have said the doctors have told the family on the sly that they will lose their job if they give the ivermectin.
Back in courtroom, Justice Rebecca F. Dallet questioned how can a court be expected to get between the doctor and the patient? And Attorney Mueller pointed out that in reality the federal government has stepped between the doctor and the patient with this CMS protocol.
Although she was not able to continue due to being asked another question in another vein, paramount to this case is the Inherent power of the court to intervene for the life of a patient, which is a fundamental right protected under our Wisconsin Constitution.
Power of Attorney
Attorney Mueller stood firmly on the fact that the Healthcare POA is central to this case, because Mr. Gahl is the POA, and the one who brought the lawsuit.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley asked Mueller questions about 155.30 first paragraph, on the second page of the POA. She pointed out that the section didn’t say “request” or “demand” another treatment but only words that would stop a treatment, to which Mueller answered that we should not skip the first page of the POA, because it is crucial in requesting “necessary” treatment. In fact, Attorney Mueller clearly explained that even if she customized a personalized POA for a client, she would still be required by WI Stat. 155.30 (2) to give the first page of statutory rights or sign off that she told the client all of his or her rights (from the first page). Only the first page.
The first page of the Statutory Form on POA 155.30(1) states:
Notice to Person making this Document
You have the right to make decisions about your health care.
No health care may be given to you over your objection,
and necessary health care may not be stopped or withheld if you object.
Right to Try
During his allotted time, Aurora’s Attorney, Jason J. Franckowiak, talked about Right to Try, even though the case wasn’t based on it. He stated that Right to Try “would have no bearing on this case,” that it has very narrow restrictions, and that ivermectin would not fall under its parameters. The clear message he conveyed was that even if the court wanted to use it, it wouldn’t apply in this case.
Although no Justice brought this up, my thoughts ran along this vein while Franckowiak was speaking:
Of course, Ivermectin would not be placed in the experimental drug category of a Right to Try, as it has been FDA approved for 36 years, used safely in babies, pregnant women, handicapped, immunocompromised, the elderly, and those in between. Because of ivermectin’s widespread success, the two scientists who discovered it were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2015. “Forty percent of drugs used in hospitals are used off-label. Dr. [Peter] McCullough uses off-label drugs every single day in his career. That’s fine if you’re treating heart disease, but suddenly, if it’s Coronavirus? The FDA, the CDC, the NIH do not want you to use an off-label drug because it would compete with Big Pharma,” according to FLCCC co-founder Dr. Paul Marik.
Justice Brian Hagedorn asked Attorney Mueller if she is relying on the Right to Try. She replied that they were related to the extent that it reveals the Legislature’s Intent to prolong and protect life, but it does not directly apply here. (It does not apply to an approved, albeit off-label drug).
Personal Note From Attorney Mueller
One of the points of the case that the Aurora Attorney and some of the justices drilled down on was the credibility of the outside doctor (who was to administer the ivermectin) asking a plethora of quick questions in succession that appeared to be the weak point of the case. As soon as Mueller was done answering the exact questions, she said, “Your Honor —,” so she could highlight and literally show the court the physical order that proved the doctor she was just questioned about was no longer the prescription-writing doctor, but she immediately was asked another question in a different vein that she needed to answer.
So in my interview with Attorney Karen Mueller on January 18th, she said she would like our readers to know the following.
The consent order for the ivermectin from the hospital took away all of the arguments that two of the Justices were making about the original doctor, because he was no longer involved. The [Waukesha] Circuit Court modified the Ivermectin order and then both parties agreed to it. Aurora had already started credentialing the new doctor. There was a new doctor agreed to, in order to examine the patient, have access to his medical records, and determine and adjust the Ivermectin dosage that was needed. It [would have] changed everything they had said [in the Supreme Court] about the original doctor [who was changed during the original trial court timeframe], who was out of the picture when the Appeals Court came in.
The proposed order that we were waiting for the judge to sign is in evidence. So they did have it, even though it was never signed because the Appellate Court stayed it.
Towards the end of Mueller’s five-minute rebuttal, the following exchange took place.
Justice Hagedorn: “You did not argue the Right to Try Statute before us at all, it wasn’t one of the three grounds that you raised, you’re not relying on that, correct?”
Mueller: “The Right to Try matters regarding the spirit, and that comes down to Legislative Intent, primarily of 155.30 (2), because we’re talking about the Legislature wanting to make sure that patients had the ability to ask for and to receive treatment, that may not be preferred by the hospitals, if it was necessary —”
Justice Karofsky: “How do we know that from the language in the Statute?…We’re supposed to read the Statute, then we’re supposed to read the words in the Statute, and interpret the Statute based on the words in the Statute, and you’re asking us take a leap from what the words in the Statute say to what you are telling us the Intent of the Legislature was.”
Mueller: “The Appeals Court did make that leap and they made a determination that those words were only informative and instructive, when in fact they were directly part of the Legislative Intent. That first page of the Statutory form is required, when any hospital or any other healthcare agency hands them out to people, so that The People, the people of Wisconsin know what they can expect if they are ever in a situation where they need a healthcare agent to make the decisions for them, and this Statute informs them they have those rights. And —”
Justice Dallet: “Has this argument been successful in any Appellate Court in the Country?”
Mueller: “It has not been. And what I would say to that, Your Honor, respectfully, is that we don’t live in Texas. Or Pennsylvania. Or any other state. This is a Statute that was formed by the Legislature in Wisconsin, and the people of Wisconsin would ask that you clarify what the meaning is here so that they understand if they have any ability to ask for care when they go to the Hospital.”
The People of Wisconsin say Amen!
Aurora’s Attorney Franckowiak and some of the Justices were more concerned that the statute wasn’t specifically cited by the original circuit (trial) court, rather than discussing the weightier matter of whether the rights in the WI Healthcare Statute of POA were being upheld. Because Allen Gahl was Power of Attorney, it gave him standing to knock on the door of the court, and the judge had recognized that in the first trial, the circuit court.
Basis in the Law
Exchanges between the Hospital’s Attorney Franckowiak and Justice Rebecca Bradley several minutes before the end of the court case are extraordinary.
Justice Rebecca Bradley asked Attorney Franckowiak:
Counsel, is there anything in the law that requires the Trial Court Judge to identify the particular law, because in the transcript, and I’m going to quote from it, the Circuit Court says, ‘This Court has a significant respect for an individual’s right to choose, and choose their treatment.’ And of course this is expressed [in] Martins v Richards, which was cited by the Dissent…that case identified the right for them to make their own healthcare decisions for patients, the right to informed consent, which means that physicians must disclose what a reasonable person in the patient’s position would want to know, and finally, the right to request and receive medically viable alternative treatments and have that choice respected by her or his doctor. Of course, there was a great debate among the experts presented to the Circuit Court in this case about whether the proposed treatment was medically viable, but there was testimony to the effect that the treatment was medically viable.
So is it enough that the Circuit Court said “This Court has a significant respect for an individual’s right to choose, and choose their treatment, which has a basis in the Law?”
Franckowiak responded by saying:
Your Honor, I would note that my time is up.
He seemed relieved he wouldn’t have to answer and then flustered when he was asked to answer the question. He said:
In this particular case, it would be the contention of the hospital that the Trial Court erroneously exercised its discretion to the extent that it did consider any of the affidavits submitted by Mr. ____ [microphone fails here]. Not properly submitted, they did not have any patient-specific documentation in them, therefore reliance upon those affidavits to establish that this [ivermectin] was a potentially medically viable treatment, to which there was a reasonable choice [note: the “reasonable choice” offered by the hospital was the ventilator or hospice], would not be an appropriate exercise of discretion by the Trial Court in the first instance.
“Status Quo“
Justice Rebecca Bradley asked Aurora’s Attorney Franckowiak:
Since you’re talking about the status quo, it’s important to define what is the status quo? I’m seeing two different perspectives from the parties…the doctors at the hospital basically said, “There’s nothing more we can do, we’ll keep him on a ventilator and provide palliative care to keep him comfortable.” There was nothing offered to him, the other side is saying, “Look he has a right to try,” that’s a law that was invoked by the Appellate Court Dissent. So what is the status quo from your perspective?
Franckowiak replied:
We would take the position that the status quo at the time of the petition was that Mr. Zingsheim was being treated by a team of four different specialties including critical care, including pulmonary medicine, 24 hrs per day, supported by the nursing staff, under a protocol that the treatment team had decided, based upon the evidence, and based upon the medical condition and his current clinical condition. They were treating under that treatment plan, and that treatment plan did not include ivermectin. That was the status quo at the time, so when the judge actually made his decision in this case and initially granted the injunction, he was actually not preserving the status quo, he was actually, actively upsetting the status quo…. The treatment team was now being required to administer ivermectin, and a change in the treatment plan —
Justice Rebecca Bradley interjected:
That’s disrupting the status quo for Aurora, but it’s not disrupting the status quo for Mr. Zingsheim, who is trying to live, right? The status quo for him was he was alive, and they were trying to keep him alive.
Sweet Nectar from the Throne Room of Heaven. Other things recede into the background, including whether the trial court cited everything that led to its decisions, or whether the efficacy of ivermectin is even an issue here. It all fades, as the essence of the spirit of our Founding Fathers’ Declaration whispers through the centuries and permeates the courtroom that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness must be defended. All of these God-given, constitutionally protected rights are on the line in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, not just for John Zingsheim, but for every Wisconsinite. I would ask you to join me in prayer that the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices decide to uphold our liberties, because if we can’t make our own healthcare decisions, and if we can’t fight for those we love, then individual liberty is swallowed alive into the tomb of the collective.
Dominique Uhl is a wife and mother who is passionate her children not only grow up free, but that her future descendants are born free. She is dedicated to preserving our Constitution & rights as the Founders intended. In a culture teeming with lies and danger, she writes to share truth, preserve freedom, and save lives.
The above article originated in The New American https://thenewamerican.com/rights-of-the-patient-under-fire-in-wisconsins-supreme-court/
Camp Constitution Offers Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren, a Free Tuition to Its 15th Annual Family Camp to Avoid Further Embarrassment
On January 25, during her confirmation hearing in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Charnelle Bjelkengren was asked by Senator John Kennedy if she knew what Article V of the U.S. Constitution does. She said that it didn’t come to mind. He then asked her about Article 2. She had no idea. Joe Biden nominated Ms. Bjelkengren for United States district judge of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Washington. She received her law degree from Gonzaga University School of Law. She served as an assistant attorney general for the Washington State Attorney General’s office. Since 2019 she has served as a judge on the Spokane County Superior Court. It is not surprising to discover that a law school graduate has little to no idea of the U.S. Constitution especially one nominated by the likes of Joe Biden.
We at Camp Constitution believe that if Ms. Bjjelkengren attended our week-long family camp. she would have been able to tell Senator Kennedy that Article V of the U.S. Constitution concerns the two methods of amending the U.S. Constitution, and that Article 2 concerns the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. We have a civic, moral and patriotic duty to extend an invitation to Judge Bjelkenger to attend our week-long family camp that runs from Sunday July 16 to Friday July 21 and held at the Singing Hills Christian Camp in Plainfield, NH. https://campconstitution.net/camp-registration/ Our line-up of instructors includes Pastor David Whitney of the Institute on the Constitution https://theamericanview.com/ , Mrs. Catherine White of the Constitution Decoded http://www.constitutiondecoded.com/index.html and Mr. Norman Tregenza, a former New Hampshire state rep. and crew member on The U.S.S. Constitution. We hope to hear from her.
The Weekly Sam: A Short Uncensored History of Sex Ed by Sam Blumenfeld
The dictum that ideas have consequences is nowhere better demonstrated than in the
ideas that have led to the introduction of sex education in American schools. The first
idea of consequence was Sigmund Freud’s notion that sexual repression causes neurosis.
If sexual repression makes you ill or creates dysfunction, then the remedy, of course, is
free sexual expression. That was not the cure that Freud recommended, but Freud’s idea
so strongly influenced American culture that clothes for women went from the trussed up
sexually repressed fashions of 1900 to the loose liberating flapper skirts of the roaring
twenties-in only twenty years!
The second idea came from Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who
launched a campaign in 1916 to promote contraception and abortion in order to free
women from the burdens of unwanted pregnancy. Sanger later adopted the views of the
eugenicists who promoted the idea that the fit should be encouraged to have children and
the unfit to not. Sex education became an indispensable part of Sanger’s birth control
movement. As a result, Planned Parenthood has been one of the pioneer advocates of
comprehensive sex education in the schools. In 1953, Planned Parenthood staffer Lena
Levine wrote: “[Our goal] is to be ready as educators and parents to help young people
obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will
prevent fear and guilt. … we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best
contraception measures available so they will have the necessary means to achieve sexual
satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy.”
The third idea came from sexologist Alfred C. Kinsey, head of the Institute for Sex
Research at Indiana University, subsidized by the Rockefeller Foundation. Dr. Kinsey’s
best-selling report, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, published in 1958, promulgated
the idea that human beings are sexual from birth. The data on 317 infants and young
boys was supposedly the source of that idea. This controversial data was obtained from a
pedophile who had actually masturbated infants and boys and kept records of his
experiments. All of this was exposed years later by Dr. Judith Reisman, who accused
Kinsey of complicity in the sexual abuse of young children. Her book, Kinsey: Crimes &
Consequences (1998), provides all the sordid details.
The fourth idea came from Dr. Mary Calderone, past Medical Director of Planned
Parenthood. She and her colleagues launched SIECUS, the Sex Information and
Education Council of the United States, at the Kinsey Institute, specifically to teach
Kinseyan sexual ideology as sex education. Dr. Calderone transfonned sex education
into sexuality education, presently taught in American schools. SIECUS has provided the
public schools with a wide variety of sex education materials: films, slides, books, and
pamphlets.
The fifth idea came from the Humanist Manifesto of 1973, which challenged the views of
orthodox religion on sexual behavior and proclaimed total sexual freedom among
consenting adults as the new moral standard for sexual behavior. The Manifesto was
signed by many academicians, including Dr. Lester A. Kirkendall, a director of SIECUS,
as well as by Dr. Alan C. Guttmacher, president of Planned Parenthood.
In 1976, Dr. Kirkendall published A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities,
signed by 37 leading sexologists and authors. The book states: “Humanists have had an
important role in the sexual revolution. Although Humanist Manifesto II contains a brief
section on sexuality, we thought a more detailed statement would be useful.”
Out of this interlocking directorate of humanist sex education organizations came the
ideas that have formed the ideology of the sexual revolution and the curriculum of sex
education in American schools. The results have seen dramatic changes in teen sexual
behavior with its tragic consequences: more pre-marital sex experimentation, more teen
pregnancies, more teen abortions, more teen venereal disease, more teen emotional
unhappiness leading to an increase in drug addiction. Inevitably, pre-marital sex leads to
abusive jealousy among teens as they change sex partners. This has resulted in physical
abuse and even murders.
There is little doubt that pre-marital sex is the cause of more social problems than any
other activity in America today. Yet, pre-marital, recreational sex is heavily promoted by
music, television sitcoms, movies, books, and other products of popular culture. All of
this is legitimized by the so-called liberating ideas of Freud, Sanger, Kinsey, Calderone,
and others, while attempts to return to the moral standards based on religion are rejected
as reactionary, repressive, outmoded, and authoritarian.
Meanwhile, the sexual revolution changed America’s views on sex as reflected in actions
by government and the courts. In 1965, the u.s. Supreme Court, in the case of Griswold
v. Connecticut, ruled that Connecticut’s law prohibiting the use of contraceptives by
married couples violated a newly defmed right of marital privacy. As a result, ten states
liberalized their family planning laws and began to provide family planning services with
tax funds.
In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Services Act, which provided
support and funding for family planning services and educational programs, and for
biomedical and behavioral research in reproduction and contraceptive development. Title
X also authorized funding for a Center for Population Research within the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).
In 1970, New York state enacted the most progressive abortion law in the nation, and
Planned Parenthood of Syracuse, New York, became the first affiliate to offer abortion
services. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the constitutional right of
privacy extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, thereby legalizing abortion
throughout the United States. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood
of Central Missouri v. Danforth, struck down state requirements for parental and spousal
consent for abortion and set aside a state prohibition against saline abortions.
In 1976, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, named after Planned Parenthood’s president,
published 11 million Teenagers, which focused attention on the problem of teen
pregnancy and childbearing in the United States.
In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court found the Massachusetts statute, restricting minors’
access to abortion, unconstitutional. It ruled that if states required minors to obtain
parental consent for an abortion, they must also give minors the alternative of obtaining
the consent of a judge, in confidential proceedings and without first notifying their
parents.
In 1979, the California State Department of Education published a draft of its new sex
education curriculum, Education for Human Sexuality: A Resource Book and
Instructional Guide to Sex Education for Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. The new
program was developed with partial funding from the U.S. Office of Education. It called
for explicit instruction in human sexual intercourse, alternative sexual life styles,
abortion, masturbation and other issues involving sexuality.
Beginning in preschool or kindergarten with mixed-group visits to restrooms, these visits
are followed by a description of male and female genitalia. The children read two
pamphlets from Planned Parenthood which tell them that “masturbation is a perfectly
acceptable, useful, comforting thing to do with sexual feelings” and “masturbation cannot
hurt you and it will make you feel more relaxed.”
At age nine, children begin their study of methods of birth control, including “all the
contraceptive methods and services available.” At age 12, children “visit a local drug
store to check the availability of contraceptive products.” They study the law regarding
emancipated minors who are “making their own decisions.” They learn that “pregnancy
prevention services are available to young people without parental consent.” They take a
field trip to a “family planning clinic” and they go through it “from beginning to end” and
fill out a patient’s form for such a clinic.
Also at age 12, boys and girls study “unplanned pregnancy” and discuss whether it is best
to have the baby, offer it for adoption, or have an abortion. They discuss the “support
system” that is available to them and they listen to a guest speaker from Planned
Parenthood. They learn that the decision for an abortion is theirs alone to make requiring
no consultation with their parents.
The curriculum recommends ten days of sex instruction in each school year from preschool through the 12th grade. The program calls for the development of “decision-making skills” through exercises in “values clarification.” It should be noted that this program in sexuality has been implemented throughout the United States in many school
districts.
In 1981, the Alan Guttmacher Institute published Teenage Pregnancy: The Problem that
Hasn’t Gone Awtry, an analysis of teen sexuality, contraceptive knowledge and use, and
pregnancy experience. It emphasized the need for making confidential contraceptive
services accessible to sexually active teens.
In 1982, Planned Parenthood published “Sexuality Alphabet,” a tool for sex education.
George Grant, author of Grand Illusions, writes of this publication: “Planned
Parenthood’s sex education programs and materials are brazenly perverse. They are
frequently accentuated with crudely obscene four-letter words and illustrated by
explicitly ribald nudity. They openJy endorse aberrant behavior-homosexuality,
masturbation, fornication, incest, and even bestiality-and then they describe that
behavior in excruciating detail.”
In 1983, the National Education Association included the following resolution in its
Handbook under the title of Family Life Education:
The National Education Association believes that the developing child’s sexuality
is continually and inevitably influenced by daily contacts, including experiences
in the school envirorunent. The Association recognizes that sensitive sex
education can be a positive force in promoting physical, mental, and social health
and that the public school must assume an increasingly important role in
providing the instruction. Teachers must be qualified to teach in this area and
must be legally protected from censorship and lawsuits ….
The Association urges its affiliates and members to support appropriately.
established sex education programs, including information on birth control and
family planning, parenting skills, sexually transmitted diseases, incest and sexual
abuse, the effects of substance abuse during pregnancy, and problems associated
with and resulting from preteen and teenage pregnancies.
In 1993 it added “information on sexual abstinence, diversity of sexual orientation,
prenatal care, and sexual harassment” to its list of sex education programs. In other
words, the scope of sex education keeps getting larger and larger. For example,
information on homosexuality has developed into a course of its own within the sexuality
curriculum.
In 1985, the Alan Guttmacher Institute published its report on Teen Pregnancy in
Industrialized Countries, indicating that the U.S. teen pregnancy rate of96 per 1,000 was
the highest in the developed world. A two-year study by the National Academy of
Sciences agreed with the AGI study and concluded that “prevention of adolescent
pregnancy should have the highest priority,” and “making contraceptive methods
available and accessible to those who are sexually active and encouraging them to
diligently use these methods is the surest major strategy for pregnancy prevention.”
In 1970, less than half of the nation’s school districts offered sex education curricula and
only one had school-based birth control clinics. In 1998, more than seventy-five percent
of the districts teach sex education and there are more than one hundred clinics in
operation. Yet the percentage of illegitimate births has only increased during that time,
from only fifteen percent to a mind-boggling fifty-one percent. In California, where
public schools have had sex education for more than thirty years, the rate ofteen
pregnancy is the highest in the nation. (Grant, p. 128)
Meanwhile, the AIDS epidemic in the United States, which began with eleven cases in
1979, had grown to 24,000 cases in 1986, to 339,250 cases in 1993, to 665,357 cases in
1998. The National Education Association has recommended that AIDS education
become an integral part of the school curriculum. “AIDS education must include
education about all means of transmission, including sex and intravenous (IV) drug use.
Information on prevention options must include abstinence and medically accepted
protective devices. Instruction in decision-making skills to assist students in correlating
health information and personal behavior is essential.”
On September 15,1985, the Chicago Sun-Times reported: “Free birth control pills and
condoms are being dispensed to Du Sable High School students by a new clinic in the
South Side school. A second clinic is scheduled to open Feb. 1 at Orr High School on the
West Side for the same purpose …. William Young, director of teen health for the Ounce
of Prevention Fund, a member of a coalition of foundations fmancing the two clinics, said
the opening of medical clinics in high schools is “part of a national trend. ” Young said
that cities with clinics in high schools included St. Paul, Minn., Dallas, New York,
Kansas City, Cleveland and San Francisco …. The Du Sable clinic’s operating costs are
$225,000 a year, Young said, all being provided by the coalition of foundations, which
includes the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, N.J.; the Joyce Foundation of
Chicago; Pittway Corp. Charitable Foundation of Northbrook; and the Commonwealth
Fund of New York.”
It was inevitable that sexuality education would have to include same-sex behavior, or
homosexuality, in a very open way. On February 10, 1992, Governor William F. Weld of
Massachusetts, signed an executive order creating the nation’s first Governor’s
Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. The Commission was formed in response to the
epidemic of suicide by young gays, lesbians, and bisexuals as revealed in the 1989
federal report on youth suicide. That report concluded that gay youth represented “up to
30 percent of (the estimated 5,000) completed youth suicides annually.”
The Governor’s Commission made five key recommendations for schools: (1) School
systems should make public commitments to ensure that schools are safe places, free of
discrimination, violence, and harassment for gay and lesbian students. (2) Teachers,
guidance counselors, and all school staff should be trained to respond to the needs of gay
and lesbian students. (3) Every high school in the Commonwealth should establish a
support group where gay and straight students can meet each week and discuss gay and
lesbian issues. (4) All school libraries should develop a collection of literature, books,
films, and pamphlets for students seeking to learn more on gay and lesbian issues. (5)
Gay and lesbian themes and issues should be integrated into all subject areas in the
school curriculum.
In August 1994, the Governor’s Commission produced a report on the “Prevention of
Health Problems Among Gay and Lesbian Youth” and “Making Health and Human
Services Accessible and Effective for Gay and Lesbian Youth.”
It has become increasingly difficult to tell the difference between sex education and
pornography, for sex education is not about education, it’s about sex, and it’s difficult to
teach about sex explicitly without it becoming pornographic. For example, on March 25,
2000, the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor’s Commission for Gay
and Lesbian Youth, and the Gay and Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
co-sponsored a statewide conference at Tufts University called “Teach Out.” Teenagers
and children as young as 12 were encouraged to come from around the state, and many
were bussed in from their home districts. Homosexual activists came from across the
country to take part in the conference.
According to audio tapes made at the conference, participants discussed oral sex, anal
sex, vaginal sex, oral-vaginal sex, clitoral sex, and a homosexual practice called “fisting.”
Needless to say that when the public became aware of the substance of the Teach Out, it
caused a scandal that made headlines and was vigorously discussed on radio talk shows.
In February 1999, SIECUS conducted a public poll on its Internet site asking readers
‘”who had the greatest impact in bringing about a positive change in the way America
understands and affirms sexuality. The top ten, chosen from a list of 100, were Judy
Blume, Mary Calderone, Ellen DeGeneres, Joycelyn Elders, Hugh Hefner, Anita Hill,
Magic Johnson, Madonna, Gloria Steinam, and Ruth Westheimer.”
Obviously, there are many parents who do not share the views of the top ten. Judy
Blume’s novels have often been cited as too sexually explicit. But objection to sex
education is nothing new. Various parent and religious groups have been critical of
explicit sex education from the day it became known what was in the materials that
Planned Parenthood and SIECUS were providing the schools.
Since neither parents nor religious groups have been able to stop the sexual revolution or
the humanist sexuality juggernaut, they have called for greater emphasis on abstinence
and less on contraception and condom distribution. They achieved a substantial victory
when the Congress voted in favor of an $88 million “Abstinence Only” program as part
of President Clinton’s “National Strategy to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.” Starting in the fall
of the year 2000, abstinence-only programs began to receive automatic re-funding every
year for the next five years during the federal government’s appropriations process.
One would have thought that the sex educators would have been happy with a federal
program funding “Abstinence Only.”
Instead, SIECUS has launched a no-holds-barred
campaign against “Abstinence Only,” claiming that it won’t prevent teenage pregnancies
or STDs. They call the program “fear-based.” But what’s wrong with being afraid of
getting an unwanted pregnancy or getting AIDS? Fear prevents people from doing
wrong things and foolish things. It is an important part of our self-protective instinct.
If “Abstinence Only” is fear-based, is sexuality education pleasure-based? These
increasingly hot debates over sex education will continue for years to come as humanists
and Christians struggle for control of what goes on in the public schools.
(This speech transcript can be found on the Sam Blumenfeld Archives https://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/
Camp Constitution Donates Pocket U.S. Constitutions to High School and Junior High Students in Laconia, NH
Last night-Tuesday January 25- at the Laconia School Board’s meeting, school board member, Dawn Johnson announced that Camp Constitution has donated 1.100 pocket copies of the U.S. Constitution to Laconia’s junior high and high school students with some extras for teachers. Dawn said that the other board members were pleased with the donation.
These pocket U.S. Constitutions, published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, https://nccs.net/ also contain the Declaration of Independence, significant dates in our nation’s history, and quotes from some of the Founders. Since Camp Constitution’s inception, the New Hampshire based trust has donated over 30,000 of these booklets to students, civic organizations, and members of the general public. In 2018, the organization donated 1.,200 to the Manchester High School senior class.
Hal Shurtleff, Camp Constitution’s director and co-founder, said “While there is a certain element in this nation that holds the Constitution in disdain and would like to see it repealed, it has been my experience that people from all sides of the political and ideological spectrum cherish the U.S. Constitution and are pleased that we are handing giving them out.”
In May of 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Camp Constitution’s Christian flag lawsuit against the City of Boston https://lc.org/flag To learn more about Camp Constitution and request a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution, please visit their website https://www.campconstitution.net
(Dawn Johnson Center)
Freedom Project Academy and the Real Martin Luther King: An Interview with Dr. Duke Pesta
We recently had the opportunity to interview our friend Dr, Duke Pesta of Freedom Project Academy https://fpeusa.org/ on “The Camp Constitution Report which originates on Catching Fire News: https://catchingfire.news/ We discussed Duke’s fully accredited K-12 classic on-line academy, and the real Martin Luther King.
Dr. Duke Pesta received his M.A. in Renaissance literature from John Carroll University and his Ph.D. in Shakespeare and Renaissance literature from Purdue University. He has taught at major research institutions and small liberal arts colleges, on a wide variety of subjects at the graduate and undergraduate level, including courses on Shakespeare, Renaissance literature, the Bible, Russian literature, Christian Apologetics, and C.S. Lewis. His book, The Renaissance and the Postmodern: A Study in Comparative Critical Values, was published by Routledge in 2016.
Dr. Pesta is an engaging and animated speaker, whose experiences as an educational reformer, university professor, high school teacher, and the administrator of an online home school curriculum uniquely qualify him to address the current state of education in our country. He speaks at home school conventions and educational conferences across the nation on topics including the necessity of homeschooling, the decline of morality and critical thinking in the public schools, and the myriad ways that colleges and universities indoctrinate students.
He is currently in demand on the speaking circuit as one of America’s foremost authorities on the dangers of Common Core, having delivered over 500 hundred talks in 46 states. He has also testified about Common Core before a number of state legislatures, and participated in more than 3000 radio, television, and Skype interviews about Common Core and contemporary education, including international interviews, from Canada to China, and from Mexico to the U.K.
He has been active in educational reform and was instrumental in developing and implementing an elective Bible course that is currently available for public high school students in Texas.
He is currently a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, and the academic director of FreedomProject Education.
A link to an audio version of the interview: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/shurtleffhal/episodes/2023-01-24T09_57_31-08_00