Presidents’ Day — George Washington’s Birthday – American Minute with Bill Federer
Presidents’ Day–George Washington’s Birthday
Presidents’ Day is actually Washington’s birthday, recognized by an Act of Congress for government offices in Washington, D.C., in 1879, and for all federal offices in 1885.
In 1971, the Uniform Monday Holiday Act to create more three day weekends moved the observance of Washington’s birthday to the third Monday in February.
As Abraham Lincoln was also born in February, so many States include him in the observance, and still other States include all the Presidents.
George Washington was born FEBRUARY 22, 1732.
He was:
- unanimously chosen as the Army’s Commander-in-Chief;
- unanimously chosen as President of the Constitutional Convention;
- unanimously chosen as the first U.S. President;
- unanimously re-elected to a second term.
George Washington was an Anglican, and, after the Revolution, an Episcopalian.
George’s great-great-grandfather, Rev. Lawrence Washington, was an Anglican minister who taught at Oxford.
Lawrence and his wife, Amphyllis Twigen, had a son named John.
When the the Puritans won the English Civil War in 1651, Anglican ministers were demoted. Lawrence was reduced to being an assistant minister – a vicar – at an impoverished parish in Essex, England.
It was during this time that John Washington, George Washington’s great-grandfather, apprenticed as a merchant in London.
He sailed as second officer on a ship to the Colony of Virginia to purchase tobacco.
In 1657, when a storm partially sank their vessel in the Potomac River, John swam ashore.
While the ship was being repaired, John stayed at the home of a planter Colonel Nathaniel Pope, and fell in love with his daughter, Anne. John never returned to England.
John and Anne married, and her father gave them 700 acres in Westmoreland County.
John Washington became a successful planter and a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses.
He was a militia leader during Nathaniel Bacon’s Rebellion against Governor William Berkeley in 1676.
A local Anglican church was renamed “Washington” in honor of John Washington.
When John died, he left to the church a tablet of the Ten Commandments. His Will stated:
“In the Name of God, Amen. I, John Washington, of Washington Parish, in the County of Westmoreland, in Virginia, gentleman, being of good and perfect memory, thanks be unto Almighty God for it,
and calling to remembrance the uncertain state of this transitory life, that all flesh must yield unto death, do make, constitute, and ordain this my last will and testament …
… First, being heartily sorry, from the bottom of my heart, for my sins past, most humbly desiring forgiveness of the same from the Almighty God, my Savior and Redeemer, in whom and by the merits of Jesus Christ, I trust and believe assuredly to be saved, and to have full remission and forgiveness of all my sins,
and that my soul with my body at the general resurrection shall rise again with joy.”
The oldest of John Washington’s sons was Lawrence, the grandfather of George Washington.
Lawrence married Mildred Warner, the daughter of Col. Augustine Warner, Jr., an ancestor of Queen Elizabeth II.
Lawrence and Mildred had three children, the second being Augustine, who would become George Washington’s father.
When Lawrence died in 1698, Mildred married George Gale and moved back to England with her children.
When Mildred died, a relative in America petitioned to get custody of her children, including Augustine, and they were returned to Virginia in 1704.
Augustine Washington served as a vestryman in the Anglican Truro Parish.
He and his wife Jane Butler had two sons live to adulthood, Lawrence and Augustine Jr.
Both Lawrence and Augustine, Jr., went back to England to study at the prestigious Appleby Grammar School.
Jane died in 1729.
Augustine married Mary Ball in 1731, and together they had 6 children, with the oldest, George Washington, being born February 22, 1732.
Augustine died in 1743 when George was only 11-years-old.
George hand copied the Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation, 1744, which included Rule #110:
“Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.”
George’s older half-brother Lawrence fought in the British navy under Admiral Edward Vernon, who had captured Porto Bello, Panama, from Spain in 1739.
When Lawrence returned to Virginia in 1742, he named his farm after his navy Admiral — Mount Vernon.
Lawrence married Anne Fairfax.
Her father, Col. William Fairfax, had been Collector of Customs in Barbados, and Chief Justice and Governor of the Bahamas, as well as a first cousin of Thomas Fairfax, who was the largest landowner in America with five million acres.
Lawrence arranged for George, at age 15, to begin a career in the British navy as a cabin boy, but his mother, Mary Ball Washington, refused.
George complied with his mother’s wishes and returned home.
In 1748, the 16-year-old George Washington was employed by Thomas Fairfax to survey the western area of his vast estate.
In 1751, Lawrence Washington contracted tuberculosis.
In hopes that a change of climate would help him recover, doctors recommended he travel to Barbados, where his father-in-law had been Collector of Customs.
He brought along his 17-year-old half-brother George.
This was the only time that George left the American continent.
In Barbados, George contracted smallpox, but recovered. This providentially inoculated George so that he was immune during the Revolutionary War, where it is estimated that more soldiers died of smallpox than in battle.
Lawrence died in 1752 and his Mount Vernon estate eventually was inherited by George, making him one of the youngest and largest landowners in Virginia.
George became vestryman in Truro Parish, and was godfather in baptism to several nephews and a niece.
From 1753-1758, George served in the French and Indian War.
He was a colonel under General Edward Braddock, Commander of the British forces in America.
George miraculously survived the Battle of Monongehela in 1755.Braddock was killed, leaving George in command.
On July 18, 1755, Washington wrote from Fort Cumberland to his brother, John A. Washington:
“By the All-Powerful Dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me!”
Colonel Washington wrote to Fort Loudoun, April 17, 1758:
“The last Assembly … provided for a chaplain to our regiment. On this subject I had often without any success applied to Governor Dinwiddie. I now flatter myself, that your honor will be pleased to appoint a sober, serious man for this duty. Common decency, Sir, in a camp calls for the services of a divine.”
In 1759, George fell in love Martha “Patsy” Dandridge Custis, a 26-year-old widow and mother with two children, John “Jacky” Parke Custis and Martha “Patsy” Parke Custis.
Martha had inherited five plantations totaling 17,500 acres.
Martha’s daughter Patsy died at age 16 of an epileptic seizure in 1773, while George held her in his arms. He wrote:
“The sweet, innocent girl entered into a more happy and peaceful abode than she had met in the afflicted path she had hitherto trod.”
In 1775, after the Battle of Bunker Hill, George Washington was commissioned as the General of the Continental Army.
He wrote to Martha, June 18, 1775:
“My Dearest … It has been determined in Congress, that the whole army raised for the defense of the American cause shall be put under my care, and that it is necessary for me to proceed immediately to Boston to take up command of it.
You may believe me, my dear Patsy, when I assure you, in the most solemn manner that, so far from seeking this appointment, I have used every endeavor in my power to avoid it …
But as it has been a kind of Destiny, that has thrown me upon this service, I shall hope that my undertaking it is designed to answer some good purpose …
I shall rely, therefore, confidently on that Providence which has heretofore preserved and been bountiful to me, not doubting but that I shall return safely to you in the fall.”
On July 4, 1775, General Washington ordered:
“The General … requires … observance of those articles of war … which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkenness; And … requires … punctual attendance of Divine Services.”
On October 2, 1775, General George Washington issued the order:
“Any … soldier who shall hereafter be detected playing at toss-up, pitch, and hustle, or any other games of chance … shall without delay be confined and punished …
The General does not mean by the above to discourage sports of exercise or recreation, he only means to discountenance and punish gaming.”
On February 26, 1776, General Washington issued the orders:
“All … soldiers are positively forbid playing at cards and other games of chance. At this time of public distress men may find enough to do in the service of their God and their country, without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality.”
Washington acknowledged God throughout the Revolution, as he wrote on May 15, 1776:
“The Continental Congress having ordered Friday the 17th instant to be observed as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, humbly to supplicate the mercy of Almighty God,
that it would please Him to pardon all our manifold sins and transgressions, and to prosper the arms of the United Colonies, and finally establish the peace and freedom of America upon a solid and lasting foundation;
the General commands all officers and soldiers to pay strict obedience to the orders of the Continental Congress;
that, by their unfeigned and pious observance of their religious duties, they may incline the Lord and Giver of victory to prosper our arms.”
On July 2, 1776, from his Head Quarters in New York, General Washington issued his General Orders:
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own;
whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them.
The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army.
Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore to resolve to conquer or die …”
He continued:
“Our own country’s honor calls upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world.
Let us rely upon the goodness of the cause, and the aid of the Supreme Being in whose hands victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions.”
When the Declaration of Independence was written, a copy was rushed out to Washington, who was fortifying New York City.
He had it read to his troops, then ordered chaplains placed in each regiment, stating July 9, 1776:
“The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.”
As recorded in The Writings of George Washington (March 10, 1778, 11:83-84, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), George Washington ordered:
“At a General Court Marshall … Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier…and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy.
His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Liett. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return.”
General Washington wrote at Valley Forge, May 2, 1778:
“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.”
To the Delaware Indian Chiefs who brought three youths to be trained in American schools, General Washington stated, May 12, 1779:
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.”
The tremendous victory at the Battle of Yorktown, October 19, 1781, securing America’s independence, was personally bittersweet for Washington, as his wife’s son, John Parke Custis, who had been an aide-de-camp, died there of camp fever, November 5, 1781.
Though never having children of his own, George agreed to adopt John Parke Custis’ two young children as his own: Eleanor “Nelly” Parke Custis and George Washington Parke Custis, whose daughter, Mary Anna, married Robert E. Lee.
When the Articles of Confederation proved inadequate for the new nation George Washington agreed to preside over the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
He opened the Constitutional Convention with the line:
“The event is in the hand of God.”
In 1789, he was sworn in as the first President of the United States.
President Washington thanked God for the Constitution, October 3, 1789:
“Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God …
I do recommend … rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks, for … the favorable interpositions of His Providence … we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war … for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government.”
On August 15, 1787, in a letter from Philadelphia to the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington wrote:
“I am not less ardent in my wish that you may succeed in your plan of toleration in religious matters.
Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church with that road to Heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest and easiest, and the least liable to exception.”
Washington sent a letters to the Jewish Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, and in Savannah, Georgia, stating:
“May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors, planted them in a promised land, whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation, still continue to water them with the dews of heaven.”
In 1794, during the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington became the only sitting President, as Commander-in-Chief, to lead the United States Army into the field.
Washington chose only to served two terms as President, leaving an example which every succeeding President follow till Franklin Roosevelt, necessitating the 22nd Amendment.
Washington continually had toothaches. By the time of his Inauguration, he had only one tooth.
Several dentists made make-shift dentures for him.
Washington had slaves from inheritance, marriage, and purchase, as did almost half of the founders.
As the influence of Baptists, Methodists and Quakers spread, many founders abandoned slavery — similar to today, how more and more pro-abortion supporters are becoming pro-life.
Washington freed his mulatto man William:
“And to my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom … I allow him an annuity of thirty dollars during his natural life…& this I give him as a testimony of my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary War.”
In his Will, Washington freed the rest of his slaves upon his wife Martha’s death. Martha freed them the year after Washington died.
In his Will, George also made provision that elderly and sick slaves were to be supported by his estate in perpetuity.
On May 10, 1786, George Washington wrote from to Marquis de Lafayette:
“Your late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view of emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity …
Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country.”
As the early country took shape, partisan politics became increasingly vicious, with Washington even being the victim of ungracious attacks.
He warned how ambitious politicians would be tempted to use crises as opportunities to usurp power.
In his Farewell Address, 1796, Washington warned of those who would usurp power and rule through executive orders:
“Disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual … (who) turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty …
The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism …
Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
The precedent (of usurpation) must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”
Earlier, in 1783, the American-born painter Benjamin West was in England painting the portrait of King George III.
When the King asked what General Washington planned to do now that he had won the war.
West replied:
“They say he will return to his farm.”
King George exclaimed:
“If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”
Poet Robert Frost once wrote:
“I often say of George Washington that he was one of the few men in the whole history of the world who was not carried away by power.”
Charles Francis Adams, the grandson of John Adams, wrote:
“More than all, and above all, Washington was master of himself. If there be one quality more than another in his character which may exercise a useful control over the men of the present hour, it is the total disregard of self when in the most elevated positions for influence and example.”
George Washington added a warning in his Farewell Address, 1796:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness.”
—
(This article was reposted with permission from American Minute, a registered trademark of William J. Federer. His website https://americanminute.com/
The Bible or the Axe: A Presentation by Pastor William Levi
Camp Constitution was honored to sponsor recent speaking engagements in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire for Pastor William Levi, founder of Operation Nehemiah Missions https://www.operationsnehemiah.org/ and the author of The Bible or the Axe https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Axe-Dramatic-Escape-Persecution/dp/080241138X
His presentation tells the extraordinary story of how he and his family of ten siblings fled Sudan during its first Civil War in the early to mid-1960s, his life in a refugee camp in Uganda and returning to a war ravished Sudan to rebuild. As a teenager, his grandfather, a Christian minister, showed him a Bible and an axe, and he asked young Willian to choose one. While he was tempted to choose the axe, he picked the Bible. He explained that while he supports self-defense and the right to bear arms, he believes that the Bible is the best weapon because the battle is spiritual. His Christian faith led to his arrest, imprisonment, and torture. His Muslim captors offered him his freedom if he would renounce Christianity and become a Muslim. His refusal led to more torture. He eventually escaped and made is way to Egypt where he found employment as a manager of a farm. While visiting Cairo, he met an American missionary wearing a T-shirt that read “Jesus Is Lord.” The missionary helped him to Turkey where he befriended a French Catholic priest who got him to France. He eventually made his way to the U.S. and lived with the missionary’s family in Milton, MA
Wanting to get his immigration status in order, he boarded an Amtrak train bound for Washington DC but got off in Newark, N.J. He found employment in New Jersey, got his Green card, and attended college graduating with a degree in electrical engineering. He explained that he was living the “American Dream” but God called him to create a ministry to help his fellow Christians in Sudan. He founded Operation Nehemiah Missions. The goal of the ministry is to rebuild the family, promote self-sufficiency, and most important, making disciples of Jesus Christ His ministry runs a 1,000-acre farm growing fruits, vegetables and grain, solar water pumps, a radio station, and a school with an enrollment of 500 students.
He became a proud US citizen and voted for the first time in the 2016 election. He explained that the recently created nation of the South Sudan has been under the malevolent influence of the United Nations with its anti-family and anti-freedom agenda, and warned that while he loves Muslin people, Islam is not a religion of peace. At the Community Church of Alton, he gave a copy of his book to the youngest attendee Dan Pack where he was challenged to write a book report on it and give an oral presentation.
Pastor Levi resides in Lanesboro, MA. He is married and the father of eight children. A special thanks to Pastor Sam Holo of The Community Church of Alton, and Pastor Bob Andrews of the First Parish Church of Lebanon, Maine.
A link to a similar presentation he gave at Camp Constitution’s annual family camp:
This Week Marks My Six Anniversary as Full Time Director of Camp Constitution
It was six years ago this week when I received a call from Rev. Steve Craft, my “Brother from Another Mother,” Camp Constitution’s chaplain, instructor and speaker. He urged me not to take a full-time job that I had been offered but instead told me to trust God and become Camp Constitution’s full-time director. With the full support of my family, I heeded his sage advice. And God has exceedingly blessed me and Camp Constitution.
It has been incredible six years, and I am confident that God will bless me with many more productive years as the director of Camp Constitution. I wish to thank all of you-too numerous to list here- that make my position and Camp Constitution’s mission to “Honor the Past….Teaching the Present…Preparing the Future.” May God Bless you.
The Weekly Sam: The Benefits of Cursive Writing By Sam Blumenfeld and a Link to Sam’s Cursive Tutorial
The teaching of handwriting has a low priority among educators these days. They believe
that handwriting is passe and that in the future everyone will be using worn processors to
do their writing. But have you noticed how easy it is to make errors when writing an email?
Parents can be quite confused by the subject of handwriting. So, whenever I lecture at a
homeschool convention on the second R. I always ask by a show of hands if parents think
that handwriting should be formally taught. Usually, the response is unanimously positive.
“So, you agree that teaching your child to write is an important part of your homeschooling
curriculum.” The next question I raise is: “If you believe that handwriting should be formally
taught, do you believe that your child should be taught manuscript – also known as ‘ball and-stick’ first or cursive first?” Most parents assume that ball-and-stick should precede cursive, because that’s the way they were taught in school. Besides, it is supposed to be
easier that way.
But then I tell them that when I was in primary school in the 1930s, like their grandparents,
we were all taught cursive handwriting, or what was then known as “penmanship,” using
pens dipped in real ink. That was before ballpoint pens were invented. We were actually
taught in the first grade that there was a correct way to hold a pen so that we would be
able write with ease and facility without tiring. Thus, in those ancient days, an important
part of the primary curriculum was the development of good handwriting, and we were
given plenty of drill to make that possible.
This surprises most parents who assume that print script always preceded cursive writing.
But when I tell them otherwise, I then have to explain why cursive should precede print
script and not vice versa. If you teach a child to print for the first two years, that child develops
writing habits that will become permanent. Thus, when you try to get your child to switch to cursive in the third
grade, you will find resistance to learning a whole new way of writing. That child may
continue to print for the rest of his or her life. Some children develop a hybrid handwriting
consisting of a mixture of both print and cursive. That seems to have become the dominant
form of writing in America. And there are those children who develop a good cursive
handwriting because they’ve always wanted to and practiced it secretly on the side.
Thus, experience dearly indicates that if you teach ball-and-stick first, your child may never
develop a decent cursive handwriting, while if you teach cursive first, your child can always
learn to print very nicely later on. In other words, cursive first and print later makes good
developmental sense.
An important and frequently overlooked benefit is that cursive helps a child learn to read.
With ball-and-stick, it is very easy to confuse b’s and d’s. But with cursive, a b starts like an
I, and a d starts like an a. The distinction that children make in writing the letters in cursive
carries over to the reading process. In addition, in writing print script,. the letter s may be all
over the page, sometimes written from left to right and from right to left. In cursive, where
all of the letters connect, the child learns directional discipline. This helps in learning to
spell, for how the letters join with one another creates habits of hand movement that
automatically aid the spelling process.
Of course, your child should also be taught to print. That can easily be done after your child
has developed a good cursive handwriting. Another important benefit of cursive first is if
your child is left-handed. A right-handed individual tilts the paper counter-clockwise in order
to give one’s handwriting the proper slant. With the left-handed child, the paper must be
tilted in an extreme clockwise position so that the child can write from the bottom up. If the
paper is not tilted clockwise, the left-handed child may want to use the hook. form of
writing. This usually happens when the child is taught ball-and-stick first with the paper in a
straight up position.
If you consider good handwriting or fine penmanship a desired outcome of your home
teaching, then you must teach cursive first. There are a number of good cursive programs
available on the market. The Abeka program from Pensacola Christian College is probably
one of the best currently available.
I am often asked if Italic is a good way of teaching a child to write. Italic script is more in
the class of calligraphy than handwriting, and therefore takes longer to learn and requires
more skill than a standard cursive handwriting. So, simply learn this simple principle:
cursive first. print later.
Sam created a cursive tutorial and we have made it available on his archive: https://campconstitution.net/blumenfelds-writing-tutor/
Legislators Beware: You May Be Smeared or Accused of Bribery if You Oppose An Article V Convention
The majority of people who belong to or support Convention of States and Term Limits USA are good and decent people who are rightfully concerned about the direction of our nation and earnestly believe that adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution will help solve our nation’s problems. Sadly, I cannot say that same about some of the leaders and their paid lobbyists. From Mark Meckler, founder of Convention of States who authored an article ridiculing the late Phyllis Schlafly’s age to Kenn Quinn, former lobbyist for Convention of States now working for Term Limits USA, who childishly superimposed tin foil hats on pictures of opponents of an Article V Convention, to outright accusations of bribery by Convention of States’ New Hampshire group, their leadership has a history of employing unsavory tactics to justify their agenda.
Back in 2016, I wrote an article that was posted on the New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition’s website http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2016/02/05/elected-officials-beware-you-better-support-an-article-v-convention-or-you-may-be-accused-of-bribery/ It concerned a lie manufactured by the leadership of New Hampshire’s Convention of States whose regional representative was Mr. Quinn:
Elected Officials Beware: You Better Support an Article V Convention or You May Be Accused of Bribery
Posted on Feb 5th, 2016 in Local Issues, News, State Legislation
by Bill McNally
An organization founded by Mark Meckler called “Convention of States” has its lobbyists in state houses across the United States promoting an Article V Convention. Their paid lobbyists and supporters have every right to promote one but what they don’t have a right to do is to smear honorable people who oppose one, and that is what they recently did in New Hampshire.
Recently, Hal Shurtleff, New England Coordinator for The John Birch Society, was contacted by a friend who shared the following E-mail sent out by the New Hampshire Convention of States:
“ Good Morning Supporters,
One of the members of the NH State Senate Committee Kevin Avard is now opposing SCR4 due to a donation he recently received for his campaign by the John Birch Society who is against us. Senator Avard is from District 12 which includes Brookline, Greenville, Hollis, Mason, New Ipswich, Rindge, & Wards 1, 2, & 5 in the City of Nashua. Make a call and leave a voice message to Senator Avard today at 603-271-4151 and tell him to support SCR4! Don’t forget to leave your name and the town you are calling from.
Priscilla Mills
Grassroots Coordinator
Convention of States Project
Senator Kevin Avard was informed off this outrageous slander and accusation of bribery and contacted Ms. Mills by email only to receive an arrogant reply to the effect that if he doesn’t like it, he shouldn’t be in politics. Senator Avard then contacted the New Hampshire director of Convention of States, and he went into damage control mode and issued this weak apology:
On behalf of Convention of States Action New Hampshire, I would like to publicly apologize to Senator Avard for the email message that was sent yesterday by our former volunteer Grassroots Coordinator, Priscilla Mills. The information in the message was inaccurate and I am truly sorry that it was sent. Please disregard it in its entirety. I believe that Senator Avard continues to seriously consider both sides of SCR4, and I hope that this recent error in judgment by one of our former volunteers will not prevent him from focusing his attention on the critical substance of this issue for our nation.
For the foreseeable future, I will be the only volunteer sending out communications on behalf of COS Action New Hampshire, and I will ensure that no further incorrect information is disseminated.
I sincerely hope that Senator Avard will forgive us and will not hold this error in judgment (made by one volunteer) against our entire statewide or national movement.
Sincerely,
John Therriault
New Hampshire State Director
Mr. Therriault called Ms. Mills smear “inaccurate information”, and her deed simply “an error of judgment.” Hal Shurtleff didn’t agree… “It was not inaccurate information, it was a bold face lie,” Shurtleff said, “An error of judgment?” No, it was a hateful attempt to destroy the reputation of an honorable elected official, and the good men and women who make up The John Birch Society.”
Readers should note that no apology was forthcoming to members of The John Birch Society. Mr. Shurtleff wanted to make it clear that the sponsor of the resolution calling for an Article V Convention, Senator Gary Daniels of Milford, NH is “an honorable man who has nothing to do with this ugly tactic.” Please note that if wasn’t for Mr. Shurtleff’s friend, this lie would not have been uncovered. It begs the question: How many E-mails of this nature went out to Convention of States supporters that were not detected?
Convention of States has enjoyed the support of many good, decent Americans who are well-meaning. Let us hope that they will do a little research into this group that is only a few years old. May I suggest a visit to this web site for starters:
http://www.livingroomconversations.org”
Our nation has never held an Article V Convention for good reason. Since 2013, the New Hampshire legislature, has wisely rejected all new applications for an Article V Convention. Let’s hope that they will continue to reject an Article V Convention
Mr. McNally lives in Windham, NH. He was the host of the radio show “Literacy Matters” heard on WSMN in Nashua on Mondays 9-10am, and the recipient of the NHCCS 2015 Loyalty Award (National Center for Constitutional Studies).
Article V Lobbyist Kenn Quinn Refuted by Shawn Meehan
New Hampshire legislators recently received an email from Kenn Quinn of TermLimits.org. Mr. Quinn appears to be cherry picking references, distorting them as if to practice law without a license. He projects certainty of how a convention might take place, which is dangerous and unfair to legislators that deserve facts, not marketing propaganda, so they may wisely choose their votes. His use of all block letters and the label “FACT” is demonstrative of hubris.
Numbers in brackets correspond to Endnotes that more fully provide original references supporting the statements made throughout this memo.
Term limits sound really great, but….
In these times of the uninformed emotional fervor, angst of We The People is being directed against the wrong problems. Term limits wrongly seems to be an easy solution to a problem caused by a society that has become shallow and uninterested except in times of crises.
Essentially, our problems are the results of We The People failing to be engaged, rather seeking quick emotional faux solutions to problems created because we’ve been thinking short term, only responding to emergencies, we have caused by previously only seeking emotional, short term solutions.
Term limits wrongly allows We The People to deny the problem is our fault
This is not true of course. We can go back to voting for whomever wears the badge of their party or buys the most TV commercials. To found America and keep her free, nearly 1.4 million Americans have given the ultimate sacrifice. They are dead. They died for us.
Without question we have a duty to slow down and get this right. Their sacrifices demand we have facts and integrity when we approach our Constitution.
We have a duty to meet candidates in our communities, coffee shops and churches. We have a duty to read their financial disclosures, shake their hands and look in their eyes. We have to duty to make every best attempt to elect honorable representatives, and, when the scallywags slip past our newly-affirmed efforts at Due Diligence, we must turn them out of office. We must do that, not rely on parchment barriers to do it.
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had term limits.
Why did the Founders not include them in the new Constitution? The framers of the Constitution knew term limits did more harm than good.
It is true that there are currently no rules controlling an Article V except in Article V.
To challenge this. Kenn falsely claims the 2017 Arizona Balanced Budget Amendment Planning Convention created rules for any Article V convention that is called. The American Legislative Exchange Council page describing the meeting clearly states they are draft rules and not binding. [1] “Delegates” attending from some states were not officially selected by legislatures, but hand picked, several state’s representatives, sent without formal legislative procedures. In no way was this meeting comparable to an Article V convention.
Kenn makes several broad statements absent any sourced references, claiming that numerous conventions have occurred and all followed rules. Convention promoters falsely say they have never violated rules or exceeded their authority. The following four Endnotes disprove this. [2] [3] [4] [5]
Kenn also does not seem to understand that federal laws are superior to state laws, as clearly codified in the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Congress has asserted themselves at least 41 times stating that they will call any Article V convention (just like the plain text of Article V [7] empowers them to) and that incidental to calling such, Congress will define the rules. [8] [9]
The Federal Convention Act of 1973 [10] was passed unanimously by the US Senate but never became law as the urgency to pass such bills fell away after states began to wisely rescind their Article V applications. This 1973 Act and other bill drafts are a fair indicator of Congress’ intent to define a convention. Such would exempt all delegates from any punishment for any speech, which would include votes and other actions.
This clearly means that any attempts to limit delegates or punish them, passed by their states, would be unenforceable, and therefore, a fraud to the People of such state as a marketing deception that any convention is safe and controlled by states. When US Term Limits filed suit in 1995 (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995)), the Supreme Court issued a clear rebuke of attempts by states to interfere in processes that were exclusively federally-defined as not existing prior to ratification of the Constitution. They were new powers states dd not have, and so could not delegate. The opinion’s excerpts are clear. [11]
Kenn claims “Chiafalo v Washington further proves the fact that state legislatures have full control over their appointed delegates and electors.” This is absurd as we have shown above that states may not add rules to the process. Further, “Chiafalo” deals with Article II, Section I, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment, specifically, presidential electors. The Constitution clearly grants state legislatures plenipotentiary authority to select how electors are selected. No such authority or specific guidance is offered to states via Article V, a completely different, unrelated process. Chiafalo is wholly unrelated and a sophomoric attempt to mislead.
Kenn continues, “Hamilton in Federalist 85 makes this crystal clear ; “ The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.” He actually thinks that means Congress has no input. What it actually means is that Congress must call the convention upon 2/3 of the states applying. They have no discretion and must call it.
Kenn also writes, “Any powers not expressly given to Congress under Article V falls to the States under the 10th Amendment.”
Well, except federal functions created in the Constitution. [8] [9] [11] He also claims these powers “falls to the states” under the Tenth Amendment. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the origin of the Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment. All powers pre-Constitution, belonged to the states. Those not given up, remained with the states. They didn’t fall, nor were they given to the states by anyone. They belonged to the states from the start. I’ve clearly shown that in powers created by the Constitution (not existing before it), the states have no power or authority beyond that which may be strictly pointed out.
A convention cannot be topic-limited
Kenn opposed the statement,”A convention cannot be limited to a single issue or topic,” by writing, “ FALSE, then FACT: …Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 85 specifically stated that the convention is limited to a particular amendment!” Kenn needs to stop making bold marketing statements with cherry picked references that are not true.
There are many robust references showing that an Article V convention may not be limited. [12] Further, there is an effort afoot by groups to consolidate any and all Article V applications without regard to subject. ALEC attorney Biddulph testified to this point in 2021 in South Carolina [13]
Under the Political Question Doctrine, Federal courts should refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. If in fact courts do not intervene [10], just who will have control? An Article V convention is a recipe for constitutional chaos. There are numerous states that would litigate to protect their rights in what would become an international embarrassment, further diminishing our Constitution’s illuminating light of Liberty. An Article V convention cannot be topic limited. [15]
Career politicians have, and can again, be defeated | Term limits not needed
Jun 10, 2014, in one of the most stunning primary election upsets in congressional history, the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, was soundly defeated by a Tea Party-backed economics professor David Brat, who had hammered him for being insufficiently conservative.
Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney was soundly beaten in her primary by Harriet Hageman after being censured by the Republican National Committee at its meeting in Salt Lake City on February 4, 2022.
Lauren Boebert defeated five-term incumbent Scott Tipton in the Republican primary in Colorado in 2019.
In 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was the first person since 2004 to challenge Joe Crowley, the Democratic Caucus Chair, in the primary. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign undertook grassroots mobilization and did not take donations from corporations.
Ocasio-Cortez received 57.13% of the vote (15,897) to Crowley’s 42.5% (11,761), defeating the 10-term incumbent by almost 15 percentage points on June 26, 2018.
Representative Bogert, please vote NO on the Term limits bill, delegate limitation bill, or any article V convention bill.
Respectfully,
<<Signed>>
Shawn Meehan, MSgt, USAF, Retired
Founder, Guard The Constitution
https://www.guardtheconstitution.com/category/article-v
shawn@guardtheconstitution.com
Postal: P.O. Box 34, Minden, NV 89423
Office (Voice/Text): 202-930-1750
Twitter: https://twitter.com/GuardTheConst
Facebook: facebook.com/GuardTheConstitution
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/shawnmeehan/
Endnotes:
[1]. “The rules prepared at the Arizona BBA Planning Convention are not binding upon a BBA amendment convention, as any convention can only recommend an action and every convention can adopt its own rules.”
The Arizona Balanced Budget Amendment Planning Convention, William H. Fruth, Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force, August 15, 2017
[https://alec.org/article/the-arizona-balanced-budget-amendment-planning-convention-one-of-the-most-important-assemblages-in-our-nations-history/]
[2]. Pennsylvania convention of 1873
“When the Pennsylvania convention of 1873 proposed a new constitution, along with changes in the bill of rights that went beyond what was sanctioned in the enabling act, suit was filed to prevent submission of the constitution for popular ratification . The Pennsylvania supreme court admitted that the convention had acted ultra vires, but before the case was decided the constitution had been submitted to the voters and approved by a large majority. Said the court: “The change made by the people in their political institutions, by the adoption of the proposed Constitution … forbids an inquiry into the merits of this case. The question is no longer judicial.”
— Constitutional Brinkmanship, Amending the Constitution by National Convention, By Russell L. Caplan, Oxford University Press, 1988, Page 155
[3]. New York Convention of 1821
“In any event the idea that because a convention is in some sense “sovereign” it may override its commission flourished in the state conventions of the nineteenth century. After adoption of the federal Constitution, the states, both original and newly admitted, held conventions to draft and revise their constitutions. At the 1821 New York convention, delegate Peter R. Livingston denied all limitations in an effort to show that the convention had the authority to disenfranchise blacks (a ploy to dilute their voting strength in New York City): the people are here themselves. They are present in their delegates. No restriction limits our proceedings….”
[4]. Illinois convention of 1847
“At the Illinois convention of 1847, Onslow Peters…We are here the sovereignty of the state. We are what the people of the state would be if they were congregated here in one mass meeting. We are what Louis XIV said he was- “We are the state.” We can trample the constitution under our feet as waste paper, and no one can call us to an account save the people.”
— Constitutional Brinkmanship, Amending the Constitution by National Convention, By Russell L. Caplan, Oxford University Press, 1988, Preface xii.
[5]. Illinois convention of 1862
“The Illinois convention of 1862 was pivotal for convention scholarship. That body had been called to propose a new state constitution, but in addition to submitting a charter for ratification-which was rejected-the assembly engaged in numerous unauthorized acts that were highly publicized and profoundly alienating to its constituents. Among other measures, the convention ratified a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution that Congress had stipulated was to be approved by the state legislatures, reapportioned the state’s congressional districts, approved a bond issue to aid wounded Illinois soldiers in the Union army, and began investigating the conduct of the state governor’s office.
…select committee of the convention was assigned to determine whether the assembly was bound by the limitations of its enabling act. The committee, influenced by the proceedings of the 1847 convention, announced in its report (adopted by the full membership) that a convention represents “a peaceable revolution of the state government . . . a virtual assemblage of the people of the state, sovereign within its own boundaries.” Accordingly, “after due organization of the Convention, the law calling it is no longer binding” and “the Convention has supreme power in regard to all matters incident to the alteration and amendment of the constitution.”
— Constitutional Brinkmanship, Amending the Constitution by National Convention, By Russell L. Caplan, Oxford University Press, 1988
[6]. “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
— Article VI, Clause 2, “Supremacy Clause” US Constitution [https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi]
[7]. “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
— Article V, US Constitution [https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html]
[8] “And the few cases that have been asked to deal with issues comparable to the one now tendered to this Court have uniformly held questions as to compliance with Article V’s requirements are within the sole province of Congress and not the courts — in the language that has come to characterize such issues, they are political” (that is, nonjusticiable) questions.”
— United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Wayne Wojtas, Defendant, No. 85 CR 48, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 611 F. Supp. 118; 1985 U.S. District. Lexis 19914, May 10, 1985
[9]. “As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, and Article V is no exception to the rule.”
— Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921)
[10]. The U.S. Senate passed Federal Convention Act of 1973 on July 9, 1973. Two key sections from that act are:
“SEC. 7. (a) A convention called under this Act shall be composed of as many delegates from each State as it is entitled to Senators and Representatives in Congress.”
“SEC. 7. (c) Delegates shall in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at a session of the convention, and in going to and returning from the same and for any speech or debate in the convention they shall not be questioned in any other place.”
When the Act was originally drafted and referred to the Judicial Committee, 7(a) called for one state, one vote, but was changed to this Electoral College model. As passed, it would handicap states.
7(c) makes it pretty clear that Congress intends to exempt all delegates from any potential prosecution upon their return to their state. Legislators also must consider that most parliamentary rules provide for “executive session” as was used for the entire 1787 Constitutional Convention. Delegates might not be able to be communicated with, controlled, or recalled. In executive session, the events within the convention would not be known so the states would have no knowledge of delegate performance and if a recall of delegates was necessary.
[11]. As Justice Story recognized, “the states can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out of the existence of the national government, which the constitution does not delegate to them. . . . No state can say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed.” 1 Story §627.
As Chief Justice Marshall pointed out, an “original right to tax” such federal entities “never existed, and the question whether it has been surrendered, cannot arise.” id., at 430. See also Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 46 (1868). In language that presaged Justice Story’s argument, Chief Justice Marshall concluded: “This opinion does not deprive the States of any resources which they originally possessed.” 4 Wheat., at 436. [n.15]
After the Constitutional Convention convened, the Framers were presented with, and eventually adopted a variation of, “a plan not merely to amend the Articles of Confederation but to create an entirely new National Government with a National Executive, National Judiciary, and a National Legislature.” Id., at 10. In adopting that plan, the Framers envisioned a uniform national system, rejecting the notion that the Nation was a collection of States, and instead creating a direct link between the National Government and the people of the United States.
As Justice Story observed, each Member of Congress is “an officer of the union, deriving his powers and qualifications from the constitution, and neither created by, dependent upon, nor controllable by, the states. . . . Those officers owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people.” 1 Story §627.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
[12]. Perhaps the most assertive expression of the open or general convention argument centers on the doctrine of “conventional sovereignty:” According to this theory, a convention is, in effect, a premier assembly of the people, a representative body charged by the people with the duty of framing the basic law of the land, for which purpose there devolves upon it all the power which the people themselves possess.
In short, that for the particular business of amending and revising our Constitution, the convention is possessed of sovereign powers and therefore is supreme to all other Government branches or agencies.”
— Brickfield, Problems Relating to a Federal Constitutional Convention, p. 16.
“In any event, even if Congress could specify that a convention was called to a single issue, that limitation would be unenforceable. I doubt that the Supreme Court would declare a ratified amendment void on the ground that the convention had gone beyond Congress’ instructions. The original Philadelphia convention went well beyond the purposes for which it was called and no one has suggested that the Constitution is a nullity for that reason.
Accordingly, I do not see how a convention can be limited to one topic once it has been called.”
— Robert Bork, a letter to Representative Reese Hunter, January 16, 1990
“Because no amending convention has ever occurred, an important question is whether a convention can be limited in scope, either to a particular proposal or within a particular subject. While most calls for amending conventions in the nineteenth century were general, the modern trend is to call for limited conventions. Some scholars maintain that such attempts violate Article V and are therefore void.”
— Spalding, Matthew; Edwin Meese; David F. Forte (2005-11-07). The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (p. 266). Regnery Publishing, Inc.
“Writing at the height of debate over the 1980s campaign for an Article V Convention to consider a balanced budget amendment, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger asserted that the Framers deliberately sought to provide a means of amending the Constitution that is insulated from excessive influence by either the state legislatures, or by Congress.”
His view of the convention’s authority is among the most expansive advanced by commentators on the Article V Convention: …any new constitutional convention must have the authority to study, debate, and submit to the states for ratification whatever amendments it considers appropriate (emphasis added). According to his judgment, an Article V Convention must be free to pursue any issue it pleases, notwithstanding the limitations included in either state applications or the congressional summons by which it was called:
If the legislatures of thirty-four states request Congress to call a general constitutional convention, Congress has a constitutional duty to summon such a convention. If those thirty-four states recommend in their applications that the convention consider only a particular subject, Congress still must call a convention and leave to the convention the ultimate determination of the agenda and the nature of the amendments it may choose to propose.”
— Walter E. Dellinger, “The Recurring Question of the ‘Limited’ Constitutional Convention,” Yale Law Journal, volume 88, issue 8, July 1979, p. 1624.
More recently, Michael Stokes Paulsen invoked original intent and the founders’ understanding of such a gathering. Asserting that they would have considered a “convention” to be a body that enjoyed broad powers, similar to the Constitutional Convention itself, he suggests: “Convention” had a familiar … public meaning in 1787. It referred to a deliberative political body representing the people, as it were, “out of doors.” Representatives or delegates to such a convention might well operate to some extent pursuant to “instructions” of the people thus represented, but a convention was not a pass-through or a cipher, but rather an agency ― a deliberative political body.”
— Michael Stokes Paulsen, “How to Count to Thirty-Four: The Constitutional Case for a Constitutional Convention, ”Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, volume 34, issue 3, 2011, p. 842.
[13]. 14 April 2021, ALEC Attorney David Biddulph, South Carolina Judiciary Hearing
Wednesday, April 14, 2021, in the 2:30 pm Senate Judiciary Subcommittee meeting on several directly related Article V bills, some significant non-factual testimony was offered. Hearing at: [https://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php], scroll to link titled, “Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:30 pm Senate Judiciary Committee — Senate Judiciary Subcommittee”
At Timestamp 1:28:00, Attorney David Biddulph, representing American Legislative Exchange Council, clearly and openly spoke about the planned aggregation of open Article V petitions by lawsuits from state attorneys general against Congress, to force them to call an Article V convention. This is essential to note as advocates promise states will control a convention, but they actually will not when the limited topics they approve are hijacked by this aggregation method, regardless of specific language specified by specific states. Congress will define the convention [1] and they have asserted such as reflected in the “Federal Convention Act of 1973” [2] which only the Senate passed, but it very clearly instructive that Congress will assert themselves as they have stated 41 prior times.[3]
Further, Mr. Biddulph shows how he is uninformed on the issue or dishonest when he claims Congress is not tracking Article V petitions. Congress currently does post and update valid Article V petitions from states under House of Representatives Rules, clause 3 of Rule XII here: [https://clerk.house.gov/SelectedMemorial]
“A New Strategy for the Article V Convention of States Movement // Recommendations. 1) The leaders of the different AV COS groups need to begin serious, realistic discussions concerning the future of the COS movement overall including the significance of the two aggregation studies described herein; the leaders need to begin cooperating and developing a unified approach toward convening a [GENERAL] COS by end of year 2022”
Principal author is Mr. Paul S Gardiner who served as Georgia Coalitions Director and National Veterans Coalitions Director for [COS PROJECT]. Source: https://huntforliberty.com/a-convention-strategy/
Term Limits call could trigger an open Article V convention, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) attorney that testified in 2021 in the South Carolina Judiciary Committee. They announced their plan to file a lawsuit to mandate Congress call a convention without regard to subject limitations. Term Limits resolutions gives them what they claim they need. See the proof: [https://huntforliberty.com/a-convention-strategy/]
[14]. An Article V convention has no “one state one vote” restriction and even Prof. Natelson admits such only when pressed: “Interstate conventions traditionally have determined issues according to a “one state/one vote,” although a convention is free to change the rule of suffrage.”
— Dr. Natelson writing in the ALEC Handbook, “Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States,” a Handbook for State Lawmakers, 2013 version, Section E, page 15.
[https://planetscape.github.io/noconcon/2013-article-five-handbook-1.pdf]
—
Shawn M. Meehan
2975 Santa Maria Street
Minden, NV 89423-7506
Direct Phone: 775-309-1050
Fax: 866-429-3403
EMail: airlifter2@gmail.com
Website: www.guardtheconstitution.com
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/shawnmeehan
Facebook: www.facebook.com/shawn.meehan
Twitter: shawnmeehan
The Weekly Sam: Should Christians Support Education Without God? by Samuel L. Blumenfeld
Back in 1849, when the organized Protestants of Massachusetts
debated whether or not to support the public-school movement, which was
then being heavily promoted by the Unitarians, they decided in favor of
support, but with well-expressed conditions. They wrote:
“The benefits of this system, in offering instruction to all, are so many and so great
that its religious deficiencies, –especially since they can be otherwise supplied, do not
seem to be a sufficient reason for abandoning it, and adopting in place of it, a system
of denominational parochial schools …. It is however a great evil to withdraw from the established system of common
schools, the interest and influence of the religious part of the community. On the
whole, it seems to be the wisest course, at least for the present, to do all in our power
to perfect as far as it can be done, not only its intellectual, but also its moral and
religious character.
If after a full and faithful experiment, it should at last be seen that fidelity to the
religious interests of our children forbids a further patronage of the system, we can
unite with the Evangelical Christians in the establishment of private schools, in which
more full doctrinal religious instruction may be possible.
But, until we are forced to this result, it seems to us desirable that the religious
community do all in their power to give an opportunity for a full and fair experiment of
the existing system, including not only the common schools, but also the Normal
Schools and the Board of Education.”
I don’t believe that any Christian can doubt that there has been a “full
and fair experiment” of public education for the last 150 years and that its
fidelity to the religious interests of Christian children has been proven to be
decidedly negative. In fact, thousands of Christian parents, without
knowledge of what was written in 1849, have already taken their children
out of the public schools and either decided to homeschool them or place
them in Christian schools. Their responsibilities as Christian parents have
led them to make the necessary decision for the sake of their children’s
spiritual wellbeing.
But what is disturbing is that most Christians still patronize a system
that is undermining the religious beliefs of their children. One wonders what
must happen before these parents realize the harm they are doing to their
children by keeping them in the public schools.
The simple fact is that the present government education system has
as its foundation an anti-Christian philosophy known as secular humanism.
All one has to do is read the Humanist Manifestos I and II to confirm the
truth of this assertion. Humanist Manifesto I was written in 1933 by young
Unitarian ministers who believed that the spiritual power of orthodox
religion was in decline and should be replaced by a rational, man-centered,
nontheistic religion. They wrote:
“Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science
makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values ….
Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the
end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. .. .
Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the
fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and
direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of
human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions,
their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be
reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the
modern world.”
Humanism is the only religion in America that has as its purpose and
program the reconstitution of the institutions, rituals, and ecclesiastical
methods of other religions. This is an overt declaration of war against
Biblical religion. Forty years later, Humanist Manifesto II states:
“As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. [W]e can
discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species …. No deity will save
us; we must save ourselves.”
In the January/February 1983 issue of The Humanist magazine, a
young scholar by the name of John J. Dunphy expressed exactly what the
aim of humanists is in education:
“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in
the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the
proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the
spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must
embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for
they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey
humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level-
preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an
arena of conflict between the old and the new–the rotting corpse of Christianity,
together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent
in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy
neighbor’ will finally be achieved.”
The humanist war against Christianity is going on everyday in the
classrooms of America. But the real battle is being fought in the courtrooms
of the nation. In March 1987, U.S. District Judge W. Brevard Hand ruled in
Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County. Alabama that
the public school curriculum was based on the tenets of secular humanism,
and he thereby ordered that humanist textbooks to be removed from the
schools. Five months later this ruling was overturned by the Eleventh
Circuit Court which stated that “none of these books convey a message of
government approval of secular humanism.”
In other words, humanists are free to teach their dogma in the public
schools as long as the government does not convey a message of
approval. But that is the argument used to keep Christianity out. It is said
that the mere inclusion of anything Christian in a public-school curriculum
automatically implies government approval.
The notion that public schools are neutral when it comes to religion is
belied by the strong prejudice against Christianity as openly expressed by
such humanists as John Dunphy. What we have is not neutrality but
warfare. Until Christians recognize that the government schools are
establishments of religion, and that education is fundamentally a religious
activity, we shall not be able to deal realistically with our educational crisis.
The message for Christian parents must be loud and clear: putting a
child in a public school violates God’s commandment as given in
Deuteronomy 6 to educate a child in the love and admonition of the Lord.
There is no substitute for a godly education. In place of God, the public
schools offer evolution, sex education, death education, multiculturalism,
transcendental meditation, situational ethics, drug education, and other
forms of humanist teachings. These are the programs that are creating the
new nihilist, amoral barbarians that are devastating the lives of thousands
of parents. There is hardly a Christian family that has not lost a child to the
satanic culture that grows in the public school environment.
If Christians wish to restore America as a nation under God, they shall
have to educate their children in schools that revere Him .•
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.