Let’s Talk About Inflation: A Presentation by Gary Allen

Published May 12, 2022 | By Hal Shurtleff

President Biden is wrong.  Putin and Covid 19 are not responsible for inflation.  Inflation is nothing more than an increase in the money supply.  Since Biden, his handlers, and, Congress have opened the fiat money spicket, they are responsible.  Here is a timeless presentation made by the late Gary Allen in 1974:

A link to an audio version:  https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/shurtleffhal/episodes/2018-05-24T19_37_30-07_00

City of Nashua Admits They Were Wrong to Take Down My Save Women’s Sports Flag by Beth Scaer

Published May 10, 2022 | By campconstitution

My husband and I raised the Save Women’s Sports flag on the Citizen Flag Pole on Nashua City Hall Plaza on Saturday, October 10, 2020 with permission from the City of Nashua. It was supposed to stay up until Friday, October 16.

Nashua Mayor Jim Donchess had it removed in less than 24 hours claiming the message “Woman = Adult Human Female” on the flag is offensive and that it violates state law.

In Nashua City Attorney Steve Bolton’s response to my appeal to have my flag put back up, he cited the court case Shurtleff V Boston as justification for the City of Nashua to control which flags can be flown.

Earlier this year, I warned Mayor Donchess and Attorney Bolton, and the Nashua Board of Aldermen repeatedly that the Shurtleff case was being heard at the US Supreme Court and it was going very badly for Boston, which had denied Hal Shurtleff the right to fly a Christian flag on a community flagpole on Boston City Hall plaza. But they ignored me and continued to allow community groups to fly flags on the Citizen Flag Pole.

Last week, the Supreme Court justices voted 9-0 in favor of Shurtleff and said it was viewpoint discrimination to deny him the right to fly his flag when Boston had allowed all other flags requested by others to be flown.

Attorney Richard Lehmann sent a letter on my behalf to Nashua City Attorney Steve Bolton calling out the unconstitutionality of Mayor Jim Donchess having my Save Women’s Sports flag removed from the Citizen Flag Pole based on the outcome of this case and requesting that I be allowed to raise my flag again.

Related: 9-0 Supreme Court Decision Favors Free Speech, Hal Shurtleff, and Camp Constitution

The City of Nashua’s response was to remove the webpage for the Citizen Flag Pole program from the city website. This is an acknowledgment of wrongdoing by Mayor Donchess and the City of Nashua.

The City had a flag-raising scheduled for June 17 for the Pride flag which has gone up every year on the Citizen Flag Pole since the flag program was instituted in June 2017, but that event also seems to have disappeared. I am awaiting word from my alderman on what is going to happen with the flag program.

Thanks to the ACLU and the Biden administration for supporting Shurtleff’s and other citizens’ right to fly flags with other points of view on city flagpoles.

My favorite quote from the Supreme Court case is this from Shurtleff’s lawyer Matthew Staver:

If the city allows a Black Lives Matter flag, then it will probably have to allow a Proud Boys flag. That’s just what the First Amendment requires.

Today Robert Azzi, board member of ACLU-NH congratulated Shurtleff on winning his case in a Letter to the Editor to the Union Leader and applauded the ACLU-NH’s “unwavering support for the rights of all Americans”.

If Nashua continues the Citizen Flag Pole program and continues to deny me my first amendment right to fly my Save Women’s Sports flag on Nashua’s Citizen Flag Pole, I will be reaching out to the ACLU-NH for their help.

 

A rare and precious victory for Christian free speech

Published May 9, 2022 | By Lord Christopher Monckton

 

This is the story of Hal Shurtleff, the Third Flagpole and the Christian flag.

Hal Shurtleff is one of this column’s titular saints. For decades he has devoted his life to Camp Constitution, a Christian summer camp for teenagers in the back country of Massachusetts. I was a camp counsellor there for two years before the Chinese virus struck. For an intensive and exhilarating week, the teenagers are given course of instruction in everything from why Christianity is a good thing to why the climate change scam is a bad thing. But above all they are given a firm grounding in the splendors of the United States Constitution.

Outside the City Hall in Boston, long controlled by the generally anti-Christian “Democrat” Party, stand three flagpoles. On the first three flagpoles, the City flies the flags of the United States, of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and of the City of Boston. Amiably, it allows anyone else to fly a flag for a week at a time on the third flagpole. I have long wondered what would happen if I were to ask the City to fly the Union Flag.

However, in 2017, when Hal Shurtleff and his organization applied to fly a Christian flag on the third flagpole, the City of Boston turned them down flat. Almost 300 other organizations, including the Holy See and the Chinese Communist Party, had had their flags flown. But Camp Constitution was refused, solely on the ground that, on its application form, it had mentioned that the flag it proposed to fly was Christian. It bore the Cross.

The Communist city fathers weren’t having that. For the only time on record, they refused to fly a flag on request.

Don’t mess with Hal. In 2018 he applied to the District Court for an order telling the City of Boston to let him exercise the same free speech as they had permitted their fellow-Communists from China to exercise.

However, the courts in the United States are not the impartial tribunals to which we are accustomed on this side of the pond. They are political and, these days, that means they are far Left. Scandalously, the District Court turned Hal down.

So in 2019 Hal appealed to the First Circuit Court, which scandalously turned him down. In 2020 he went back to the District Court and tried again. The District Court scandalously turned him down again. In 2021 he went back to the First Circuit Court. The First Circuit Court scandalously turned him down again.

After four refusals, most people would have given up. But Hal Shurtleff is made of sterner stuff than most people. He appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

This is where the fun began. For the Supreme Court, like all the courts below it, is intensely political. But, unlike the judges in the lower courts, who are near-exclusively totalitarian, particularly in far-Left States such as Massachusetts, the justices of the Supreme Court are directly appointed by the President of the United States. Since the Republican Party is not (yet) Communist, on average about half the justices are libertarians, because the White House is Republican about half the time.

Since the Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, it is pot luck whether a President will get to appoint anyone during his term of office. As it happens, more justices have retired during Republican than during Democrat presidencies recently. Therefore, the Supreme Court is less than half totalitarian. There are three very far-Left justices, five libertarians and Chief Justice Roberts, who started out as a libertarian but has drifted towards totalitarianism over the years.

Usually, this most intensely politically partisan of courts votes strictly along party lines – five votes for libertarianism, four for totalitarianism. Sometimes, when chief justice Roberts remembers his roots, there are six votes for libertarianism and three for totalitarianism.

But get this. When Hal went before the Supreme Court, the score – just announced – was nine to nil in his favor. Even the totalitarian justices could not keep a straight face and find in favor of the ghastly City of Boston.

The issue that Hal presented to the Supremes was this: When private religious viewpoints are censored from a public forum open to all speakers, does government violate the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

The City of Boston had disreputably sought to maintain that in deciding which flags to allow and which to deny it was, in effect, exercising “government speech” and was, therefore, entitled to decide what it wanted to say on its third  flagpole. It was willing to speak up for the Chinese Communist Party, which unlawfully occupies and represses free Tibet, imprisons millions of Muslim Uyghurs in concentration camps, forcibly harvests the organs of living opponents to prolong the lives of the trembling gerontocrats of the Party, spreads fatal disease worldwide and tears down crosses and other Christian symbols from churches. But it was not willing to speak up for the world’s largest religion.

The Supreme Court did not buy Boston’s cheesy argument. For it was clear that, until the City had decided to veto Hal’s Christian flag it had allowed anyone and everyone who had applied to fly a flag to fly it. No exceptions.

It was Justice Alito who got right to the heart of the matter. He wrote: “Courts must be very careful when a government claims that speech by one or more private speakers is actually government speech. When that occurs, it can be difficult to tell whether the government is using the doctrine as a subterfuge for favoring certain private speaker over others based on viewpoint”, so that the government-speech doctrine becomes susceptible to dangerous misuse…

“To prevent the government-speech doctrine from being used as a cover for censorship, courts must focus on the identity of the speaker. The ultimate question is whether the government is actually expressing its own views or the real speaker is a private party and the government is surreptitiously engaged in the regulation of private speech…

“Government control over speech is relevant to speaker identity in that speech by a private individual or group cannot constitute government speech if the government does not attempt to control the message. But control is also an essential element of censorship.”

As totalitarianism tightens its grip, increasingly Christians are being persecuted for saying Christian things. Recall the London Methodist pastor arrested, offensively interrogated and flung into prison for 21 hours for daring to quote Genesis: “Male and female created He them.”

Recall the whistle-blower, David Daleiden, who faces nine baseless criminal charges for having exposed Planned Parenthood’s buying and selling of aborted children for medical experimentation so that its director could afford a Lamborghini.

Recall the numerous instances in which the British police, now thoroughly totalitarian, have recorded supposed “hate-speech” “crimes” on individual citizens’ criminal records, but without even telling the individuals, and without going through the boring formality of taking the alleged offenders to court.

Hal’s nine-nil victory, following four previous rejections in the lower courts, is not quite unprecedented, but it is rare and precious. Its beneficial effect will be felt worldwide. For it is a badly needed reminder that if you love your neighbor you let him have his say, even if you disagree with him.

In the words of John Milton, successfully arguing against the imposition of a tax on books:

This is true liberty, when freeborn men

Having to advise the public, may speak free.

Which he who can and will deserves high praise.

Who neither can nor will may hold his peace.

What can be juster in a state than this?

 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court Rules 9-0 in Camp Constitution’s Christian Flag Lawsuit

Published May 2, 2022 | By Hal Shurtleff

I received a call today at 10:30 AM from Roger Gannam, one of the attorneys at Liberty Counsel who has been involved with our lawsuit from the very beginning.  He informed me that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in our favor 9-0.  Since then, I have conducted a batch of media interviews.  First, I want to give God the Glory.  His Hand was in this case from the beginning.  I want to thank the folks at Liberty Counsel that did an incredible job, and all of the people who support and make Camp Constitution possible.  The main mission of Camp Constitution is to teach people the U.S. Constitution.  I think that this issue has given the nation a good lesson on the 1st Amendment.  Below is the news release from Liberty Counsel announcing the decision.
SUPREME COURT HEARD RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT CASE

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the City of Boston violated the Constitution by censoring a private flag in a public forum open to “all applicants” merely because the application referred to it as a “Christian flag.” The High Court stated that it is not government speech, and because the government admitted it censored the flag because it was referred to as a Christian flag on the application, the censorship was viewpoint discrimination, and there is no Establishment Clause defense.

Justice Breyer wrote the opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion in the judgment, in which Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion in the judgment, in which Thomas joined.

In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Liberty Counsel represents Boston resident Hal Shurtleff and his Christian civic organization, Camp Constitution. Shurtleff and Camp Constitution first asked the city in 2017 for a permit to raise the Christian flag on Boston City Hall flagpoles to commemorate Constitution Day and Citizenship Day (September 17) and the civic and cultural contributions of the Christian community to the City of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, religious tolerance, the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution.

 

The High Court wrote that “Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint ‘abridg[ed]’ their ‘freedom of speech.’”

“We do not settle this dispute by counting noses—or, rather, counting flags. That is so for several reasons. For one thing, Boston told the public that it sought ‘to accommodate all applicants’ who wished to hold events at Boston’s ‘public forums,’ including on City Hall Plaza. App. to Pet. for Cert. 137a. The application form asked only for contact information and a brief description of the event, with proposed dates and times. The city employee who handled applications testified by deposition that he had previously ‘never requested to review a flag or requested changes to a flag in connection with approval’; nor did he even see flags before the events. Id., at 150a. The city’s practice was to approve flag raisings, without exception. It has no record of denying a request until Shurtleff’s. Boston acknowledges it ‘hadn’t spent a lot of time really thinking about’ its flag-raising practices until this case. App. in No. 20–1158 (CA1), at 140 (Rooney deposition). True to its word, the city had nothing—no written policies or clear in[1]ternal guidance—about what flags groups could fly and what those flags would communicate,’” the Court wrote.

In addition, the Court wrote, “Here, Boston concedes that it denied Shurtleff ’s request solely because the Christian flag he asked to raise “promot[ed] a specific religion.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 155a (quoting Rooney deposition). Under our precedents, and in view of our government-speech holding here, that refusal discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause” (emphasis added).

There are three flagpoles outside City Hall that fly the U.S., Massachusetts and Boston flags, plus a fourth flag on Congress Street, which runs parallel to City Hall. For 12 years from 2005-2017, Boston approved 284 flag-raisings by private organizations with no denials on the flagpoles that it designated as a “public forum.” Had the flag been referred to as anything but Christian, the city would have approved it. The flag itself was not the problem; it was the word “Christian” describing it in the application that was the issue. The year before Camp Constitution’s application (2016-2017), Boston approved 39 private flag-raising events, which averaged three per month. In 2018, Boston approved 50 private flag raising events, averaging nearly one per week. One included a flag of a private credit union.

The Justices commented on the longstanding test known as the “Lemon Test” which has been used to determine if a law violates the First Amendment. Its name comes from Lemon v. Kurtzman, in which the Court ruled that a Rhode Island law that paid some of the salary of some parochial school teachers was unconstitutional. This test has proven to be unworkable and has led to inconsistent and contradictory decisions on the constitutionality of 10 Commandment monuments and cross monuments like the “Peace Cross.”

Justice Gorsuch, joined in a concurrence with Justice Thomas, stated, “It’s time to let Lemon lie in its grave.”

Justice Gorsuch continued, “How did the city get it so wrong? To be fair, at least some of the blame belongs here and traces back to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971). Issued during a “‘bygone era’” when this Court took a more freewheeling approach to interpreting legal texts, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 8), Lemon sought to devise a one-size-fits-all test for resolving Establishment Clause disputes. That project bypassed any inquiry into the Clause’s original meaning. It ignored longstanding precedents. And instead of bringing clarity to the area, Lemon produced only chaos. In time, this Court came to recognize these problems, abandoned Lemon, and returned to a more humble jurisprudence centered on the Constitution’s original meaning. Yet in this case, the city chose to follow Lemon anyway. It proved a costly decision, and Boston’s travails supply a cautionary tale for other localities and lower courts. The only sure thing Lemon yielded was new business for lawyers and judges.”

“Ultimately, Lemon devolved into a kind of children’s game. Start with a Christmas scene, a menorah, or a flag. Then pick your own “reasonable observer” avatar. In this game, the avatar’s default settings are lazy, uninformed about history, and not particularly inclined to legal research. His default mood is irritable. To play, expose your avatar to the display and ask for his reaction. How does he feel about it? Mind you: Don’t ask him whether the proposed display actually amounts to an establishment of religion. Just ask him if he feels it “endorses” religion. If so, game over,” wrote Gorsuch.

In his concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “A government violates the Constitution when (as here) it excludes religious persons, organizations, or speech because of religion from public programs, benefits, facilities, and the like.”

In his concurrence, Justice Alito wrote, “I agree with the Court’s conclusion that Boston (hereafter City) violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech when it rejected Camp Constitution’s application to fly what it characterized as a “Christian flag.” But I cannot go along with the Court’s decision to analyze this case in terms of the triad of factors—history, the public’s perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has exercised control over speech—that our decision in Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. 200 (2015), derived from Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460 (2009). See ante, at 6–12. As the Court now recognizes, those cases did not set forth a test that always and everywhere applies when the government claims that its actions are immune to First Amendment challenge under the government-speech doctrine. And treating those factors as a test obscures the real question in government-speech cases: whether the government is speaking instead of regulating private expression.”

Justice Alito continued, “But courts must be very careful when a government claims that speech by one or more private speakers is actually government speech. When that occurs, it can be difficult to tell whether the government is using the doctrine “as a subterfuge for favoring certain private speakers over others based on viewpoint,” id., at 473, and the government-speech doctrine becomes “susceptible to dangerous misuse….To prevent the government-speech doctrine from being used as a cover for censorship, courts must focus on the identity of the speaker. The ultimate question is whether the government is actually expressing its own views or the real speaker is a private party and the government is surreptitiously engaged in the “regulation of private speech.” Summum, 555 U. S., at 467…. Consider first “the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the expression.” Ante, at 6. Government control over speech is relevant to speaker identity in that speech by a private individual or group cannot constitute government speech if the government does not attempt to control the message. But control is also an essential element of censorship.”

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court strikes a victory for private speech in a public forum. This case is so much more significant than a flag. Boston openly discriminated against viewpoints it disfavored when it opened the flagpoles to all applicants and then excluded Christian viewpoints. Government cannot censor religious viewpoints under the guise of government speech.”

 

TIMELINE

  • SEPT 2017 Liberty Counsel sends Boston demand letter following flag application denial.
  • JULY 2018 Original suit filed in district court.
  • AUG 2018 Court denies preliminary injunction.
  • JUNE 2019 First Circuit affirms the denial.
  • JULY 2019 LC files motion for summary judgment in district court.
  • FEB 2020 District court denies LC summary judgment and grants city’s summary judgment.
  • JAN 2021 First Circuit affirms summary judgment for city.
  • JUNE 2021 LC files writ of certiorari at SCOTUS.
  • SEPT 2021 SCOTUS takes the case.
  • JAN 18, 2022 Oral argument set at SCOTUS.

 

BRIEFS OF LIBERTY COUNSEL AND CITY OF BOSTON

Reply Brief For The Petitioners

Petition for Certiorari

Opposition to Petition for Certiorari

Reply Brief in Support of Petition for Certiorari

Brief for Petitioners Camp Constitution

Brief for Respondent City of Boston

Reply Brief of Petitioners Camp Constitution

 

AMICUS BRIEFS:

In Support of Liberty Counsel

Brief-Amicus-(ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Advancing-American-Freedom-et al).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(American-Cornerstone-Institute).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(American-Legion).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Becket Fund for Religious Liberty).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Bronx-Household-of-Faith).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Catholicvote-org).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(CPCF, et al.).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Foundation-for-Moral-Law).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Multi-States).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(National Legal Foundation, et al.).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Notre Dame L. Sch. Rel. Lib. Initiative).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Pacific Legal Foundation).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Protect-the-First-Foundation).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Rutherford-Institute).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Thomas-More).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(United States).pdf

In Support of City of Boston

Brief-Amicus-(Anti-Defamation League).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(FFRF).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Jewish Alliance for Law, et al).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Local Governments).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(Multi States).pdf

Brief-Amicus-(National Council of Churches, et al.).pdf

 

READ MORE:

SCOTUS Rules 9-0 in Favor of Christian Flag Case

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Religious Viewpoint Discrimination

Supreme Court Heard Religious Viewpoint Case Today

Religious Viewpoint Case Goes to SCOTUS Tomorrow

Events Surrounding Shurtleff v. City of Boston SCOTUS Oral Argument

Religious Viewpoint Case Will Affect Everyone

LC Files Reply Brief at SCOTUS in Religious Viewpoint Case

Religious Viewpoint Case at SCOTUS Will Set National Precedent

USA and 12 States Support LC in Free Speech Case

Boston’s Christian Flag Debate Heading to US Supreme Court

Liberty Counsel Files Opening Brief at SCOTUS in Religious Viewpoint Case


U.S. Supreme Court Takes Christian Flag Case

Next Step for Christian Flag: U.S. Supreme Court

Christian Flag in Boston Before Court of Appeals

Boston Censorship Continues

Christian Flag Goes Back to Court

Boston Should Fly Christian Flag

Boston Discriminates Against Christian Flag

Stop Censorship of Christian Flag

Boston Sued for Censoring Christian Flag

Group sues Boston for banning Christian flag, approving 284 others

Boston Sued For Booting Christian Flag, While Allowing Islamic Symbols

Boston Sued for Banning Christian Flag, Allowing 284 Others

284 flags including China’s OK in Boston, but not Christian banner

Boston Sued for Banning Christian Flag, Allowing 284 Others

Banned in Boston — the Christian Flag

Stop Censorship of Christian Flag

Fly the ‘Christian’ flag? Sorry, no can do

Group Denied Request to Fly Christian Flag During Event Recognizing Boston’s Christian Heritage Refiles Suit

The Point: Boston Bars the Christian Flag

 

Boston’s Censorship of the Christian Flag – Mat Staver – Episode 31


 

Explore the truth behind the blatant government censorship of the Christian faith, and learn what you can do to protect your religious freedom! – Originally premiered Feb 27, 2022 on GoodLife45 – visit https://www.tv45.org

 

 

 

 

Standing Up for Judeo-Christian Values – Hal Shurtleff – Episode 29


 

As Liberty Counsel prepares to defend a religious viewpoint censorship case before the U.S. Supreme Court, it all started with the Christian flag. Hal Shurtleff of Camp Constitution joins Mat Staver to explain more on this episode of Freedom Alive.™  – Originally premiered Dec 12, 2021 on GoodLife45 – visit https://www.tv45.org

Happy Birthday Illuminati Founded May 1, 1776 Bavaria, Germany

Published May 2, 2022 | By Hal Shurtleff

May 1, marks the anniversary of the founding of the Illuminati.  While some historians believe that the organization ended after it was banned in Bavaria in 1784, other historians believe that it went underground, was responsible for the French Revolution, that its second-generation members founded the Skull and Bones, and commissioned Karl Marx to write The Communist Manifesto.  While it is unlikely that the original organization exists today, its ideological heirs have carried on its mission to destroy Christianity and create a one-world government. We know that they will ultimately fail but they have wreaked much havoc and misery over the past years and continue to do so.

There have been several books published in the early days of the Illuminati’s existence including Proofs of a Conspiracy, Memoirs of Jacobinism and Proof of the Illuminati.   Rev. G.W. Snyder sent a copy of Proofs of a Conspiracy to George Washington who replied:

“It was not my intention to doubt that the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more fully satisfied of this fact than I am.”

Several years ago, while our annual family camp was in session, we took a field trip to the Rindge, NH Historical Society where I found copies of Proof of the Illuminati for sale.  When I asked  Karla MacLeod, the  museum’s president, why this book was at the museum, she informed me that the author Rev. Seth Payson was the pastor of the Congregational Church.  He wrote the book in 1802, and it was the basis for his successful campaign for  state senate.  Camp Constitution Press reprinted the book.  A free PDF version is available here:  https://campconstitution.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Proof-of-the-Illuminati-by-Rev-Seth-Payson.pdf

A paperback version is available from our on-line shop:  https://campconstitution.net/shop/

 

 

NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN WORCESTER, MA

Published May 1, 2022 | By Hal Shurtleff

This is from our friends at the Catholic Action League.  We believe that if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor in our case Shurtleff v Boston,      https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shurtleff-v-boston/ the City of Worcester and other cities run by far-leftists, would cease this activity.  We salute Bishop McManus and the folks at the Catholic Action League for standing up to those who are working to destroy the soul of our nation.

 

NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH
AND STATE IN WORCESTER
The recent call by the Bishop of Worcester, asking a Catholic school in his diocese to forgo symbols inconsistent with their Catholic identity, has now resulted in an intervention by a municipal agency.

On April 3rd, Bishop Robert J. McManus issued a public statement questioning the display of homosexual pride flags and Black Lives Matter banners at Worcester’s Nativity School, a middle school affiliated with the USA East Province of the Society of Jesus.

The Bishop asked “Is school committing itself to ideologies which are contrary to Catholic teaching? If so, is it still a Catholic school? As the Bishop of this diocese, I must teach that it is imperative that a Catholic School use imagery and symbols which are reflective of that school’s values and principles so as to be clear with young people who are being spiritually and morally formed for the future.”

The Bishop’s due diligence in trying to preserve the Catholic character of a Catholic school was met with a firestorm in the media, defiance from the school, criticism from the state Attorney General, unsolicited advice from the NAACP, and a petition at the Jesuit administered College of the Holy Cross denouncing him as “ignorant and bigoted.”                                

Now, a dispute between a Catholic bishop and a Catholic school has become an object of concern by a government entity. The Worcester Human Rights Commission, an executive agency of the City of Worcester, whose members are appointed by the City Manager, has decided to involve itself in this matter.

In an online meeting earlier this month, the Commission voted to ask the city to raise the homosexual pride flag at Worcester City Hall to support the school’s resistance to the bishop. Commission member Ellen Shemitz said “Even given what’s happening with some of the news from the Catholic Church, and how that impacts some of the schools in this region, it seems like it could be timely.”

The Catholic Action League called the Commission’s interference “an unheard of, unprecedented, and unconstitutional intrusion by a government bureaucracy into an issue of church doctrine.”

Catholic Action League  Executive Director C. J. Doyle made the following comment: “For generations, the political Left has never missed an opportunity to lecture Catholics about the separation of church and state. Now, a city agency takes sides in a church dispute, and the same civil liberties crowd which sees school bus transportation for Catholic school students as a threat to the Constitution, is silent.”

“The Attorney General of the Commonwealth, Maura Healey, has inserted herself into this controversy, saying ‘Nativity and other schools should be allowed to fly those flags,’ adding ‘…I speak as a Catholic…’ Healey, of course, is a partnered lesbian who once confessed she owed her electoral success to Planned Parenthood.“

“What is happening here is a crude, unconcealed, and heavy handed campaign of intimidation. If the media, the government, and powerful interest groups can combine to expose a Catholic bishop to universal reprobation, for exercising his lawful authority in his own diocese, then freedom of religion becomes, at some point, academic.”

“The anti-Catholic Left has power and is willing to use it, and has totalitarian instincts, and is willing to act upon them. Catholics must relearn what our immigrant ancestors understood, but what modern generations of Catholics have forgotten—that anti-Catholic bigotry is a reality in American society, and Catholics must be courageous in resisting it.”

On April 27th, C.J. Doyle appeared on Greg Kelly Reports on NEWSMAX TV, defending Bishop Robert McManus.

-30-
Copyright © 2022 Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, All rights reserved. 


Our mailing address is:

Catholic Action League of Massachusetts

PO Box 112

Boston, MA  02131-0004

 

 

Correct or Cancel Mom’s Grocery Bag Misinformation — Misleading claims on organic food grocery bags deceive shoppers on bees and pesticides

Published April 27, 2022 | By Paul Driessen

I don’t deliberately avoid organic foods or markets, but I don’t seek them out either. Claims that organic food tastes better or is more nutritious are not supported by evidence and certainly don’t justify the far higher prices. Mostly, I’m put off by assertions that organic food is pesticide-free, safer and more planet-friendly. Those assertions are simply false advertising; deliberate misinformation.

Mom’s Organic Market shopping bags provide an excellent example. They’re emblazoned with six “Bee Informed” messages that help customers Bee the Change, Give Bees a Chance, and Save the Bees from a looming Armageddon attributed to synthetic pesticides. The Bee Misinformed messages merit correction.

1. The #1 irrigated crop in the US is lawn grass, using over 10 trillion gallons of water per year. Mom’s didn’t say where its number came from; and if this basic information is fishy, what about the other messages? Even the Natural Resources Defense Council says US lawns consume three trillion gallons per year – not ten. Still, too many people overwater, use fine sprays that let too much water evaporate, and/or water lawns during the hottest hours or days of the week. The better message is, water smarter.

2. Suburban lawns and gardens receive more pesticide applications per acre than agriculture. This may be true, but is it? Can’t Mom’s be more transparent about its sources? Homeowners should use lawn and garden chemicals carefully, responsibly and sparingly – and assume that any chemical (synthetic or organic) may be toxic and dangerous: to bees, other insects, fish, wildlife, pets, children and themselves.

3. A single bee colony can pollinate over 300 million flowers a day. Busy as a bee – sure. But really? A typical hive (colony) has 10,000 to 80,000 worker bees. Assuming 50,000 on average, this means each bee would have to visit 6,000 flowers per day. Perhaps in a sprawling canola field; but otherwise pretty unlikely. Again, what’s Mom’s source?

4. Scientists found bee-killing neonicotinoids in 75% of honey sampled from around the world. Now we’re getting into the nitty-gritty of ongoing organic food and environmentalist campaigns to frighten people (especially moms) into going full-organic and avoiding conventionally grown food.

The scientists are finding parts per billion. 1 ppb is equivalent to 1 second in 33 years – or 50 drops of water in a 50-by-25-by-2-meter Olympic-sized swimming pool: 2 teaspoons in 660,000 gallons.

Used primarily to coat seeds, neonics become part of the plant tissue and target only pests that actually feed on the crops, particularly during early growth stages. They greatly reduce the need for aerial or ground-level spraying with other chemicals that are much more of a threat to bees and other pollinators. They are a far lower risk to honeybees or wild bees than some organic pesticides – or Varroa destructor mites that attach to bees, suppress their immune systems, carry deadly diseases, create pathways for other diseases to enter bee bodies, and can cause well-publicized “colony collapse disorder.”

Neonics may be detected in honey because so much comes from vast canola fields in western Canada, where canola is grown with neonic-coated seeds, and beekeepers place their hives in the fields because bees thrive there and produce delicious honey. Don’t equate detection with danger.

5. There are traces of 20 different pesticides in the average American’s body. Mom’s could at least post the source for this assertion on its website. More important, these parts per billion are detectable only because modern lab equipment is so sophisticated. The traces are not at levels that should cause concern.

And what about organic pesticides? Organic farmers also use many different pesticides to protect their crops. But Mom’s, Greenpeace, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the organic food industry don’t look for or talk about traces of organic farming pesticides: in honey, on produce or in human bodies. Perhaps they don’t want people (especially mothers) to know or think about that.

The Risk Monger’s Dirty Dozen List of Toxic Organic Pesticides provides an informative overview of “natural” fungicides and insecticides used on organic farms – including chemicals that are toxic to bees, other insect and wildlife species, and humans.

Among those organic farm chemicals, copper sulfate is highly toxic to bees, deadly to fish, and bio-accumulative in soil and water. Pyrethrin neurotoxin pesticides are also very toxic to bees – and are possible human carcinogens; originally derived from flowers (which is why they can still be classified as organic), they are now manufactured synthetically. Like neonicotinoids, nicotine sulfate is derived from nicotine; it can paralyze bee wings and legs, and is poisonous to humans; it’s dusted or sprayed on crops, so it can impact bees, birds and other non-target organisms.

Other “natural,” “organic” chemicals that are highly toxic to bees include rotenone, spinosad, hydrogen peroxide, azidirachtin (neem oil), citronella oil, and even garlic extract and acetic acid.

If Greenpeace, the EWG or the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) ever spent the time and money to test for these chemicals, they’d undoubtedly find “traces” of “organic” chemicals on “organic” produce.

6. Roughly 0.1% of pesticides reach their targeted pests, leaving 99.9% to impact the environment. That sounds farfetched because it is, especially for crops grown using neonic-treated seeds so that the pesticide becomes a systemic part of the plant and targets pests that try to eat the crops.

Today’s farmers are far more careful and judicious in how, where and how much they use chemicals to control the insects, viruses, molds and other pests that want to beat you to the foods you enjoy. They also employ a variety of “integrated pest management” techniques – including corn, cotton and other crops that splice Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes into the plant structure, to control pests that feed on those crops, thereby reducing the need for hand, tractor or aerial spraying with chemicals.

(Organic farmers often spray live Bt bacteria on crops. But that carries risks that the spray could drift onto nearby plants and beneficial insects. It’s a mystery that EWG doesn’t wax apoplectic about that.)

Those who still harbor concerns might be comforted knowing that the USDA conducts a Pesticide Data Program that’s been ongoing now for three decades. The PDP tests different (conventionally grown) produce every year – and issues a “report card” on how well US and international farmers comply with Environmental Protection Agency rules designed to protect moms and families from (conventional) pesticide-related health issues.

While the annual EWG “Dirty Dozen List” is designed to instill unfounded fears about eating non-organic fruits and vegetables, because of alleged pesticide poisoning – the PDP analyses are scientific and data-driven. (At least it doesn’t blame manmade climate change.) The PDP goal is to ensure that all pesticide residues have fallen to levels that pose no risks to humans by the time they reach supermarkets.

The latest 200-page report provides comforting news for consumers. It’s available here – or you can read plant pathologist Steve Savage’s summary and commentary here and here.

One further issue deserves mention. Not surprisingly, Mom’s bags are made of kraft paper. Plastic bags (we’re told) are petroleum-based and clog landfills. Of course, it’s more complex than that.

I operated bag-making machines during college. Paper and paper-bag-making processes are tree, energy and chemicals-intensive; and heavier, bulkier paper bags take years to break down in landfills. The volume of either is trifling, however, compared to pollution and waste from solar panels and wind turbines.

The bottom line is simple. As the USDA and Risk Monger emphasize, pesticide residues on both conventional and organic fruits and vegetables almost never pose risks to moms, dads, kids, or other planetary creatures. Bee not afraid. Enjoy eating them, because they’re good for you.

And correct or cancel Mom’s misinformation.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of many articles on the environment. He has degrees in geology, ecology and environmental law.
Contact me: pkdriessen@gmail.com

Designed by Eric Conover.