The Real Meaning of Christmas

 

I have mostly pleasant memories of CHRISTmas past- though some are in “baby fog”. It is special to me though it may be hard for some to which I am compassionate.

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:14).

The true meaning of Christmas is this: God took on the form of a human to die in our place, paying for our sins, so that humans who receive Him might be forgiven and be with Him forever.

 You are free to reject that message and the One who delivered it, but what you are not free to do is to redefine or change the message into something that fits your own beliefs and choices.

 As the carol says, “Where meek souls will receive Him still, the dear Christ enters in.”
The world today is a sad place, and those who love freedom sometimes feel we are shoveling against the tide. But for just a moment, at this time of year, we should pause and remember an event that occurred about 2,000 years ago in the Middle East.

 The world then was a far worse place, yet a light seared through the darkness. A baby was born in a cave. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. The baby came into the world so that we might have life and live it abundantly. The baby came into the world so that we would be set free from our own sins, free from the temptations of the world and free from the governments that seek to control us.

 The baby was the Son of God and the Prince of Peace and the Savior of the world. This week we celebrate His birthday.
Merry CHRISTmas.

(This article was originally published in 2015 and written by our late friend and mentor Pastor Garrett Lear, “The Patriot Pastor who would often say “We have no king by King Jesus” and ended his presentations with “Someone has stolen my country and I want her back now.”

Camp Constitution wishes all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Speaker Patriot Garrett Lear

Garrett Lear “The Patriot Pastor” 1948-2021

‘You missed the point’: Inspired governor smacks down anti-God folks demanding Christ-less Christmas

The following article is reposted with permission from World Net Daily.  Note that the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed an “amicus brief” against Camp Constitution’s “Shurtleff v Boston” case back in 2021.

“Though you may enter this season with bitterness, know that Christ is with you, that He loves you, and that He died for your sins just the same as He did for mine and everyone else’s’

Christmas lights are illuminated beneath a full moon at Peddler's Village in Lahaska, Pennsylvania, Friday, Nov. 15, 2024. (Photo by Joe Kovacs)
Christmas lights are illuminated beneath a full moon at Peddler’s Village in Lahaska, Pennsylvania, Friday, Nov. 15, 2024. (Photo by Joe Kovacs)

The governor of Arkansas, former Trump Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, has publicly rebuked a group of “foundation” folks who wrote to her after she announced state offices would be closed for Christmas to demand she make the holiday Christ-less.

It was the leftist Freedom from Religion Foundation, whose leaders routinely object loudly to any acknowledgement of Christianity, the Bible or even faith in a multitude of venues, that told Sanders to promote what they called an “end-of-the-year holiday” that has “broadly observed secular cultural aspects.”

Baloney, she responded, only more politely than that.

“I issued a proclamation closing state offices on Friday, December, 26, to celebrate Christmas and offer state employees more time with their families. I am in receipt of a letter from your organization calling on me to rescind that proclamation because it ‘gives a detailed theological narrative presenting core Christian doctrines, including the divinity of Jesus Christ, his crucifixion for the sins of mankind, his resurrection, and his anticipated return ‘in glory,'” she wrote.

Not happening, she confirmed.

“You say that my communications as governor must be neutral on matters of religion. I say that, even if I wanted to do that, it would be impossible. Christmas is not simply an ‘end-of-the-year holiday’ with ‘broadly observed secular cultural aspects,’ as your letter states. It’s not gifts, trees, and stockings that make this holiday special. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, and if we are to honor Him properly, we should tell His miraculous, world-changing story property, too.”

President Donald Trump and Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders at a town-hall event in Flint, Michigan, Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2024 (Video screenshot)
President Donald Trump and Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders at a town-hall event in Flint, Michigan, Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2024

She continued, “Ironically, I received your letter claiming I was alienating my non-Christian constituents as I was leaving a Menorah lighting celebration with people from all across Arkansas. I doubt they would say that my administration alienates non-Christians. In fact, many would say the opposite: that only by voicing our own faith and celebrating other faiths can we make our state’s diverse religious communities feel seen and heard.

“I will end by saying that you missed the point of my proclamation. It was not to browbeat readers with Christian doctrine, but rather to point to the humility of Christ’s birth and to the amazing fact that the King of Kings was born not in a palace or temple, but in a humble manger attended only by poor shepherds. It is in that spirit of humility that I am reminded that Christ did not dine with wise Pharisees or rich men but rather with fishermen and outcasts.

“Though you may enter this season with bitterness, know that Christ is with you, that He loves you, and that He died for your sins just the same as He did for mine and everyone else’s.”

 

 

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!

Bob Unruh

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is currently a news editor for the WND News Center, and also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. Read more of Bob Unruh’s articles here.

First Circuit: Nashua Violated First Amendment by Censoring Citizens’ Flag Requests

Camp Constitution wishes to congratulate our friends Beth and Steve Scaer for their victory against the anti-Christian bigot Mayor of Nashau.

Federal appeals court finds city unconstitutionally censored citizens’ requests for use of “Citizen Flag Pole” under guise of “government speech”

December 22, 2025   •  By IFS Staff   •  

Stephen and Beth Scaer / Photo by: Visuals by Mugsy

Boston, MA — Can a city invite residents to fly flags on a “Citizen Flag Pole,” then censor the messages it doesn’t like by claiming those flags represent government speech?

The First Circuit has answered that question with a clear “no.”

In a major victory for free speech, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously reversed a lower court decision earlier today, holding that the City of Nashua, New Hampshire violated the First Amendment when it engaged in viewpoint discrimination by denying Bethany and Stephen Scaer’s requests to fly flags on the city’s Citizen Flag Pole. Attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech and local counsel Roy S. McCandless represent the Scaers in the litigation.

In a decision authored by Judge Sandra Lynch, the First Circuit panel rejected Nashua’s attempt to characterize its censorship as “government speech.” The court found that, between 2017 and 2024, Nashua’s Citizen Flag Pole operated as a forum for private speech, not government expression—making the city’s viewpoint-based denials unconstitutional.

“As the First Circuit recognized, governments cannot get away with censorship by labeling that censorship ‘government speech,’” said Institute for Free Speech Attorney Nathan Ristuccia, who argued the case before the First Circuit. “We are delighted that the First Circuit intervened to prevent Nashua from doing exactly that.”

“After years of being told our flags weren’t ‘in harmony’ with the city’s views, it’s vindicating to have the First Circuit confirm that was unconstitutional,” said Beth Scaer. “No one should have to face government censorship for expressing their beliefs. We’re thrilled with this victory for free speech rights throughout New England.”

The Scaers had multiple flag requests denied by Nashua, most recently a request to fly the historic Pine Tree Flag that commemorates the Battle of Bunker Hill. The city provided no explanation beyond stating that the Scaers’ flags were “not in harmony” with the city’s message.

The court’s analysis revealed the fundamental flaw in Nashua’s position: From 2017 to 2020, the city approved every single flag application without exercising meaningful control over content. Private citizens supplied their own flags, raised them themselves using a borrowed tool, organized ceremonies typically without any city officials present, and retained ownership of their flags throughout. The city even required applicants to indemnify it for damages—hardly the hallmark of government speech.

Only after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Shurtleff v. City of Boston protected speech in such forums did Nashua hastily adopt a new policy claiming the flagpole constituted “government speech”—while continuing to invite and accept citizen applications.

The First Circuit correctly assessed the purpose of this maneuver. As the court noted, Nashua initially approved Bethany Scaer’s “Save Women’s Sports” flag in 2020, then revoked permission just one day later—not because of any change in government policy or perspective, but, rather, after receiving complaints. The court observed that this sequence resembled “a classic heckler’s veto”—the government silencing speech because others found it offensive.

The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of Nashua’s policy, arguing that the city imposed viewpoint-based restrictions on speech, created an unconstitutional prior restraint, and enforced impermissibly vague standards.

“Nashua’s flag policy gives city officials unbridled discretion to censor speech they dislike,” Ristuccia explained when the Institute for Free Speech originally filed the suit. “The First Amendment doesn’t permit the government to turn a longstanding public forum into a personal billboard for city officials’ preferred views.”

The court’s decision sends an important message about free speech to municipalities throughout the First Circuit, which includes Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico.

While Nashua has since closed the Citizen Flag Pole to all private expression—a choice the city remains free to make—today’s ruling prevents cities from creating forums that invite citizen participation, only to discriminate based on viewpoint under a pretense of “government speech.”

The court remanded the case with instructions for the district court to enter declaratory relief in the Scaers’ favor, formally declaring that Nashua’s actions violated the First Amendment. This declaratory judgment should prevent Nashua and cities throughout the First Circuit from adopting or reinstating similar citizen flag poles that discriminate on the basis of viewpoint and violate citizens’ free speech rights.

To read the First Circuit’s decision in Scaer, et al. v. City of Nashua, et al., click here. To visit our case page, which includes all filings and other case resources, including client photos, click here.

About the Institute for Free Speech

The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Was Jesus Really Born on 25 December?

The Weekly Sam: Sex Education and How It Got Into the Schools By Samuel L. Blumenfeld

 

The idea that people needed to be educated about sex probably began with the founding of the birth control movement by Margaret Sanger, who launched a crusade early in the 20th Century to provide women with birth control information. It was Sanger’s work as a visiting nurse that turned her interest to sex education and women’s health. Influenced by anarchist Emma Goldman, she began to advocate the need for family limitation as a means by which working-class women could liberate themselves from the burden of unwanted pregnancy. In 1914, Sanger published the first issue of The Woman Rebel, which advocated militant feminism and the right to practice birth control. She also wrote a 16-page pamphlet, Family Limitation, which provided explicit instructions on the use of contraceptive methods.

In August 1914, Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws. She jumped bail in October and set sail for England. In England she became acquainted with a number of British radicals, feminists, and neo Malthusians whose social and economic theories helped her develop broader scientific and social justifications for birth control. She was also deeply influenced by psychologist Havelock Ellis and his theories on female sexuality and free love. In 1915, Sanger returned to the United States. The government’s case against her was dropped. In 1916, she opened the nation’s first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York. After nine days of operation, the clinic was raided, and Sanger and staff were arrested. She spent 30 days in jail. However, the publicity surrounding the clinic provided Sanger with a base of wealthy supporters from which she began to build an organized birth control movement.

In 1917, Sanger published a new monthly, the Birth Control Review, and in 1921 she embarked on a campaign to win mainstream support for birth control by founding the American Birth Control League, the forerunner of Planned Parenthood. She focused her efforts on gaining support from the medical profession, social workers, and the liberal wing of the eugenics movement. Havelock Ellis had converted her to the eugenics creed. She saw birth control as a means of reducing genetically transmitted mental or physical defects, and supported sterilization for the mentally incompetent. She advocated “more children for the fit, less from the unfit-that is the chief issue of birth control.”

In 1922, Sanger married oil magnate James Noah H. Slee, thus insuring her financial independence. Slee, who died in 1943, became the main funder of the birth control movement. By connecting with the eugenics movement, Sanger was able to gain the backing of some of America’s wealthiest people. In 1930, Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem with the approval of the Negro leadership, including communist W.E.B. DuBois. Beginning in 1939, DuBois also served on the advisory council for Sanger’s ”Negro Project.” The financial support of Albert and Mary Lasker made the project possible. In 1966, the year Sanger died, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts.” From the end of World War II to the present, Planned Parenthood has become the world’s largest enterprise promoting birth control and abortion.

In 1960, the Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of the birth control pill. In 1961 President Kennedy defined population growth as a “staggering” problem and formerly endorsed reproductive research to make new knowledge and methods available worldwide. In 1961, a Conference on Religion and the Family brought together the medical director of Planned Parenthood, the director of the National Council of Churches of Christ, and the leader of the marriage counseling movement in the United States. Out of that meeting came the idea for creating SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. It was Dr. Mary Calderone, one of the founders, who introduced the concept of sexuality in 1964. It encompassed much more than the biological meaning of sex.

Thus, sexuality education replaced the term sex education to emphasize its more comprehensive scope. A SIECUS Report (Vol. 27, No.4) states: “In February 1999, SIECUS conducted a public poll on our Internet site to ask the general public who had the greatest impact in bringing about a positive change in the way America understands and affirms sexuality. The top ten, chosen from a list of 100, were Judy Blume, Mary Calderone, Ellen DeGeneres, Joycelyn Elders, Hugh Hefner, Anita Hill, Magic Johnson, Madonna, Gloria Steinhem, and Ruth Westheirner. They represent diverse perspectives and views, and each has helped American think about sexuality in a new and different way.” Getting back to our chronology, in 1963, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution on population growth and economic development. In that same year, the U.S. government established the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

Part of its mandate was to support and oversee research in reproductive science and contraceptive development. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut ruled that Connecticut’s law prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples violated a newly defined right of marital privacy. As a result, ten states liberalized their family planning laws and began to provide family planning services with tax funds. In 1969 the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, was founded. In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Services Act, which provided support and funding for family planning services and educational programs and for biomedical and behavioral research in reproduction and contraceptive development. Title X also authorized funding for a Center for Population Research within NICHD. This marked the fust time Congress had ever voted for a separate authorization of family planning services. In that same year, New York state enacted the most progressive abortion law in the nation, and Planned Parenthood of Syracuse, New York, became the fust affiliate to offer abortion services.

In 1973, Humanist Manifesto II was published. It advocated a doctrine of sexual freedom that clearly clashed with traditional views of sex. The Manifesto states: “In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered ‘evil.’ Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire …. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.” Among the signers of the Manifesto was Alan F. Guttmacher, President of Planned Parenthood.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the constitutional right of privacy extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, thereby legalizing abortion throughout the United States. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth struck down state requirements for parental and spousal consent for abortion and set aside a state prohibition against saline abortions. In 1976, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, named after Planned Parenthood’s president, published 11 Million Teenagers, the fust nationally distributed document to focus attention on the problem of teen pregnancy and childbearing in the United States. In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court found the Massachusetts statute restricting minors’ access to abortion unconstitutional. It ruled that if states required minors to obtain parental consent for an abortion, they must also give minors the alternative of obtaining the consent of a judge, in confidential proceedings and without first notifying their parents.

In 1981, the Alan Guttmacher Institute published Teenage Pregnancy: The Problem that Hasn’t Gone Away, an analysis of teen sexuality, contraceptive knowledge and use, and pregnancy experience. It emphasizes the need for making confidential contraceptive services accessible to sexually active teens. In 1982, Planned Parenthood published “Sexuality Alphabet,” as tool for sex education. George Grant, in his book, Grand illusions, writes of this publication: “Planned Parenthood’s sex education programs and materials are brazenly perverse. They are frequently accentuated with crudely obscene four-letter words and illustrated by explicitly ribald nudity. They openly endorse aberrant behavior-homosexuality, masturbation, fornication, incest, and even bestiality-and then they describe that behavior in excruciating detail.”

In 1953, staffer Lena Levine wrote in Planned Parenthood News: “Our goal is to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt.” In 1985, the Alan Guttmacher Institute published its report on Teen Pregnancy in Industrialized Countries, indicating that the U.S. teen pregnancy rate of 96 per 1,000 is the highest in the developed world. A two-year study by the National Academy of Sciences agreed with the AGI study and concluded that “prevention of adolescent pregnancy should have the highest priority,” and “making contraceptive methods available and accessible to those who are sexually active and encouraging them to diligently use these methods is the surest major strategy for pregnancy prevention.” In 1970, fewer than half of the nation’s school districts offered sex education curricula and none had school-based birth control clinics. In 1998, more than seventy-five percent of the districts teach sex education and there are more than one hundred clinics in operation. Yet the percentage of illegitimate births has only increased during that time, from a mere fifteen percent to an astonishing fifty-one percent. In California, the public schools have required sex education for more than thirty years, and yet the state has maintained one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the nation. (Grant, p. 128) Meanwhile, the AIDS epidemic, which began with eleven cases in 1979, had grown to 24,000 cases in 1986. In 1993, the number of cases was up to 339,250. By 1987, Planned Parenthood had become the world’s largest non-government provider of family planning services. It had also become politically active, joining more than 250 civil rights, civil liberties, religious, labor, education, legal, environmental, health, and feminist groups that opposed the appointment of conservative Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The above article came from the Sam Blumenfeld Article:  http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm

The Blumenfeld Archives

The Pilgrim Story: A Presentation by Leo and Nancy Martin

Last Saturday (December 13), Camp Constitution held its annual “Reason for the Season” Potluck in Lexington, MA.  Our guest speakers were Leo and Nancy Martin of the Jenney Museum   https://thejenney.org/   The Martins are experts on the Pilgrims.  Mr. Martin conducts tours of the Forefathers Monument, and was a consultant for the documentary “Monumental”

 

 

America250 Spotlight: Dr. Soon Dr. Willie Soon, Climate Realist

 

America250 Spotlight: Dr. Soon Dr. Willie Soon, an esteemed astrophysicist and aerospace engineer, offered a fast-moving and engaging journey through science, history, and American innovation at the America250 FieldWerx Summit. He began with Galileo’s pioneering use of observation and experimentation, then traced humanity’s growing understanding of the sun—from its immense scale to early sunspot records by figures like John Winthrop and Humphrey Marshall. These discoveries, he explained, revealed how careful observation and persistence have shaped scientific progress and helped connect solar activity to historical climate shifts such as the Little Ice Age.

Dr. Soon then turned to today’s challenges, arguing that solar variability plays a central role in climate change and urged continued debate grounded in data rather than consensus. He closed by looking ahead, highlighting artificial intelligence as a powerful new tool for discovery if guided by a commitment to truth-seeking. Framed by the America250 vision, his message is ultimately optimistic: America’s strength has always come from scientific freedom and bold thinkers, and those same qualities will drive innovation for the next 250 years!

Hsu Educational Foundation  https://hsu-foundation.org/     kicked off America250 with a FieldWerx Summit on September 3, 2025 gathering leaders, visionaries and budding innovators to convene ideas for strengthening America’s future. Join us as we share a series with inspiring remarks from moving presentations of military, industry, local and state government, academia and the non-profit sector. Special appreciation to Florida Power & Light and HSU Educational Foundation.

Camp Constitution is a New Hampshire based charitable trust. We run a week-long family camp, man information tables at various venues, have a book publishing arm, and post videos from our camp and others that we think are of importance. Please visit our website www.campconstitution.net

Providence, the Brown University Shooting, and the Democrats We Used to Have by Alex Destino

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Providence longs for its former mayor, Vincent “Buddy” Cianci. If he were mayor today, the Brown University shooter would not still be at large.

READ IN APP

More than three days after the Brown University shooting, Providence has no suspect in custody, little public clarity, and growing uncertainty—despite a campus saturated with cameras, security infrastructure, and institutional resources. Under Mayor Brett Smiley, the response has felt hesitant and unfocused, raising serious questions about leadership, priorities, and how profoundly both the city—and the Democratic Party—have changed.

To understand that shift, it helps to look backward.

Vincent “Buddy” Cianci Jr. was the former mayor of Providence and the first Italian-American ever elected to lead the city. He won office in 1974 at just 33 years old, emerging from a hard-edged, working-class political culture. Cianci was a classic urban populist. His governing priority was simple and unapologetic: keep the city clean, orderly, and safe.

Cianci famously argued there wasn’t a political way to run a city—just the right way to run a city. He regularly pointed to Providence’s standing among America’s safest cities during his tenure as proof that results, not ideology, mattered most.

One couldn’t help but respect how remarkably non-partisan he was in practice. Cianci shunned the “D” label during his first term despite it being the surest path to victory in Rhode Island. He governed as a true independent and made a point of earning the respect of people across political lines.

He led with a distinctly masculine, command-driven style. Police were empowered and highly visible. Disorder was not tolerated. Everyone knew who was in charge.

Working-class citizens loved him because they felt protected—and because City Hall worked for neighborhoods, not elites. Cianci also operated comfortably in Providence’s political gray zones, including relationships with power brokers tied to organized crime.

Yes, he was deeply flawed and ultimately corrupt. But his governing philosophy was unmistakable: a city cannot function if people do not feel safe.

Cianci was not an outlier. He was part of a governing tradition. Old-school, working-class Democratic mayors like Frank Rizzo in Philadelphia, Richard J. Daley in Chicago, Kevin White and Ray Flynn in Boston, William Donald Schaefer in Baltimore, and Dianne Feinstein in San Francisco believed the same thing: cities survive only when order is enforced.

The most successful modern practitioner of that model was a Republican—Rudy Giuliani. He didn’t invent the approach; he inherited it, applying those same principles to produce historic crime reductions in New York City.

That governing tradition didn’t fade gradually. It was deliberately replaced.

Providence today is led by a very different kind of Democrat. Mayor Brett Smiley represents a post-Obama Democratic Party shaped by elite institutions, academic culture, activist priorities, and identity politics.

His public-safety agenda emphasizes inclusivity and the clarification of police roles through executive actions like “A Safe Providence for All,” but stops short of the blunt law-and-order posture that once defined Democratic urban governance. Public safety is now treated as one concern among many—balanced against messaging, optics, and coalition sensitivities.

That shift is now impossible to ignore.

More than 3½ days after the Brown University murders, the shooter remains at large and armed, with no known location—yet city leaders continue to insist the public is not in danger. This, on a campus saturated with surveillance, where the only video released so far has come not from the university’s security system but from nearby residents.

The expectation that government would act decisively, communicate clearly, and answer first to the public no longer exists. That alone reveals how Providence—and the Democratic Party that governs it—have changed: from a party rooted in working-class accountability to one oriented toward institutional power, lobbyists, NGOs, and money—no longer answering first to the citizens, the sovereign they are meant to serve.

December 16, 2025, Marks Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party

December 16, 2025 marks the anniversary of The Boston Tea Party where on this date in 1773 members of the Sons of Liberty-some dressed up as Mohawk Indians- boarded three ships docked at Griffins Wharf in Boston and dumped 46 tons of tea into the harbor.

Background to the Tea Party:

The British Parliament passed the Townshend Act in 1767 which levied direct taxes against the Colonists.  Prior to this, colonial governments elected by the people were the only entities that levied taxes.  There was much opposition to the Townshend Act on both sides of the Atlantic.  In 1770, Parliament repealed the Townshend Act with the exception the tax on tea. On May 10, 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act giving, for the first time, the East India Company a monopoly on the export of tea. The East India Company would appoint certain colonial merchants-consigners- the sole right to sell the tea to the detriment of other merchants who lost their livelihoods. While “Taxation without Representation” was one of the rallying cries of the Revolutionary War-along with “No King But King Jesus, the biggest objection Boston colonists had was that the tax was used to pay the salaries of the governor, and other colonial leaders, making these officials beholding and dependent to the Crown instead of the colonists.

In the fall of 1773, seven ships loaded with tea and other cargo sailed to America-four to Boston, one to Philadelphia, one to Charlestown, SC., one to New York City.  Local Patriots in Philadelphia and New York convinced the consigners to resign, and the tea went back to England. In Charleston, S.C, the tea was never claimed and ended up rotting in storage. The Dartmouth was the first ship to arrive at Boston’s Griffin Wharf.   By law, it had 20 days to land the tea, or it would be confiscated. Two other ships, the Beaver and Eleanor arrived a few weeks later.  A fourth ship ran aground on Cape Cod.  Colonists petitioned Governor Thomas Hutchinson to let the ships return the tea to England.  His sons Thomas and Elisha just happened to be the consignees.  Indeed, if the ships did not unload the tea, the owners were told that their ships would be fired upon as they sailed past Castle Island.

  The Tea Party

The 16th of December fell on a rainy and chilly Thursday. It was the last day that the Dartmouth had to unload its cargo.  The meeting at the Old South Meeting House was held in the morning where attendees were read letters of support from surrounding towns. The meeting ended and reconvened in the afternoon.   The meeting lasted a few hours and instructed that the ship owners are to have an interview with Governor Hutchinson to get permission to sail without unloading the tea.  At 6PM, close to forty percent of the 16,000 Bostonians arranged themselves in and out of the Old South Meeting House. No word as of yet from Hutchinson and the ship owners.   Josiah Quincy (member of the Committee of Correspondence) spoke of the peoples’ resolve and popular acclamations of willing to gives their lives. Others spoke in similar tones to the attendees.  Finally, around 7PM, they receive word that the ships must unload the tea.

Samuel Adams stands and says the words “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country,” In the back of the room and outside in the street, the Sons of Liberty- reacted to that remark by moving swiftly to Griffin’s Wharf and board the three tea ships Dartmouth, Eleanor, and Beaver. The men, some dressed as Mohawk Indians, extracted the tea from the cargo holds and disperse the leaves into the waters of the harbor. They were given strict orders not to do any damage or hurt any of the crew members of the three ships.  Men were posted in small boats preventing anyone from taking the tea.   The Caption of the Beaver, Hezekiah Coffin, turned over the keys to the storage holds and encouraged his men to participate in “Tea Party.” Forty-sic tons of tea worth approximately $2 million in today’s money ended up in the Harbor.

The British government’s response to the “Tea Party” was the passing of what became known as The Intolerable Acts which included the closing of Boston Harbor. This helped further unify the colonies and led our nation’s independence.

I highly recommend a visit to the Tea Party Museum located on Congress St and close to the location of the Tea Party.  The museum has two replicas of the ships-the Beaver and Eleanor, reenactors with attendee involvement and a multi-media presentation that brings history alive.  Among the museum’s collection is an original tea chest recovered from the event.  Their website:  https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/

 

In 2018, I had the opportunity to attend the Tea Party Reenactment with media credentials.  A link to the video of the event:

In 1874, Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote a poem entitled “A Ballad of the Boston Tea Party” A portion of that poem is found at an historic plaque at the site of the original location of the Tea Party on Boston’s Atlantic Ave.

 

 

The Bill of Rights Vs. the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto

 

Today, December 15 marks the 234th anniversary of the Bill of Rights-the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.

During the Constitutional Convention, there were some delegates who refused to support the proposed Constitution unless it contained a Bill of Rights; George Mason and Elbridge Gerry led the way.  Delegates James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was initially against a Bill of Rights believing that since the U.S. Constitution granted specific powers to the federal government, there was no need for a Bill of Rights. Mason and Gerry proposed a Bill of Rights on September 12, 1787, a few days before the Constitution was approved by the delegates. Roger Sherman of Connecticut rightfully contented that the proposed federal Constitution had no authority to repeal Bills of Rights enshrined in state constitutions.  It was unanimously rejected by states each having one vote. James Wilson of Pennsylvania warned that by expressly listing rights, those that weren’t listed did not exist. This legitimate concerned was addressed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

James Madison changed his position, and he made the issue of proposing a Bill of Rights a key part of his Congressional campaign. One of the first things Madison did as a member of Congress was to propose a Bill of Rights. On September 25, 1789, Congress agreed to 12 Amendments and submitted them to the states for ratification needing 3/4ths for approval.  On December 15, 1791, Virginia ratified amendments three to twelve making them part of the Constitution.  The second proposed amendment concerning Congressional pay raises was eventually ratified in 1992. 

On December 15 of each year,  it is my habit to ask people in my travels what we celebrate today.  Very few people have answered correctly.  What is even more troubling is that most people who take our ten question quiz on the U.S. Constitution think that  “From each according to his ability–to each according to his needs” is part of the Bill of Rights.  One of those persons was a New Hampshire Republican running for a federal office.  And who can blame them?  Both major political parties accept the welfare state. The voting records of our Congressional delegation are to the left of Lenin, and the majority of voters are okay with it.

Karl Marx, and the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto

 After the results of elections in New York City, New Jersey, and Virginia, socialism, and communism, two evil political and economic systems, are alive and well in our nation.  This should come as no surprise,  According to my friend Dr. Duke Pesta of Freedom Project Academy and a tenured professor at a state college in Wisconsin, the Communist Manifesto is the most read book in state universities.

Karl Marx was one of the more loathsome figures in History. He was born in 1818  to an upper middle class family in Prussia.  According to Pastor Richard Wumbrand in his book Marx and Satan, Marx embraced Christianity as a young man but rejected the faith and became a satanist.  Marx would refer to his writings as “devilish muddle.”  Although he came from a Jewish background, Marx was both an anti-Semite and a racist.  He authored the book A World Without Jews and would refer to those he disliked, which was almost everyone, as “Jews with Negro blood.  He died in 1883 but his evil and deadly legacy lives on.

Back in the early 1990s, a was a guest speaker at a conservative Baptist college.  Over lunch, one of the students said that “communism is good in theory, but it hasn’t been run by the right people.”  I replied:  ‘That is like saying Hell is a good place.”  It just needs to be run by the right demons.  A reading of Marx’s Manifesto can easily prove my point.

In his manifesto, Marx wrote “But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality…”  He called for the destruction of the family and labeled  motherhood and fatherhood “bourgeois claptrap.”  He promoted for free education for all children run by communist teachers.  Here are the ten planks he outlined in his manifesto:

 

  1. Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of   Land   to Public Purpose
  2. A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.
  3. Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance
  4. Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.
  5. Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.
  6. Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.
  7. Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.
  8. Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.
  9. Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.
  10. Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children’s Factory Labor in its Present Form. Combination of Education with Industrial Production.

Most of these plans  are either partially or fully implemented in our nation.  Plank two became the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

Contrast Marx to our Bill of Rights

I, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

II, A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

III, No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  1. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
  2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

  1. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
  2. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

The Bill of Rights did not give us rights.  We already had them. Rights come from God, and the main purpose of government is to protect these God given rights.  Today, most elected officials would laugh in derision at this and declare those who proclaim it as  “Christian Nationalists.” The Bill of Rights was a list of restrictions against Congress.  On the other hand, the ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto is a list of rights taken away from people. Our founding fathers left us a legacy of freedom.  Marx and his minions left us a legacy of genocide, and tyranny.

At the end of the 1787 Constitution Convention, Mrs. Elizabeth Powel asked  Benjamin Franklin what kind of government was created at the Convention.   He replied, “A republic if you can keep it.”  As we go into our 250th birthday, let’s hope that we not only “keep it” but banish communist and its twin socialism into the dust bins of history where they so rightly deserve to be.    Readers who would like a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution may request one from me campconstitution1@gmail.com