Supreme Court Decides to Hear Camp Constitution’s Christian Flag Lawsuit
Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of Boston resident Hal Shurtleff and his Christian civic organization, Camp Constitution, arguing that the city of Boston violated the First Amendment by censoring a private flag in a public forum merely because the application form referred to the flag as a “Christian flag.”
Boston censored the religious viewpoint of Camp Constitution’s flag, which was to be raised for about an hour on September 17 in observance of Constitution Day, while supporters gathered around the flagpole. The flag was part of the ceremony to honor the Constitution and recognize the Christian Founders.
Never has Boston censored any flag until the Camp Constitution’s flag, which is white with a blue square in the upper corner and a red cross. The flag contains no writing. Under oath, the city official testified the flag would have been approved if the application did not refer to it as a “Christian flag.” The word “Christian” on the application alone triggered the censorship. The official said he had never heard of a “Christian flag” until Camp Constitution’s application. Therefore, his testimony revealed that if Camp Constitution had not referred to the flag on the application with the word “Christian,” it would not have been censored.
The city refers to its flagpole as a “public forum” and allows private organizations to temporarily raise their own flags on the flagpoles. The city of Boston’s website even states the goals for flag raising events include, “We commemorate flags from many countries and communities at Boston City Hall Plaza. We want to create an environment in the city where everyone feels included.”
The city has even attempted to argue its flagpoles are used for private flag raisings only “15% of the time.” However, since the city has designated it as a “public forum,” this argument is useless since the city’s documented “public forums for all applicants” policy has resulted in a 100 percent approval rate, or 284 flag raisings by private organizations over the course of twelve years, except for the Christian flag.
Other flags raised on the city’s flagpole include the Turkish flag (which depicts the Islamic star and crescent) and the Portuguese flag (which uses religious imagery). City officials have also never denied the “messages” communicated by the “Chinese Progressive Association,” the rainbow flag of Boston Pride, and a “transgender” pink and blue flag. The flags of private community groups include Albania, Brazil, Ethiopia, Italy, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Puerto Rico, and Mexico, as well as of Communist China and Cuba. No flag was ever denied until the city denied the flag of 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 (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 First Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the city of Boston finding that the flags were government speech. The Court wrongly accepted the city’s argument that the Establishment Clause justified its censorship. However, (1) the application form designates the flag pole as a “public forum” open for private speech; (2) the city never censored a flag in the 12 years prior to Camp Constitution’s application; (3) the city approved 39 flags (averaging over three per month) in the year prior to Camp Constitution’s application; and (4) the flags of the foreign countries could not be government speech because under state law it is a crime to raise the flag of a foreign country on city property.
Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “We look forward to the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Boston’s unconstitutional discrimination against Camp Constitution’s Christian viewpoint. The city cannot deny the Christian flag because it is ‘Christian’ and allow every other flag to fly on its flagpoles. There is a crucial difference between government endorsement of religion and private speech, which government is bound to respect. Censoring religious viewpoints in a public forum where secular viewpoints are permitted is unconstitutional and this case will set national precedent.”
New York Times Denies Ad to Italian-American Organizations Defending Columbus
New York City, NY — The Conference of Presidents of Major Italian American Organizations
(COPOMIAO) has denounced the decision of the New York Times’ Ad Acceptability Team to not
run an advertisement promoting the Italian American community’s stance on current rhetoric
against Christopher Columbus in advance of the Columbus Day holiday on October 11.
The ad, which was to appear on Monday, September 27, in the New York Times, as well as the
Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, sought to dispel claims against Columbus that have
been promoted by opponents of statues and celebrations in his honor. These claims include
accusing Columbus of racism as well as mistreatment and enslavement of the native tribes he
encountered. Both Wall Street Journal and Washington Post will run the advertisement in
question on the planned publication date.
In their response to COPOMIAO, the New York Times provided incorrect information regarding
Columbus’s treatment of Native Americans that has been disproven by several scholars on the
subject. The response also incorrectly stated that Columbus Day observances cannot be linked
to the 1891 lynching of 11 Italian Americans in New Orleans, despite evidence to the contrary.
“Many Italian Americans believe that The New York Times has a lengthy history of insensitivity
toward our community,” said Basil M. Russo, president, Conference of Presidents of Major
Italian American Organizations. “This began with an editorial applauding the 1891 lynching of 11
Italian immigrants and continues to this day with the Times’ unwillingness to allow our
community the opportunity to defend our history and heritage.”
COPOMIAO urges Americans of all races and ethnicities to examine the current discussions
surrounding Christopher Columbus, especially the misinformation that has been promoted in
recent years due to works such as Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. For
more information and to view the Columbus ad in question, visit www.copomiao.org/history.
Interviews with Basil Russo, president of the Conference of Presidents of Major Italian American
Organizations, are available upon request.
About the Conference of Presidents of Major Italian American Organizations
The Conference of Presidents of Major Italian American Organizations (COPOMIAO),
headquartered in New York City, represents 50 of the largest and most influential fraternal,
educational, and anti-defamation organizations in the Italian American community. Its primary
mission is to preserve and promote the heritage, history, culture and values of Italian Americans
for the benefit of current and future generations. For more information, visit www.copomiao.org
(An interview we did last year with the late Dr. Frank Mazzaglia of the Italian American Alliance
Covid Lies A Live Webinar Tuesday September 28–7:00 PM with Dr. Lee Merritt
Join with us to hear Dr. Lee Merritt expose:
• the attack on successful, clinical treatments;
• the risks and documented adverse effects of
the shot;
• and the establishment’s assault on our medical freedom.
Tuesday September 28 7:00 PM Webinar Register Now: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_wZhScby3T0G82VlI64z3QA Please donate to help defray our expenses at: www.jbsny.org Use a credit/debit card or a PayPal account for a secure transaction. For more information: jbsactivity@yahoo.com Sponsored by the Capital District Chapters of the John Birch Society and the American Opinion Education Committee
Dr. Lee Merritt began her medical career at the age of four, carrying her father’s “black bag” on house calls, along the back roads of Iowa. In1980 she graduated from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in New York, where she was elected to life membership in the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society. Dr. Merritt completed an Orthopaedic Surgery Residency in the United States Navy and served 9 years as a Navy physician and surgeon before returning to Rochester, where she was the only woman to be appointed as the Louis A. Goldstein Fellow of Spinal Surgery.. Dr. Merritt has been in the private practice of Orthopaedic and Spinal Surgery since 1995, has served on the Board of the Arizona Medical Association, and is past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. She has had a long interest in wellness and fitness, and has been Fellowship Certified by the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. As a lifelong advocate of free market, patient-centered medicine Dr. Merritt had the opportunity to appear on the John Stossel show to speak against Obamacare. More recently she has appeared on numerous programs discussing Covid-19, the futility of mask mandates, and other lies and omissions from the medical “technocrats”.
Dr. Merritt’s recent article in The New American Magazine explained the effect of COVID-19 vaccines that were released on an emergency basis before being properly tested. She is a lifelong advocate for a patient’s right to choose their own medical care without government intervention,
We Don’t Co-Parent with the Government by Rev. CL Bryant
Camp Constitution participated in an event hosted by Freedom Works that took place in Laconia, NH on Saturday September 25. Among the speakers and panelists were Rev. CL Bryant, author, radio and TV personality and a senior fellow at Freedom Works; Laura Zorc, Director of Education at Freedom Works; Skip Murphy, co-founder of GraniteGrok, a New Hampshire on-line conservative media outlet; Camp Constitution’s Rev. Steve Craft; parent activists Jade Wood, and Michelle Tyler; Dr. Larry Borland, and New Hampshire state reps Dawn Johnson, Jim Kofalt, and Tim Baxter.
The event covered a wide range of topics that included stopping “wokeness” and CRT in schools, parent empowerment, running for local office and data privacy issues. Rev. CL Bryant closed the event with his powerful message “We Don’t Co-Parent with the Government”:
The Weekly Sam: The National Education Association: An Enemy of Christianity-a lecture from 1985
Sam Blumenfeld was a generation ahead of his time. He gave this presentation exposing the evil influences of the National Education Association-a powerful left-wing union that works to destroy the minds and morals of children in government schools.
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/shurtleffhal/episodes/2021-09-24T12_06_31-07_00
Please visit our web site and sign up for the Sam Blumenfeld Archives www.campconstitution.net
Open Letter to a recent Climate Feedback “fact-check” article makes multiple false and misleading claims about a new study
Camp Constitution, at the request of Professor Willie Soon, an instructor at Camp Constitution’s annual family camp, is reposting this open letter and urges all who read it to forward and/or repost
Dear Drs. Vincent and Forrester,
We are writing this open letter to you because it has recently come to our attention that your Climate Feedback website has published an article making multiple false or misleading claims about an Epoch Times newspaper article (by Alex Newman) that reported on a new peer-reviewed paper we co-authored. Your website’s “fact-check”/”feedback” also made false or misleading claims about our paper.
This means your website is effectively spreading the very misinformation that you purport to be trying to fight. Additionally, because your website is currently one of Facebook’s approved “independent fact-checkers”, anybody who shared or tries to share a link to the Epoch Times article now receives a warning like the following:
In other words, not only is your “fact-check” promoting misinformation, but you are effectively hindering the public from sharing important information with their friends and family.
We are writing to you to ask you to immediately correct this erroneous “fact-check” and to inform any groups that may have been using your website as an “independent fact-checker” (including Facebook) of the error.
We are also cc’ing and bcc’ing various parties who are either directly affected by the consequences of this “fact-check” or may be more generally concerned about the arbitrariness of the “fact-checks” offered by websites such as yours, and the problem of “who will ‘fact-check’ the fact-checkers?”
We believe the discussion below is of relevance for everybody given the recent trend of the media, social media and internet search engines towards using “independent fact-checkers” like yourselves for down-ranking, suppressing or even deleting content. Therefore, we have chosen to make this an open letter. We encourage people to share our letter and our accompanying “fact-check fact-check” with the public – although we ask people to first redact the e-mail addresses.
The article in question is this one edited by Dr. Lambert Baraut-Guinet: Link here
Dr. Baraut-Guinet claims to have “fact-checked” an Epoch Times newspaper article (Link here) by Alex Newman which compared the findings of our recent scientific review paper (Link here) to the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 1’s recent 6th Assessment Report (AR6, link here).
Baraut-Guinet alleges that Newman made false claims that were “incorrect” and “misleading” in his reporting. He similarly asserts that several other media outlets publishing articles repeating some of Newman’s reporting were “incorrect” and “misleading”. Baraut-Guinet also asserts that our peer-reviewed paper makes “incorrect” and “misleading” claims.
Background to Newman’s article:
Our paper that Newman was reporting on is a detailed scientific review on the complex challenges of establishing how much of a role solar activity has played in northern hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century (and earlier). It was co-authored by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries and was published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). If you don’t have time to read the full article, here is a short press release summary: Link here
The title of our paper is, “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate”, and it was published online in early August. Coincidentally, a few days later, the UN’s IPCC AR6 was published. While the IPCC AR6 had concluded that it was “unequivocal” that recent climate change was human-caused, our findings were much more circumspect and cautious, e.g., from the abstract of our RAA paper:
“For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural). It appears that previous studies (including the most recent IPCC reports) which had prematurely concluded the former, had done so because they failed to adequately consider all the relevant estimates of TSI and/or to satisfactorily address the uncertainties still associated with Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates. Therefore, several recommendations on how the scientific community can more satisfactorily resolve these issues are provided.”
That is, the IPCC was offering a remarkably confident claim about the “attribution” of recent climate change, whereas we were explicitly warning that it was too premature to be drawing such conclusions. Our analysis found an alarmingly wide range of plausible estimates for a solar contribution (in the paper itself we elaborate on how plausible estimates for the solar contribution range from 0%-100% of the long-term warming since the mid-19th century!).
Newman was apparently intrigued by the contrast between the two studies both coincidentally published at around the same time. He interviewed several of us to learn more about our findings. He also reached out to the IPCC for their response, as well as to other scientists who might disagree with our analysis as well as some who might agree. If you read his article, his efforts to carefully and openly present multiple perspectives are self-evident.
If you compare Newman’s ‘balanced reporting’ journalistic approach to the framework you provide at Science Feedback for informative reporting (Link here), it is clear that Newman was taking considerable care to avoid any of the aspects of misinformation that you identify as problematic. In contrast, as we will detail in the attached ‘fact-check fact-check’, Baraut-Guinet’s ‘fact-checking’ of Newman’s article is littered with almost all of the hallmarks of misinformation which your framework warns against.
Yet, ironically, Baraut-Guinet’s “fact-check” is currently being used by Facebook (and probably other platforms) as a justification for censoring Newman’s article.
According to your website’s “About” page “Our first mission is to help create an Internet where users will have access to scientifically sound and trustworthy information. We also provide feedback to editors and journalists about the credibility of information published by their outlets.” Therefore, we hope you share at least some of our concern about the fact that this article by Baraut-Guinet on your website is now promoting misinformation – and as a result effectively misleading editors, journalists and also several of your partners & funders that you list on your website, e.g., Facebook’s “Third Party Fact Checking program”.
We hope that after reviewing the information in this e-mail, you will get Baraut-Guinet to correct his erroneous analysis, update his flawed verdict of “Incorrect” & “Misleading” to “Correct” & “Accurate”, and also to contact the various groups (including Facebook’s fact checking program) who have mistakenly used his flawed analysis to warn them that your website had posted an erroneous “fact-check”.
Different scientific approaches of the IPCC and us
In our “fact-check fact-check” we explain how the approach we took to reviewing the scientific literature in our RAA paper was fundamentally different to that taken by the IPCC. We also explain that our objectives were fundamentally different too.
The IPCC explain on their website that they were set up by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) in conjunction with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) with the primary objective of providing “scientific information that [governments] can use to develop climate policies” (https://www.ipcc.ch/about/, accessed 5th September 2021). As we explain in the fact-check fact-check, the specific climate policies the IPCC are interested in are those that will help the UNEP in arranging international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
On the other hand, our primary objective was “to convey to the rest of the scientific community the existence of several unresolved problems, as well as to establish those points where there is general agreement”.
That is, the IPCC’s scientific assessments are carried out to help governments in implementing the UN’s political goals, while our scientific assessments are carried out to help the scientific community (of which all 23 of us are members) to improve our collective understanding of the causes of climate change.
So, different goals. But, we also used different methods.
The IPCC’s approach is a “consensus-driven” one of trying to identify a “scientific consensus” on each of the key issues. This approach works very well when there is indeed universal scientific agreement on the point. However, it is problematic whenever there is scientific disagreement on a given issue. And ironically, most scientific research occurs when there is ongoing scientific disagreement on the subject. Therefore, this is a surprisingly common occurrence. The IPCC’s general approach to dealing with scientific disagreement appears to be to use “expert judgement” to identify the most “likely” perspective on the subject (ideally one which best suits the UNEP’s aims) and then use “expert judgement” to dismiss those studies which dissent from that perspective.
Several researchers have praised the IPCC for this “consensus-driven” approach as they say it allows the IPCC to “speak with one voice for climate science” (e.g., see Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rödder 2019). This is very helpful for the UNEP’s goals, since it allows the governments to focus on their negotiations without being distracted by scientific disagreements within the scientific community. However, we believe that it is unfortunately hindering scientific progress and the process of scientific inquiry.
For this reason, we explicitly avoided the IPCC’s “consensus-driven” approach and instead chose “…to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement”. As Francis Bacon noted in the 17th century, “if we begin with certainties, we shall end in doubts; but if we begin with doubts, and are patient in them, we shall end in certainties.”
These are different goals and different methods. So ultimately, it is not that surprising that we came to different conclusions on several key scientific questions.
When different scientists come to different conclusions by following different scientific approaches, it is very challenging to decide which one is “factual” and which is not. We appreciate that this can create problems for an “independent fact-checker” like your organization when asked to weigh in on a scientific disagreement. However, as we will discuss later, maybe this is not something that you should even be trying to do.
Science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other. Rather than trying to shut down one side of a given scientific disagreement as “incorrect” and promoting the other side as “correct”, maybe we should be welcoming the fact that scientists are still “doing science”.
Who has been cc’ed and bcc’ed
A major problem with the current set-up of your website is that you purport to provide “fact-checks” or “feedbacks” on articles, but if anybody disputes your “feedback”, the only formal mechanism you currently offer on the website is to submit a comment through your on-line “contact us” form. We were unable to find an e-mail address for Dr. Baraut-Guinet, the editor in charge of the article in question. However, you are currently listed on the Science Feedback website as the Founder & Director (Dr. Vincent) and Science Editor, Climate and Ecology (Dr. Forrester), and we were able to find your e-mails on-line. Therefore, we assume that you are the appropriate people from your website to contact, and that you can contact him.
We have also cc’ed and bcc’ed several people whose professional reputations have been directly attacked by Dr. Baraut-Guinet through his accusations, as well as several people whose reputations have directly or indirectly been used by Dr. Baraut-Guinet to justify his claims.
Specifically, we have cc’ed Alex Newman, since Dr. Baraut-Guinet is (falsely) accusing him of not having carried out his journalistic duties. We have also bcc’ed our 20 co-authors on the research paper in question (Connolly et al., 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-
Additionally, we have bcc’ed Prof. Tim Osborn, Dr. Britta Voss and Prof. Patrick Brown. Dr. Baraut-Guinet has taken quotes from each of them from previous reviews on your website, and copied-and-pasted them the “Scientists’ feedback” for his “fact-check” on Alex Newman’s article.
Your Science Feedback framework claims that the “Scientists’ feedback” is needed before the editor can reach a verdict:
“Process for deciding on a verdict
The final ruling regarding the verdict attributed to the claim is made by a Science Feedback editor based on suggestions by the scientists contributing to the review.”
Therefore, it should have been a warning flag that none of the three scientists listed in the “Scientists’ feedback” section had contributed suggestions specifically about Alex Newman’s reporting. Instead, their ”feedback” was copied-and-pasted from feedback on previous articles or claims.
We appreciate that Baraut-Guinet did include an explanatory note for each of them saying, “[ This comment comes from a previous review…”. But, many casual readers would miss this. Indeed, we have already heard from several friends who independently told us about the article and none of them had noticed this caveat.
At any rate, we have bcc’ed these three scientists to let them know that Baraut-Guinet is using quotes from them on different articles to imply that they had also directly commented on Alex Newman’s article.
We have also cc’ed Jonathan Lynn (Head of Communications and Media Relations of IPCC), the representative from the IPCC that provided statements to Alex Newman for his article, since Baraut-Guinet misleadingly implies in his article that Newman failed to present the IPCC’s position on the various points made. This is factually inaccurate as well as misleading, lacking in context and also a Strawman argument (i.e., 4 of the types of misinformation criticised by your framework), since Newman states clearly in his article that he specifically reached out to the IPCC for comment, and reported the IPCC’s responses. This included a clarifying statement from Prof. Panmao Zhai (co-chair of Working Group 1 AR6), who we have bcc’ed.
Finally, we have bcc’ed multiple people who we know are concerned about how influential “fact-checking” organizations like yours have become and are wondering “who will fact-check the fact-checkers?” We think they will find our “fact-check fact-check” of your fact-checker, Dr. Baraut-Guinet’s article helpful. We suspect they will also be interested to see how your organisation will respond to this problem.
Details on our “fact-check fact-check”
We have attached in both pdf and MS Word format our detailed “fact-check fact-check” on Dr. Baraut-Guinet’s “fact-check” of Newman’s article.
For convenience, we have summarized below the key relevant links:
1. Dr. Baraut-Guinet’s “fact check”/“feedback”: https://climatefeedback.org/
2. Alex Newman’s article in The Epoch Times: https://www.theepochtimes.com/
3. Science Feedback’s “Framework for claim-level reviews” which Baraut-Guinet’s article claims was used for the fact-check: https://sciencefeedback.co/
4. Our peer-reviewed paper in Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics that they were reporting on, i.e., Connolly et al. (2021): https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-
5. Link to the IPCC WG1 AR6 that they were also reporting on: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/
Our immediate recommendations to Climate Feedback
· Recommendation 1: We recommend you correct the existing “fact-check”/”feedback” on Alex Newman’s article. Currently, your website asserts that his reporting was “Incorrect” and “Misleading”. This should be changed to “Correct” and “Accurate” immediately.
· Recommendation 2: Those groups that are using Climate Feedback as a “fact-checker” should be contacted to let them know of your website’s erroneous analysis of this article.
· Recommendation 3: All of your editors should be reminded that your “framework for claim-level reviews” was presumably not to be used as an inspiration for what to do, but rather for identifying misinformation.
However, once this is done, we would also encourage you (and others reading this open letter) to consider whether the very idea of “fact-checking” on science reporting is as good an idea as it might initially seem.
Commentary on whether this plan of “fact-checking” is working
Finally, we think that it is time for society to reflect on whether this recent trend in “fact-checking” is wise. We note that a lot of this trend can be specifically traced back to debates over journalistic approaches to the scientific reporting of climate change.
Specifically, in the early 2000s, some researchers who believed that the IPCC reports offered the definitive “scientific consensus” on climate change were frustrated that journalists would still report the perspectives of scientists who disagreed with the IPCC reports. In particular, the Boykoff & Boykoff (2004) paper argued that the journalistic norm of “balanced reporting” was leading to a ‘false balance’ by implying that the supporters of the IPCC reports and the critics represented a 50:50 split among the scientific community (abstract here; pdf here).
This study (and more generally the argument) was highly influential and convinced many journalists that they had a duty to stop carrying out what they assumed was ‘false balance’ and instead only report on the scientific perspectives they believed were “correct”. That is, on any given scientific disagreement, the journalists would be obliged to find out what the “scientific consensus” was. If a scientific study disagreed with this consensus, it was not to be reported on.
This alternative journalistic approach is often referred to by its supporters as “reliable reporting”, although critics might call it “narrative-driven journalism” (or “ideological reporting” if the critic disagreed with the journalist’s political ideology).
A major problem with relying on this “reliable reporting” approach to journalism is that it effectively requires the journalist to act as the arbiter of an often complex scientific disagreement. When even the scientists themselves are in disagreement, this puts a very heavy burden on the journalist. Nonetheless, over the years, the argument about ‘false balance’ has convinced many journalists to abandon the classical ‘balanced reporting’ approach.
Today, it is very rare to find journalists like Alex Newman who continue to apply the ‘balanced reporting’ approach when covering scientific disagreements. As a result, over the last decade or so, it has become increasingly difficult to find open-minded and honest discussions on these scientific issues in the traditional media.
However, until recently, it was still relatively easy to find those discussions elsewhere by using social media and internet searches. Therefore, social media platforms and internet search engines are now being criticised for still allowing people to find out about ongoing scientific disagreements. As a result, these platforms are being increasingly pressured to actively suppress “misinformation”. Essentially, they are being pressured to adopt the same techniques of suppression described above which were applied to the media.
But, since the original premise of most social media platforms and internet search engines was to allow users to share and search for the information they wanted, if these platforms engage in this suppression, it is an especially draconian form of censorship.
To try and justify this censorship as “reducing the spread of ‘fake news’ and ‘misinformation’”, platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google/Youtube and others have started relying on “independent fact-checkers” such as Climate Feedback. However, as we demonstrated in our “fact-check fact-check”, attempting to “fact-check” on issues where there are ongoing scientific disagreements (as Dr. Baraut-Guinet did here) is very risky – and can easily result in generating misinformation (as Dr. Baraut-Guinet did here).
Therefore, we suggest that it is time for a re-think on the current reliance on “fact-checkers”, and also for journalists to re-think the “reliable reporting” approach.
Personally, we think that a return to encouraging “balanced reporting” would be a good option. However, we note that there was a recent paper by the Danish philosopher, Prof. Mikkel Gerken, which presents several options: Gerken (2020), “How to balance Balanced Reporting and Reliable Reporting”, Philosophy Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/
Gerken describes the above approaches to journalism when it comes to science reporting as follows:
1. Balanced Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report opposing hypotheses in a manner that does not favor any one of them.
2. Reliable Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report the most reliably based hypotheses and avoid reporting hypotheses that are not reliably based.
He agrees that there are valid concerns about both approaches. The first approach can potentially lead to “false balance”, while the second approach can potentially lead to narrative-driven journalism, or even propaganda.
Therefore, he suggests two potential compromises:
3. Inclusive Reliable Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report hypotheses in a manner that favors the most reliably based ones by indicating the nature and strength of their respective scientific justifications.
4. Epistemically Balanced Reporting. Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report opposing hypotheses in a manner that reflects the nature and strength of their respective scientific justifications or lack thereof.
He favours the 4th option. However, either the 3rd or 4th option rules out the necessity for the 2nd option of suppressing the existence of genuine scientific disagreements, and also avoids the risk with the 1st option of potentially creating a ‘false balance’.
In our opinion, the public are not as prone to ‘false balance’ as the proponents of Option 2 insist. We think that most people recognise that if a journalist provides two competing perspectives on a scientific issue it does not necessarily mean that the scientific community is split 50:50 on it. However, for journalists who are concerned about the risk of ‘false balance’, options 3 and 4 might be suitable alternatives to option 1.
Indeed, arguably, Alex Newman’s approach in his Epoch Times article combines elements of Options 1, 3 and 4.
Importantly, it is only with Option 2 that there is a necessity for “independent fact-checkers” for science reporting. For the other options, the readers are made aware of the existence of differing scientific perspectives and it is up to them to investigate further if they are interested.
Regards,
Dr Ronan Connolly, Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Michael Connolly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05F9XV7zKO8
Camp Constitution Flag Contest Winners
At the closing ceremonies of our annual family camp, we announced a contest to design a Camp Constitution flag. The winner would get their camp tuition paid for 2022. We encouraged parents to help as well. Initially, we were just going to choose one flag but we got some entries from junior campers-camp attendees eleven and under. So, we decided to choose two flags-one that will be the flag for Camp Constitution and one that will be the flag for the junior campers.
The winner for the junior camper flag is Lielle Chu who drew this flag:
The winner for the Camp Constitution flag is David Krutov. One of his younger siblings will get a free tuition for next year’s camp.
Dave explains the symbolism in his flag:
The Cross represents Jesus, and how he is central to our philosophy. The dates are representative Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The entire assembly represents “Honoring the past.” The stripes represent America in the present, and thus “Teaching the Present” And finally, the triangle is swept forward, which represents moving forward, thus is symbolic of “Preparing the Future”
We will have several 3′ x 5′ versions of these flags made, and be on display at our family camps, and other events. Thanks to all who participated in the contest, and congratulations to Lielle and Dave.
My Name is Samuel Adams by Dr. Dan Eichenbaum
My name is Samuel Adams. I was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on September 27, 1722, the son of local merchant and Puritan Church deacon Samuel Adams, Sr. I was privileged to attend Boston Latin School and Harvard College, where I learned from the writings of John Locke that all people were born with unalienable Natural Law Rights and that moral government was based on the consent of the governed. My master’s degree thesis in 1743 explored the legality of resisting the authority of the British King.
In 1748, I inherited my father’s business after he passed away, but I wasn’t very good at running it. After it went bankrupt, I became a city tax collector, but my poor skill at keeping financial records led to significant discrepancies and deficits. A cynic might say I was a politician-in-training, but I would disagree.
Although I was not proficient with numbers, it turns out I was skilled at writing. My early articles advised my fellow colonists about the importance of protecting their individual freedom. I really hit my stride when King George imposed onerous taxes on us to pay for his Seven Years’ War. We colonists had no representation in British government, so I condemned this “taxation without representation” as a violation of our rights.
I was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1765, but soon realized that outright activism against British rule was the only way to gain our freedom. I often met with a secret group of patriots called the Loyal Nine which was the nucleus of what became the Sons of Liberty.
The Sons of Liberty were a grassroots group of instigators and provocateurs in colonial America who used an extreme form of civil disobedience—threats, and in some cases actual violence—to intimidate loyalists and outrage the British government. The goal of the radicals was to push moderate colonial leaders into a confrontation with the Crown.
You might say I was a member of the very first Tea Party group. In fact, on December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships in Boston Harbor and threw 45 tons of tea into the icy water. The event was called the Boston Tea Party. By this time, the British had about enough of me and my Sons of Liberty brothers. So, they sent General Gage to Lexington with orders to seize guns and military supplies of the colonists and, according to some, to arrest John Hancock and me.
At North Bridge in Concord, our Minute Men finally engaged the British. It was indeed the “shot heard round the world”. Our American War of Independence had begun – the upstart colonists of the New World taking on England, the major superpower of the Old World – in order to establish the principles of Natural Law Rights and freedom for each individual.
Here are some of the things I wrote and said. If they apply to your current situation, I implore you to heed my warnings and the wisdom of my experience.
All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
There can be no property in that which another can of right take from us without our consent.
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
. . . the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance.
It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.
Shame on the men who can court exemption from present trouble and expense at the price of their own posterity’s liberty!
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Resist Tyranny and Trust in Freedom!
By Dr. Dan Eichenbaum of Freedom Forum Radio
| Freedom Forum Radio | P.O. Box 39 | Murphy, NC 28906 |
| https://drdansfreedomforum.com |
These Pilgrims Dance Featuring “Ballet Magnificat Anchored The Pilgrim Story Comes to Massachusetts for Several Engagements
Anchored: The Pilgrim Story, an all-new dramatic ballet created to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrims, is coming to New England this fall. Anchored is a collaboration between FirstLoveWorks, Inc., a nonprofit organization founded by Ann and Tom Savastano, and Ballet Magnificat!, “America’s premier Christian ballet company” (Charisma). Ballet Magnificat! tours worldwide and has received critical acclaim from the Washington Post, LA Times, and the Dallas Morning News.
Anchored covers the saga of the Pilgrims’ voyage from their departure to the first Thanksgiving in America, depicting the faith, hope, and courage which sustained them. Anchored spotlights significant scenes such as the tumultuous crossing of the Atlantic, the historic signing of the Mayflower Compact, the intensity of the first winter, the long-lasting peace treaty with the Wampanoag people, and the festive harmony of the First Thanksgiving. This moving story, told through the beauty of dance, will uplift and inspire audiences today.
Anchored: The Pilgrim Story will be performed this fall in three Massachusetts locations:
- Andover — 7 PM Thursday, Sept. 30th at the Collins Center Theater
- Plymouth – 7 PM Friday, Oct. 1st and 4 PM Saturday, Oct. 2nd at Plymouth Memorial Hall.
- Northfield – 4 PM Sunday, Oct. 3rd at the historic Moody Center Auditorium
Tickets are $25 for adults, $17.50 for children 13 and under. 10% discount for groups of 8 or more, and 20% discount for groups of 20 or more. For tickets, please visit http://pilgrimballet.com
For further information contact:
Tom Savastano
tom@firstloveworks.org
978-417-1285
The Mordecai Mission: An Interview with Pastor William Green
I had the honor to interview Pastor William Green, founder of The Mordecai Mission on Camp Constitution Radio. Pastor Green reached out to us thanks to Barbara from Harlem and asked Camp Constitution to be involved with The Mordecai Mission. Pastor Green can be reached via E-mail: mordecaimission@gmail.com A link to an audio version of the interview: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/shurtleffhal/episodes/2021-09-19T16_17_35-07_00