Some Climate Alarmists Refuse to Concede

Some Climate Alarmists Refuse to Concede
by JBS President John F. McManus

Writing in the Boston Globe, columnist Tom Keane’s recent column led with the headline, “Cool summer doesn’t invalidate climate change.” The type in his headline should have been upside-down because the logic surely was.

“A report posted by the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) on October 7 stated: “Sea ice in Antarctica has remained at satellite-era record high daily levels for most of 2014.”” (The New American)

Keane admits that temperatures during the summer of 2014 were “well below normal.” He nevertheless clings to the ridiculous claims of fellow alarmists and insists that global warming, now almost universally labeled “climate change” because warming can’t be detected, is still a grave threat to the entire planet. But opposite views continue to come – almost in a flood like the one predicted by warming alarmists.

Matt Ridley, a member of England’s House of Lords, debunked the claims of the warmists in an op-ed column appearing in the Wall Street Journal. Claiming “it has been roughly two decades” since any marked upward change in the earth’s temperature has been recorded, Ridley noted that there was a slight upward tick in temperatures for about 20 years in late 20th century. But that period “was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940,” he continued. In other words, he claims what an increasing number have concluded – that fluctuations in temperature will occur naturally and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. And there’s nothing terribly ominous to worry about.

CNS News just published conclusions reached by Dr. Patrick Michaels, a veteran climatologist who is Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. He says, “October 1st will mark the 19th year of no significant warming trend in surface average temperatures.” Michaels pointed to record amounts of Antarctic ice, as reported by the Polar Ice Research Center housed at the University of Illinois.

Space does not allow for a listing of the many renowned climate scientists who consider the claims of the warming lobby to be pure bunk. But The New American (a JBS-affiliate) has listed prominent defectors from such absurdity. They include Dr. Judith Curry from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Dr. Patrick Moore who was a co-founder of Greenpeace, and Dr. Denis Rancourt, a Green activist who nevertheless sees through the claims of climate change activists. These scientists are now allied with fellow warming debunkers from the U.S., Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, England, Germany, and elsewhere. An organization known as “Climate Depot” has published a 321-page report containing challenges from more than 1,000 scientists who disagree with the UN’s International Conference of Climate Change.

In what appears to be his bid to replace Al Gore as our nation’s leading fright-peddler, Secretary of State John Kerry says that climate change is as great a threat as the problems created by ISIS, Ebola and terrorism in general. He claims that “97 percent of scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and human activity is to blame.” He stated that climate change is “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” Growing numbers of trained scientists disagree.

The truth is that the polar ice isn’t melting; polar bear numbers are increasing not declining; the oceans and seas aren’t rising; and there’s no need to do away with the internal combustion engine as proposed by Al Gore. Nor is there any need to cease producing electricity by burning coal as proposed by the Obama administration.

What is needed is more people who understand the foolishness of commentators like Tom Keane, who admits that the climate isn’t warming but wants to apply drastic corrective measures that will truly harm the Earth’s people.

The New American has attended many of the Heartland Institute’s annual International Conference on Climate Change for years. See some of the video interviews with leading staff and presenters.


Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Stonewalling About Fast and Furious Will Soon End

Stonewalling About Fast and Furious Will Soon End
by JBS President John F. McManus

On September 23rd, federal district judge John D. Bates ruled that documents related to the federal government’s Fast and Furious operation that led to the slaying of U.S. Border Control agent Brian Terry, could no longer remain secret. The judge gave the Department of Justice until October 22nd to submit the documents, explain why they were being withheld, and indicate how their release could supposedly harm someone. Two days later, Attorney General Eric Holder announced his resignation from the high office he has held for almost six years.

Disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder and the late Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry (frontpagemag.com)

Fast and Furious was a program carried out by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). It purposefully allowed firearms dealers in the U.S. to sell weapons to individuals known to be planning to ship them to Mexican drug cartel leaders. The BATF claimed that this “gun running” would enable its agents to track down and arrest Mexican drug pushers and gun-trafficking individuals. During the operation, however, U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry became a victim of one of the guns found at the scene of the crime. An estimated 2,000 weapons changed hands during Fast and Furious and only 700 were ever recovered. In simple terms, the program was a colossal and deadly failure.

The Obama administration has insisted that documents pertaining dealing to the operation must be kept from view. More than two years ago in the midst of his consistent stonewalling, Attorney General Holder refused to cooperate with a congressional investigation of the matter and, as a result, became the first sitting member of the U.S. Cabinet in history to be formally declared in contempt of Congress. But that didn’t stop him from continuing his efforts to keep secret the documents that now must be produced.

Fast and Furious began on October 31, 2009 when an Arizona gun dealer reported that four individuals purchased a quantity of AK-47-style rifles. Another suspicious gun purchaser bought 244 weapons within a two-month period. But BATF agents were required to do nothing. Some eventually complained about the scheme but were ignored as guns fell into the hands of people they knew were about to commit crimes. Some agents have even reported that they were ordered by high-ranking personnel within the Attorney Generals’ office to look the other way at this increase in gun-trafficking. Soon, even BATF agents stationed in Mexico were voicing their complaints about the program.

When agent Terry and his companion agents spotted suspected illegal immigrants on that fateful night, they fired non-lethal beanbag guns as a warning. But the suspects responded with rifle fire and a firefight resulted with Terry being killed. Four of the suspects were arrested and two of the seized AK-47 rifles were immediately traced to a Phoenix gun store involved in the Fast and Furious operation.

For several years, Eric Holder and President Obama have steadfastly refused congressional requests to release DOJ documents related to this fiasco. The President claimed executive privilege to impede the investigation. One can only conclude that the two surely have something to hide. As of October 22, 2014, there will be no more secrecy. Thanks are due to Judge Bates for his decision and to the Judicial Watch organization that has doggedly pursued this matter and finally won in their demands for an end to the stonewalling.

The founders were clear on the point of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The John Birch Society believes that gun-control laws and agencies do nothing but control the responsible individual and aid criminals. Also, the JBS opposes a monopoly of power on the part of government.


Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


A Readable Book About Economics

A Readable Book About Economics
by JBS President John F. McManus

Harry C. Veryser is an unusual individual. A businessman who owned an auto supply company for many years, he also spent many years teaching economics at the college level. Most who teach what is wrongly termed “the dismal science” at that level have no experience in the business world.

“Recommended enthusiastically by former Congressman Ron Paul, this book will help anyone to know and love, not something deserving of the term “dismal,” but of how human beings can be expected to act and how governments should leave them alone in all their moral and legal efforts.”

Now an author, Veryser had written a very readable book entitled “It Didn’t Have to Be This Way.” The book’s jacket entices readers with: “Why Boom and Bust is Unnecessary – and How the Austrian School of Economics Breaks the Cycle.” Unfortunately, many Americans think the “Austrian School” is located in a building somewhere in Austria, probably in Vienna. Not so! The Austrian School isn’t a place; it’s the viewpoint of many economists who derive their attitude from a study of history and of human nature, and from Ludwig von Mises who was born in Austria and lived most of his life in the United States. The author of numerous valuable treatises dealing with economics, Mises always claimed, and backed his claims with clarity and forcefulness, that boom and bust cycles afflicting numerous nations – certainly including ours – are both unnatural and unnecessary.

Veryser explains that mainstream economic thinkers view economics as though it were similar in many ways to physics, a discipline that can be reduced to numbers and mathematical formulas. No, he says, economics is an understanding of human action that “distrusts” the mathematical modeling that brought on the financial collapse in 2007, and many other busts throughout the years. His book presents a clear explanation of what anyone studying economics should know, even including how the Great Depression of the 1930s could have been avoided.

In addition to von Mises, clear thinkers presented by Veryser include Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and recent Mises disciples such as Carl Menger, Friedrich Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt. Along the way, a reader will find explanations of the nature and history of money, condemnations of the different types of inflation, and the harm done by governments when they meddle in matters of economics. One conclusion stated emphatically by Veryser insists: “There is hardly a country in history that has not experimented with debasing its currency.” In each country where the practice of debasement occurred, starting with the sixth century B.C. in a country then known as Lydia, economic ruin followed as it surely has followed here in the twentieth century.

Borrowing a quote from Hayek, “It Didn’t Have to Be This Way” asserts, “It seems to me that if we could prevent governments from meddling with money, we would do more good than any government has ever done in this regard.” What Harry Veryser has produced is essentially a history book, not the usual book about economics where pages are full of charts, graphs and muddled thinking. Recommended enthusiastically by former Congressman Ron Paul, this book will help anyone to know and love, not something deserving of the term “dismal,” but of how human beings can be expected to act and how governments should leave them alone in all their moral and legal efforts.

Download Understanding Economic Principles, a free 5-page PDF explaining money and its role in the free market.


Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Say No to the North American Union

Say No to the North American Union
by JBS President John F. McManus

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) won congressional approval in late 1993. Signed by then-President Clinton, the pact, has contributed to one million manufacturing jobs lost and many hundreds of closed factories.

AFL-CIO maps out jobs displaced by the trade deficit with Mexico.

But the loss of jobs and factories hasn’t been the only casualty. When NAFTA was being considered, both Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, two eager proponents of eventual world government, made clear in their published statements that the pact was only a stepping stone toward the larger goal of uniting Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a North American Union (NAU). And creation of a formal NAU would be a step toward the “new world order” that each desires. Effective work by The John Birch Society and some allies prevented realization of the plan to sacrifice national independence in favor of the NAU.

But the enemies of national independence never sleep. At a recent gathering of the Texas-Chihuahua-New Mexico Regional Economic Competitiveness Forum held in El Paso, Texas, Congressmen Beto O’Rourke, Joaquin Castro and Henry Cuellar – all Democrats from Texas – stated their hopes to create more ties with Mexico. And Congressman Bill Owens (D-N.Y.) who represents a district bordering Canada added his hope that a similar expansion of ties can be made with Canada.

Mr. Cuellar pointed to energy production in the three North American countries. He wants to “put Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. [into a relationship] that will be the new Middle East of the world.” Energy production, of course, can continue and grow without sacrificing the independence of each of the countries. Simply stated, there is no need to give up national sovereignty in order to produce energy.

A report about the El Paso meeting provided by Newspaper Tree stated: “But with regional economies and markets across the planet becoming increasingly competitive in a globalizing and urbanizing world, the notion of building upon a stronger North America in a post-NAFTA hemisphere was clearly on the lawmakers’ minds.”

The American people must be made aware that the NAFTA pact, as costly as it was regarding jobs, also contained in its 1,700 pages numerous additional entanglements such as NAFTA judicial panels whose decisions supersede the rulings of our nation’s state and federal courts. There can be little doubt that the intention of the globalists includes having a newly created North American Union crush independence here in the same manner that it has been crushed for 28 European nations by the European Union. Members of Congress must be told by constituents that keeping our nation away from entanglements such as the proposed NAU is imperative.

For more on the agenda behind free trade agreements, read “International Merger by Foreign Entanglements” by JBS CEO Arthur Thompson. Check out a review of it here.


Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Auditing the Federal Reserve

Auditing the Federal Reserve
by JBS President John F. McManus

On September 17, 2014, the House of Representatives voted 333 to 92 in favor a measure calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Introduced by Representative Paul Broun (R-Ga.), H.R. 24 won the support of 227 Republicans and 106 Democrats – which is well beyond the two-thirds needed for passage. Californian John Campbell was the lone Republican House member who sided with 91 Democrat opponents of the bill. The Senate must now give its two-thirds approval of the companion measure, S. 209, introduced in that body by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

“The Eccles Building in Washington, D.C., which serves as the Federal Reserve System’s headquarters.” (Wikipedia)

H.R. 24 calls for “a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States.” There never has been any such audit in the Fed’s 101 years of existence. The companion Senate measure seeks identical openness. Both measures carry the title, “Federal Reserve Transparency Act,” the word “transparency” being what’s long been needed. And each of the bills requires that the audit be conducted within a year of final passage.

In his discussion about the need for this audit, Senator Paul noted that no “meaningful” audit of the Fed has ever been conducted. Less than honest and transparent scrutiny has been practiced under stifling restrictions, but Senator Paul and his colleagues want openness, not more cover-ups. To indicate how little is known about the Fed’s activities, he stated: “…when the primary auditor and overseer of the Fed was asked about $9 trillion dollars, the Inspector General had no clue what had been purchased.” After noting that the $9 trillion figure is more than half of the nation’s admitted indebtedness, he concluded, “The Federal Reserve is one of the most secretive institutions in our history.”

The Senate measure already has 30 co-sponsors, all Republicans but for Alaska’s Democrat Senator Mark Begich. Gaining 37 more Yes votes for the measure in the Senate (the number needed to reach the two-thirds plateau) will not be easy with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) strongly opposed to the idea.

A thorough audit of the Fed will likely lead to consideration of a subsequent measure calling for terminating the institution. Our nation needs sound money, not fiat currency generated by the secretive Fed that should never have been given the power it possesses. As more Americans realize that the once “almighty” dollar has shrunk in value from a worth of 100 cents in 1913 to a mere 2 cents today because of Fed action, pressure for abolishing it and returning to precious-metal-backed currency continues to grow. All who want openness at the Fed and sound money should be contacting both of the their senators to request support for S. 209.


Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Does Obama Skirt the Constitution? Ask This Yale Professor

Does Obama Skirt the Constitution? Ask This Yale Professor
by JBS President John F. McManus

Americans across the country are finally awakening to the fact that the federal government does indeed operate outside of its limitations. A case in point is Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale University. Because of President Obama starting a war with ISIS, he finally understands that the President has violated the U.S. Constitution.

“Bruce Ackerman is Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale, and the author of fifteen books that have had a broad influence in political philosophy, constitutional law, and public policy.” (Yale Law School)

The Yale professor rightly complains that the President’s decision to make war against ISIS amounts to a unilateral assumption of power. OK, but the professor then says that the President’s unilateral action “marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition,” adding that “nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.” Does this mean that Ackerman would go along with Mr. Obama’s decision if he had consulted with and received approval – not a declaration of war – from Congress for military action against the Islamist militants?

Curiously, the Obama team claimed that decision to go to war against ISIS was acceptable because Congress had authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attack, and new approval for such action wasn’t needed. In other words, a past congressional stamp of approval for war that was not a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution can serve as a legitimate go-ahead for whatever action is desired even a decade later.  And the new target of the military doesn’t even have to be the one named in the previous congressional authorization. If that’s the case, then any real or supposed enemy can be targeted by simply citing this past congressional action.

Let us point out to the professor that the Constitution states in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 that Congress has the power to “declare war.” Nowhere else in the document is such authority granted to any other portion of the government. Partisans who want the President to have such power point to the Constitution’s naming the occupier of the White House as “commander in chief of the Army and Navy.” This designation should never be considered the equal of the explicit grant of power solely to Congress to declare war. In other words, the nation’s military arm is not the President’s possession to use as he desires. The sole grant of war-making power to Congress completely outweighs the mere designation of who shall be the commander of forces once a war starts. One would think that a law professor would know this.

The last congressional use of its constitutional authority to declare war occurred immediately after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Formal declarations of war were approved by Congress against Japan, Germany, and Italy. And the U.S. won against each of those struggles. No declarations of war were approved regarding subsequent wars in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and more. Can the U.S. claim victory in those contests, especially if we are still undergoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Numerous Presidents have sent small military detachments to rescue Americans in danger, reply swiftly to some outrage perpetrated against our nation, etc.  And few, if any, disapproved of these moves and insisted that formal congressional declarations were needed. But war is something else and, according to the Constitution, if there is to be one, it must be formally declared.

If prominently placed professors of law and political science, who should already understand the Constitution but don’t, are waking up, then we should use this as an opportunity to further engage them and others on obeying the Constitution, returning the federal government to its constitutional limitations, and stop policing the world with authorization supplied by the United Nations or its NATO subsidiary. A return to the Constitution’s easily understood passages regarding war is long overdue.

Use today (Constitution Day) as a good excuse to learn more about the American system of government in Overview of America.


Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Senator Coburn’s Call for a Constitutional Convention Invites Dangerous Consequences

Senator Coburn’s Call for a Constitutional Convention Invites Dangerous Consequences
by JBS President John F. McManus

Medical doctor Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has always crusaded against federal spending and the inevitable deficits that follow. Elected to the House of Representatives in 1994, he kept his pledge to serve no more than three terms and went back to doctoring in 2001. But in 2004, he won a Senate seat and pledged to serve no more than two six-year terms. Reelected in 2010, he recently decided he’d had enough and announced his resignation effective at the end of 2014, two years before his second Senate term would have ended.

Still crusading about Washington’s big spending and deficit building, Coburn has now announced that he wants the states to hold a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) to add a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He would also like to have the Con-Con add an amendment mandating term limits for members of Congress.

Scott Bradley, PhD, Founder and Chairman of The Constitution Commemoration Foundation, Inc., speaks at The John Birch Society Council Dinner, May 4, 2013 in Ohio., regarding opposing a BBA Con-Con.

As much as Dr. Coburn’s numerous efforts to cut spending and deal with the national debt deserve accolades, he seems to have not considered that his new proposals are fraught with dangers. He should consider that term limits for the office of President have been in place since 1951. As a result Bill Clinton served only eight years. He was followed by George W. Bush whose eight years were followed by Barack Obama. There are some Americans who applaud the Clinton to Bush to Obama parade because it brought change. But it surely didn’t lead to less spending and an end to deficits.

The main change when term limits force one President to exit and a new one to enter is the name of the occupant of the White House. Real change would occur if the voting public were better informed and not captive of the phony claim that top Democrats are different from top Republicans. If real change is sought, there’s no alternative to an informed electorate.

Dr. Coburn doesn’t seem to realize that a Con-Con could cancel the entire Constitution, as happened in 1787 when the only Con-Con in our nation’s history exceeded its mandate to revise the Articles of Confederation, scrapped them, and produced the U.S. Constitution. A Con-Con can’t be limited. It could abolish the Bill of Rights, cancel term limits on the presidential office, destroy numerous limitations of federal power, etc.

But the other Coburn proposal for a balanced budget amendment (BBA) invites the question: Why should anyone expect current leaders to obey an amendment when they already cavalierly disobey or ignore many of the provisions already present in the existing Constitution? Even beyond that never-answered question, there are several proposed BBAs that are full of loopholes.

Some BBA proposals would allow a 60 percent vote in Congress to override budget restrictions. Other partisans for a BBA say that the way to balance the budget is to increase taxes. There are some who claim that the budget need not be balanced if there’s a war or a national security threat proclaimed by the President. More state that balancing the budget would not have to be accomplished for five years, meaning more deficits. And the most slippery of all these proposals is the one that would allow some federal expenditures to be declared “off budget.”

Beyond the loopholes in a BBA, creating a Con-Con for any reason should be blocked. One year after he participated in the Con-Con that abolished the Articles of Confederation, James Madison stated his opinion in 1788 that consideration of another would cause him to “tremble.” Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger pointed to the unlimited power of a Con-Con and advised against one. The late Justice Robert Bork insisted that “a federal constitutional convention could not be limited to a single issue.” These voices from the past and the present warn against convening a Con-Con.

So while we applaud Dr. Coburn for his praiseworthy years of service in Congress, we have to disagree with his call for a Con-Con. Term limits don’t bring about real change. A balanced budget amendment would be so full of loopholes that it would be worthless. And a Con-Con would be enormously dangerous.

The path for real change wanted by many Americans begins with an educated electorate. There is no other way. And the only organization doing this since 1958 is The John Birch Society. Join today!

Learn more about a Con-Con at our “Choose Freedom — Stop a Constitutional Convention” action page.


Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 18,065 other followers