Export-Import Bank: Let it Die!

Export-Import Bank: Let it Die!
by JBS President John F. McManus

Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) is leading the campaign to let the Export-Import Bank expire. If Congress doesn’t formally reauthorize its existence by June 30, it will no longer be providing loans to foreign firms and governments who buy products from Boeing, General Electric, John Deere, and numerous other establishment-favored U.S. firms. Hensarling chairs the House Financial Services Committee where he has become a determined foe of the Bank.


Watch House Financial Services Committee Chairman Hensarling deliver the opening statement on whether or not the Export-Import Bank is necessary.

The Ex-Im Bank began courtesy of an executive order signed by President Roosevelt in 1934. (Unconstitutionally making law with the stroke of a pen isn’t something new!) Originally, its chief beneficiary was the murderous cabal running the Soviet Union. During the emergence of Communist China as an economic powerhouse in the 1980s, the Bank provided millions to the Beijing regime. Example: In September 1982, the Reagan administration approved a loan of $68.4 million to finance the building of a steel mill in the People’s Republic. Mr. Reagan approved the deal by signing a document stating that the transaction was “in the national interest of the United States.”

Similar deals had already been approved by the Nixon administration for Communist Russia, by the Ford administration for Communist Yugoslavia, Romania, and Poland, and by the Reagan administration for these same Communist tyrannies. Simply put, the Ex-Im Bank has been one of communism’s best friends.

Supporters of the Bank claim that it actually earns money for the U.S. Treasury when loans are repaid with interest. If these deals are profitable, why is a government-run bank needed? Wouldn’t private megabanks be willing to provide the cash if a profit were available?

Three years ago, Congressman Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) made good sense when he opposed reauthorization of the Banks: “The Export-Import Bank dragoons American taxpayers into subsidizing loans to foreign companies making it cheaper for them to buy products from politically favored American companies.” He noted that past beneficiaries included “such upstanding enterprises as Solyndra and Enron,” both of which turned out to be expensive failures paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Beyond the benefits reaped by U.S. mega corporations, Ex-Im has helped to fuel the transfer of numerous industrial enterprises from the United States to foreign nations. The jobs of many Americans have been lost and American manufacturing leadership has continued to fade away, partly due to the work of the Ex-Im Bank.

Hardly anyone wants to ask where in the U.S. Constitution an entity such as the Ex-Im Bank derives its authorization. As is the case with so many other federal agencies and departments, there is none. This year may see the end of Ex-Im making new loans as it winds down existing outstanding business and soon closes its doors. No congressional action is needed. It should be allowed to die.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He 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.


Marriage Can’t Be Redefined

Marriage Can’t Be Redefined
by JBS President John F. McManus

One of the unique features of the country known as the United States of America is its Declaration of Independence. And perhaps the most singular of the numerous important affirmations contained therein is acknowledgement of a “Creator.” No qualification is given. The men who wrote and signed the document believed in the Almighty who created “all men.” In their day, of course, the meaning of “men” referred to all persons, male and female.

Image of the Supreme Court building from Library of Congress.

Belief in a Creator presupposes adhering to those standards of conduct He presents. One of these is the definition of marriage given in Genesis. After recounting the creation of woman from a rib of man, the Creator’s holy book tells us, “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh.” In simple terms, the institution known as marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Without doubt, this is what America’s Founders believed.

History recounts numerous attempts to overcome this sacred relationship. In their 1848 Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels attacked bourgeois marriage as a hurdle standing in their path to tyranny. Decades earlier, along with their intention to deify sensuality, the 1776 Bavarian Illuminati, from whom Marx and Engels obtained much of their designs, formally advocated repudiation of marriage. Totalitarian libertines throughout history have likewise attacked the very concept of marriage because it has always stood as a bedrock of human civilization blocking their way to totalitarian rule.

An American who might have fallen asleep 60 or so years ago and then awakened today would, without doubt, be shocked to learn that more than half of our nation’s state governments have redefined marriage to include a union between two persons of the same sex. And the Supreme Court has agreed to render its opinion on the matter. A proper decision would state without equivocation that the “Creator” of all has already defined marriage, and it cannot be changed. The definition given us by our Maker is that marriage is the union only between an Adam and an Eve not between some Adam and some Steve.

Speaking before the “Women of the World” gathering at the United Nations early in 2015, putative presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stated that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” Many same-sex-marriage enthusiasts, including New York Times columnist Frank Bruni who is a proud homosexual, have seconded her attitude. Sadly, these two cultural and religious revolutionaries are hardly alone.

If not blocked, the route being travelled by a growing number will lead to further attacks on the family, eventual state takeover of children, and more. Yet, there remains a huge majority of the American people who don’t agree with a redefinition of marriage and hold strongly to the “cultural codes” and “religious beliefs” openly decried by Mrs. Clinton. Questions remain: Will this still-existing majority gather itself and return the nation to sanity? Or will this shrinking majority collapse, as have others throughout history while they watched in horror the ushering in of a formally established Godless tyranny?

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He 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.


Happy 800th Birthday Magna Carta!

Happy 800th Birthday Magna Carta!
by JBS President John F. McManus

On June 15, 1215, a group of rebel barons with swords at the ready presented England’s unpopular King John with a document that has come to be known as the Magna Carta (Great Charter). Actually drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury and named and agreed to by both parties during their meeting at Runnymede, the document elicited promises from the king to protect church rights, cancel unjust imprisonment, establish swift justice proceedings, and place limits on taxation. The Barons agreed to cease threatening the king.

Image from Wikipedia.

Historians note that neither side stood by their commitments. Pope Innocent III, almost immediately, declared it null. There followed the first “Barons’ War,” King John’s death from natural causes, and the beginning of the reign of his nine-year-old son, Henry III. It was under Henry’s authority that the document was reissued in 1216 after removal of some of its controversial content. When the Barons’ War ended in 1217, the already famous document, originally known as the “Articles of the Barons,” acquired the name “Magna Carta” and was included as part of the peace treaty hammered out at Lambeth in 1217.

During succeeding centuries, the Magna Carta has frequently figured in political decision-making, such as its use in the early 1600s in challenges to the belief that kings possessed divine rights, stood above the law, and could not be challenged. Some 17th century opponents of that theory were actually executed for their refusal to accept that kings could never be wrong.

Without a doubt, the Magna Carta figured in the thinking of the American colonists and is rightly credited with playing a part for the formation of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. In Essay #84 of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made reference to it. But Magna Carta dealt with the relationships between the king and the barons, not so much with rights claimed by ordinary people.

The Magna Carta deserves the respect it has acquired over the centuries. And we are pleased to join in saluting it as a history making symbol of freedom 800 years after its creation.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He 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.


Support Our Troops: Get US Out of the United Nations!

Support Our Troops: Get US Out of the United Nations!
by JBS President John F. McManus

There are several reasons why the United States should withdraw from the United Nations. One of our top reasons relates to protecting our military forces. Why? Let’s explain.

U.S., Czech, and Georgian soldiers receive a mission brief before conducting a security patrol led by Afghan soldiers in Parwan province, Afghanistan, May 8, 2015. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class David Wheeler–U.S. Dept. of Defense website

The complete text of the UN Charter’s Article 25 states: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” That clearly stated requirement supersedes adherence to the U.S. Constitution. That any U.S. government official would agree to that is incredible. When the UN’s Security Council decides to act, our nation’s membership requires the United States to “accept and carry out” what the Security Council wants done. It is true that our nation possesses a veto that can be used to block passage of any Security Council resolution. But U.S. leaders don’t exercise this veto power. It was a UN Security Council resolution that got our nation into the 1950 Korean War, not a required congressional declaration. Had there been a declaration of war and if its inherent goal had been to gain victory, the Korean War could have been won. But victory was denied (by the UN) and as a result our nation still has tens of thousands of troops in South Korea — all of whom serve in the overall UN Command.

When the UN Security Council decides to send military forces to carry out its decisions, all member nations are required to participate. As stated in the Charter’s Article 42 and 43, “All Members … undertake to make available to the Security Council” whatever forces are needed. There are 193 UN member nations. Very few respond to Security Council resolutions as called for by Article 42. But the United States always responds with personnel, weapons, and the funds needed to carry out the UN’s missions. The U.S. military has become the enforcement arm of the United Nations.

In 1990, a UN Security Council resolution was sought and obtained by President George H.W. Bush for the first invasion of Iraq. He even boasted, “The Gulf crisis has to do with a New World Order. And that New World Order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peace-keeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective.” Another Security Council resolution was sought and obtained by President George W. Bush for the second invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Articles 52-54 of the UN Charter permit nations to form “Regional Arrangements” to conduct military operations. Under these three articles in the Charter, NATO and SEATO were created. The UN subsidiary SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) was relied upon to have U.S. forces participate in the Vietnam War. Restrictions placed on their actions prevented victory and assured defeat. SEATO no longer exists. NATO was then cited for authorization to conduct operations in Afghanistan. But no declaration of war as required by the U.S. Constitution was issued; none have been issued since our nation consented to UN membership in 1945.

Finally, Article 2 of the UN Charter states: “nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state….” But the UN meddles in an array of matters, which are certainly within the jurisdiction of individual states (countries). The UN has meddled in our nation’s affairs in such matters as abortion, capital punishment, the right to be armed, border control, mining, judicial decisions, and more. It is perfectly obvious that the UN violates its own Charter. It should be known as a lawless governmental agency seeking power over the entire world. The United Nations cannot be fixed and made tolerable. Its founders intended it to be the seat of unchallengeable world power. Its reach has grown enormously and, every day, the UN moves closer to becoming the ruler of mankind, with the aid of our military! So the opportunity to withdraw, which is what many Americans want, should be seized upon. The abuse of our troops must end and the steady erosion of both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution must cease. It is long past the time to Get US out! Contact Congress today.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and is author of “Changing Commands: The Betrayal of America’s Military.” He 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.


Examining Candidate Bernie Sanders

Examining Candidate Bernie Sanders
by JBS President John F. McManus

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is a candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. There aren’t many who think he has even a ghost of a chance to get it. Does he have an ulterior motive? Is there something else he wants to accomplish by throwing his name into the mix?

We have no inside information about Bernie’s motive. He likely knows that an admitted socialist (that’s what he is) doesn’t stand much chance to go very far. It is surprising and somewhat disappointing to know that enough people in Vermont aren’t revolted by socialism to have rejected him as he won ascending political posts: the mayor of Burlington, then as their congressman, and then one of their two senators. But most Americans, not just a majority in Vermont, don’t have a clue about what socialism really entails. Hint: One of its most famous promoters was a fellow named Karl Marx.

“Bernie Sanders is serving his second term in the U.S. Senate after winning re-election in 2012 with 71 percent of the vote. His previous 16 years in the House of Representatives make him the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history.” Text and photo source: his U.S. Senate page.

So what’s going on here? One answer is that many politicians throw their hats into the presidential ring in order to become better known. They even expect to lose. But being a contender for the nation’s highest office helps them in future elections. It’s name recognition, not positions on issues, that constitutes the most important attribute a candidate can have. An upstart “nobody” rarely wins in this country. Get your name and your face before the public and you might have a chance. And doing so in the presidential sweepstakes gets one’s name known.

Bernie already knows this. And hardly anyone in Vermont is unaware that Bernie represents them in the halls of Congress. He doesn’t need the exposure a presidential contender gets. As for voters in the rest of the country, a huge chunk of them find him laughable – lovingly so, but still laughable.

So what else could drive Bernie? Again, we can only speculate, so it sure seems as though opposition from Bernie will make Hillary Clinton seem more centrist. We can’t think of many others who could do that. She becomes less dangerous to many if her opposition for the nomination is the gruff-talking, mussed-hair guy with the Brooklyn twang (originally from Brooklyn, it shows when he speaks).

For the record, Bernie has voted against defunding the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood. He always votes “yes” to raise the national debt. Given a chance to rein in presidential misuses of the military and presidential lawmaking about immigration, he voted “no.” He joined others in attempts to block construction of the Keystone pipeline and additional drilling for offshore oil. He even supported forcing employers to provide contraception coverage for their workers regardless of the business owner’s religious views. As for repealing ObamaCare, he already voted “no.”

But Bernie’s in the race to become President of the United States. Could there be anything good to come out of him winning? Maybe it would be better for the country if an admitted socialist moved into the White House. Then there might be more resistance in Congress. There certainly is a need for more congressional resistance because, Bernie or no Bernie, the country is adopting socialism. Were he still alive, Karl Marx would be delighted.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook 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.


Change Baltimore by Strengthening the Family

Change Baltimore by Strengthening the Family
by JBS President John F. McManus

We are grateful to Allan Brownfeld (“The Conservative Curmudgeon”) for his insightful survey of conditions in Baltimore that led him to conclude that other factors, not ”white racism,” prompted the rioting and destruction in that city after the arrest and subsequent death of Freddie Gray.

Professor Orlando Patterson, a sociologist at Harvard University, claims that a preponderance of black men are in jail not “because cops, prosecutors, judges and juries are racist” but because of many other factors. Image from Harvard University.

Though not alone in noting that three of the four police officers who arrested Gray and shoved him into the police van where he perished were black, Brownfeld noted that the cries of “white racism” propelling rioters into the streets had little basis for what happened. He noted: “In Baltimore, the mayor, City Council president, police commissioner, and nearly half its 3,000-member police force are black.”

Only 25 years-old when he perished, Gray was no stranger to police. First arrested at age 18 on charges that he was peddling drugs, he accumulated at least a dozen more arrests in his brief life. His final run-in with police was also drug-related. The area where he lived and operated was once home for thousands of blacks who made a good living manufacturing goods for Bethlehem Steel, General Motors, and Martin Marietta. They suffered when those jobs were lost. Poverty followed, as well as a loss of the kind of stability that sustains strong family life.

In most of America’s inner cities, the breakdown of the family and the sound influences over the young that families supply is enormously relevant when assessing what goes wrong. Many homes are led by a single parent and over 72 percent of babies born in inner cities are born to single mothers. Brownfeld cites a passage from the book “The Best Parent is Both Parents” by David Levy who notes that neither poverty nor race is the primary cause of crime. The breakdown of the stable family should be blamed.

For a further explanation of why young blacks turn to crime, Brownfeld cites the findings of a non-profit counseling center in Los Angeles that attempts to keep youngsters out of jail and away from criminal elements. According to this center, the young join gangs and the drug culture “fundamentally because of a need for acceptance and identity [stimulated] by an absence of a cohesive … family life where there is a sense of belonging and respect.”

Professor Orlando Patterson, a black sociologist at Harvard University, claims that a preponderance of black men are in jail not “because cops, prosecutors, judges and juries are racist” but because of the factors cited above.

Will the federal investigators looking into the death of Freddie Gray and the rioting and looting that followed factor all of these considerations into their findings? We can only hope so. The already widely heard charge of white racism ought to be ignored. Until all these other causes are acknowledged and dealt with, there will likely be more Baltimores.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook 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.


Restraining the Courts on Marriage

Restraining the Courts on Marriage
by JBS President John F. McManus

While it is true that many Americans are woefully unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution, it is also true that some members of Congress have a deficient appreciation of the document. They know when they have to stand for reelection. And they know the part about receiving compensation for their services. But many seem to have forgotten (or never knew in the first place) that only Congress – not the President and not the federal courts – has power to make law; only Congress can send the nation into war; and only Congress has power to coin money.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) at a Tea Party Rally to Tell Congress to Hold the Line in 2011 (image from his Congressional website).

Also little known is the portion of Article III which states: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” In simple terms, this means that the only federal court required is the Supreme Court; all federal district courts could be abolished by Congress. Not only that, Section 2 of this Article gives power to Congress to limit the jurisdiction of all federal courts.

When forced busing of school children was ordered by federal courts in the 1970s, then-Congressman Larry McDonald introduced legislation to bar all federal courts from having anything to say about placement of youngsters in schools. He cited Article III, Section 2 as the authority for such a step. His measure didn’t gather enough support in Congress to be enacted but many who served at the time were at least forced to recognize that Congress possessed such power and that it actually existed and could be employed.

On April 22nd of this current year, Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) filed H. R. 1968, the “Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015.” Relying on Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, he seeks to remove jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to “hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage.” Mr. King stated his belief that the Congress could put a halt to the possibility that the Supreme Court would actually redefine marriage in a decision expected in June.

Nine co-sponsors immediately announced their support for H. R. 1968. They are Babin and Gohmert of Texas, Duncan of Tenn., LaMalfa of Cal., Massie of Ky., Palazzo of Miss., Thompson of Penn., Walberg of Mich., and Yoho of Fla.

Commenting on his measure, Congressman King said that removal of federal jurisdiction over the definition of marriage would have no effect on the states, each of which could decide the matter for its own people. But he was especially concerned that a mere five judges at the Supreme Court level could overturn the definition of marriage for the entire country, a definition that has been held for millennia in which marriage is considered only to be between one man and one woman.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz has introduced an identical bill in the Senate (S.1080). As of this writing, no Senate co-sponsors have been garnered.

Members of the House of Representatives should be contacted (call 202-225-3121 and email) and asked to support H. R. 1968. Thanks should be sent to Rep. King and the co-sponsors of H.R. 1968. A companion bill in the Senate (S. 1080) has been introduced by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. No Senate co-sponsors have yet been enlisted. Contact (call 202-224-3121) your senators to get them to co-sponsor and support the bill. Utilizing the email link above will send to both the House and the Senate, but be sure to call. Congressmen tell us that phone calls are more effective than emails.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook 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 23,557 other followers