Will Neil Gorsuch Become a Supreme Court Justice?

Will Neil Gorsuch Become a Supreme Court Justice?
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

On January 31st, President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. If he wins Senate approval, he would fill the seat formerly held by Justice Antonin Scalia who died in February 2016.

President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court (Image from Wikimedia Commons).

President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court (Image from Wikimedia Commons).

A full year ago, President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to succeed Scalia. But Senate Republicans, led by current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), refused to hold hearings on that nomination. Republican senators concurred, saying they were only following a precedent set by Democrat Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). He indicated a determination to block Senate approval of any new nominees while a president’s term was winding down. Although he added a qualifying “except in extraordinary circumstances” to his intention, he made clear that he and Democrat colleagues would block adding anyone appointed by President George W. Bush.

When the New York Democrat stated that position, Mr. Bush had approximately 18 months to go before he would have to leave the White House. When the Republicans decided to block consideration of Merrick Garland, Obama had slightly less than a year before his term in office would end. Pointing to Schumer’s 2007 stance, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) stated, “We’re embracing the precedent Senator Schumer advocated in 2007. If it’s good enough for [Democrats] when they’re in the majority, it’s good enough for us when we are.”

Merrick Garland’s chance to become a Supreme Court justice died when Donald Trump triumphed over Hillary Clinton last November. He continues to serve as the Chief Justice of the Washington D.C. Federal Appeals Court.

Regarding Neil Gorsuch, we have learned that he never issued a ruling on the contentious issue of abortion. But, in his book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, he wrote that if the Supreme Court had defined a fetus as a “person,” it never would have approved abortion as it did in 1973 with the Roe v. Wade decision. Other stands he has taken indicate that he is an opponent of intentional killing, including euthanasia. Karen Middleton, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, insists that Judge Gorsuch should be considered a pronounced enemy of abortion.

On other matters of interest to conservative Americans, Gorsuch sided with the Hobby Lobby Stores in their plea for an exemption to Obamacare’s requirement that they pay for employee contraception practices. He also agreed with Utah Governor Gary Herbert’s failed effort to avoid being forced to fund Planned Parenthood.

In general, Gorsuch has been dubbed an “originalist,” a believer that the words and meaning of the Constitution should be honored as they were understood at the time they were written. In other words, new meanings should not be created for them. That alone means he is very much in sync with the late Justice Scalia who strongly advocated such an attitude. After a career that most recently had him serving on the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Gorsuch considers such matters as abortion, euthanasia, and contraception should not be judged in courtrooms, a practice that he feels is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.

Concerns have been raised by some about Gorsuch’s five-year membership in the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. The fact that his affiliation with the CFR lasted only five years is possibly significant. The world government promoters at the CFR regularly look for bright and ambitious young people to whom they give five-year term memberships in hopes that they will adopt the CFR thinking. Gorsuch’s name appears as a CFR “term” member in 2004 and that membership is noted until 2008. He may have formally resigned or just walked away. Or the CFR moguls may have decided he was not what they had hoped for. Others have similarly decided the CFR was not for them. Not completing the five-year term with the CFR may mean that he didn’t like what he learned of this key Establishment organization. To date, he has never commented about this matter.

If Neil Gorsuch follows the lead set by Antonin Scalia, the man whose place on the court he will fill if approved by the Senate, chances are that he will follow in the footsteps of the late jurist. And that would be good for America.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. 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 President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


White House Lit Up To Look Like a Rainbow Flag

White House Lit Up To Look Like a Rainbow Flag
by JBS President John F. McManus

The Supreme Court handed down its same-sex marriage decision by a vote of 5 to 4 on June 26th. President Obama obviously expected the result favored by homosexual activists because he had the White House electricians pre-arrange a light show that created a rainbow colored edifice.

The White House is lit with the colors of the rainbow in celebration of the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, June 26, 2015 (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy).

Social media immediately erupted into two opposing camps: for and against. Let us register in the “against” camp. We start by noting that the White House doesn’t belong to Mr. Obama; it belongs to the people of the United States, a property owned technically by the peoples’ National Park Service. It should not be used by any occupant to force a revolutionary view on the American people.

How did Mr. Obama respond when asked about the unusual lighting? He told a press conference “I did not have a chance to comment on how good the White House looked in rainbow colors.” He added: “That made it a good week – to see people gathered in an evening outside on a beautiful summer night, and to feel whole and feel accepted and to feel that they had a right to love – that was pretty cool.”

Partisans for same-sex marriage will surely rebel at any protest over making the White House look like their flag. I can hear them now likening what was done by a succession of presidents with a Christmas tree or, in days gone by, a crèche. I respond: The White House wasn’t made to look like a Christmas Tree or a crèche. Those reminders of Christ’s birth were displayed on the White House grounds or inside the building while 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue stayed white. Celebrating homosexual activity in such a flagrant manner brings to mind what occurred more than two millennia ago, when fire and brimstone rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah.

John Adams was the first president to occupy the White House. During his second day as its resident in 1800, he wrote to his wife, “I pray Heaven will bestow the best of blessings on this House, and all that shall hereafter inhabit it.” Franklin Roosevelt had the Adams prayer carved into the State Dining Room’s mantel. Blessings have indeed been granted America. But heaven might answer the Adams plea quite differently today.

The 5-4 decision favoring marriages of man-with-man or woman-with-woman was wrong and our country will pay for it in a manner that only God will decide. Two justices who had previously presided over homosexual “marriages” should never have heard the case. Many legal scholars claim that Justices Ginsburg and Kagan should have acted honorably and recused themselves. But they didn’t.

The United States of America is hurtling headlong down the slippery slope of immorality. The late Judge Robert Bork asked in his book “Slouching Towards Gomorrah,” “Are there enough who disagree with that undeniable development and are willing to register a protest sufficient to reverse this national descent?”

We hope so.

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.

Supreme Court building (Image from Wikimedia Commons by Jeff Kubina).

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.


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) (Image from Flickr by Gage Skidmore Some rights reserved).

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.


God Grants Men Their Rights

God Grants Men Their Rights
by JBS President John F. McManus

The history of mankind is the history of struggles to be free. Freedom to speak, publish, worship, assemble, and more are the rights most Americans take for granted. But these are the very freedoms most of the world’s population, even today, do not enjoy. How it is that we, in America, do benefit from such freedoms? The answer is very clear, although it is something that surprisingly few Americans currently understand.

It would be hard for me to provide a number for the many times I personally have spoken of the “thunderous assertion” in the Declaration of Independence, our nation’s birth certificate. Again and again, I have referred to the portion very near the part stating as a “self-evident” truth that “Men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

I have always insisted everyone should stop right there because that short excerpt is more fundamentally a part of America’s identity as can be found anywhere. Rights come from God, not from government. And they don’t come from a monarch or some other source. It follows that, if God grants rights, no one but God can take them away. On this was built the whole system of government in the “land of the free and home of the brave.” Take it away and be prepared for some form of tyranny.

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo either never learned this basic truth or he has deliberately cast it aside. On February 13th, during an on-air verbal sparring match over same-sex marriage with Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, the judge calmly stated, “Our rights, contained in the Bill of Rights, do not come from the Constitution. They come from God. That’s clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.”

Cuomo, an attorney, abruptly interrupted Justice Moore and argued, “Our rights do not come from God…. That’s your faith. … They come from man…. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.” There could hardly be a sharper difference between Judge Moore’s reality and Chris Cuomo’s myth. The problem is that myth has risen steadily in the U.S. and it now virtually dominates the thinking of a huge segment of the American people.

If government is the dispenser of rights then, ipso facto, government can change its mind and cancel them. There haven’t been many such instances in other countries where government engaged in such treachery because there haven’t been many occasions when a nation began as did the United States.

Shame on Chris Cuomo! We’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he never learned the basic underpinning of our nation in the first place. Evidently, he wasn’t taught it by any of his teachers or by his father (former NY governor) and older brother (current NY governor). Nowhere in Chris Cuomo’s schooling did this monumentally important, and self-evident, truth get to him.

Sadly, CNN’s Cuomo is not alone. Because of Supreme Court rulings outlawing any semblance of religious instruction in schools and elsewhere, the most important passage in the Declaration of Independence isn’t being taught. Religious ideas are banned because of the “separation of church and state” portion of the Constitution which, amazingly, no one can find in that document. But it’s not partisan religious belief that resulted in the Declaration of Independence; it’s common sense. Our nation is being taken away from its remarkable roots in many ways. But losing the truth that rights are granted by God and, therefore, no one but He has power to cancel or suspend them amounts to banning the core of Americanism’s greatness.

Maybe we can thank Chris Cuomo for displaying deficient understanding of his country’s roots. As a result of his ignorance, many Americans have been reminded of this seminally important bit of American history. Let’s hope they never forget it.


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.


Obama: The Truth is Not in Him

Obama: The Truth is Not in Him
by JBS President John F. McManus

During a press conference while he was in Brisbane, Australia, President Obama was asked the following penetrating question by Fox News reporter Ed Henry, “At your Burma town hall a couple of days ago, you tried to inspire young leaders by saying, ‘governments need to be held accountable, need to be responsive to the people.’ I wonder how you square that with your former adviser, Jonathan Gruber, claiming you were not transparent about the health care law because in his words, the American people, the voters are stupid. Did you mislead Americans about the taxes, about keeping your plan in order to get the bill passed?”

Mr. Obama responded: “No, I did not. I just heard about this. I get well-briefed before I come out here. The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”

But the truth, as radio personality Rush Limbaugh quickly pointed out, is that MIT Professor Gruber did, in fact, participate in meetings with Obama when the measure was being written. Gruber himself bragged about being there and was not just a distant consultant but a key member of the group that crafted the entire bill. As the President later pointed out, Gruber was in attendance at meetings and was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for his work.

The President continued: “We had a year-long debate and I advise every press outlet here to go back and pull up every clip [about the Affordable Care Act] and there was not one provision in the health care law that was not extensively debated and fully transparent.”

But as Professor Gruber stated during those taped panel discussions, he wished that the language in the measure was “all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.” He claimed that the measure “was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes.” Because if it had known to be a tax measure, said Gruber, “the bill dies.” The bill, he claimed after it was passed, was written “to do that.” To do what? To deceive the public and the Congress from knowing what he and President Obama knew about the measure.

There are two major problems here. The first is that critically important facts about the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) were kept from the American people and the Congress in order to get it enacted. That’s fraud pure and simple. And the second is that President Obama has confirmed that he is loose with the truth. Professor Gruber, a major player in creating this law, may be reprehensible for participating in the fraudulent selling of ObamaCare. But President Obama has removed all doubt that he is untruthful.

Arriving at the conclusion that the President of our nation can’t be trusted is sad indeed. All Americans should be made aware of this. And Congress should repeal the ObamaCare law in its entirety.


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.


Gruber: The Lies That Led to ObamaCare

Gruber: The Lies That Led to ObamaCare
by JBS President John F. McManus

If a conservative, or even a mere Republican, had made the statements Professor Jonathan Gruber freely delivered at a policy forum a year ago, he or she would have been repudiated by the mass media, shunned by colleagues, and sent out to some pasture. Instead, liberal mouthpieces have excused or ignored what he said as they went about pouring his remarks into their favorite memory hole.

Gruber is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he had a played a key role in crafting the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as ObamaCare. A year ago, well after ObamaCare had been approved by Congress and given a pass by the Supreme Court, he participated in a panel at Stonehill College, a small Catholic institution located about 30 miles south of Boston. His pronouncements were videotaped and have just now appeared on the Internet. I’m sure he and the Obama team wish either that he’d never said what he uttered or that the videotape would never have surfaced.

He first of all admitted to a lack of full disclosure when the law was being considered. “I wish we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.” Obviously, not all aspects of the law were truthfully presented, and lying is now termed a lack of transparency. Gruber added that had it been stated that “healthy people are going to pay in, it would not have passed.” Then, he said, “… this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes.” If the CBO realized that it was a tax measure, which is what the Supreme Court eventually said it was, “the bill dies.” And he went further, stating that the bill was “written to do that.” To do what? “To keep the fact that it is a tax from being known.” So much for complete disclosure!

The deceitful professor went on to admit further deceitfulness and even to insult the American people. He stated: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get for the thing to pass.” Maybe some people are stupid (the ones who don’t vote?), but where were the supposedly tough members of the mass media when ObamaCare had yet to become law?

ObamaCare should be known as government’s takeover of one-seventh of the nation’s economy. The finest health-care system anywhere on earth is in the process of being destroyed by government. Is it constitutional? Only if one can find the words “medical,” “medical care,” or “medicine” in the Constitution. But none of these words are there.

ObamaCare ought to be cancelled. Republican majorities in both houses of Congress must realize that a prime reason why they scored so well in the 2014 elections happens to be non-stupid voter dislike (should we say “abhorrence”) of the government’s move into this critically important arena. Contact House Speaker John Boehner and incoming Senate Majority Leader McConnell and let them know they were lied to by promoters of ObamaCare, and add that you resent one of its architects calling you and other American voters stupid.


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.