Bundy Ranch Family vs. Big Gov., Big Green, Big Media

The Nevada ranching family of Cliven Bundy is battling a well-funded, powerfully connected...

Downsides of Abandoning America's Manned Space Program

JBS CEO Art Thompson's weekly news video update for April 14 - 20, 2014.

Congress: Hands Off State Con-Con Rescissions

Has Michigan triggered a congressional call for an Article V convention?

Obama, Froman Use Ukraine to Push U.S.-EU Merger

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman calls for TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Inve...

UN, Obama, Gates Globalizing Education Via Common Core

Common Core is more than just nationalization of education, it is the next step toward tru...

  • Bundy Ranch Family vs. Big Gov., Big Green, Big Media

    Thursday, April 17 2014 10:14

    Published in News

  • Downsides of Abandoning America's Manned Space Program

    Monday, April 14 2014 14:21

    Published in News

  • Congress: Hands Off State Con-Con Rescissions

    Saturday, April 12 2014 15:25

    Published in Legislation

  • Obama, Froman Use Ukraine to Push U.S.-EU Merger

    Wednesday, April 02 2014 08:31

    Published in News

  • UN, Obama, Gates Globalizing Education Via Common Core

    Thursday, March 27 2014 08:52

    Published in News

The John Birch Society
Republicans in the House of Representatives have advanced a significant bill that would defund a department in the United Nations that is antithetical to liberty: the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The UNFPA has been accused of being far too complacent regarding China’s population-control practices. Introduced by Representative Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), the legislation to defund the UNFPA passed in the House Foreign Relations Committee on a party-line vote of 23-17. The bill would save $400 million over the next 10 years in funding to the agency. In 2002, President George W. Bush defunded UNFPA, pointing to the 1985 “Kemp-Kasten amendment” that prohibits federal funding for any agency that “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion of involuntary sterilization.” Then Secretary of State Colin Powell declared, “Regardless of the modest size of UNFPA’s budget in China or any benefits its programs provide, UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”
Federal authorities furnished Michigan transportation officials Wednesday with a $196.5 million grant for track and signal upgrades on an Amtrak passenger rail running between Chicago and Detroit. The line, running on Amtrak’s Wolverine and Blue Water services, will reportedly yield speeds of up to 110 miles per hour on a route serving nearly 30 million people. Granted to its own beloved enterprise (all of Amtrak’s preferred stock is owned by the federal government), the government’s lavish gift to the train line comes at the expense of American taxpayers. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood claims the grant to the Michigan Department of Transportation will slash travel times between Detroit and Chicago by up to 30 minutes. "This is an important investment that will reduce travel time, improve reliability and on-time performance, and attract more passengers," LaHood applauded. "We are creating jobs in Michigan, building our rails with American-made materials and growing the regional economy." Predictably, Democratic supporters tout the infrastructure jobs and new business activity that will stem from Amtrak’s latest endowment. Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow hailed the grant’s approval and its economic benefits for their state —
The Supreme Court stands a good chance of ruling on the constitutionality of all or part of ObamaCare in 2012, as The New American reported September 29. Should the court strike down the entire Affordable Care Act, the implications are obvious: Everything that has been implemented under the law thus far would have to be scuttled. But what happens if the court strikes down only the individual mandate? Would it then be compelled to invalidate other, related portions of the law? The lawsuit being appealed to the Supreme Court was brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business. The first judge to rule on the case, U.S. District Judge Roger K. Vinson, began by finding the individual mandate unconstitutional. Then, noting that Congress had not included a severability clause in the law, Vinson declared the whole act invalid. (A severability clause, which states that if one provision of a law is found unconstitutional, the rest still stands, was included in the House of Representatives’ version of the legislation but left out of the Senate’s version — and, as a result, from the final bill — as a political gambit by Democrats, according to Politico.) The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld only Vinson’s finding with regard to the individual mandate. It reversed his decision with regard to severability, arguing that most of the law is not connected to the mandate and that the court could not determine whether Congress would have enacted the law in the absence of the mandate.
Time Magazine is accusing climate change deniers of a vast right-wing conspiracy of deceit that threatens to subvert efforts protecting the Earth from eco-catastrophe. In "Who's Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?" Bryan Walsh bemoans the fact that only a few years ago Republicans such as John McCain and Mitt Romney supported government cap-and-trade programs to restrict industrial emissions of so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) but are now backpedaling. He cites polls showing a growing number of conservatives in the deniers' camp. "That's deeply troubling," Walsh laments, "... despite an overwhelming scientific consensus" confirming imminent calamity.  He highlights two sociologists who blame "climate denialism" on long-term efforts of "conservative groups and corporations to distort global-warming science." Walsh quotes their article in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, in which the sociologists claim, "Contrarian scientists, fossil-fuel corporations, conservative think tanks and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades. The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine." Missing from Walsh's diatribe is any actual proof of a well-heeled denial machine or the "settled scientific truth" of climate change.
Steve Jobs, a man who played a pivotal role in defining the future of home and business computing, died Wednesday at the age of 56.  Part of Jobs' legacy is a world in which many individuals under the age of 25 simply take for granted the innovations that he helped bring to the realm of personal computing. When Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne founded Apple Computer in 1976 the very concept of computers having a place in the home of the average American seemed farfetched — at best. Now, the seeming-omnipresence of Apple-inspired or influenced technologies surround us every day. The fundamental change that Apple has helped to bring was symbolized when the company changed its name to “Apple, Inc.” in early 2007 — the integration of phones, music, television and computing had reached the point where the very concept of computing had changed.
Whether leftist or rightist; Democrat, Republican, or Independent; “liberal,” “libertarian,” or “conservative,” anyone in search of a hearing in contemporary American politics is sure to express nothing less than unadulterated reverence for our country’s Founders. Doubtless, the old cliché that “actions speak louder than words” is not without its share of wisdom.  At least as true, though, is another consideration that, in spite of the regularity with which experience has born it out, has of yet failed to achieve such universal recognition: Some words speak louder than others. There is quite possibly no arena like that of politics to which this maxim more readily pertains. Neither, perhaps, is there anything quite as illustrative of both the maxim itself and its political application as the ubiquitous phenomenon of enlisting the Founders in the service of justifying every conceivable ideological cause. However, once we go behind the scenes of political theater, what we discover is that this trans-partisan devotion to the Founding Fathers is not what it appears to be. More to the point, what we see is that either the devotion was deliberately contrived from the outset or, if not, it is something that immediately gives way under the pressure of just a little familiarity with basic logic. For the vast majority of political actors — i.e., our fellow countrymen and women — their reverence for the Founders is either insincere or groundless.
What does “separation of church and state” really mean? Many point out that the phrase is not found anywhere in the Constitution. Rather, it was mentioned by Thomas Jefferson, after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were adopted. Others note that at the time the Constitution was adopted, about half the states had established state churches and that, although these states on their own ultimately disestablished these churches (ended official state religion), the federal government and federal courts were not involved in this process at all. The 14th Amendment, not the 1st Amendment, is technically at issue when anyone raises the issue of separating state government operations from religion. Based upon the “Incorporation” principle, after the Civil War and the Reconstruction era, the Supreme Court gradually found various parts of the Bill of Rights to then apply to state governments because the “due process of law” section of the 14th Amendment was deemed to also implicitly include the federal Bill of Rights. Each state had already incorporated into its own constitution a bill of rights, and often these state constitutional rights were more robust than were the federal Bill of Rights.
Representative Ron Paul suggested before the National Press Club October 5 that President Obama's assassination program of alleged terrorists could grow into an assassination program for journalists who disagree with the federal government. "Can you imagine being put on a list because you're a threat?" the GOP presidential contender asked. "What's going to happen when they come to the media? What if the media becomes a threat? Or a professor becomes a threat? Someday that could well happen. This is the way it works. It's incrementalism.... It's slipping and sliding, let me tell you." Paul's remarks were a reaction to a September 30 drone strike in Yemen authorized by President Obama which targeted and killed two American citizens, one of whom — Anwar al-Awlaki — had been on a presidential assassination list for more than a year.
Unlike Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin did not threaten to commit suicide to convince the nation's news media that she will not be a candidate for President in 2012. But she came about as close as anyone since William Sherman ("I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.") to closing, locking and double-bolting the door against a bid for next year's Republican presidential nomination. "After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for president of the United States," Palin said in a statement she issued Wednesday. "As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order."
Republican presidential debates have been marked by sometimes awkward audience cheers, but former Obama administration official and U.S. Senate candidate frontrunner Elizabeth Warren got a really awkward and wild audience cheer in a Massachusetts Democratic Party primary debate when she declared that she'd use her government position to attack Wall Street. Warren stated, "Forbes magazine named Scott Brown 'Wall Street's favorite senator.' And I was thinking, that’s probably not an award I’m going to get.” The audience erupted. The remark was part of a broad-based attack on capitalism by Warren, who, when asked about the Occupy Wall Street protests, remarked, The people on Wall Street broke this country, and they did it one lousy mortgage at a time. It happened more than three years ago, and there has still been no basic accountability and there has been no real effort to fix it. That's why I want to run for the United States Senate. That's what I want to do to change the system. Again, the Lowell, Massachusetts, audience erupted with wild applause.
JBS Facebook JBS Twitter JBS YouTube JBS RSS Feed