Featured

Congratulations to a dedicated member

Please check out the JBS Facebook page . Our member Peter Saunders was acknowledged for his 50 years with JBS.

https://www.facebook.com/JohnBirchSociety/posts/1778880232151802

Congratulations for time well spent.

Advertisements

The 2nd Amendment- Protecting the common people from an overzealous government

There is great dissension over the so-called ‘March for Our Lives’. The march was not organized, planned or funded by youth as they would like you to believe. When a deeper look is done, the usual gun control groups spring up with the deep pocket funding connections such as the Bloomberg Foundation.  Polls taken after the tragic shooting at Parkland clearly show that most students aged 13-17 do not believe that more gun laws will stop mass shootings. In Switzerland, there are few murders despite widespread gun ownership. In the U.S.A., there appears to be a growing linkage between mass shootings and the widespread prescribing of psychotropic medications. This issue is not often mentioned because of the impact such a finding would have on the pharmaceutical industry -“Big Pharma’.  The FBI had a prior warning about the recent shooter at Parkland, but it was ignored ,which should have made this a preventable incident. Also, many Second Amendment supporters are not connected to the NRA as is continuously implied by the ‘mass media’ . In spite of the recent march, many Americans are unwilling to turn their backs on their Second Amendment rights. It has been reported that recent contributions to the NRA have been soaring, and a joint survey by NBC News/ The Wall Street Journal has also found substantial support for gun rights.

The Second Amendment was written to protect the common people from an overzealous government.  If we look at the French Revolution, which occurred at almost the same time as our revolution, we see what happens when a government is allowed to run amok.  It is important to note the prior to WWII,  the  German government’s firearms registration lists were used as a means of seizing guns from the German people, so that resistance to Nazi-ism was almost futile. (A notable exception was the Warsaw Ghetto, where Jews armed with only a few smuggled guns were able to substantially delay the Nazi war machine). A quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson but really from John Basil Barnhill said, “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.”

Fear the government that attempts to suppress gun ownership by the people!

David Hammer.

In person speaker on April 25,2018

Hello Fellow Patriot,

I wanted to let you know about a great event that is coming up.

The Nassau Chapter of the John Birch Society is excited to present  an informative evening with Peter Gallo. He will be here in person speaking about the corruption he witnessed while working at the United Nations.  He could not stand by and let the information he knew get “swept under the rug” and now is speaking to the public about it.

Be sure reserve your spot at this important event – tickets are only ten dollars.

So please get your tickets using the link below and mark your calendar to join us on Wednesday, April 25, 2018, 7:30 PM at La Quinta Inn & Suites  821 Stewart Avenue  Garden City, NY 11530.

https://www.townplanner.com/11530/NY/event/share/Come-hear-why-the-United-Nations-are-not-as-good-as-you-think/20180425/371001

2nd Amendment still matters

Gun control advocates are stepping up their fight against the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This is not a spontaneous action. People don’t form a demonstration haphazardly. Demonstrations are carefully planned. A location must be found; sometimes, a permit to hold the demonstration must be obtained; if it is a large demonstration, buses will be used to transport the protesters, and other essentials need to be provided .

The ‘spontaneous’ student demonstrations have an unseen hand behind the scenes. During the 1970’s, Gerry Kirk, a student demonstrator turned anti-communist, testified that not one in a hundred demonstrations occurred spontaneously.

The Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms.  The “militia” mentioned in the Amendment refers to the common people,  and NOT to a governmental entity.

Why do we need The Second Amendment? Throughout the ages, dictators have always attempted to take weapons from the people. That way, a government or a potentate could impose its will on the populace.

In 1970, or thereabouts, the National Rifle Association published a listing of quotations from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other dictators to show how important it was to them to confiscate guns from the masses. Once the guns are seized by the state, the national (or federal) police force can impose the will of the government, enforcing dictatorial control, without resistance. That’s where the Soviet KGB comes in.  Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, the famous Russian dissident, said it well, “What would things have been like {in The Soviet Union} if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family.  Or, if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step in the staircase, but had understood that they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of a half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers or whatever else was at hand”?  The Russian people lacked firearms to resist the Soviet officials because, as The House Committee on Un-American Activities reported, the Russian government controlled all the firearms!  And, in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943, Jewish resisters, though badly outnumbered and poorly equipped, took on the Nazi army, and held the Nazis at bay for almost a month.

Only a free people, properly armed and equipped, can resist tyranny and preserve freedom!

Dave Hammer

Surveillance

Nothing compares to the recent Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) memo scandal. Not Watergate, not the Pentagon Papers. Nothing.

According to Rep. Steve King (Rep.-Iowa), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, the abuses perpetrated by Obama administration officials (detailed in the newly-released memo) were “worse than Watergate”.

The FISA act allows for a secret court procedure, after which the defendant is surveilled upon without his or her knowledge. The recent memo on this controversial procedure involved surveillance (spying) on President Trump’s former adviser Carter Page. Bloomberg news service reports that “…The FBI presented an opposition research dossier as evidence to a secret court {FISA} for warrants to spy on Page…. the Bureau (the FBI) did not tell the court that this dossier was paid for by the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign….Senior officials at the bureau knew all of this, but declined to tell the judge, according to the memo….”

The dossier involved reports compiled by Christopher Steele, who relied upon undocumented information supplied by anonymous Russian sources. Mr. Steele, a former British spy, was also funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign!

There were 4 FISA applications altogether on Trump aide Carter Page. The initial application and renewal FISA applications had come about from information secured by an opposition candidate, and were not established from an objective source, as they were supposed to be.

As the Washington Examiner stated, “The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ (Dept. of Justice) and FBI officials, but excluded from [all four] FISA applications.”

At this point, we still don’t know definitively if former President Obama will be implicated in this scandal. Top democratic officials lied to the American people, falsely claiming that release of this memo would compromise our national security, and that the memo was full of ‘classified information’.

The issue here is whether the federal government can spy on the American people with impunity, and then lie about it

The F.I.S.A. memo by David Hammer

UN Commission chooses and determines what you and your family will eat

Codex- Universal Food Control?

Reading through the United Nations website you can see that the Codex Alimentarius Commission was birthed by two UN organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1963. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the enforcement arm for Codex. Codex Alimentarius means “Food Code” in Latin. What is that? And why don’t people hear about the UN food code?

I think that’s the whole idea.

The Codex Commission was established to create global standards and guidelines for food in order to harmonize and replace national dietary food regulations. Done in bureaucratic style with the idea of promoting world trade while supposedly protecting the consumer, there are over 27 active committees covering food and procedural topics from baby food and processed foods to meats, dairy, grains, preservatives, vegetables, fruit and even to vitamin supplements. Labeling and which pesticides and sprays as well as which additives will be used on our foods are other areas that are of concern. Adding genetically modified organisms to the discussion as to whether it can be labeled or just added to foods is still being discussed in committees. Most nations don’t want GMOs or want them labeled due to the numerous medical studies showing toxicity and cancer outcomes, but that is up to the Commission to decide not the consumer.

This Commission chooses and determines what you and your family will eat, what you can know about your food choices, and even the allowable vitamin and mineral limits. So, what’s the concern? What could go wrong with this? It’s very quietly being worked on with very little to no media attention and easily overlooked by everyone. While our attention is on large trade deals, Codex has been establishing the food code that the entire world is to follow based, many times, upon questionable and debatable scientific principles and research. They are establishing limits on what you can get from foods and vitamin supplements.

It’s just guidelines most think, but is completely enforceable by the United Nations World Trade Organization as any food disputes will be decided by them based upon The Codex food standards and guidelines. Imagine the fines, fees, and international punishments for not following the food code. A nice way of enhancing and building a global food network based upon coercion.

There is so much more to the Codex Alimentarius Commission than meets the eye.  The National Health Federation (NHF) is the only nongovernmental, non-industry, and pro- freedom organization that has the ability to speak out at the Codex meetings. They are the only representatives at the Codex meetings who believe in nations having sovereignty and freedom to decide what is best for their own nations’ interests. If you want more information, I would love to write more about what I’ve discovered. Please comment on this blog to show your interest in this subject .

All good things,

Stacey

Withdraw From NAFTA

Support Our U.S. Trade Representative’s Attempts to Withdraw from NAFTA
When NAFTA was passed it created a legal tribunal called the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). As the name suggests, the ISDS legal tribunal, consisting of three corporate lawyers, acts as a binding arbiter for legal disputes between private multi-national corporations and one of the three NAFTA countries, namely, Canada, Mexico and the U.S.
The ISDS has the power to preside over a lawsuit brought by private multi-national corporation against the U.S. that can challenge the application of either U.S. Constitutional Law, U.S. Administrative Law and U.S. State Laws that adversely impact that corporation’s business investments in the U.S. (e.g. reduce profits), under the guise of Treaty claims that circumvent U.S. domestic laws.
ISDS rulings do not have to follow U.S. Law, are binding and un-appealable. Worse, States cannot defend State Law at the ISDS tribunal because only the Federal Government can appear on behalf of the U.S.  In addition We The People do not have any control over the the tribunal panel . The panel members are corporate lawyers drawn from a roster of thirty ‘approved’ lawyers who serve as Judges for a period of three years. Typically there is a severe conflict of interest due to the fact these ‘Judges’ return to their law practice to represent multi-national corporations bringing a lawsuit before the ISDS tribunal in a revolving door arrangement that keeps this community of ISDS Judges and practitioners small and cozy.
The average cost to bring an ISDS claim is at least $8 million which renders protections allegedly provided under these legal proceeding completely unavailable local domestic U.S. businesses as well as unable to compete with the large multi-national corporations under NAFTA. This anti-competitive feature of the ISDS provisions permit large multi-national corporations to capture the lion’s share of the export business to Canada and Mexico underNAFTA. This lack of access to the alleged legal protections of the ISDS provisions effectively
grants greater rights to foreign multinational corporations. And, NAFTA prohibits our local U.S. businesses from seeking protection from our U.S. Courts. This unfair legal arrangement forces our local U.S. businesses to relinquish their share of the U.S. domestic market.
An example of how the US taxpayer are being used as a piggy bank is the company
TransCanada sued the U.S. for $15 billion through the ISDS in response to the US Government denial of its Keystone pipeline permit in 2015. If TransCanada wins in the ISDS then the U.S. taxpayer will have to pay TransCanada for their lost profits, (i.e. “expected future profits”).
The consistent result of having ISDS is that it provides unfair competitive advantage to foreign multinational corporations over local domestic U.S. companies with this strong arm leverage replaces jobs for U.S. workers (who worked at these domestic companies )with foreign workers in Mexico and Canada.
The best and Constitutional solution to this problem is for America to withdraw from NAFTA because it unlawfully creates a private tribunal that circumvents both U.S. and State Laws designed to protect local domestic U.S. businesses and U.S. workers.

John McVicar