Keeping Track of Militant Islamic Groups

Keeping Track of Militant Islamic Groups
by JBS President John F. McManus

Almost daily, mass media reports contain newer outrages committed by one or more of the militant Islamic groups spreading their particular brand of terror. Keeping track of these murdering terrorists brings to mind going to a sporting event and needing a scorecard. Here’s a brief glimpse at the leading perpetrators of carnage currently spreading murder and mayhem wherever they are able.

Al Qaeda: The oldest of these groups, Al Qaeda, began in late 1988-early 1989 as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was winding down. Led by Osama bin Laden (now deceased), its new leader is Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al Qaeda is responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. that killed several thousand, the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that produced hundreds of fatalities, the 2002 bombings in Bali, and more. This terrorist group has incited sectarian violence among Muslims in several countries. Al Qaeda’s success in these and other attacks has encouraged other militant groups to rise up and begin slaughtering innocent people.

Photo of insurgents:

Boko Haram: Based in northeast Nigeria, Boko Haram initially allied with Al Qaeda but recently announced its desire to become part of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). Led by Abubakar Shekau, its adherents made worldwide headlines in 2014 when they kidnapped 276 females (mostly schoolgirls and several teachers) from their school in Chibok. None of the schoolgirls has been seen again. More than 1.5 million have fled the conflict zone that has spread into neighboring Chad. Shekau has boasted of his hope to die in “the garden of eternal bliss.”

Houthis: Named after founder Badreddin al-Houthi (now deceased), this militant Islamic group operates in Yemen where it has gained control of the country’s capital city Sana’a and its parliament. Founded in response to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and linked to Al Qaeda, it is now led by Abdul-Malik al-Houthi. Pronounced admirers of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini who led the ousting of the Shah in 1979, the Houthis receive military aid from Iran.

Al-Shabaab: Based in Somalia, Al Qaeda affiliated Al-Shabaab (meaning “Movement of Striving Youth”) has launched attacks against parts of neighboring Kenya as well as in Somalia. One of its recent forays led to the murder of 148 students and a few college officials at Kenya’s Garissa College. In that raid, warriors identified Muslims from Christians then spared the former and killed those who could not recite a Muslim prayer. Shebaab forces have conducted numerous bombings in Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital, continue to promise more mayhem in their native country and in Kenya.

ISIS: The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIL, the Islamic State of the Levant that looks for territorial conquests beyond Syria and Iraq, has gained control of portions of Syria, Iraq, Nigeria and Libya. Led by self-proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, its origins stem from Al Qaeda in Iraq. It has established a caliphate over large portions of western Iraq and eastern Syria, enforced Sharia law, and conducted sensational beheadings of victims, and slavery for many. Sunni Muslims, ISIS leaders contend that Shiite Muslims are also their enemy. Insurgents in Libya pledged their allegiance to ISIS (ISIL) in 2014.

Of course, no one should ignore that weapons and other categories of aid from America have worked their way into the possession of these groups. U.S. foreign policy that unconstitutionally entangled our forces in several regions where Americans didn’t belong actually spurred the rise of widespread militancy.  Yes, it would be wrong to ignore the determination of these groups to establish Muslim domination and Sharia law.  But an even larger mistake would be refusal to recognize that current and recent U.S. leaders and policies must be reformed or changed. In the long run, that is more important than monitoring any number of militant Islamic groups.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at 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.

Misrepresenting The John Birch Society

Misrepresenting The John Birch Society
by JBS President John F. McManus

The organization known as Convention of States (COS) wants a constitutional convention although its advocates claim that they want only a limited Convention of the States. Altering the terminology used for a constitutional convention, however, does not alter what is being sought by COS advocates. And the claim by COS or anyone that a constitutional convention can be limited to a single amendment, or to several named amendments, cannot be supported. Article V says that a convention may be called by the states “for proposing Amendments.” No number is given. Once a convention is underway, the number of amendments it produces can be limitless, and the current ratification method by the states could be altered or even abolished.

In addition, a recent COS release entitled “John Birch Society Denies Its History and Betrays Its Mission” accuses the Society of reversing the stands taken by JBS Founder Robert Welch and former Chairman Larry McDonald relative to The Liberty Amendment. It also claims that current John Birch Society President John McManus (this writer) has misrepresented Founder Robert Welch and former Congressman Larry McDonald. This is completely erroneous and irresponsible.

In August 1963, Robert Welch urged JBS members to ask legislators in Alabama to approve a resolution favoring the Liberty Amendment. In his urging, Robert Welch made no mention of the Constitution’s second method for gaining amendments, the constitutional convention. He favored the first choice mentioned in Article V which seeks two-thirds approval of both Houses of Congress before a measure is sent to the States where ratification by three-quarters would be needed to complete the process. This method for adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution happens to be the only method ever employed. For over 200 years, fear of a runaway convention (as occurred in 1787 during deliberations at a convention called to repair the Articles) has kept the amendment process strictly through the first method.

Similarly, Congressman Larry McDonald favored adding the Liberty Amendment to the Constitution. On October 9, 1973, his interview about the matter was published in the Congressional Record. In it, he mentioned that the Amendment was being “advanced in both ways” but he never advocated the convention route. As a member of Congress, he introduced the resolution containing the Liberty Amendment for passage by Congress in the traditional manner. He mentioned but did not favor the existence of the amendment route that would involve a constitutional convention.

Several years before he was slain in 1983, Larry McDonald wrote the 1976 book entitled We Hold These Truths. In it, Larry McDonald capably noted the two routes spelled out in the Constitution for adding amendments. How could he or any constitutional scholar (McDonald was indeed such a scholar) fail to note the existence of these two procedures? But, in the portion of his book discussing amendments, Congressman McDonald expressed explicit choice for neither. To claim that he favored one or the other when he was simply noting both is a complete misrepresentation of what he wrote. The COS release has engaged in misrepresentation, not The John Birch Society.

The COS release notes that, in 1983, Congressman Ron Paul joined with Congressman McDonald in introducing the Liberty Amendment in the House of Representatives. The two men obviously favored the route calling for the amendment to be passed by Congress. They had already introduced the resolution calling for Congress to pass the amendment several times. On no occasion did they express any favor toward the route of a constitutional convention.

On April 30, 2009, Congressman Paul and two co-sponsors again proposed that Congress pass the Liberty Amendment. There is no mention of the constitutional convention route to amend the Constitution in that move.

It is true that state resolutions calling for the Liberty Amendment mentioned the constitutional convention route. And it is equally true that Liberty Amendment author Willis Stone counseled state legislators to call for a constitutional convention on behalf of the Liberty Amendment. But during my own very friendly relationship with Willis Stone, the Liberty Amendment author clearly bared the strategy he was employing. Fearing that such a convention might actually occur if sufficient number of states (34) made the convention call, I asked him point blank, “Do you actually want a constitutional convention?” His very prompt and forceful response to me was, “No, I don’t worry about that because no one would be stupid enough to want a Con-Con.” He was relying on fears of many – including members of Congress – that the existing Constitution would be in jeopardy similar to what befell the Articles of Confederation in 1787. He further explained that if his work among the various state legislatures succeeded in getting close to the number 34 (the number that would trigger a convention), members of Congress would move quickly to pass approval of the measure themselves in order to keep a constitutional convention from becoming a reality.

In 1963, the Liberty Amendment Committee headed by Willis Stone published Action For Americans: The Liberty Amendment, a book promoting the Liberty Amendment. No book on this topic could be issued by the Liberty Amendment Committee without Willis Stone approving of every word. In their book, authors Lloyd G. Herbstreith and Gordon van B. King stated:

Some people have expressed fear of what a Convention might do. They point to the fact that the 1787 Convention was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation; however, it did not do this. It wrote an entirely new Constitution. A convention called now might similarly re-write the entire Document, instead of merely proposing an amendment….

As soon as twenty or more State Legislatures have approved the Liberty Amendment, Congress will approve it, and return it to the States for ratification.

There you have the opinion of the chief promoters of the Liberty Amendment, certainly including Willis Stone. What Mr. Stone told me of his plan is what these two authors, both friends and supporters of Mr. Stone and the Liberty Amendment, have confirmed.


1. Neither Larry McDonald nor Robert Welch ever favored the route of a constitutional convention for adding amendments to the Constitution. Both merely knew that the Constitution allowed such a method.

2. Larry McDonald’s book We Hold These Truths does not place him in the camp of those favoring a constitutional convention.

3. Willis Stone’s strategy is clear. He wanted to force Congress to act to pass the Liberty Amendment resolution in order to prevent creation of any constitutional convention.

4. The book by Herbstreith and King confirms the Stone strategy.

5. An apology for accusing The John Birch Society for denying its history and betraying its mission directed to me and to the memory of Robert Welch, Larry McDonald, and Willis Stone should be issued by COS. It would be received with gratitude.

Learn of other false accusations made by Con-Con supporters here.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news by signing up at or on our Facebook page.

A former U.S. Marine officer, 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.

Women Don’t Belong in Combat

Women Don’t Belong in Combat
by JBS President John F. McManus

Two years ago, the Obama administration announced plans to force the nation’s military to place women in direct combat units beginning in January 2016. This would mean that women would be assigned to the Army’s Rangers, the Navy Seals, elite units of the Marine Corps, and even physically demanding assignments in the Air Force. Opponents of the plan believe that lowering physical standards in such units would unfavorably impact them. Lowered standards (push-ups, pull-ups, endurance runs, etc.) have already shown that women can’t do what a man can routinely perform.

The push for women in the military scored one of its first victories in 1976 when the service academies were forced to admit women in 1976. Forgotten was the very purpose of having military academies at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs. That purpose involved training leaders to meet the enemy on the field of battle – which is no place for women. As the various moves to overturn the 200-year-old practice of barring women from a military man’s job continued, Retired Brigadier General Andrew Gatsis stated in 1987:

The late retired Brigadier General Andrew Gatsis held every decoration for valor bestowed by the United States, except for the Medal of Honor. (Photo from Tributes).

No woman, even as a volunteer, should have the right to go into combat simply because she desires to do so. It is not a question of what she wants or is her right. It is a matter of jeopardizing the soldiers who depend on all members of the team to do their full share, and the right of every American citizen to have the strongest national defense posture to protect his and her freedom.

As far back as 25 years ago, columnist Phyllis Schlafly agreed with many opponents of the near-suicidal policy of opening up all segments of the military to women. In 1989, she wrote: “Dying for your country isn’t the purpose of the armed forces. Their mission is to make enemy troops die for their country. Men are demonstrably better at that task than women.”

As has been their custom, high-level Obama administration personnel are blocking access to already compiled reports of female performance in simulated combat situations. What is already known must evidently be shielded from scrutiny to keep the announced plan from being implemented.

The Obama team has refused to produce copies of its plans even after receiving formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Thus, lawyers with the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center have sued appropriate federal agencies to obtain such information. Among other documents, they are seeking results already known about the physical deficiencies of women in general. Military leaders already know the results of strength tests conducted on approximately 400 men and women Marines. These show 80 percent of males successfully lifted 115 pounds while only 8.7 percent of women succeeded. Other tests demonstrated that a significantly high proportion of females cannot load a tank, carry a comrade on a stretcher for a reasonable distance, and perform several other tasks expected of combat-ready warriors.

There’s a lot at stake here. The well-being of females who might be sent into combat would be placed in jeopardy. And because we know how male prisoners have been treated by some adversaries, no woman should ever be made vulnerable to capture. The safety of males who would be forced to rely on physically deficient female comrades has to be considered. And, lastly, our nation itself would become more vulnerable if some who are sent to defend it are physically unable to do the job. Wearing a military uniform of our nation isn’t a right; it’s a privilege that should be made available only to those can be expected to perform at the highest level.

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

A former Marine officer, 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.

Rhodes Scholarship Program Reaches Out to China

Rhodes Scholarship Program Reaches Out to China
by JBS President John F. McManus

Begun a century ago and funded by the estate of Cecil John Rhodes, the Rhodes Scholarship program originally awarded two years of study at Oxford only to promising English male collegians. Soon, the welcome mat was thrown to similarly gifted students from various portions of the British Empire: India, Pakistan, South Africa, Australia, and Canada. The recipients of the prestigious awards were expected to promote the goals of the fabulously wealthy man who, with initial help from Lord Rothschild, accumulated his great fortune from the diamond mines and gold fields of South Africa. So influential was Rhodes in the southern portion of the African continent that the nation of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was named after him.

Born in England in 1853, Rhodes spent several of his early years in South Africa before returning to England and attending Oxford University. There, he came under the influence of Professor John Ruskin who, in his own self-published newsletter, described himself as “a communist of the old school.” By that Ruskin indicated a preference for socialism, not the blood-thirsty Stalinist form of communism. Also an admirer of Enlightenment figure Jean Jacques Rousseau, Ruskin planted in his students a belief that the entire world should be ruled by elitists from Great Britain. Rhodes spent much of the rest of his life working to accomplish that goal by means of the secret society he formed.

A great American admirer of Rhodes, Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley wrote in his “The Anglo-American Establishment” (1981), “The scholarships were merely a façade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately, they were to be one of the instruments by which members of the secret society could carry out his [Rhodes’] purpose.” In the very first of the wills left by Rhodes (there were seven), he pointed to such goals as “The extension of British rule throughout the world … ultimate recovery of the United States as an integral part of a British Empire … the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible….” The latter goal envisioned a world government.

Professor Carroll Quigley praises the efforts of an “international Anglophile network” whose goal is to rule the world. He boasts of having been permitted “to examine its papers and secret records,” confirms the existence of an over-arching conspiracy, and details the origin and eventual power of the CFR and allied groups. This book is available at

In his “Tragedy and Hope” (1966), Professor Quigley credited the Rhodes secret society with the founding of England’s Royal Institute of International Affairs and America’s Council on Foreign Relations. Quigley pointed to the ultimate goal of these two organizations: “confederate the whole of it (the world), with the United Kingdom, into a single organization.” Finally, build a formal world government run by individuals trained in the Rhodes Scholarship program and similar institutions.

At the outset, scholarship recipients were all males but women were welcomed beginning in 1976. No more prominent U.S. participant in the program can be found than former President Bill Clinton. Others include several Supreme Court justices (Harlan, White, Souter), senators (Fulbright AR, Lugar IN, Sarbanes MD, Boren OK, Bradley NJ), executive branch members (Rusk, Rostow, Reich, Turner, Stephanopoulos), and several heavyweights from the mass media.

Welcoming Chinese into the program isn’t something Rhodes himself would likely have done. But, if a world government is to be created, China will have to be part of it. Former Rhodes Scholar Charles Conn, who manages the program in the United States, believes that there will soon be as many Chinese welcomed to participate as there are Americans. Financing for the Chinese students will partially come from Li Ka-shing, the wealthiest individual in all of Asia.

The march toward world government continues. Cecil John Rhodes would be pleased.

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.

Wind and Solar Power Not the Answer

Wind and Solar Power Not the Answer
by JBS President John F. McManus

In France, 80 percent of electricity is generated by nuclear power. In the United States, the figure hovers around 20 percent, and it’s declining. Anti-nuclear power partisans point to supposed dangers in this form of acquiring electric power. But history shows their error. The only nuclear power plant accident in the U.S., occurring in 1979 at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island facility, actually demonstrated how safe this form of generating power truly is. There were no deaths, no injuries, and no nearby inhabitants adversely affected – except for the few who were seriously frightened by irresponsible propaganda.

The anti-nukes like to refer to the Chernobyl “meltdown.” Yes, that Soviet-built power plant did spew large amounts of radiation into the atmosphere and it harmed some people. But, unlike plants in the West, it had no containment shield around it that would have minimized or even completely prevented any accidental discharge of radiation. Then questions arise about the harm caused in 2011 when a huge tsunami crashed into Japan and severely damaged the Fukushima nuclear power plant. It now turns out, however, that the harmful health effects caused at the plant by that wall of water were nearly non-existent and two Stanford University experts who studied the event concluded that mandatory evacuations around the plant killed more people than are supposed to have died because of leaking radiation.

Environmentally charged individuals (they like to be called “Greens”) continue to insist that wind and solar power should replace not only nuclear plants but coal and gas-fired plants as well. They want less carbon sent into the atmosphere by burning coal and gas. Getting rid of burning coal and gas, they insist, will slow or eliminate global warming. But claims by the Greens that carbon emissions lead to a warming of the planet are dubious to say the least.

Journalist Barbara Hollingsworth recently noted that even after “receiving an estimated $39 billion in annual government subsidies over the past five years,” the solar energy industry accounted for a meager “one-half of one percent of all the electricity” generated during 2014 in the United States. TIME magazine reported that the largest solar farm in America, California’s Desert Sunlight Solar Farm, received billions in federal loans and incentives while producing a minimal amount of electricity. Wind farms, once thought by Greens to be a replacement for fossil fuel-burning plants, have proven to many that they are expensive boondoggles.

Over in Europe, Germany’s Greens have so discredited nuclear power that plans are being laid to shut down existing plants. But other Germans have found out that turning to wind and solar isn’t a good alternative. Instead, these people have learned the hard way that wind and solar power occasionally go dead – as when weather doesn’t cooperate. The result? New coal and gas-fired plants are being built to stave off blackouts, just the opposite of turning away from sending carbon into the air. And France, the world’s leader in the use of nuclear power, is bowing to the demands of her own Greens and planning to close nuclear plans in favor of what Germans are discovering isn’t the answer.

Three conclusions arise from this admittedly brief survey of the problems of electric power generation. These are: 1) Much of the noise coming from Greens should be ignored. 2) If expensive subsidies given to solar and wind power generation interests were cancelled, there would be far fewer opting for it. And, (3) Generating power from the atom is one of the greatest inventions of modern times. As a supplier of clean and plentiful electricity, its usage should be increasing not declining everywhere, even in America.

Learn more about how America’s current energy program is being driven into the ground by the federal government.

Then get involved to join the battle for less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world.

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.

Falsehoods Mark the Campaign for a Constitutional Convention

Falsehoods Mark the Campaign for a Constitutional Convention
by JBS President John F. McManus

For one excellent reason, The John Birch Society has always opposed the creation of a constitutional convention (Con-Con) as authorized in Article V of the Constitution. The Society isn’t opposed to amendments and would support any that would cancel existing Amendments 16 (Federal Income Tax) and 17 (Popular Election of Senators). This could be done via the other route to adding an amendment noted in Article V, the passage of the measure by two-thirds of each house of Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of the states. This is the only route to adding an amendment that has ever been employed in the 228 years of the Constitution’s existence.

Willis Stone wrote the original Liberty Amendment 50+ years ago. Image from Old Politicals Auctions.

Having both houses of Congress agree to an amendment before sending it to the states for ratification is the safe route to adding any amendment. It was the route taken when Amendment 18 (Prohibition) was erased by Amendment 21. A Con-Con, however, would open the entire Constitution for change, even total erasure – which is what occurred in 1787 when a Con-Con assembled under the Articles of Confederation met with the sole assignment to revise the Articles. But because a Con-Con cannot be limited, America’s Founders used the power any Con-Con would have and scrapped the Articles. They then proceeded to write an entirely new Constitution, even changing the state ratification requirement from unanimous (under the Articles) to three-fourths in the new Constitution. Such a runaway could happen again because a Con-Con can’t be limited.

Most of today’s proponents of a Con-Con want to use it to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Calling their proposal a “Convention of the States,” they claim that it can be limited. But, in reality, what they claim for a Convention of the States is a nothing but a Con-Con which can’t be limited to a single topic. Some of these proponents also claim that John Birch Society Founder Robert Welch and Congressman Larry McDonald, his 1983 successor, advocated the Con-Con route in favor of the “The Liberty Amendment.” This proposed amendment, written more than 50 years ago by Willis Stone, is a brief proposal whose most appealing feature would require the federal government to divest itself of every “business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.” The money saved would enable the Federal government to abolish the federal income tax – another clause in the proposed amendment.

But neither Robert Welch nor Larry McDonald nor this writer (current JBS President) has ever advocated a Con-Con on behalf of the Liberty Amendment or any other amendment. After sponsoring Willis Stone for a speech in 1965, I became quite friendly with him (he is deceased). He even implored me to accept appointment as a state chairman for the amendment; a request I declined because I was already overloaded with other commitments. But I discussed the matter with Mr. Stone at length and knew that his plan sought to have state legislatures pass a resolution asking Congress to create a Con-Con was simply a tactic to call attention to his proposal. He very clearly explained to me that he feared a Con-Con. He expected that members of Congress, themselves fearful of what might happen if a Con-Con were created, would use their Article V authorization to propose the amendment directly and singly in both houses of Congress (the alternate method for starting the amendment process spelled out in Article V). When the number of state legislatures calling for a convention approached 34, he was certain that Congress would act and turn to the far safer portion of Article V to accomplish the first step toward passage of the Liberty Amendment.

I vividly recall questioning Willis Stone about the danger that 34 states would indeed call for a Con-Con. I noted that if that number of state applications for a convention were reached, then the Constitution requires that Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” He emphatically assured me, “No, I don’t worry about that because no one is stupid enough to want a Con-Con. We know what happened when the Con-Con met in 1787; its members cancelled the Articles of Confederation. If a Con-Con were held today [1965], it could and likely would lead to cancellation of the present Constitution and put in its place something far different.”

I know that Robert Welch never wanted a Con-Con. I know of no JBS official who wanted it. I never discussed the matter with Larry McDonald, but I’m sure he discussed it with Robert Welch. Anyone who claims that JBS leaders (past or present) ever intended to have Congress create a constitutional convention either doesn’t know what he or she is talking about or is being deceitful.

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.

Climate Skeptic Faces Attack

Climate Skeptic Faces Attack
by JBS President John F. McManus

Scientist Wei-Hock Soon doesn’t agree with the fright peddlers who insist that man-caused global warming is propelling the planet toward a cataclysm. For steadfastly maintaining his position, he has become the target of many who hold an opposing view. Born (1966) and raised in Malaysia, he earned his doctoral degree from the University of Southern California and now serves as a researcher for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Massachusetts. His special interests are earth science and solar physics, and he is a leading authority on the relationship between solar phenomena and global climate.

Dr. Soon, known widely as Willie, co-authored a paper in 2003 which stated that “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” He has never backed away from that view and has, therefore, incurred the ire of militant environmentalists and leftist political groups. Rather than challenge his scientific stands (likely because his position cannot be challenged scientifically), his opponents now claim that he has failed to be open about the sources of funding for his research. Kert Davies of Greenpeace, Dr. Soon’s chief protagonist, recently left Greenpeace and is now the executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, a new organization insisting that global warming is indeed a grave threat to the planet.

In 2013, theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson told the Boston Globe, “The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas. For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.”

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate’s leading global warming skeptic, has cited the findings of Dr. Soon and commented, “Willie Soon is a hero of the skeptical movement [doubters about global warming claims]. When you are an early pioneer, you are going to face scrutiny and attacks.”

Asked to defend himself, Soon says, “If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures [about financing] are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors – on all sides of the debate – are also required to make similar disclosures.” He has even accused the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a promoter of global warming claims, for being “a pure bully” and engaging in “blatant manipulation of fact.” He calls for all to “Stop politicizing science!”

None of those who question the funding received by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astro-Physics, Dr. Soon’s part-time employer, dispute Dr. Soon’s scientific work. Of his work, Soon claims that he has “never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research,” wryly adding that he “would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it.” He insists, “No amount of money can influence what I have to say and write, especially on my scientific quest to understand how climate works.”

The Heartland Institute agrees with Dr. Soon. The Institute’s president, Joseph Bast, stated, “He’s a brilliant and courageous scientist … and his critics are all ethically challenged and mental midgets by comparison.” The evidence to back up that statement should not be left out of any discussion of the worth of Dr. Willie Soon.

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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 22,796 other followers