Murder in Las Vegas: Is it the Largest Mass Murder? 

Murder in Las Vegas: Is it the Largest Mass Murder? 
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

The slaughter in Las Vegas has been labeled the “worst” mass murder in our nation’s last century. Is it worthy of such a classification? Reporters and commentators obviously insist that it is. Ordinary citizens, justifiably shocked by the deliberate killing of more than 59 and the wounding of hundreds more, have been persuaded to classify the grisly event by using the handiest superlative available. From coast to coast, in print and over the airwaves, nothing has ever been deemed more deserving of the term “worst.”

City night life along the Las Vegas strip. Image from pixabay by ngd3, CCO Creative Commons.

But wait! The most recent annual report produced by the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) admits that the IPPF was responsible for 1,094,679 abortions in 2016 alone. In the United States, Planned Parenthood snuffed out the life of 887 yet-to-be-born infants every day. Is this not worse than Stephen Paddock’s deadly rampage?

Planned Parenthood’s fans and pro-abortion partisans everywhere always claim that abortion isn’t murder. Life begins at birth, they insist, and extracting what can be found in a womb prior to birth is considered a relatively simple medical procedure. But these individuals, properly designated “pro-aborts,” produce no credible evidence to back up such claims. And science continues to demonstrate the terrifying absurdity of their falsehoods.

We are all supposed to be outraged at what occurred in Las Vegas – and in Orlando, San Bernardino, and Fort Hood where fewer were murdered. Okay, these murderous sprees are completely condemnable. But we’re also expected to demand that lawmakers outlaw private possession of weapons – not just semi-automatic military-style rifles but any weapon capable of firing a bullet into a fellow human’s body. Overlooked is the fact that no weapon ever shot a bullet by itself. Shootings are the work of shooters, not weapons.

We are also expected to accept the lies issued by PP leaders who insist that they are in business to provide “health care for women.” Aren’t half of abortion’s victims females? What kind of health care is it that deliberately terminates the lives of human beings? Overlooked in this discussion is the other PP practice whereby organs harvested from aborted fetuses are sold for profit. That these organs are taken from a live – yet to be born babe – and are salable only because they were extracted from living individuals lends credence to the argument that abortion is the taking of a life.

There’s even more to consider when assessing PP and its primary function. The organization receives approximately $500 million per year in federal funding. PP President Cecile Richards alone takes home close to $600,000 per year. This means that all U.S. taxpayers are forced to support an organization and its leader who terminate the lives of close to 900 innocent and yet-to-be-born infants every year. The killer in Las Vegas received no such handouts. And, as evil as his deed surely was, the average daily abortion toll racked up by PP exceeds the number of deaths caused by Paddock. Consider for a moment the momentous outrage if Paddock had been discovered to be a beneficiary of federal funding. The financing of his murderous spree was done with his own money. In contrast, government forces all taxpayers to finance PP and its leader.

During a 2016 hearing about taxpayer dollars being supplied to Planned Parenthood, Representative Diane Black (R-Tenn.) stated her outrage:

As a nurse for more than 40 years, I know that abortion is not healthcare and I am incensed that, year after year, my constituents see their money sent to Washington and distributed to organizations that promote or perform abortions all under the guise of “healthcare” services.

Ms. Black is as qualified as anyone to know that abortion takes the lives of innocent babes. Yet, federal funding for Planned Parenthood continued.

What happened in Las Vegas was absolutely horrible. But, as bad as it unquestionably was, designating it as the past century’s worst killing overlooks a far more deadly termination of innocent life – not in a single day, but daily.

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.


Hefner and Moral Decline

Hefner and Moral Decline
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

John Adams, our nation’s second president, famously stated the need for something beyond the Constitution to preserve the American dream. He insisted: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Approximately one and a half centuries later, Founder Robert Welch of The John Birch Society warned, “War always results in more government and moral decline.” Both stressed the importance of morality and, as history shows, they were hardly alone in doing so.

Hugh Hefner. Image from Wikimedia Commons by Toglenn (CC BY-SA 3.0)(© Glenn Francis, http://www.PacificProDigital.com).

Which brings us to consider a man who spent his adult life undermining the moral principles surrounding the relationships between men and women. Hugh Hefner passed away on September 27th at age 91 after spending decades creating – and profiting handsomely from – a sexual revolution both in the U.S. and abroad. The advertised foe of what he and allies termed American priggishness and puritanism, Hefner persuaded millions to choose his “new moral maturity.” Boasting of his own libertine lifestyle, he estimated that he had slept with more than 1,000 women.

Hefner’s impact on the morals of Americans began in 1953 with the first issue of Playboy magazine featuring a semi-nude photo of actress Marilyn Monroe. While pornography of various types was available and was already negatively affecting some, it had a deserved stigma limiting its harm. Men might have submitted to its grasp but most knew that immersing themselves in pornography was wrong. Playboy accomplished lifting porn to a new status that made it popular and supposedly harmless, even “sophisticated.” By 1973, Playboy’s monthly circulation soared past the seven million mark. All across the land – and into other countries – readers wallowed in its photos of women in various stages of undress. It is hardly a stretch to note, as some have proposed, that the Hefner effect helped to increase family breakups and divorce.

The standard issue of Playboy included articles by and interviews of leftist crusaders, prominent actors, politicians, and even literary notables. Hefner delighted in having them lend their names to his endeavors. He defended those who claimed their choice of the magazine stemmed only from a preference for the articles. William F. Buckley, Jr. became one of Hefner’s favorites – both as a writer of articles and the subject of interviews. He once stated in his customary use of macabre witticisms: “I write for Playboy because it is the fastest way to communicate with my seventeen-year-old son.”

Hefner used some of millions he accumulated to fund such leftist groups as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Urban League. His enshrinement of pleasure as an end in itself led him to finance the Organization for the Repeal of Marijuana Laws. He sent large donations to groups promoting abortion. Even though he had a disdain for the institution of marriage, many witnessed him marry thrice and divorce twice.

Not content with the financial success he gained with the magazine, he started Playboy Clubs in the 1960s. This initial foray into the restaurant business saw the debut of his “bunny waitresses” at the Chicago location and, before long, there were 20 other clubs, mostly in America with a few overseas. His hedonistic goals saw him seeking followers whose interests spanned the intellectual, entertainment, and erotic worlds.

In the late 1960s after Hefner’s influence and Playboy’s popularity had become dominant for millions, a representative of the magazine offered Robert Welch the then-princely sum of $5,000 for an interview. Without hesitation, Welch said he would not lend his name to a publication he abhorred. On the other hand, Birch Society nemesis William Buckley, a frequent contributor to Hefner’s hedonistic publication, enjoyed being paid handsomely. But the liberal world’s “favorite conservative” was himself damaging our nation’s moral fiber. If Buckley favored Playboy, said many, then Playboy was acceptable.

Frequently asked what he saw as the greatest problem facing America, the Birch Society’s Welch, who passed away in 1985, was expected to point to the United Nations, the Federal Reserve, the extremes of the Supreme Court, or rising national indebtedness. But his response never changed. “Moral decline is the greatest enemy we face,” he would insist.

In 1970, Mr. Welch wrote an essay to JBS members challenging them to stand tall in support of well-established moral codes and to set worthy examples in their personal lives. The Society has published this into an inexpensive booklet called “The John Birch Resolutions.”

Hugh Hefner’s contribution toward the destruction of the country has helped eat away at the nation’s morality. Let us each set a worthy example of morality to help stem and reverse the tide of immorality. Order and read “The John Birch Resolutions.” Be sure to order extra copies for others.

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.


The NFL’s Disregard and Disrespect of the Flag

The NFL’s Disregard and Disrespect of the Flag
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Even though many National Football League players, plus some coaches and owners, have championed Colin Kaepernick’s insult to the nation’s flag, he is no hero. As of this writing, he’s also no longer an NFL player.

Image from Wikimedia Commons by Crash Underride, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Kaepernick is the self-serving individual whose refusal last year to stand during the playing of the National Anthem and the simultaneous honoring of the American flag has spawned similar demonstrations throughout the NFL. Kaepernick sought to draw attention to himself by claiming his action constituted a response to cops killing black Americans. He offered himself as a symbol for what he contends is a form of deadly racism. He has become a hero to the Black Lives Matter movement.

We know of no complaint this man has ever registered about black babies being slaughtered via abortion. Approximately 15 million have been butchered since the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for murder in the womb in 1973. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a supporter of such carnage, noted in 2017 that pregnant black women are five times more likely to kill their unborn child than white women. BlackGenocide.org has pointed to an older Howard University study noting that black women over 50 who have had an abortion are five times more likely to develop breast cancer than those who have never submitted to the grisly practice. If Kaepernick is completely unaware of such facts, he has been victimized by the news media that now supplies him with inordinate amounts of attention.

Kaepernick is the son of a white woman and a black man. His biological father took off immediately after finding out that he had fathered a child. Kaepernick’s mother, realizing her inability to care for her baby, carried him to term, and immediately placed him up for adoption. A white couple answered the call, raised him, gave him the Kaepernick name, and provided care for close to 20 years. Kaepernick is surely not a victim of racism.

Having attracted huge amounts of attention through his initial refusal to honor the flag and the anthem, Kaepernick upped the ante by later wearing socks carrying a portrayal of policemen characterized as pigs. He never mentioned the five Dallas policemen who were deliberately sought out and murdered by a black sniper. Nor did he speak out about the black murders of scores of fellow blacks that have become routine in Chicago.

To date, the NFL’s officials have refused to condemn the actions of players, coaches, and owners who have chosen to follow the Kaepernick lead. The league has stiff rules against wearing ads on their uniforms or demonstrating “excessive” joy after scoring a touchdown. There are even penalties for not having one’s shirt properly tucked in. Should not loyalty to country be expected of millionaire players, owners, and coaches?

Claiming that the entire matter should be judged, not by a racial test but by the answer to a single question, columnist Pat Buchanan asks: “Do players, before games, have a right, as a form of protest, to dishonor and disrespect the flag of the United States and the republic for which it stands?” If so, he and others contend, then the NFL should start preparing for plenty of fans who will find something else to do with their dollars and their time when the NFL takes the field.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against former high school football coach Joe Kennedy who made it a practice to gather the players for silent prayer before a game. Kennedy was fired, appealed to get his job back, but was rebuffed by the federal court. Still, Kaepernick is a hero to many.

Patriotic and religious expressions are under attack. Ultimately, the values that made our nation the envy of the world are the targets. Resistance to such a campaign is needed. It is Kaepernick and those who honor him who should be shunned, not the flag and the national anthem.

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.


Nebraska Education Department Committing Suicide

Nebraska Education Department Committing Suicide
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Living in extremely liberal Massachusetts, this writer expects (hopes?) that fellow Americans in our nation’s midsection still possess enough good sense to reject leftist policies and trends. Looking over the region not close to either east or west coast lunacies, the perception is that traditional political, economic, and cultural standards haven’t been jettisoned. States like Nebraska, for one, seem far enough away from the coasts to resist joining the mob and plunging off a cliff into political correctness and its ideological offshoots.

Photo from Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

But on September 8th by a vote of 6 to 1, Nebraska’s Board of Education approved new science standards that have conservatives outraged. In 2012, the education watchdog Thomas B. Fordham Foundation said of the Cornhusker state’s rules for primary and secondary schooling:

The Nebraska science standards are inadequate in nearly every way. They lack sufficient depth and breadth at every grade span, and critically important areas receive woefully inadequate attention – or are completely absent…. Taken as a whole, Nebraska’s science standards do not articulate nearly enough of what students need to know and be able to do.

Local civil engineer Henry W. Burke found that the 2017 Nebraska Science Standards standards are based on the failed Nebraska 2010 Science Standards. He fought unsuccessfully to alert DoE members about the deficiencies of these newly conceived standards. With bachelor and masters degrees and 45 years of experience in his field, he felt sufficiently qualified to register an opinion about the matter. He concluded that the state’s Department of Education was being asked to approve standards that are “more interested in promoting global warming and climate change than providing an academic understanding of science.”

After studying what was being considered by his state’s education board, Burke added a further opinion: “Global warming is presented as if it was proven science, rather than political narrative. This global warming agenda permeates the Science Standards from kindergarten through high school.” “These standards,” stated Burke, “do not present an objective, academically-based and scientifically-based approach to the topics.”

The veteran civil engineer recommended looking at his Internet posting as he addressed the matter of carbon dioxide being a significant culprit:

When it comes to global warming, raw subjectivity has replaced scientific method. Many scientists and researchers began with preconceived notions and theories and then proceeded to find ways to support them. Ideology is controlling the conclusions instead of true science. No authentic scientific data proves that there is a correlation between man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) and global warming.

Backed by numerous representatives of the state’s colleges and universities Omaha World-Herald reporter Joe Dejka wrote approvingly of the decision adopting the new standards. He correctly noted that, in addition to worries about global warming, students would also be exposed to insistence that evolution is a fact, rather than what many believe it to be a widely discredited theory.

The new standards for Nebraska schools will not be reviewed for another seven years. The conclusion: Nebraska has joined the left wing in the world of education. Watch for some parents to opt out and consider homeschooling.

A great home schooling alternative is our affiliate FreedomProject Academy. Learn more about the online school today!

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.


Solar Panel Fraud

Solar Panel Fraud
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Al Gore’s new film, An Inconvenient Sequel, is a bit of a bust drawing fewer paying customers than expected. He’ll have to get friends to force showings of the film in schools. Captive audiences will be force-fed a viewing of out-and-out falsities in living color. They will have no choice but to sit there and take in a collection of misinformation.

Image from Wikimedia Commons by Mark Buckawicki, CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

One of Gore’s solutions to the non-problems his film describes is capturing energy through the use of solar panels. It sounds good until the costs and a variety of problems are considered. Career electrical engineer Art Crino claims government subsidies for different types of energy collection place solar power in the stratosphere. The handouts provided to obtain one megawatt-hour of electrical energy by burning coal, oil, or natural gas total $0.64. Gaining the same amount of electrical energy using solar panels starts off with subsidies totaling $775.64.

Taxpayer-supplied subsidies aren’t the only hidden cost faced by those seeking to capture energy from sunlight. There’s no sun shining during nighttime or when clouds and storms arrive leading to little or no gathering of energy. Partisans for solar power generation have even admitted that constantly redirecting the angle that solar collectors should be stationed is needed if peak efficiency is to be gained, a costly procedure needing constant maintenance. And the solar power promoters don’t like to be reminded that clearing away the snow after a winter storm might be necessary. Then there are costs associated with storage and transfer of energy acquired during peak hours of sunshine. And don’t forget that manufacturing and installing solar panels plus connecting them electrically and cleaning them regularly isn’t inexpensive.

The nation is being inundated with telephone salesmen seeking commitments to acquire solar power capability for single homes. It’s marvelously inexpensive they tell you while not mentioning the huge subsidies being the reason – which means you and your neighbors are really paying for it via taxation. If you aren’t bothered by unwanted telephone pleas, maybe you’ve been reading advertisements in newspapers or seeing ads on television about the wonder of solar power and its minimal cost to you.

Beyond all of this solar power promotion, you may have been victimized by the propaganda about the harm being done to the planet because “burning fossil fuels pollutes the atmosphere.” The culprit, say the propagandists, is carbon dioxide that causes global warming (or its new label, climate change). But carbon dioxide is food for plants. It isn’t bad; it’s hugely beneficial. As for it affecting the atmosphere, climate scientist Dr. Willie Soon says the amount of carbon dioxide produced nationally by burning fossil fuels is equivalent to adding two more attendees to the 100,000 fans packed into a football stadium. In other words, carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil, or natural gas is of little consequence – good or bad.

The United States is sitting on enough oil, natural gas, and coal to take care of our needs for generations – even while exporting to others. A few decades ago, U.S. engineers figured out how to generate electricity by splitting the atom in a nuclear reactor. But bogus scientists and political skullduggery have combined to demonize nuclear power. If France can generate electricity via nuclear plants for 70-plus percent of its electricity needs, why does the U.S. stay mired in less than 20 percent?

And, by the way, a megawatt-hour of electrical energy generated via a nuclear power plant receives a paltry $3.14 in subsidies. Recall the figure given above where the subsidy for the same one megawatt-hour generated by solar power is a whopping $775.64.

America should continue burning fossil fuels and using nuclear power to generate electricity. Those who want solar power should certainly be free to employ it – but without the enormous subsidy it currently relies on.

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.


The Boston Globe Attacks JBS with Falsities

The Boston Globe Attacks JBS with Falsities
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Mr. Ted Widmer from The Boston Globe wrote a nasty August 24th article about Robert Welch. Starting with insult-laden labeling of Welch’s followers as a “troll army,” the piece was filled with errors, misrepresentations, and downright falsehoods. Anyone who finds a need for some verifiable history about Massachusetts would be wise to look somewhere other than the Massachusetts Historical Society where Widmer is advertised as a “trustee.”

A great deal of the piece is simply dead wrong. Other parts are shaded to make Welch and the Society he formed seem like unreliable, even libelous, miscreants. For the record, here are some corrections and comments about his screed.

No one in the John Birch Society ever warned that the UN was “going to invade Texas.” For all the years of my association with the Society (I joined in 1964, accepted a staff position in 1966, and stepped aside as a full-time employee in 2016), I either saw other staff personnel put down such rumors or I initiated the put down myself. Same about Obama being born in Kenya and 9/11 being an inside job. Same about numerous other rumors that the Society helped to squelch.

Welch was indeed a “boy genius” but, contrary to the assertion, he never claimed that label for himself. Others who took the time to get to know him, his history, and his prodigious intellect found that indeed, he was a prodigy at an early age.

While a student at Harvard Law School, Welch sought to correct Harvard Professor Felix Frankfurter who insisted that labor and management were “enemies” whose distaste for each other would always be a key to U.S. economic woes. Welch defended the traditional stance that labor and management were partners in productivity, not enemies – an attitude that counters the kind of Marxist divisiveness that Frankfurter spent his life promoting.

The “loss” of China to Mao Tse-tung’s murderous forces wasn’t merely a “so-called” historical event. The government under Mao took the lives of so many innocent millions that he won a place in the Guinness Book of Records as history’s greatest mass murderer. Yet Mr. Widmer  termed Welch’s seeking to alert the American people about such an enormous tragedy as an example of “extremist views.” Incredible!

Welch’s letters in the 1950s weren’t photocopied because photocopying hadn’t yet been invented. (Small point but evidence of sloppy journalism.)

The Welch-led Society opposed fluoridation of water, not because of its supposed health benefits, but because it amounted to government forced mass medication, something advocated by the likes of Adolph Hitler. Shortly after the Society found itself victimized by charges that its stand, absent the reason for its position being given, was worthy of your type of ridicule, a professor at Tufts University suggested that the then-rising U.S. population could be countered by adding birth control substances to the water supply.  And he pointed to fluoridation of the water supplies as a precedent that could be followed. Even the Boston Globe published this man’s totalitarian suggestion.

About Welch’s 1963 book presenting the career of Dwight Eisenhower, no facts in its 300 pages have ever been shown to be false. Even today, readers find the revelations collected and published by Welch to be important history. All of it should be worthy of the time of a “trustee” of any state’s Historical Society.

Earl Warren was never “hated” by any member of the Welch-led Society.  What he did to advance the cause of Communism within the U.S. caused domestic Communists to hold a huge rally in New York City to salute the Supreme Court leader and the help he was providing to further communism’s subversion.  Pointing this out, and showing fellow Americans the harm created by the Warren-led court, wasn’t “hate.” It amounted to supplying facts and perspective needed by Americans.

The Society recommended letter writing. It formed a speakers bureau. It gathered people into rallies. And, yes, it either employed tactics or made recommendations that even Communists were using – each of which was morally based, legal and sensible. But Communists use moral and legal tactics along with immoral and illegal means to carry out their work. Communists have always published a newspaper. The Boston Globe’s owners publish a newspaper. But the Society never accused the Boston Globe’s owners of adopting a Communist practice in publishing their newspaper.

The Society is frequently pilloried for not publishing its membership lists, thereby earning the charge made by Mr. Widmer and others that it is a “secret” organization. But the Boy Scouts, the League of Women Voters, and many other organizations also don’t publish their membership lists. Mr. Widmer seems to have no appreciation for easily understood practices followed by many. Publishing a membership list would violate a trust accorded to members, which is why so many organizations refuse to do so.

The Society never, I repeat never, labeled Martin Luther King a Communist. Its publications did show that he hired communists, accepted funding from communists, attended communist training sessions, and frequently started demonstrations that turned into communist-led rioting and destructiveness. It was these associations that led former Attorney General Robert Kennedy to wiretap King’s phone and take other steps to thwart what King was doing. When J. Edgar Hoover labeled King the “most notorious liar” in America, he had plenty of reason to do so.

Mr. Widmer also claims that some of “the beliefs that Birchers held were racist.” That charge is odious, something our black and Jewish members would eagerly resist.

It goes on to describe members of the John Birch Society as a “merry band of radicals.” Shame on him for denigrating some of the finest people in our nation with that slur.

He and many other opponents of our Society rely on the claims of William Buckley to buttress his attacks. But Buckley betrayed his own beliefs when he announced support for abortion, when he suggested that colleague Joseph Sobran and ally Patrick Buchanan were tainted with anti-Semitism, when he accepted membership in the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, and more. As the “Pied Piper” for the Establishment he once opposed, he became the favorite of numerous liberals who despised constitutional conservatism.

Enough! Mr. Widmer has discredited himself enormously. That the Boston Globe would publish his rantings discredits the Globe.

An apology is due. If one comes, I will gladly have it reprinted here.

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.


Transgenders in the Military: the Newest Social Experiment

Transgenders in the Military: the Newest Social Experiment 
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

My 1995 book entitled Changing Commands: The Betrayal of America’s Military devoted an entire chapter to the wrongness of welcoming females into military combat roles. I lost that battle after physical standards were lowered by the Clinton administration and women found openings to hold positions they desired in the several branches of service.

President Donald Trump said that “transgender” individuals will be banned from serving in the U.S. military. Photo from U.S. Central Command by Myles Cullen, public domain.

I never thought in 1995 that there would be a similar drive to open the military to “transgender” individuals. Some of the arguments I employed in the attempt to keep Susie and Liz from combat positions apply in the fight to bar those who seek to change what has always been considered unchangeable.

Here’s the most basic consideration I pointed to in 1995: “Wearing of the uniform of this nation shouldn’t be considered a right; it’s a privilege.” Yes, a privilege!

People no more have a right to a job in the military than they have a right to a job in any other profession. If standards exist for hiring steel makers, drivers of 18-wheel trucks, heavy equipment operators, and more, there can and should be standards for serving in the military, not only mental standards but also those in the physical realm.

The book I penned in 1995 stated: “If the military can properly exclude some persons for not meeting standards for height, age, physical, and mental capabilities, it can and should exclude for such as basic characteristic as gender.” Differences between men and women should never be ignored. But that was prior to the attack on our nation’s culture that saw standards for military service lowered and women welcomed into taking a place alongside men in very demanding posts.

I had the good fortune to develop a friendship with retired Brigadier General Andrew Gatsis. This West Point grad who served 36 years on active duty became one of the U.S. Army’s most decorated combat veterans. Asked about women in combat, he offered sound reasons for his sharp disagreement with the plan. He stated:

I have personally seen female soldiers unable to lift heavy equipment such as ammunition, mechanic’s tool sets, filled sandbags, food crates, or large camouflage nets. They could not move field range stoves, teletype machines, heavy generators, or even desks. During field exercises, they had great trouble changing heavy truck tires, hitching trailers to the trucks, and carrying people on medical litters. They could not brake, steer, and drive trucks in rough terrain, put up cumbersome antennas, erect large bulky tents, construct ammunition bunkers, dig adequate latrines, or lift material off recovery vehicles.

Politicians and questionable legal experts didn’t listen to the likes of General Gatsis. They went ahead and opened up assignments in the military ranks for women that the overwhelming majority can’t perform. One can be assured that an enemy’s fighters will be men.

Today’s issue is the so-called “right” of someone who can’t figure out which gender he or she has been awarded at birth. President Trump has told the Pentagon to reject “transgender” applicants, stop paying for sex-change surgery, and develop plans for handling – and likely discharging – the “transgenders” already in uniform. As expected, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) filed lawsuits to block what Mr. Trump has directed.

HRC points to a 2016 Defense Department study claiming that the annual cost for sex-change operations for military personnel would dwarf the cost for replacing many thousands of transgender individuals already serving in various military posts.

But the issue shouldn’t be economic costs. It should be based on the indisputable fact that some are born male with greater physical assets and some are born female who lack the strength and temperament to be successful fighters. And no one should overlook the fact that serving in the military isn’t a right; it’s a privilege.

Imagine a conflict where an enemy sends a well-trained and physically capable horde against our forces – either here in the U.S. or wherever our troops are stationed. The enemy is made up of strong men who know they are men. If the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, and culture destroyers have their way, this enemy should have little problem overwhelming a force whose personnel – known to include “transgenders” – can’t even figure out which latrine to use.

President Trump is correct. The nation’s military is no place for transgender individuals.

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.