Alabama Senate Race Indicates Possible Skullduggery by GOP Leaders

Alabama Senate Race Indicates Possible Skullduggery by GOP Leaders
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

When reviewing the way some elected officials are treated by their colleagues and the mass media, it’s really no surprise to discover that the standards of conduct claimed by Democrats are less stringent than those held by Republicans. The differences show that Republican leaders seem exceedingly harsh when one of their own gets accused of something, while Democrat leaders seem willing to give a Democrat offender only a gentle scolding.

Alabama in the United States. Image from Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0

Consider: Minnesota Democratic Senator Al Franken abused Ms. Leeann Tweeden while they were on a USO tour in 2006. There’s even a photo showing his smirking countenance while in the act of groping his sleeping victim. Because of the photo, he couldn’t claim “not guilty” so he apologized and added that he was “embarrassed and ashamed.” Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi didn’t ask for his scalp; Pelosi simply wants a formal investigation into what was depicted in the photo and also into some other indiscretions aired by Ms. Tweeden and others.

Then there is Michigan Democratic Congressman John Conyers. Information has surfaced accusing him of harassing and seeking sexual contact with a female congressional staffer in 2015. In addition, it seems likely that he paid her $27,000 out of federal funds to keep her quiet. And, now that the lid on his conduct had been blown away, two other women have made similar charges. Conyers resigned from Congress but only after thinking resigning his position as minority leader of the House Judiciary Committee would be enough. Besides this, there was no calling for the man’s scalp from Democratic Party leaders. And it looks like according to the Democrats, “retiring” seems to erase what he has done.

Contrast these cases with the ongoing treatment received by Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore, a staunch conservative Repubican. The Washington Post and New Yorker magazine have published charges that he abused teenagers 40 years ago when he was in his 30s. Some of Moore’s supposed victims have claimed that he went so far as to ask for sexual favors. He vehemently denies such allegations and wonders how come they are being made decades later when he’s involved in a political campaign. No such accusations ever surfaced in several of his other political races during his long career of serving in numerous elected posts in his home state.

The mere charges leveled against Moore have been accepted as reason enough for leading Republicans including Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, and several others to urge Moore to cancel his run for the Senate. No evidence confirming his supposed wrongdoing has been presented by anyone. Other Republican senators, Arizona Senator John McCain in particular, have been outspoken crusaders urging Moore to cancel his candidacy.

More recently, allegations have risen claiming Moore’s supposed improprieties with teen girls 40 years ago while he was roaming around a mall in Gadsden, Alabama. The claims include a charge that his disreputable conduct led to him being banned  from even entering the complex. The pile-on aimed at Moore has continued while no one has produced any evidence to back up claims of his supposed misbehavior.

What has surfaced are comments from two former mall employees who completely deny the charges aimed at Moore. Johnny Adams was the manager of the mall during the time of the supposed banning and he denies any such ban was ever aimed at Moore. He would have issued any prohibition of that type. Johnnie Sanders worked at the mall’s cafeteria during the same period, was always aware of any such action taken against anyone. He claims that, if such a banning had been issued against Moore, he would have known about it because he knew of some other individual who had deservedly earned such a prohibition.

Alabama voters will decide who will be their senator for the open seat on December 12. If Moore wins the election, some top Senate Republicans have suggested that they will seek to bar him from serving. All of this brings to mind the charge that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans once they get elected to national office. In this case, the Democrats want their candidate to win the Senate seat. And, while they pose as anxious GOPers who want an ally elected to the Senate, Republican acceptance of completely unverified charges against Moore may well result in a Democratic victory in the upcoming election. All of which makes Roy Moore appear to be feared as a legitimate swamp drainer by top Republicans. Top Democrats agree.

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.


Shouldn’t Ex-Communists Be Held Accountable?

Shouldn’t Ex-Communists Be Held Accountable?
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Recently, when an United Nations affiliated international tribunal convicted former Serbian General Ratko Mladic of genocide and sentenced him to life in prison, the New York Times commented with obvious glee: “No crime against humanity, no matter how long ago it occurred, should be immune to cries for justice.”

Flag of the Communist Party of China from Wikimedia Commons, public domain by Ericmetro.

If that’s the case, how come there are no international tribunals putting ex-Communists on trial? Why is it that men like Mladic can be held accountable and not the leaders of China and the former Soviet Union? Over recent years, several ex-Nazi corporals have been hunted down, tried, and convicted of having a role in hounding and killing Jews during World War II. But putting ex-Communists on trial hasn’t happened and there surely are plenty still alive.

Twenty years ago, Europeans who lived under Communist rule published The Black Book of Communism. A review of the murder, imprisonment, and brutality inflicted on people who resided in what were termed “the captive nations.” The book points to a staggering total of 94 million deaths at the hands of Communist rulers. Many of these instances of brutality occurred during the very time period that Nazis were rounding up and killing Jews. But only ex-Nazis are prosecuted.

Stephane Courtois, the Black Book’s editor, claims 65 million victims of Communism met death in China and close to 20 million perished in the former Soviet Union. He noted that Communist regimes are responsible for far more deaths “than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism.” These deaths did not result from war. Communists deliberately killed millions through organized programs involving executions, man-created starvation, forced labor, and more. A major reason for the bloody rampages was the terror forced on those who remained in silence and became totally unwilling to oppose their oppressors.

On July 16, 1971, the 92nd Congress of the United States published a 33-page document entitled “The Human Cost of Soviet Communism.” Issued by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, the report relied on the work of the highly regarded British historian Robert Conquest for its statistics. Conquest concluded that the number of deaths caused by Soviet authorities in Russia and other captive nations numbered 45 million. While many of these victims of Soviet terror met death in the first half of the 20th Century, millions perished at the hands of still-living Communist leaders and their subordinates.

Similarly, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee published “The Human Cost of Communism in China” on July 29, 1971. It concluded that China’s leaders had ordered the slaughter of at least 34 million and possibly as many as 64 million innocent persons. A huge portion of these victims were slain during the reign of Mao Tse-tung. Many who carried out his death-mandating orders are alive today. And so are those who suppressed the student revolt at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square almost 30 years ago.

Why haven’t current leaders in China been prosecuted? Many played a role in China’s murderous past. The same question needs to be asked about Soviet leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev, a lifelong Communist who has never renounced Communism and, instead of being held accountable for his crimes, is given the privilege of addressing the U.S. Congress and being treated as if he were a reliable ally.

If Communists who are guilty of high crimes aren’t held accountable (ostracism at least would certainly be in order), the reason can only be that they are winning. Winning what? Winning control over mankind under the name of “socialism” rather than under the banner of “communism.” Gorbachev has written of his insistence that he will never cease being a Communist. He should be held accountable for his role in enforcing Communist rule with death-dealing gulags, crackdowns on dissenters, and creating terror throughout his nation and others where Soviet forces ruled for decades.

In 2007, a Victims of Communism Memorial statue was erected in Washington, DC. That’s a welcome gesture, but more is needed. Punishing ex-Nazis who are virtual nobodies and ignoring the crimes of many high-ranking Communists is hypocrisy gone wild. It surely does indicate who is winning in the battle that pits freedom under just law against dictatorial slavery.

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 Truth About NATO

The Truth About NATO
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

A former New York Times station chief in Germany, Stephen Kinzer currently is a senior fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Affairs. Occasionally, his thoughts appear in the op-ed pages of the Boston Globe.

Flag of NATO from Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

In his most recent Globe piece, Kinzer worries that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is about to disintegrate. He focuses initially on the new anti-Western leanings obviously gaining prevalence in Turkey, a NATO member.  Current Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan is hard at work reversing the cultural and political westernization introduced into his nation by Kemal Ataturk in the 1920s. Then Kinzer points to Turkey’s opposition to U.S.-led and NATO directed actions in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Erdogan makes it clear that he prefers the Russian stance in each of these confrontations, not the actions taken by NATO and the U.S.

But Kinzer seems to have no awareness why the alliance has existed for more than 60 years. Instead, he repeats the attitude instilled into almost all Americans that “NATO was created to confront a single threat: the Soviet Union.” By 1949 when the pact was created, the USSR had swallowed up numerous countries in Eastern and Central Europe. The very existence of NATO is customarily credited with halting further Soviet advances into France, Italy, West Germany, and other still-free nations. But the underlying truth is that the building of NATO and the UN was always intended, and the erosion of national sovereignty everywhere was the long-range goal.

In the late 1940s according to then-Secretary of States Dean Acheson, NATO’s chief U.S. promoter, NATO was created to be “an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations.” That’s what Acheson stressed to senators when he encouraged them to vote for the pact in 1949. In his speech to the Senate published by the Washington Star on March 19, 1949, Acheson said that the pact’s brief introductory paragraph and 14 articles were all “subject to the overriding provisions of the United Nations Charter.” Indeed, the United Nations is mentioned six times in this briefly worded treaty. It won senate approval with only 13 dissenting votes on July 12, 1949. There can be no doubt that NATO has always been a division of the UN. Later, the 368-page NATO Handbook issued by the alliance in 1995 states very clearly that the alliance was “created within the framework of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”

How has NATO been employed? President Harry Truman cited it when he sent U.S. forces into Korea in 1950. Asked at a press conference whether our nation was now at war, Truman responded, “We are not at war; this is a police action.” He added that if he could send troops to NATO, he could send troops to Korea. The Korean “police action” constituted the first abandonment of the need for a congressional declaration of war. The last time that portion of the Constitution was employed occurred in the days immediately following the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor in 1941. America went to war on two fronts for almost four years. It should interest all to note that World War II was the last war won by U.S. forces. All struggles since then have been authorized and directed by obvious UN direction or by NATO and its SEATO clone. There have been no more victories.

In the June 1996 issue of the pro-world government Atlantic Monthly, Benjamin Schwarz of the World Policy Institute gleefully noted that objections about U.S. involvement in NATO led by Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio) had been building when NATO was being proposed. But the resistance had been defused when, according to Dean Acheson, the crisis in Korea “came along and saved us.” It didn’t save the more than 50,000 American dead from the Korean War, a conflict that never has been settled and could break out again at any time. But it did save steady progress toward watering down U.S. independence and “strengthening the UN,” Acheson’s stated goals.

Today, U.S. forces in Afghanistan are under NATO’s control. So are our military contingents in Germany, Turkey, and scores of other nations. The struggle in Vietnam was fought under SEATO, a copy of NATO no longer in existence. Vietnam cost America additional tens of thousands who died while serving under a UN command.

If Stephen Kinzer knows all of this and refuses to include it when writing about NATO, shame on him. If he doesn’t know it and would care to examine what we have stated, we shall be happy to help him. Claiming that NATO was created only to “confront” the threat posed by the Soviet Union is wrong. It was created to override the U.S. Constitution, build the power of the United Nations, and create a tyrannical new world order under UN control.

Our nation needs leaders who will restore undiluted U.S. independence. The clear way to accomplish this sorely needed restoration involves quitting NATO and withdrawing from the United Nations. Support H.R. 193 to Get US Out! of the UN before it’s too late.

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.


Time to Audit the Fed

Time to Audit the Fed
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

The Federal Reserve isn’t a government agency. Nor is it a bank in the normal sense of the term. It is a secretly run privately-owned institution that has, for slightly more than 100 years, built enormous power to decide the value of the dollar, set interest rates on borrowing, and create booms and busts affecting virtually all of us.

Ron Paul -End the Fed. Image from flicker by DonkeyHotey, some rights reserved, CC BY-SA 2.0.

A move to audit the Fed, even to find out who owns it, has been gathering steam in Congress over recent years. In 2014, the House voted 338-92 to conduct an audit of the Fed. In 2016, senators voted 53-44 to perform an audit – not enough to get by the 60-vote threshold needed to avoid a filibuster. As expected in each tally, almost all Republicans cast Yea votes; virtually all Democrats voted Nay. The campaign to force an audit continues.

In April 2017, former Treasury Secretary and prominent Council on Foreign Relations member Robert Rubin signaled his unsurprising opposition to an audit in an Op-Ed piece published by The New York Times. He urged keeping the Fed’s operations secret, away from what he insisted would be political pressures. Fed Chairman Janet Yellen surprised no one when she expressed a similar objection.

The current congressional leaders seeking Fed openness are Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).  Massie has stated: “It is time to force the Federal Reserve to operate by the same standards of transparency and accountability to the taxpayers” that should be demanded of all government and semi-government agencies. Rand Paul, following the lead set by his father, a retired member of the House, agrees.

However, President Trump has just signaled a possible opposing view by naming former judge and Wall Street favorite Jerome Powell to succeed Yellen as Fed Chairman early next year. No quiet opponent of any audit, Powell devoted an entire February 9, 2015 speech to attacking any call for an audit. A partisan for Fed-issued money, he has championed federal debt ceiling increases and his pro-Fed stance won President Obama’s nomination to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in 2011.

Were he alive today, one emphatic supporter of the Fed would be Karl Marx. In his 1848 Communist Manifesto, the father of modern socialism and communism called for “Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” In 1913, when the creation of the Fed won congressional approval, its creators went one step deeper into building what Marx urged by making the Fed secret and privately owned. It’s even worse than the state-owned institution Marx called for.

Currently, there is a bill in each house of Congress to have the Fed audited. H.R. 24 introduced by Rep. Massie is gathering co-sponsors in the House. And S.16 is doing likewise in the Senate. All who support openness and honesty in government should be contacting their elected officials to urge support for these measures.

During a Senate recess while he was innocently mowing the lawn in front of his Kentucky home on November 5th, Senator Rand Paul was physically and viciously attacked by his next-door neighbor. Rene Voucher, a known liberal socialist who is a medical doctor, has in the past verbally jousted with Paul, a hard-right conservative. This time, the confrontation wasn’t verbal but physical. Paul’s injuries in the completely unexpected attack included five broken ribs and bruised lungs. He will be sidelined for several months. Boucher was arrested and allowed to go free when he posted a $7,500 bond. He will likely face further punishment.

The pummeling of Rand Paul may have nothing to do with the senator’s call for auditing the Fed. But Boucher has loudly made known his preference for socialized medicine, something Senator Paul vibrantly opposes. What happened in the Bowling Green, Kentucky, neighborhood where the two men reside (Boucher lives alone; Paul lives with his wife and children) may include differing attitudes about the Fed. We don’t know. But we certainly wish Senator Paul a speedy recovery from his injuries. And we look forward to knowing that his S. 16 and Thomas Massie’s H.R. 24 gain passage in the Congress so that the Fed’s unmonitored operations will be finished.

The Fed’s secrecy should certainly be cancelled. It is known, for instance, that the Fed bailed out Greece during that nation’s recent economic crisis. How many similar transactions has the Fed conducted with other countries? The American people have a right to know who owns the Fed, who are all of its beneficiaries, and plenty more about the operations of this Marxist organization.

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.


Withdraw Completely from UNESCO

Withdraw Completely from UNESCO
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

The birth of the United Nations took place in mid-1945. Before the year ended, its leaders created the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization known as UNESCO. With their huge headquarters in Paris, this single branch of the UN has grown to fill 56 regional offices throughout the world, including an enormous presence in Washington. To put it mildly, UNESCO has become a powerful force for spreading UN propaganda and undermining political, religious, and educational standards virtually everywhere.

UNESCO logo. Image from Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

One can get an inkling of UNESCO’s overall goals through awareness of the thinking of its first leader, Britain’s Julian Huxley. A proud signer of The Humanist Manifesto, he never sought to hide his denial of God’s existence or any afterlife, or to cover up his endorsement of situational ethics, abortion, sexual license, highly questionable education programs, and world government. UNESCO promotes all of this.

Since 2009, Bulgarian Communist Irina Bokova has served as UNESCO’s top official. It is, therefore, no surprise that she has favored the same goals promoted by Huxley. She has recently been forced to spend a good deal of effort trying to diffuse charges that she has used her prominent UNESCO perch to purchase several luxury properties around the globe and to direct some of the organization’s funds to promote her own candidacy for the post of UN Secretary General. She failed in the attempt to become Ban ki-Moon’s successor when the post was given to Portugal’s Antonio Guterres, a like-minded socialist whose leadership of the subversive Socialist International indicates his antipathy to national sovereignty and personal freedom. Bokova will soon leave her UNESCO post and undoubtedly be replaced by another like-advocate of the Humanism’s goals.

The UNESCO education agenda has long drawn objections from defenders of responsible freedom, religious-based ethics, common sense, and national sovereignty. The organization produces or recommends textbooks aimed at the world’s youth that promote globalism, LGBT propaganda, highly questionable environmental claims, and more. Its program for teaching sex education to children as young as four is downright abominable. Here in America, UNESCO’s hand can be found in creating such educational disasters as Race To The Top, No Child Left Behind, and Common Core.

Another of UNESCO’s goals seeks to reduce the world’s population to protect the planet. From approximately 7 billion these world planners would prefer only 1 billion. Famed oceanographer Jacques Cousteau stated this goal in an article he penned for the Paris-based UNESCO Courier in November 1991. He called for the elimination of “350,000 people per day.” Admitting this to be a “horrible thing to say,” he nevertheless said it and UNESCO approved the grisly notion by publishing it.

No leader of our nation should tolerate membership in UNESCO. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan temporarily suspended membership and refused to have the U.S. fund it. But America’s tie to UNESCO wasn’t severed completely, and President George W. Bush put the U.S. back in the organization in 2002.

President Trump has followed the lead set by President Reagan and suspended U.S. membership while cutting off some funding. He did so, he said, because of UNESCO’s mounting financial difficulties, a need for reform of the organization, and its anti-Israel attitude. Mr. Trump’s break with this UN monster is welcome but not complete. A repeat of the Bush restoration is likely. What is urgently needed is complete withdrawal not only from UNESCO but from the UN itself.

Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) has introduced H.R. 193 calling for complete withdrawal of the United States from the world body. His measure deserves the support of all who love freedom and want our nation completely untangled from the UN. Patriotic Americans should urge their member of Congress to support this much-needed bill.

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.


Will the Afghan War Ever End?

Will the Afghan War Ever End?
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

From the mid-14th century until the middle of the 15th century, British and French forces fought what has always been termed the “Hundred Years War.” That struggle actually lasted 116 years. Which means that the U.S.-led coalition fighting in Afghanistan must continue fighting for one hundred more years to exceed the duration of the famous British-French encounter. It almost seems like the two sides are trying.

U.S. 10th Mountain Division soldiers in Afghanistan. Image from Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

Already the scene of over 2,400 American dead, the on-going war in Afghanistan began shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks carried out by four hijacked airplanes. Initially, the goal sought to take on Al Qaeda for its role in the enormous 9/11 murder and destruction. This meant breaking up the Taliban, the militant Islamic forces that had seized control of portions of the country and were suspected of sheltering Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden. But the Taliban proved to be a tougher foe than expected and defeating it has been unachievable to date. Instead, this supposedly weaker brand of Islamic militancy has grown stronger. And finding bin Laden turned out to be impossible. (He was later discovered in Pakistan where daring American raiders killed him.)

Taliban forces have been using weapons given to them to oppose Russian invaders who stormed into their country in 1979. After ten years, the Russians gave up and went home. The guns and ammunition still in Taliban hands have then been employed to fight Americans.

Military leaders soon adopted a new and completely different strategy involving an effort to rebuild the war-torn country. Other nearby nations – Russia, Pakistan, India, even Iran – had their own designs which were not always similar to what the U.S. forces were told was their mission. When those conflicting goals were added to ethnic domestic combativeness, the turf-protecting warlords, and the ineffectiveness of the nation’s political leaders, the effort began to appear unsolvable. And that was only a few years after the first U.S. forces arrived in the land-locked nation.

U.S. forces then found themselves assigned to destroy the country’s lucrative opium production along with training local forces, all the while combating crooks and incompetents posing as Afghan leaders. Many of the trainees turned out to be enemies within their ranks. An American soldier would spend days, maybe weeks, teaching an Afghani how to be a good soldier only to have the newly trained individual turn his gun on the man who taught him how to use it.

Along the way, NATO assumed supreme command of the operation. Without doubt, many of the coalition forces have no idea that NATO, a UN subsidiary led by a European politician, is calling the shots. U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis has recently aired a new strategy that will take aim at Taliban sanctuaries. Doesn’t this mean that Taliban bases were previously untouchable? Is that any way to wage a war? A retired Marine Corps general, Mattis also seems to be violating a cardinal principle of warfare: Don’t let an enemy know your plans. Doing so destroys the element of surprise, always a key feature of warfare. But no more will the U.S. forces fight Taliban only after being attacked. And more forces will be added to those already in Afghanistan.

Will this new strategy lead to victory? Or will more years be added to the agonizingly victoryless campaign of the past 16 years? A hundred year war isn’t likely, but with the UN ultimately in charge and knowing that limited war serves the overall drive to create a world government, we should hardly be surprised if – new strategy or not – this war will continue for many more years.

Be a part of the driving force to Get US Out! of the United Nations! Learn more at The John Birch Society’s Get US Out! of the UN action project page.

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.


Trump Vs. A Media “Rock Star”

Trump Vs. A Media “Rock Star” 
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

It seems as though our nation’s left-leaning mass media will find grist for their anti-Trump crusade no matter what the President or his top aides say or do. If the President assured someone that the sun would rise in the East tomorrow morning, some media star would cite the ravings of a confirmed anti-Trump crusader insisting Donald Trump has no love for the West.

United States Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida), 2011, official House portrait. Image from Wikimedia Commons in public domain.

Four American soldiers were recently slain in Africa’s Niger. While performing their mission to train local military personnel, they were ambushed and never had a chance. Most likely, they were targeted because they were Americans.

President Trump sought advice about what to say in the calls he would make to the members of the grieving families. He turned to someone who knew from first-hand experience how to handle such a tragic responsibility: Retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, his Chief of Staff. A few years earlier while Kelly was still serving on active duty, his close friend General Joseph Dunford had delivered to him the awful news that his son had been killed while serving in Afghanistan.

Dunford brought the terrible news to General Kelly, and Kelly recalled that message when asked by the President what he could say to a devastated family member in a telephone call. Referring to the death of young Lieutenant Robert Kelly who died in Afghanistan, that message to the lieutenant’s father stated:

He was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that one percent. He knew what the possibilities were because we’re at war and when he died, he was surrounded by the best men on earth, his friends.

That’s precisely what President Trump copied and said to each of the families of the four men who died in Niger. We know this because Chief of Staff Kelly told a news conference first about Mr. Trump’s inquiry to him and then about the President’s subsequent calls to the families. The President did his duty but a member of Congress from Florida sought to gain some publicity for herself by attacking Mr. Trump. After overhearing the President’s call to the wife of one of the slain soldiers, Representative Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) characterized the president’s message as insensitive, especially the portion that Kelly himself had once received – and accepted. He said to Sergeant La David Johnson’s widow that her husband had died “doing exactly what he wanted to do” by serving honorably in Niger.

John Kelly said he was “stunned” by Representative Wilson’s comments. She has reveled in the amount of publicity she has received when she should have been ignored. She now claims to be the equivalent of a “Rock Star,” and delights in the fact that Chief of Staff Kelly has criticized her attack on the President. When Kelly responded to her outburst and likened her remarks to the noise emanating from an “empty barrel,” she played the race card, calling his response a “racist term.” That should have been laughed at, but even though it is a gross absurdity, it gained wide coverage.

Congresswoman Wilson’s record demonstrates that she’s no friend of those who wear the uniform. She has repeatedly voted against measures that would help veterans and their families. One of her votes saw her oppose a measure designed to ensure that families of some slain soldiers would receive death benefits. Yet she gets treated like a “Rock Star” by the same media that delights on finding fault with everything – good or bad – coming from the White House.

In his remarks about this incident, Chief of Staff Kelly recalled that important national attitudes have changed from his youth. His list included: “women were sacred; the dignity of life was sacred; religion seems to be gone as well.“ Most Americans agree that such changes have occurred. It appears that Mr. Kelly was targeting the mass media, the powerful force within our nation that has played a sinister role in altering basic American standards. It is the same mass media that rarely says anything complimentary about President Trump but delights in making a “Rock Star” out of a despicable publicity seeker who happens to be a member of Congress.

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.