Trouble Arises in Malaysia

Trouble Arises in Malaysia
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Malaysia is an Asian country situated south of Thailand in the Malay Peninsula. At the peninsula’s extreme southern tip can be found the city-state of Singapore. While Singapore is known for enforcing a strict code of conduct for its people, Malaysia had, until recently, a more relaxed and freedom-prevailing atmosphere. That reputation has been dealt a rather severe blow. But let’s consider some of Malaysia’s history before turning to its current problem.

During the 18th century, various kingdoms located in the area became subject to the British Empire. A Malayan Union emerged during the post-World War II years and the Federation of Malaya won independence in 1957. That federation soon spread to include the northern portions of Borneo in 1963. In 1965, Singapore found itself expelled from the new nation and has functioned alone ever since. It was during the early 1960s that the former Malayan Union adopted the name Malaysia by which it is currently known.

Malaysia’s head of state is its king, currently Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Surprisingly, his royal designation isn’t hereditary; he’s elected. A prime minister who must be serving in the House of Representatives holds most of the nation’s political power. Since 2009, Najib Razak has held this post. But he is now suspected of stashing $700 million in his personal bank account, a charge that has led to massive protests in the capital city of Kuala Lumpur.

Within the past year, as many as 100,000 have gathered in the capital demanding that government clean up such practices as accepting and hiding ill-gotten money. As a symbol of their dismay, the protesters have worn yellow t-shirts carrying the simple message “Bersih 4.” Translated, the word means “clean” and the number “4” designates that a recent protest is the fourth in a series.

14937293_941738655958487_5107059572865201619_n

Bersih 4.0 Rally in Malaysia. Image from the movement’s Facebook page.

The government’s response has been to declare wearing those t-shirts a threat to national security. The nation’s Home Minister actually banned public display of the shirts but the people defied his mandate and defiantly wore them anyway. The Malaysian High Court has now upheld the ban and anyone caught wearing the forbidden garment faces arrest and a fine of approximately $1,200. Tony Pua, a member of parliament who is an opponent of Prime Minister Najib says, “For the government to ban a t-shirt that means ‘clean’ is a farce.”

But it’s evidently more than a farce that can be ignored because a shirt wearer can now get arrested and fined. In reality, it’s a marked step toward tyranny. Along with the ban on yellow t-shirts has come police investigation of a graphic artist who produced an online drawing of Prime Minster Najib looking like a clown. It seems that George Orwell-style thought police have emerged in Malaysia.

With all the troubles we have in America, no one would yet go so far as to ban a t-shirt no matter what message it carries. Nor have we reached the point where caricature drawings of political figures lead to government scrutiny. We still have the First Amendment and its guarantee of “freedom of speech.”

In days gone by, newly formed nations have looked to the United States as a model to guide formation of their own constitutions and laws. But this practice is occurring far more infrequently as our own leaders skirt the U.S. Constitution while devising new ways to usurp power. We are forced to wonder whether the day will come when a t-shirt bearing the slogan “Get US out of the United Nations” is banned. Or when another proclaims “Abortion stops a beating heart,” or still another demands “Bring the troops home!”

Knowing what has happened in Malaysia should impel Americans to resist being silenced by political correctness or by a Malaysia-style exercise in overbearing government. It should also help many to realize that a determination to return to less government and more responsibility is the far better way. Less government can be found in the limitations appearing in the U.S. Constitution, and more responsibility found in the Ten Commandments. If Americans honor those guidelines, maybe even Malaysia will consider them.

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.


Supreme Court Vacancy

Supreme Court Vacancy
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

The sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has forced the nation to think about who might fill the vacancy. Will it be someone holding his conservative/originalist thinking? Or will it be someone of the Obama/Hillary Clinton brand? The decision will shape the court for several years into the future.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has stated that during the current election year “there will not be any vote on an Obama Supreme Court nominee. Period. End of story.” As Majority Leader, he holds power to decide whether or not the Senate considers any nominee. He wants to wait until after a new President takes the oath of office in January 2017.

Pro-Obama senators have been crying foul, insisting that any sitting president has the right to nominate someone for the open seat, and the Senate has a duty to consider him or her. They’re correct as far as they go. But the Senate leader also has power; he can sit on such a nomination without scheduling any hearings and without any vote to approve or disapprove.

New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer is the likely leader of Democrat senators starting in 2017 because current Minority Leader, Nevada Senator Harry Reid, is retiring. And Schumer is adamantly insisting that any Obama nominee should be given due consideration by the current Senate.

However, in July of 2007, Schumer backed the McConnell-style delay plan until an election has passed and the nation had a new president. With the 2008 election in mind, he stated: “I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.” He clearly wanted confirmation of any new addition to the court to wait until after a Democrat was elected in 2008. (The 2008 election did result in Democrat Obama’s win over Republican McCain.)

Now, Schumer is insisting that his 2007 attitude does not apply. His argument is weak to say the least.

Additionally, researchers have gone back to 1992 when then-Senator Joe Biden of Delaware proposed this very same argument. Now the nation’s Vice President, Biden doesn’t want to be reminded of what he said when George H.W. Bush occupied the White House. What he would like everyone to forget is his stand proclaiming, “It is my view that if the president goes the way of Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination.”

But today, we have Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer and Democrat Vice President Joe Biden turning on their previous attitudes and calling for any Obama nominee for the high court to be considered promptly. Their hypocrisy could hardly be greater.

They, of course, know that any Obama nominee would shift the balance of power in the Supreme Court to their liberal way of thinking. They would have no difficulty supporting a newly named Democrat to sit alongside liberal Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer. Before Scalia’s demise, the court’s 5 to 4 majority rested with him and Justices Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito.

Filling the seat left vacant by the passing of Antonin Scalia is almost as big an issue as who will win the presidency in 2016. If the winner happens to be Donald Trump, conservative Americans ought to be nervous because he has already suggested nominating either U.S. Appeals Court Justices Diane Sykes or Bill Pryor. Sykes has ruled that Indiana cannot fully defund Planned Parenthood. And Pryor, serving as an Alabama judge in the past, helped lead the effort to oust the state’s Chief Justice because he wouldn’t remove a monument containing the Ten Commandments from state property.

It is unlikely that an Obama nominee will be approved in 2016. As to who will win the 2016 election for President and who that new occupant of the White House will nominate to fill the open seat, no one knows at this point.

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 Scares the Establishment

Trump Scares the Establishment
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

It’s February 23rd as I write, and the season when political parties choose their nominee for the office of President is in full swing. Republicans from Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have catapulted Donald Trump into a commanding lead. And the pundits in all phases of the media are worried.

Frank Rich is a former New York Times columnist whose opinions are now published in New York. He has just written about the worriers who are scratching their heads in discontent about the prospect of Trump winning the nomination and the White House. Rich pointedly cited the seeming desperation among “the Establishment” about the success achieved by the New York billionaire. He stated:

After Donald Trump’s victory in South Carolina, the GOP Establishment is left with what some political reporters have called “an urgent decision: Either destroy Mr. Trump or embrace him…. Far and away the Establishment’s bigger challenge is to destroy Trump.”

The question Rich didn’t answer is: Who are the individuals who form this “Establishment”? He didn’t name any, so let us give an opinion about the people who seem anxious, according to Rich, to “destroy Mr. Trump.”

In December 1961, nationally syndicated columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt, the granddaughter of President Theodore Roosevelt, gave her readers as sound a definition of this powerful clique as could be found anywhere. Her description made sense 55 years ago, and it is still on target today. She wrote:

The word “establishment” is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of this “legitimate Mafia.” Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a Cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation’s policies in almost every area….

What is the Establishment’s viewpoint? Through the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations its ideology is constant: That the best way to fight Communism is by a One World Socialist state governed by “experts” like themselves. The result has been policies which favor the growth of the superstate, gradual surrender of United States sovereignty to the United Nations….

Miss Roosevelt’s mention that members of the Establishment are “largely from the northeast” leads to the conclusion that she had in mind the members of the New York City-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). That’s where the bulk of the “power elite” can be found. If indeed members of the CFR and several lesser-known but likeminded Establishment groups “favor the growth of the superstate [and] gradual surrender of U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations,” and these individuals see a need to destroy Donald Trump’s so far very successful race to the nomination, then it would seem that Trump is not one of them. Which, in the view of this prognosticator, is a huge plus. It is also interesting that the people Rich has written about have no similar fears about Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich.

The New York pundit, himself easily linked to the Establishment, says the power elite would like to have all but one of Trump’s competitors bow out so that he would have to face in a one-on-one duel a candidate the Establishment would prefer. It may happen.

Please don’t anyone get the idea that what I have written is an endorsement of Donald Trump. When asked whom I might favor, I always answer, “The one who wants to have the U.S. withdraw from the United Nations.” That means I favor none of the GOP (or Democrat) candidates. But if Donald Trump wins the White House, he might realize the importance of separating from the UN. That would make him the hero of every red-blooded American.

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.


Little Sisters of the Poor Fighting for Religious Liberty

Little Sisters of the Poor Fighting for Religious Liberty
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

On March 23rd, the plight of the Little Sisters of the Poor will be heard once again by the U.S. Supreme Court. Having had a favorable though temporary ruling rendered by the Court in January 2014, the religious order must now seek a final judgment on their plea to be exempted from provisions of Obamacare that conflict with their religion.

One cartoon from a series on how the federal government has treated the Sisters. (image from their site).

The Sisters, whose self-appointed mission involves care for elderly persons who cannot fend for themselves, employ numerous lay people in their selfless work. But ObamaCare requires them to pay for a health-care program that includes supplying abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception for any of their lay employees. Since doing so would violate the tenets of their Catholic Faith, the Sisters have sought relief from the government’s mandates.

Founded in France in 1839 by Sister Jeanne Jugan who later was designated a saint by the Church, the order serves the elderly in 31 countries. In 2014, the 2,372 members of their order operated 234 houses. Of these, 31 are in the United States. The nuns all make vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and hospitality.

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, lawyers for the Sisters went before a panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. Their plea to be excused from the health care requirements they opposed was rebuffed. But the full Court of Appeals in that district later ruled in their favor though leaving open a possible appeal by the government. It was then that the Obama administration did appeal, and this appeal is what will be heard by the nation’s highest court in March. A final decision on the matter isn’t expected until later this year.

The Sisters are represented by the Washington-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a group founded in 1994 by Kevin Hasson who previously worked at the Justice Department and a Washington law firm. The name “Becket” stems from their admiration of Saint Thomas Becket who, as Archbishop of Canterbury in the 12th century, tangled with King Henry II and was murdered in the Canterbury Cathedral.

Hasson stepped aside in 2011 and the Fund is now led by President William P. Mumma and Executive Director Kristina Arriaga. Becket Fund‘s clients have included advocates of a variety of religions ranging, as they say, from “A to Z” (Anglicans to Zoroastrians). A previous client, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., did receive an exemption from an Obamacare dictate mandating that the company supply abortifacients to employees. Supreme Court justices voted 5-4 in that 2014 ruling.

The issue propelling the Little Sisters is religious liberty – the right to practice religion unimpeded by overreaching government. Therefore, there’s a lot at stake here. Believers in the Bill of Rights and its guarantee that “the free exercise” of religion shall be maintained will surely be watching for the high court’s eventual decision.

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia throws another consideration into the Court’s eventual action. Without doubt, he would have sided with the Sisters. There are four likely supporters of the Sisters and four likely opponents of their plea to be excluded from the requirement to ignore the tenets of the Faith. Should the Court split 4-4, the customary practice calls for reverting to the previous ruling – the one in which the Sisters were granted a pass. Of course, at this point no one knows for sure what will happen.

In any case, the Obama administration has demonstrated by its decision to appeal the previous ruling that it doesn’t believe in religious liberty – even for a group known as The Little Sisters of the Poor.

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.


Celebrate Ending Slavery, But Apologize?

Celebrate Ending Slavery, But Apologize?
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

On February 10th, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed a resolution containing a formal apology for his state’s role in the practice of slavery. Terming the odious practice an “egregious sin,” he stated, “A candid acknowledgement and acceptance of our past is the only way to understand our present and to take full responsibility for our future.”

In our country, which of course includes Delaware, slavery was abolished in 1865 with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The practice has not existed in America for 150 years, meaning that no one in Delaware today, including the members of the state’s legislature who initiated the resolution, had any part in it.

When considering the existence of slavery in the United States, the far more sensible course would be to celebrate the fact that our nation did away with slavery. This is what Markell and Delaware’s elected officials should have done. And they should be joined in such celebration by the governors and legislatures of eight other states where similar proclamations have been issued.

No one denies that slavery existed. But the slaves who arrived in America were forced into bondage by black African leaders, and then transported across the Atlantic in British ships. All of those African chieftains who sold their own people into slavery, plus all those ship owners and crew members who transported them from Africa, and all of the buyers and sellers of human beings in our country are long in their graves. An apology from them would be appropriate, but it can’t be offered. Yet, any American living today has good reason to celebrate the end of slavery.

Leonard Patterson during his interview that was used in the civil rights documentary, Anarchy USA, produced by The John Birch Society.

Leonard Patterson during his interview from the civil rights documentary, Anarchy USA, produced by The John Birch Society.

During the 1930s, Leonard Patterson, a black American, joined the U.S. Communist Party. He spent two years in the Soviet Union receiving instructions about how to destroy the country of his birth. But he came back to America, soon quit the Party, and later told a Senate Committee of his conclusions about this country in February 1960. A contrite Leonard Patterson stated in part:

I have travelled in Russia. I lived there almost two years. I went all over Russia and I saw how the people live there. I have also travelled practically all over this country of ours, both in the Communist Party and since I have been out of the Communist Party. And I have had a chance to make up my mind about which is the best system. I have seen how the so-called national minorities live in Russia, in the Crimea, Yalta, in the Ukraine, and different places. I was born in the South, in North Carolina, and I know how we live in this country, and I make this statement very brazenly as to the “paradise” in Russia: With all its shortcomings that we have in the United States, if you want to put it on a racial basis, or a Negro basis, we American Negroes are better off, not only than minorities in Russia, but the so-called Great Russians themselves. I wouldn’t say there wasn’t room for improvement, but if you take it as a whole, we have the highest standard of living, we are better educated, we have more wealth distributed among us, and I defy anyone to deny it.

That was 1960. Blacks in America today, many of whom are probably descendants of slaves, enjoy a better life than many black Africans residing in Africa. And, according to the testimony of Mr. Patterson, black American were better off than the elite who lived in Communist-controlled areas.

Mr. Patterson and many other patriotic black Americans didn’t ask fellow Americans to apologize. He spent many of his later years warning them about Communist efforts to destroy our great nation. Having known this remarkable man, I know that he would agree that a celebration by Americans for having done away with slavery is called for, not any apology for the sins of more than a century in the past.

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.


Scalia: The Passing of the Supreme Court’s “Originalist”

Scalia: The Passing of the Supreme Court’s “Originalist”
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

The sudden passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia evoked praise for his work from conservatives and, after perfunctory condolences directed to his family, dark words for his “originalism” from liberals. Many Americans who are unfamiliar with that term can be helped to understand its meaning by understanding Scalia’s disdain for considering the U.S. Constitution a “living” document subject to current whims and trends. He always believed that it was a hard and fast contract to be considered inviolate by all who had solemnly sworn to abide by it.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, served as an Associate Justice from 1986 until his death February 13, 2016. Cropped image from Collection of the Supreme Court, Photographer: Steve Petteway, public domain.

Advocates of the “living” document thesis claim that modern trends and attitudes should be considered part of the Constitution even if there is no portion of its language supporting their position. Those who insist that the Constitution cannot be altered or ignored at whim, or have new thinking added to it without an amendment, have become fewer in number. The lack of understanding among many Americans about the Constitution has allowed liberals to get away with what they claim because of their insistence that the Constitution lives. And like any other entity that lives, they say it grows naturally.

In reality, however, the Constitution is very much like a contract between the people and their government. Neither side has the authority to unilaterally change its terms. Change is permitted when both sides – in this case the government and the people – formally use the amendment process. But if a carpenter and a homeowner agree about a porch being added to the rear of the home, the carpenter cannot decide to omit building the agreed-upon steps to the backyard. Nor can the homeowner change the agreed-upon fee for the man’s work.

Justice Scalia always held that the terms of a contract (the Constitution in this case) must be honored by government officials. He found no permission for government to sanction abortion, or forbid private ownership of guns, or change the definition of marriage, or a great deal more. He frequently stated that lawmakers and judges should honor the wording of the document as it was understood when created or amended. He was an “originalist.” As such, he could point to the attitude of Thomas Jefferson who stated in 1801:

The Constitution on which our Union rests shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption, a meaning found in the explanations of those who advocated it, not those who opposed it….

When a later need arose to restate his attitude, Jefferson stated:

On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Though the term wasn’t in use during Jefferson’s time, he was an originalist. The steps to the backyard that were part of his mythical porch were noted in the agreement he and the carpenter had signed. There was no power for the carpenter to omit the steps or for Jefferson to alter the agreed-upon payment for the man’s work.

In like manner, the government and the people should similarly honor the contract known as the U.S. Constitution. This was the thinking employed by Antonin Scalia. We can only hope that whoever takes his place on the high court will, as he did, delight in being labeled an “originalist.”

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.


President Obama’s Speech at a Mosque

President Obama’s Speech at a Mosque
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

On February 3rd, President Barack Obama left the nation’s capital to deliver a speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, his first address delivered at an Islamic Mosque. What he said on that occasion was noteworthy for several distortions of truth, but also for leaving out important history.

The President stated, “For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salaam – peace.” Not so; it doesn’t mean peace. A decent dictionary will confirm that the word “Islam” means submission.

Mr. Obama then told his Muslim audience, “Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Koran.” That’s correct but they obtained them, not because of any affection for what Islam’s foundational book states, but in order to know why American vessels were being attacked and their crewmembers imprisoned by North Africa’s Muslim pirates operating out of Tripoli. Any U.S. Marine would confirm that “from the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Corps Hymn refers to Marines of the early 19th century taking action to put a stop to such treachery.

The President insisted that Muslim scholars of today “know Islam has a tradition of respect for other faiths.” Again, not so. Wherever Islam dominates, people of other faiths are classified as second-class citizens who must pay a tax and, in some cases, face execution.

More of what Mr. Obama said during his remarks in Baltimore can be shown to be similarly deficient. But the history of Islam’s determined forays westward over many centuries should be included in a discussion of the movement begun by Mohammed. Before the end of the 7th century, Muslims had subdued and occupied large areas of Asia, Northern Africa, some Mediterranean islands, and portions of Europe.

From a base they secured in Spain, a Mohammedan army stormed across the Pyrenees into France where they were defeated at the historic 732 Battle of Tours by a smaller Christian force led by Charles Martel. In his famous “History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” British historian Edward Gibbon stated that had the Muslims triumphed on that occasion, “the Koran would have been taught at Oxford and Cambridge Universities instead of the Bible.”

After Islamists captured Constantinople in 1453, they moved into Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. At the famous Battle of Belgrade, another smaller Christian army led by Hungary’s King John Hunyadi defeated Muslim forces led by Mehmet II. In 1492, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain triumphed over Islam’s followers known as Moors. The next attempt of Mohammed’s followers to gain dominance in Europe occurred in a 1571 naval battle at Lepanto off the Greek coast where an outnumbered Christian naval force led by Don Juan of Austria defeated the forces of Islam led by Ali Pasha. Then in 1683, 200,000 Muslims led by Mustafa surrounded Vienna and prepared to conquer that strategic city but were met and defeated by Poland’s King John Sobieski and his outnumbered 80,000 troops.

Mr. Obama mentioned none of this. Nor did he refer to the current flood of Muslim immigrants into Western Europe or the threat posed by those who intend to take control of the West, not by force of arms, but by sheer numbers and the weapon known as terrorism.

The President’s speech was deficient in many ways, a deficiency shared by practically all of American media who would have the people of our country believe that Islam stands for peace and poses no threat to America and the West. Honest history tells a far different story.

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.