Dangerous Marijuana

Dangerous Marijuana
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

In March 2016, Massachusetts State Trooper Thomas Clardy became the latest victim of marijuana use. He was killed when a speeding auto swerved across several highway lanes and crashed into his parked police cruiser. Clardy, the married father of seven, had pulled over a speeder and was writing a ticket for its driver when he died in his wrecked vehicle. He never had a chance when the careening vehicle smashed into his well-marked police cruiser.

The distraught driver of the auto killing Clardy was found to have visited a medical marijuana dispensary a mere hour before he caused the fatal crash. Investigators discovered that he had purchased several marijuana cigarettes and they found a partially burnt remnant of one in his auto. A sample of his blood taken almost immediately showed the presence of THC, the active marijuana ingredient. This man certainly appears to have been stoned while behind the wheel. The “high” he experienced should have kept him off the road because he was not competent to drive an automobile.

The tragic death of Clardy, a Marine Corps veteran and a well-respected trooper, confirmed that marijuana use, even when obtained legally, presents a danger to the user and to the public at large. The connection between marijuana and the loss of Trooper Clardy should reverse the thinking of anyone claiming that using marijuana is harmless. Whether its use is for medical reasons or for what is termed “recreation,” marijuana dulls mental capability and converts a user into a potentially hazardous human being, especially when behind the wheel of an auto.

Forty years ago, a sizable majority of medical authorities studying the effects of marijuana confirmed that its use is dangerous enough to label it a poison. As reported in published 1974 U.S. Senate hearings, a group of eminently qualified doctors concluded that steady use of marijuana:
1) damaged the body’s cellular structure
2) caused structural changes in brain cells
3) impaired the human reproductive system
4) led to a variety of respiratory diseases
5) left its dangerous ingredients in the body unlike alcohol that a body disposes of within 24 hours
6) impaired mental functions.

Over the years, numerous doctors have made similar claims.

The doctors reaching these conclusions also stated that marijuana users regularly develop a tolerance for the substance and turn to harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin or whatever will give them their sought-after high. Many who became addicted to “hard” drugs started with marijuana and graduated into their dependency on the harder drugs that steer a once-productive life into a regimen of hellish misery.

In short, there is plenty of evidence showing that marijuana is destructive of healthy bodies and sound minds. It also converts users into danger-filled creatures who may mean no harm to others, but whose effect on non-users can even be fatal, something discovered with great sadness by the Clardy family.

Some states have already legalized marijuana production and sale, even describing their move as supplying “recreation.” If government’s purpose includes protection of life and property, such recreation should not be tolerated and should be outlawed. Any medicinal users should be barred from using an automobile – or driving a school bus, piloting an airplane, performing operations on patients, etc.

Smoking marijuana is akin to playing Russian Roulette. But the victim might be someone other than the individual playing that senseless game.

Editor’s note of clarification: While we don’t agree with recreational use of marijuana, The John Birch Society does not endorse the federal war on drugs.  It is the responsibility of the states to decide.

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.


Tossing Out the Old, Bringing in the New World Order

Tossing Out the Old, Bringing in the New World Order
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton aren’t alone as they seek to build a New World Order. But both are obviously working to toss out the Old and bring in the New.

For more on the New World Order, read “Shadows of Power.”

Mouthed by many over several centuries, “New World Order” is a phrase made prominent by President George H.W. Bush during the months prior to America’s 1991 attack on Iraq. Bush said that the new world order he sought would help to bring on a “reinvigorated United Nations.“

Although the Bush-led “Desert Storm” operation succeeded in defeating Iraq and unseating Saddam Hussein, the other half of the Bush goal,to re-energize the United Nations, didn’t happen. Something else had to be done before world government could be imposed upon mankind. There remained the need to destroy the “old order” before the “new world order” could begin its rule.

By “old order,” we mean a world where morality and genuine religious values are norms for the vast majority of humanity. In simple terms, if the people abide by history’s moral codes and religious values, they won’t leave themselves open to rule by ambitious criminals seeking a tyrannical new world order.

On June 19, 1920, a remarkable Christian Science Monitor editorial warned about the looming power of an organized force seeking world government. The CSM editorialist pointed to a threat emanating from a sinister cabal known as the “Illuminati.” Some of the goals of this evil force were listed as “deification of sensuality, abjuration of all religion and morality, repudiation of marriage, universal license, and the wrecking of civilization.” Then this remarkable piece of journalism quoted one of the Illuminists who, while voicing his obvious contempt for the people and their adherence to an older and more stable order, stated with revolutionary fervor, “… their ideas must be reconstructed, laws must be changed, morals must be changed, men must be changed, things must be changed, yes, everything must be destroyed since everything must be remade.“

Barack Obama, for one, has daringly done much to gain acceptance for homosexuality, same-sex marriage, even the transgender craze. His attacks on various pillars of a stable society amount to an attack on the old world’s civilized values.

In her turn, Hillary Clinton took to the United Nations podium in early 2015 to speak to an assemblage of abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexual, and transgender advocates. Her remarks generated applause from attendees at the Sixth Annual Women in the World conference as she forcefully insisted that the peoples’ “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” She did her best to speed destruction of the fundamental moral and religious foundations of our nation. Her remarks showed her intention to prepare America for a ghastly New World Order.

These attacks on the old order from the current and would-be president do indeed pave the way for imposition of a “New World Order.” Whether these two prominent individuals possess any knowledge of the Order of the Illuminati and its sinister designs for mankind isn’t known. Nor can we assert with certainty that the two advocate such fundamental changes in America because they are following a long-standing blueprint.

What surely is of importance, however, is that these two and those who champion their efforts are complicit in ushering in the destruction of the old order that has heretofore characterized our nation and the freedom of the American people. The stands taken by Obama and Clinton create a real peril for our nation and its people.

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 Clinton Foundation

The Clinton Foundation
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are masters of acquiring financial help for themselves while providing favors for their donors. When Bill was seeking reelection in 1996, he received piles of cash from individuals representing Communist China. The names Johnny Chung and Charlie Trie, Clinton donors, will stir some memories. They funneled millions in Chinese cash to the Clinton campaign. Both donors and recipient broke some laws.

Michael Bloomberg, Bill Clinton and Neil Kensington. (Flickr photo by Ernst MoeksisSome rights reserved.)

Then there was Bernard Schwartz, the chief executive of Loral Space & Communications. He donated $1.3 million to help get Clinton reelected. In return, the Clinton administration gave a green light to Loral to aide the Beijing tyrants in their rocket program. That favor overruled policy set by the State Department, the Commerce Department, and the Pentagon, each worried about China’s missile program. Later, President Clinton even arranged for a birthday party for Schwartz at the White House. But obvious giving and receiving of significant bribes got swept under the rug.

When the Clintons left the White House in 2001, they stripped the place clean of numerous household items including the dishes used at official banquets and gatherings. They claimed to be “poor” without acknowledging that their meager financial condition had resulted from legal bills defending Bill from impeachment changes. But they’re not poor anymore. They created the Clinton Foundation and began accepting funds for speeches and other favors from individuals all over the globe. Hillary won election as a New York senator, suffered defeat in her 2008 run for the White House, got appointed Secretary of State, and is aiming for the presidency.

Each of the Clintons has earned millions for speeches given to individuals and organizations linked to foreign governments. For instance, “donations” totaling $2.35 million arrived at the Clinton Foundation from a firm known as Uranium One. In the blink of an eye, Russia’s atomic energy agency Rosatom ended up as one of the world’s largest uranium producers, and Vladimir Putin advanced significantly toward his goal of dominating the acquisition and eventual use of that strategically important element. Shortly after several Russian movers and shakers acquired controlling interest in Uranium One, Bill was paid $500,000 for a speech he delivered in Moscow. And then it turns out that Secretary of State Hillary played a role in transferring 50 percent of our nation’s uranium output to Russia’s government.

With the Hillary-led State Department authorizing numerous deals, several countries in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, et al.) received arms shipments from the United States. These dictatorships (some even having ties to terrorist organizations) donated somewhere between $50 and $150 million to the Clinton Foundation. The FBI, already investigating Hillary’s unsecured email transmissions, has reportedly opened up a second investigation looking into the possibility that she accepted funds and delivered political favors.

In his 2015 book “Clinton Cash,” Peter Schweizer wonders whether foreign governments obtained favors from the Clintons with their donations to the Clinton Foundation. The seemingly tireless Judicial Watch organization noted among other damning facts that one of Hillary’s speeches to the State Department included her thanks to many who were making “exceptional commitments” to “her husband’s foundation.”

Harvard professor Stephen Walt, financial guru Charles Ortel, and reporters from Investor’s Business Daily have raised more questions about the Clintons and their foundation. But the big question needing an answer is: “Will the mass media inform enough of the American voters about all of this and more before the November election?” Time will tell.

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.


Restrooms By Choice?

Restrooms By Choice?
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

As the assault on our nation’s cultural underpinnings continues, the latest attack against morality and sanity involves a choice of restrooms. If you’re a man, you can claim to be a woman and use the one where such use would in the past likely lead to your arrest. The same holds true for a woman who claims to be a man and prefers to use the men’s room. Many individuals who claim to have discovered that they have been wrongly assigned their gender identity have even submitted to medical procedures. They can deny who they are but they can’t deny nature.

The JBS action project supporting morality is a must if America is to return to its freedom-loving roots.

It will surely upset advocates of the so-called transgender craze to hear an opposing view – one that says each person’s gender results from action completely outside of any human being’s decision. Gender arrives at conception and it marks an individual for life. No tinkering, medical procedure, personal desire, or government edict can legitimately change that.

In the first chapter of Genesis verse 17, one can learn of the Almighty’s launching of the human race. The holy book tells us in clear terms, “… male and female He created them.” From then until now and beyond, a new human being is either male or female from conception. Even before birth, the newly conceived human’s chromosomes have determined its gender. In our country, as in most others, a newborn infant’s gender will also be recorded on a birth certificate that will forever indicate that person as either male or female.

The culture destroyers in the Obama administration decided that federal action was needed to protect the so-called rights of the transgender minority. The president sent a letter to every public school district in America telling the nation’s educators to allow students claiming a change in their gender to use whichever bathroom and locker room they choose.

The letter admitted that it “does not have the force of law.” It even employs the word “guidance” in place of the usual “must” or “shall.” Hence, it carries no obvious threat of federal punishments for those who don’t comply. But the possibility of withholding federal aid for balky school districts is real. And social pressures generated by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender minority (LGBT is their acronym) and their culture destroying allies can be, and have already been, employed to force reluctant officials in various states and communities to change or simply ignore their local laws and standards.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on sex. So the culture-destroying commandoes referred not to sex but to “gender identity.” And the individuals who desire to alter their gender identification are taking advantage of loopholes in the laws in some states where changes can be made in one’s birth certificate. They are, in effect, rewriting a legal document.

What would have been termed “madness” only several decades ago is now sweeping the country. It follows a Supreme Court ruling elevating same-sex marriage to legitimacy. Other attacks on our national culture include assigning women to combat roles in the military, killing an unborn child in the womb, and condoning entertainment that subverts morality. All of these assaults on our nation’s culture harm the collective sense of what has always been identifiably “American.” Our nation continues a descent into a new form of barbarism.

Regaining our cultural underpinnings can be accomplished. After all, slavery was once considered legal, even proper. But it was abolished. Allowing and even encouraging individuals to change their undeniable sex to their own choice of “gender identity” is dangerously absurd. It even amounts to shaking a fist at the heavens and saying, “Not Thy will but mine be done.”

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.


Globalist Colleagues Give John Kerry a Poor Rating

Globalist Colleagues Give John Kerry a Poor Rating
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

It’s not often that this writer finds himself agreeing with liberal internationalists. But a collaboration between Foreign Policy and the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project at the College of William & Mary has rated the effectiveness of recent Secretaries of State and placed John Kerry at the very bottom of its list. If Kerry is ineffective, we should be very pleased. The more effective any Secretary of State has been during recent decades, the more harm is done to our country.

John Kerry is sworn in as Secretary of State by Justice Elena Kagan, February 1, 2013 (photo from U.S. Department of State Flickr account).

FP’s 1,615 participating “scholars” rated Henry Kissinger as the their favorite over the past 50 years. Other holders of the post given high to low ratings of effectiveness were James Baker just below Kissinger, followed in descending order by Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, George Shultz, Dean Rusk, Warren Christopher, Cyrus Vance, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Lawrence Eagleburger, and Kerry. All but one of these individuals holds membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, the exception being Hillary Clinton who has stated that she looks to the CFR to implement its goals.

Foreign Policy magazine is surely no friend of conservatives who believe that our nation should mind its own business and cease forcing other countries to accept what our government leaders want. It would be wonderful if a Secretary of State believed in non-intervention in the affairs of other nations except if ours is attacked. As George Washington counseled, America’s policy should include our people having “commercial relations” with counterparts elsewhere, and our government having ”as little political connection as possible” with others. The attitude of the sages at Foreign Policy and the CFR could hardly be more different.

Founded in 1970 by Samuel Huntington, FP favors the same policies as Foreign Affairs, the journal published by the Council on Foreign Relations. It’s hardly surprising to note that Huntington has been a CFR member since 1964 and current FP editor David Rothkopf is also a CFR member. Published by Graham Holdings Company, formerly The Washington Post Company, FP has always been dominated by CFR.

These two magazines, Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs have similar, if not identical, viewpoints. For whatever reason, FP didn’t indicate why the 1,615 it polled awarded John Kerry its least effective rating. We can guess that these “scholars” don’t think too highly of the recent pact he engineered with Iran, his latest “accomplishment.” Or they may have a poor opinion of his poor record as a deal maker in his confabs with Russian, Chinese, and Saudi leaders.

John Kerry recently outdid himself in paralleling the attitude frequently presented by FP when he delivered his May 5th commencement address at Northeastern University in Boston. He told the graduates they would be entering a “borderless world.” No borders? If there are none, then there are no nation states including the one he has frequently sworn a solemn oath to defend. In what was his clearly expressed preference for terminating nationhood, he pointed to “dangers like climate change, terrorism, and disease [that] do not respect borders.” And he scolded the nation he represents because the U.S. spends “just one penny of every dollar of our federal budget for foreign aid.”

Kerry’s commencement speech dwelled in part on “climate change,” the issue believed by FP’s scholars to be the most important. Had those FP scholars known how much emphasis our current Secretary of State places on that topic, they might have given him higher marks. Among the internationalist elite, insistence on the unproven threat known as climate change is mandatory.

John Kerry has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations for more than 20 years. He wants world government; he tries very hard to force other nations to accept the demands of the liberal U.S. establishment; and he crusades for dangerous solutions to questionable problems. All of this and more earn him a very low rating from this writer. But there is no way our judgment of America’s current Secretary of State is based on the policies promoted by Foreign Policy and the Council on Foreign Relations.

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.


Suing Obama Over the War Powers Act

Suing Obama Over the War Powers Act
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Army Captain Nathan M. Smith is challenging U.S. involvement in the campaign against ISIS. No conscientious objector, he remains on active duty as an intelligence specialist. He contends that the Obama administration’s military action against ISIS cannot be legally justified by referring to congressional authorization given the president in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Captain Smith has sued President Obama claiming that the military campaign against ISIS is illegal because Congress hasn’t authorized it as required by the War Powers Act of 1973.

Army Captain Nathan Michael Smith. Image from The New American.

The Act requires congressional approval of any presidential assignment of troops to a combat situation that lasts more than 60 days. The president can respond with military force where needed but if the action exceeds 60 days, he must seek congressional authorization to continue it. If Congress refuses to grant its authorization, the troops must be brought home.

This four-decades-old Act sought to control President Nixon’s continuing use of the military during the Vietnam War. Claiming that the proposed law watered down his executive power, Nixon vetoed it. But Congress overrode his veto and the Act became law. Henceforth, according to the War Powers Act, there must be congressional authorization if a president sends troops into any battle and that battle continues beyond 60 days.

Anyone who cares much for the U.S. Constitution knows that the War Powers Act ignores the Constitution’s requirement that Congress declare any war our forces are sent into. There has been no amendment cancelling Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 that clearly states, “Congress shall have power … To declare war.” If military action by U.S. forces is needed to combat ISIS (or any other enemy), the only constitutional way to do so is by referencing this particular portion of the Constitution.

Most of the horrendous casualties suffered during the Vietnam War had occurred during several years prior to 1973. Even at best therefore, the War Powers Act amounted to closing the barn door after the horse had escaped. It amounted to a meaningless and self-serving gesture by Congress intending to show the war-weary American public its toughness. But authorization for deploying forces to Southeast Asia had come from SEATO, a United Nations subsidiary. A succession of Presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon) ignored the Constitution’s sole grant of war-making power to Congress and the members of Congress sought approval from the American people for what was meaningless bravado. In reality, the War Powers Act was a congressional face-saving measure that accomplished nothing of substance.

Wars declared by Congress, such as WWI and WWII, end in victory. Wars authorized by the UN and its agencies (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan) aren’t won. Even a war sanctioned by Congress via the War Powers Act would be violating the Constitution’s requirement for a declaration of war. But that’s not the only problem brought on by our leaders refusing to honor their oath to the Constitution. They have steadily and virtually silently cooperated in a piece-by-piece transfer of U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.

Captain Smith should be made aware that his suing the president for not using the War Powers Act is really a meaningless gesture. A suit aimed at Mr. Obama and at the Congress for violating the solemn oath to the Constitution – especially including Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 – makes a great deal more sense.

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.


Why Do They Celebrate May Day?

Why Do They Celebrate May Day?
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Each year on the first day of May, crowds gather for marches and rallies, and many such gatherings turn violent. In 2016, for instance, organized demonstrators took to the streets of Paris, London, Cairo, Istanbul, Moscow, Manila, and numerous other world cities. In the United States, May Day rallies occurred in Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, New York, Miami, Cleveland, and elsewhere. This year, however, violence took a holiday.

Around 1,000 people marched in Minneapolis for International Workers’ Day, calling for a higher minimum wage and immigration reform (May 1, 2015), (Flickr photo by Fibonacci Bluesome rights reserved).

The thousands who gathered aired their protests about working conditions, police practices, immigration, racism, capitalism, and whatever had the potential to attract the largest number of chanters, flag wavers, and marchers. Left wingers always dominate these events.

No one disputes the fact that demonstrators have a right to gather peacefully. But police are customarily alerted about the possibility that a crowd will become a mob, and the mob will start burning, looting, even killing – all of which has happened during past May Days.

But a question remains: Why May 1st? And the answer, known by only a few and hardly ever acknowledged, is that a man named Adam Weishaupt launched a conspiracy against civilization in Bavaria on May 1, 1776. Calling his undertaking the Illuminati, Weishaupt and his followers took control of the Grand Lodge of Masonry in 1783, spawned the French Revolution in 1789, and built followings throughout the Western world under such names as Young Italy, Young Germany, and Young America, with similar groups in numerous other countries.

From the Illuminati sprang Italy’s Carbonari and then the Communism and Socialism of Marx and Engels. It was in the 1880s that Marxist Socialists settled on May 1st as their international holiday. But, as noted above, hardly any of the communists, socialists, and other leftists who participate in May Day celebrations know why that date was chosen.

Skeptics and scoffers contend that there is no such conspiracy and no link to Weishaupt and May 1, 1776 for any May Day celebration or anything else. They will also deny that the Illuminati had anything to do with creation of the Great Seal of the United States. Yet what appears on the backside of the U.S. one dollar bill is Illuminati symbolism. The pyramid denotes ascending levels of power and influence erected by Weishaupt with the all-seeing eye representing his power over all. The Roman numbers in the bottom layer of the pyramid add up to 1776, not to indicate the July 4th breakaway from Great Britain but to memorialize Weishaupt’s creation on May 1st of his godless New World Order.

Soon after our nation began in 1776, the Continental Congress formed a committee and tasked it to create a seal for the United States. Secretary of Congress Charles Thompson answered the call from his soon-to-be abolished post. Whether it was he who chose Illuminati symbols and its “Novus Ordo Seclorum” (New Order of the Ages or New World Order) slogan isn’t known. But there is no doubt that Weishaupt’s diabolical influence existed within our infant nation even in its early years.

The Great Seal of the U.S. first appeared on the dollar bill in 1935. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau is credited with its placement but Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace is known to have influenced his colleague. After he did as suggested, Morgenthau was openly labeled a participant in occult activity.

Whether the Illuminati still exists under that name is debatable. But there surely is a conspiracy committed to building a New World Order. And one outer level of its conspiratorial structure gets people to celebrate May Day every year.

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.