The Importance of a Moral Foundation

The Importance of a Moral Foundation
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Yuri Bezmenov defected from Soviet Russia 40-plus years ago. A veteran of years of service in Moscow’s dreaded KGB, he eventually came to the West and then traveled through our country delivering his unique wake-up call. Members of The John Birch Society gathered most of his audiences. The warning he gave is needed even more today.

The Ten Commandments as seen at the Herring family cemetery on Hollow Bridge Road near Autryville, NC (Flickr photo from Gerry Dincher, some rights reserved).

Bezmenov (who adopted the name Tomas Shuman) would freely express his disappointment that so few Americans had any awareness of the steady undermining of their country’s basic foundations. He told all he could reach that America suffered not from espionage, which the KGB considered a minor undertaking, but from “ideological subversion.” What was occurring, he explained, could also be termed “psychological warfare.” Its result brings about a population unable “to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.”

“The process leading to destruction of the United States as a free and independent country,” said Bezmenov, “starts with demoralization, the turning away from foundational truths. In place of that foundation, Marxism-Leninism would be subtly but effectively introduced.” The undermining of America, he insisted, was being “done by Americans to Americans thanks to a lack of moral standards.” The fruit of this type of demoralization, he pointed out, is that a person becomes “unable to assess true information, and facts mean nothing to him even if he is showered with authentic information.”

Were Yuri Bezmenov alive today, he would point to the millions who supported Bernie Sanders during that self-identified socialist’s campaign to become U.S. president. He would point to the supporters of Hillary Clinton, who, though she is not an admitted socialist, differs with Sanders only marginally. In some ways, Mrs. Clinton is even more to be feared because of her attitude expressed openly to an assemblage of gay, transgender, and pro-abortion activists at the United Nations. She told her adoring crowd that America’s “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

There is much more that Bezmenov sought to explain to Americans. But his emphasis on the undermining of morality as the starting point in the campaign to destroy a nation deserves attention. Cleared of all its obfuscating wrappings, socialism is theft. Sad to say, many Americans have become captivated by its thievery in that they want a supposed free ride for things their parents worked for. And they want confiscation of wealth because they have been convinced that wealthy people are thieves. They know little or nothing about our nation’s foundations contained in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Nor do have any awareness of sound economic principles. Ask them about these fundamentals and expect to be told to cease referring to the “horse and buggy” days of the past.

About morality, John Adams once stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Government, in his view, should be a negative force, not a positive force for taking care of people who should take care of themselves. The people should guide their own conduct through such oldies as the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

And John Birch Society Founder Robert Welch frequently insisted: “Morality sees farther than intellect.” What good is there in the efforts of a very intelligent person, he explained, if that person has no moral base and uses his brilliance exclusively for self-aggrandizement?

Yuri Bezmenov hoped there could be some kind of strong national effort to educate people about the real spirit of patriotism.” Along with that, he urged a parallel campaign to explain “the real danger of a socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government.” And he saw in The John Birch Society the kind of institution that could reverse the already widespread demoralization throughout America – if it became large enough. His message, given decades ago, is still very much needed today.

Learn what you can do to Choose Freedom — Support Morality at The John Birch Society’s 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.


World Government Promoters Punched by Brexit

World Government Promoters Punched by Brexit
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Nationhood is good. World government is bad. Read about an early try at world government in Genesis and know that God Himself intervened to prevent it. Genesis further shows that God set people apart by inducing various languages which led to them starting nations.

The vote by the British people to exit the European Union is good because it restores elements of their nation’s sovereignty many of which had eroded over past decades. United Kingdom Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, a leader in the Brexit campaign, jubilantly and significantly stated that June 23rd should henceforth be known as “Britain’s Independence Day.”

The main issues impelling the people to vote “Leave” were immigration, arrogant dictation from Brussels, and restoration of independence. In 2015 alone, Britain took in 330,000 migrants, an enormous influx that swayed a huge number of voters. Veteran London Times columnist Philip Collins, a supporter of the “Remain” minority, angrily offered his opinion: “This was a referendum about immigration disguised as a referendum about the European Union.“

With a hard-won 52 to 48 majority, the people of Britain said that 53 years of membership in the pact was enough. Most had been persuaded that their country had signed a promising trade arrangement. It was certainly sold that way, not only o Britain, but to the other formerly independent nations who have joined. There was always some British skepticism about what they joined, a cautious attitude that kept their leaders from adopting the Euro currency. Even pro-EU Britons didn’t want to replace the pound with the Euro.

Over in Brussels, EU leaders now worry about rising antipathy toward the pact in France, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Hungary, and elsewhere. A total of 28 nations had signed on to the arrangement that began a step-by-step and deceitful accumulation of power beginning in 1952 when only six nations formed the European Coal and Steel Community. This early arrangement later adopted the name European Economic Community. Britain joined in 1973, the year the pact dropped some of its pretenses by omitting the word “Economic” and subtly indicating its ultimate political goal with the new name, “Economic Community.” By 1991, six more nations joined and the group’s name became European Union.

In a burst of honesty during his 2000 visit to Britain, former USSR dictator Mikhail Gorbachev glowingly described the EU as “the new European Soviet.” His remark created worries for many. Some in Britain began to fear losing their country while arrogant rule from Brussels took increasing control over lawmaking power. In 2003, Christopher Booker and Richard North issued their comprehensive book “The Great Deception,” capably tracing the lies given to the British people about the EU. Then, in 2004, this writer received a letter from an official of the UKIP stating, “The EU was sold to the British people as a ‘trading agreement’ and has turned into a ‘Political Union’ which is changing our laws and traditions.” That summed up the growing British awareness about what was happening.

A few weeks before the June 23rd referendum, a meddling President Obama visited Britain to urge the people to choose staying in the pact. At one point, he angered many by stating that should the vote to leave the EU prevail, Britain would have to go to “the back of the queue” for any UK-US trade agreement. He is credited with helping the “Leave” proponents gain more votes.

Back in 2003, the EU sought to impose a new Constitution on member nations. It openly and repeatedly stated overall subservience to the United Nations. When voters in France and Holland rejected this Constitution, the steps toward UN control showed up in a new “treaty” taking them toward a UN world government. This time, only the leaders of member nations were required to give their approval.

World government under the UN has always been the goal of the EU’s creators. But barriers have now been erected on the sought-after prize. We salute the 52 percent of Britain’s voters and trust that they will now understand how enormous has been their contribution to the sovereignty of all nations.

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.


Is the US Capitulating to an Enemy Within?

Is the US Capitulating to an Enemy Within?
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Former House member Michele Bachmann represented Minnesota’s 6th district during the years 2007-2015. Conservatives generally call her record “admirable.” But she declined to run for reelection in 2014 even while insisting that she would continue involvement in the political arena.

New book “exposes a federal government capitulating to an enemy within and punishing those who reject its narrative” (WND image).

During her last four years in office, she won appointment to the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence, the congressional panel assigned to delve into terrorism within our nation. In that work, she found herself frequently dismayed by testimony given by federal investigators. In comments recently provided to Art Moore of World Net Daily, she explained why she deplored what she and her colleagues heard from the government’s high-level sleuths.

They don’t want problems to be exposed; they want to look good. Our job is to find out what the truth is, what’s going on in the area of intelligence. We deal with America’s classified secrets and, in particular, our focus was on terrorism. This is an extremely important job we have in Congress – to keep the American people safe.

After concluding that the federal officials before her weren’t providing needed information, she looked elsewhere. At the recommendation of an aide, Bachmann started listening to Philip Haney, a federal investigator who eventually lost his job because he was pointing credible fingers at terrorists and their motivations. Haney had led a group within the Department of Homeland Security tasked with uncovering Islamic terrorist networks. But his work was shut down by the Obama administration because it was deemed to be “profiling.”

Bachmann realizes that the FBI had investigated Orlando killer Omar Mateen on three separate occasions before his killing spree. “He had all sorts of red flags, really blaring billboards, about what his intentions were. And we couldn’t stop him.” After newer discussions with Haney, she pointed to his belief that a connection existed between the Orlando massacre and the similar carnage carried out in San Bernardino in December 2015. She wonders if Mateen might have been constrained before he killed 49 people.

Anxious to get Haney’s story into the hands of more Americans, the former Minnesota congresswoman has enthusiastically recommended his book “See Something, Say Nothing” published by World Net Daily. The book’s title, a twist on the oft-cited plea that citizens actually say something when they note suspicious activity, also contains the revealing subtitle, “A homeland security officer exposes the government’s submission to Jihad.”

While promoting the Haney book, Bachmann accused the federal officials of deliberately concealing the motivations for Islamic terrorism. “The bottom line,” she claimed, “is an administration decision that Islamic ideology has nothing to do with terrorism. Well, if you listen to the terrorists themselves, it’s just the opposite.”

Haney has appeared as a guest on numerous television interview programs. Always agreeing that the vast majority of Muslims in America pose no threat, he nevertheless insists that some of Islam’s followers are indeed dangerous, and our own government has refused to admit this and take appropriate action.

Bachmann sought the GOP nomination for President in 2012. Dropping out early, she became the target of the House Ethics Committee and the Federal Elections Commission over alleged campaign violations. When she announced her intention to leave Congress, those investigations were cancelled.

Credit Bachmann for helping to bring Philip Haney’s story to the American people. And credit Haney for his whistleblowing efforts. Millions should read his book.

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.


Death Via Abortion Far Exceeds Toll in Orlando

Death Via Abortion Far Exceeds Toll in Orlando
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

During the early hours of June 12, 2016, a nightclub frequented by the LGBT minority in Orlando, Florida, became the scene of death for 49 of its patrons. They were slaughtered by Omar Mateen, a hate-filled American who made sure everyone knew that his death-dealing rampage stemmed from his radical Islamic beliefs.

“A young girl holds up a pro-life sign at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. (2013)”–photo from Miss Monica Elizabeth, some rights reserved.

Mass media covered the gruesome story for several days. Time magazine actually named the 49 victims on its cover while radio and television spewed news of the tragic event day and night. Clearly the act of a terrorist, the Orlando massacre shocked the nation and the world. One of its consequences saw a rise in sympathy for homosexual and transgender lifestyles. Another saw a sharp increase in the number who believe a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms should be made more difficult, if not completely terminated. And a third, boosted by awareness that such crimes will continue and grow more numerous, saw many more Americans agree to allow our nation to slide more deeply into acceptance of the political goals of terrorists.

The mass murder in Orlando was indeed horrific. But there are a great many more deliberately caused deaths in America (and in many other nations) as a result of abortion. Figures supplied by the Guttmacher Institute and others note that more than a thousand abortions occur every day in the United States. Not all, but a large number of these terminations of life in the womb are carried out at Planned Parenthood facilities. Estimates place the number of lives snuffed out in the United States since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision at 59 million. With the arrival of the morning-after pill that terminates a pregnancy within days of conception, there are now uncounted additional numbers snuffed out.

Why no daily outrage aimed at this grisly practice? Why no massive media coverage of the deliberate deaths of so many unborn babes needing only a few more unmolested months before they are born? They have committed no crime. All they need to survive is more time left alone in the womb.

With others, we mourn the untimely and brutal deaths of the Orlando 49. But we also mourn the far greater numbers of those murdered via the various methods producing abortions. We don’t accept the absurd claims of many that life in the womb isn’t life, or that real life begins only at birth. Finally, we look forward to a day when abortion at any stage of life is properly treated as a crime, a label justly applied when our nation began its life almost 200 years ago.

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 Dark Side of Muhammad Ali

The Dark Side of Muhammad Ali
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

All segments of the mass media, not to mention politicians, clergy, and entertainers, went overboard to heap praise on the late Muhammad Ali. Few offered anything about his many dishonorable stances and statements.

Malcolm X photographs Muhammad Ali after his defeat of Sonny Liston. (Photo by EPHouston (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons).

Yes, he was a champion in the ring. Yes, he showed a humorous side, especially when he knocked pretenders off their self-created pedestals. And yes, he exhibited admirable courage when Parkinson’s disease ravaged his body.

But labeling him a champion of civil rights and a positive influence regarding race relations, as many did, stretches the truth. Cassius Clay (the name given him at birth) said and did much worthy of praise; he even won an Olympic Gold Medal and the heavyweight title three times. But there was another side to “The Greatest.”

TIME Magazine devoted 24 pages plus the cover of its weekly outpouring of political correctness to laud the late boxing legend. Full-page photos of Ali consumed eight of those pages with smaller complimentary photos throughout the remaining 16. And even though TIME’s writer Robert Lipsyte capably informed readers about the rise and fall of much of the man’s career, he left out the darker side of the famous pugilist’s life. Sports Illustrated used 20 of its pages to do likewise.

Standing virtually alone, in dealing with the topic, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby acknowledged Ali’s athletic prowess but he recoiled at the praises given the man for his “civil rights” dedication. Jacoby pointed to flattering comments uttered by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, and others. Many more heaped similar but undeserved praise on Ali while skipping his downside.

Early in his career, then-Cassius Clay fell under the influence of Malcolm X, the dangerous racist who founded the Black Muslims. He quickly renounced the name given him by parents, calling it his “slave name.” Adopting the name Muhammad Ali, he was interviewed in 1968 by Boston Globe columnist Bud Collins who quoted the emerging heavyweight boxing king as follows: “I know whites and blacks cannot get along; this is nature.” Then he began associating with Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad. He even appeared at a Ku Klux Klan rally where a hooded throng burned a cross.

Playboy magazine interviewed the famous boxing great in 1975 and quoted his outspoken attitude: “A black man should be killed if he’s messing with a white woman.” About a black woman having a relationship with a white man, he said, “Kill her too.”

In his TIME article, Lipsyte included the contrary opinion of Floyd Patterson, one of Ali’s opponents and himself a black American. Considered a crusader for Christianity and America, Patterson offered, “The image of a Black Muslim as a world heavyweight champion disgraces the sport and the nation. Cassius Clay must be beaten and the Black Muslim scourge must be removed from boxing.” Ali was outraged that Patterson had referred to him by his “slave name.” Then he pummeled Patterson in the ring.

At an age when he was eligible for military service, he was initially deemed unqualified because of not meeting educational standards. Once those qualifications were lowered, he did become eligible but his stern refusal to serve in the military ended up with him in the courts. He was tried and convicted by a jury and sent to prison for several years. Answering questioners, he said, “I ain’t got nothing against them Viet Cong.” Had his determination to stay out of uniform been based on legitimate criticism of the way the war was being conducted, his protest would have made some sense.

Never apologizing for his racism and unwillingness to serve in uniform, and wracked by Parkinson’s disease as he grew older, Ali won nationwide sympathy for decades. But his medical problems grew worse and he passed away on June 10, 2016, at 74 years of age.

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.


Which Way Goes the Supreme Court?

Which Way Goes the Supreme Court?
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Perhaps the most important issue for America’s voters in 2016 is the future staffing of the United States Supreme Court. There are long lists of other matters to be considered by whoever becomes the next President and which party dominates both houses of Congress. But whoever gets tapped for the Court and survives the Senate confirmation hearings will, because a place on the Court is a lifetime appointment, be in a position to shape much of what happens for decades.

Would the Constitution survive more leftist Supreme Court appointments like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg? She appears above at Northwestern Law. (Image from a video from Northwestern News Vimeo page).

Currently, the Court is divided 4 to 4. Half of the eight justices are solid liberals and the other half lean toward conservative values. Since the death of Antonin Scalia, there have already been 4 to 4 rulings, a standoff that temporarily leaves the matter in favor of the previous ruling rendered by a lower court. If there is no previous ruling, the matter at hand will likely be brought before the Court after the vacancy is filled.

The current liberal-leaning justices include Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Those of a more conservative bent are Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

The age of several justices makes it virtually certain that filling the seat formerly held by Justice Scalia will not be the only vacancy to be filled.

Among the liberals, Justice Ginsburg has lasted much longer on the court than most expected – possibly even herself. At 83 and with a history of pancreatic cancer which she seems to have survived quite well, she almost surely will opt to retire soon. Stephen Breyer is 77 years old and might also retire. Sonia Sotomayor (57 years old) and Elena Kagan (51 years old) can be expected to hold their places for many more years.

On the conservative side, 79-year-old Anthony Kennedy leads in age and it would surprise few if he soon decides to step away. When there were nine justices, Antonin Scalia could regularly be found in the conservative camp and Anthony Kennedy frequently held what has been called the swing vote. The other conservative-leaning justices, each more solid than Kennedy, are John Roberts (age 61), Clarence Thomas (age 68) and Samuel Alito (age 61). None of these three are expected to retire anytime soon.

There is little doubt about the choices Hillary Clinton would make if she becomes the nation’s 45th President. She would choose liberals. Should Donald Trump become the nation’s chief executive, his choices for places on the Supreme Court would likely lean conservative though that lean would not be not as pronounced as would be the liberals Clinton would nominate.

In mid-May, Trump took the unusual step of naming 11 men he would consider for places on the high Court. His list drew sharp criticism from Nan Aron, the president of the liberal Alliance for Justice Action Council, who was particularly upset that Trump’s list contained the names of many she insisted to be “hostile” to “reproductive justice, and environmental, consumer and worker protections.” On the conservative side, Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Scalia, called the Trump choices “a good list of some outstanding judges who give ample sign of being faithful to the Constitution.”

America’s Founders expected the Supreme Court to be the least powerful of the three branches of government. But their attitude has largely been cast aside because the Court now makes law. Because such great power resides in the judgments of the nine seated at the Court, America’s voters should hardly overlook what the future makeup of the Supreme Court will be when they pull a lever or ink a ballot in November.

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.


Orlando Was Not a Senseless Crime

Orlando Was Not a Senseless Crime
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Headlines and electronic media have been full of the gory details surrounding the horrendous crime in Orlando. At least 50 are dead (one being the killer) and more are wounded. But many reporters and commentators have claimed that the rampage was a “senseless” crime. That assessment is itself senseless.

Omar Mateen (Photo by Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Omar Mateen: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons).

Omar Mateen, an American citizen, was born in New York City into a Muslim family. In 2006, he earned an associate degree in criminal justice technology. After a few years of bouncing from one job to another, he found steady employment as a security guard. In 2009, he got married and bought a home. But the marriage ended in divorce after, according to his wife, he had abused her. By 2013, co-workers reported suspicions that he possessed ties to terrorism. The FBI investigated him twice but found no reason to act on the worries of the co-workers.

In an interview with ABC News, his ex-wife and his father claim that he was not radicalized, yet when the ex-wife was interviewed by federal authorities, she said he was radicalized within the last year.

During his deadly rampage, Mateen shouted “Allahu Akbar,” a phrase regularly used by Muslims at the start of prayers and other occasions. Among several meanings, the most popular is “God (or Allah) is great!” He called 911 during the shooting and stated allegiance to ISIS, a revealing fact confirmed by California Congressman Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

What motivated this man to kill so many others? Why did he commit his crime when he certainly could expect to be gunned down himself?

President Obama termed Mateen’s horrific deed “an act of terror and an act of hate.” But he carefully avoided what else the crime was – the act of a radical Islamic terrorist. Marine Corps University instructor Sebastian Gorka said it amounted to “individual jihad.” Security Policy Analyst Clare Lopez said Mateen’s crime was not the act of a “lone wolf,” but that of a deliberate individual concretely carrying out his obligations of Sharia.

According to the Telegraph, Syed Shafeeq Rahman, the imam of Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, where the gunman prayed four days a week, said his moque’s teaching is “peaceful and moderate.” Regarding radicalization, he said, “This is nothing that the Mosque is teaching them. They get it from the Internet.”

He continued, “It is not written in the religion that you go and kill 50 people in the middle of the night. So if he blames religion for it, he has to explain it- where do you get it from?”

The article states another young man who occasionally visited the mosque became America’s first suicide bomber in Syria in 2014.

Fox News reported that the gunman was enrolled in the online Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary run by Marcus Dwayne Robertson. Here is an excerpt from the article explaining more about Robertson:

FoxNews.com has reported extensively on Robertson, a former U.S. Marine who served as a bodyguard to the Blind Sheik involved in the 1993 World Trade Center Attack and led a gang of New York bank robbers called “Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves” before resurfacing in Orlando, where he started an Islamic seminary.

The school, recently renamed the Timbuktu Seminary, is operated by Robertson, a 47-year-old firebrand known to his thousands of followers as Abu Taubah.

Robertson, who recently spent four years in prison in Florida on illegal weapons and tax fraud charges before being released by a Florida judge one year ago, has openly and enthusiastically preached against homosexuality.

Robertson is reportedly being questioned by federal authorities.

In 2006, Pentagon-based U.S. intelligence analysts issued a document entitled Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers. It concluded that “most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Quran who are motivated by its violent commands.” The analysts noted: “The selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam’s enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action.”

Vast numbers of Muslims want to be left alone to raise their families and live in peace. They do not become jihadists. But even if a minuscule amount of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims become radicalized, the non-Muslim world must be on guard.

Omar Mateen’s rampage wasn’t “senseless.” Nor could the murders and mayhem committed by the San Bernardino pair, the Boston bombers, the Fort Hood killer, and so many other criminals be deemed “senseless.” These were deliberate deeds carried out by deliberate individuals. It is senseless, and potentially even suicidal, to conclude otherwise.

Editor’s Note: Keep up with The New American’s coverage of this as a more comprehensive profile takes shape of who exactly was Omar Mateen, from an alleged homosexual to a security guard working as a Department of Homeland Security contractor.

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.