The Pacific Trade Agreement is an Attack on Sovereignty

The Pacific Trade Agreement is an Attack on Sovereignty
by JBS President John F. McManus

In 1958, six European nations agreed to participate in what was then termed a “Common Market.” Fifteen years later, several additional countries in Europe joined and the relationship became known as the “European Community” (EC). In 1986, the EC expanded to 12 nations and the term “European Union” (EU) supplanted the previous label. Now the EU has become the dominant political and economic governing body for 28 formerly independent European nations.

There were warnings about what was taking place. In 2003, Czech President Vaclav Klaus objected to the proposed EU Constitution. He stated: “This is crossing the Rubicon, after which there will be no more sovereign states in Europe.” He was ignored.

That same year, British authors Christopher Booker and Richard North released their important book “The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union.” They termed the EU “a slow-motion coup d’état.” Their book received the silent treatment.

In 2004, Mike Nattrass, a leader of Britain’s United Kingdom Independence Party, thundered, “The EU was sold to the British people as a trading agreement and turned into a political union which is changing our basic laws and traditions.”

And in 2007, former German President Roman Herzog lamented: “84 percent of the legal acts in Germany stemmed from [EU headquarters in] Brussels.” He concluded that his country should no longer be considered an independent nation.

In 2000, Mikhail Gorbachev, the ruler of the soon-to-be-abolished USSR, had raised a different type of red flag. While in Britain, he described the EU as “the new European Soviet.” Few took that revealing remark seriously.

It is now 2015. Led by President Obama, the United States has agreed to link arms in a trade agreement with 11 Pacific Rim nations. Labeled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the proposal has been promoted as a beneficial trade agreement that will enhance U.S. trade, counter China’s exports, create jobs here at home, protect the environment, enforce human rights, and more. But a close examination of what is known about this pact (no copies have been made available, other than what has leaked out) reveals that it is far more than a mere trade pact. Instead, it should be viewed as the beginning of a process similar to the one employed to create the European Union.

Negotiations leading to completion of this pact have been conducted in secrecy, even to the point of refusing to provide members of Congress with copies. Congress is given 90 days to mull over passage or refusal but no amendments are allowed because Congress has already given the President authority to forbid congressional changes. Not only that, TPP negotiators want to keep portions of the document secret for at least four years even if Congress okays it. Why any member of Congress would agree to all of this is somewhat mind-boggling.

Mr. Obama won’t admit it, but TPP is deigned to be the beginning step in a political and economic union that will result in our doing to itself precisely what has been done to 28 nations in Europe.

Members of Congress, both House and Senate, must hear from voters about this. If TPP isn’t rejected, a huge chunk of our nation’s independence will have been traded away. If asked, Gorbachev might even refer to a ratified TPP as “the new Pacific Soviet.”

Contact Congress today in opposition to TPP! Be sure to also call as that carries a greater impact than an email (Senate: 202-224-3121, House of Representatives: 202-225-3121).

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. 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 now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Who Sets the Pope’s Agenda?

Who Sets the Pope’s Agenda?
by JBS President John F. McManus

During the visit of Pope Francis to America, wide publicity followed the back door papal meeting with Kim Davis, the county clerk from Kentucky who had spent several days in jail because of her refusal to issue same–sex marriage licenses. The term “back door” is appropriate in this instance because Mrs. Davis and her husband were required to sneak into the Vatican Embassy through a rear entrance, away from photographers and scribes who carefully scrutinized all who came and went via the main entrance. It had even been suggested to Mrs. Davis by a Vatican official that she alter her hairstyle so as not to be so easily recognized. According to Davis’s lawyer, the pope met with the couple for about 15 minutes.

“Pope Francis meets with his former student, Yayo Grassi.” Photo and caption credit: LifeSiteNews.com

Vatican officials travelling with Pope Francis were quick to insist that the pope was not endorsing the embattled county clerk’s stance regarding homosexual marriage. They also spread the notion that the pope likely didn’t even know the circumstances that had catapulted Mrs. Davis to national attention and why she received the invitation. Within hours, these Church spokesmen made light of the secretly arranged visit and even spread the possibility that the two had never met.

But there was another visitor welcomed by the pope during his stay in the nation’s capital who received completely different treatment – from the Vatican officials and the media. Yayo Grassi, a 67-year-old Argentinian now living in Washington, has known the pope since the 1960s when he studied under then Father Jorge Bergoglio, the future Pope Francis. For years, Grassi has kept in touch with his one-time mentor, meeting with him in Buenos Aires and even encountering him in Rome in 2003. Grassi happens to be a homosexual who brought his partner and several other friends to share his latest visit with his old acquaintance, now Pope Francis.

While there were no photos of the pope with Mrs. Davis, the media quickly displayed a photo taken from a video made during the Grassi visit. It showed the pope and his old friend in an embrace. And the accompanying write-ups reported that the pope had hugged the others.

Vatican officials have come close to labeling the Davis encounter with the pope a mistake. But Vatican and media attention given the meeting enjoyed by Yayo Grassi and his friends, both during and after their encounter, was enormously different. Vatican officials later insisted that the invitation given Mrs. Davis came merely from the papal nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Vigano.

The treatment given Mrs. Davis both before and after her papal visit contrasted dramatically with that given Yayo Grassi and his entourage. Pope Francis has not changed Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality, but it is understandable if his actions have caused confusion among Catholics and non-Catholics alike as to whether that teaching has been modified.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. 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 now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Government Worker Total Grows

Government Worker Total Grows
by JBS President John F. McManus

By almost two to one, government employees in the United States exceed those in the manufacturing sector. Numbers supplied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and reported by blogger Terence Jeffrey show that federal, state, and local governments employ 21.9 million versus 12.3 million employed in manufacturing. Is it any wonder that America is slowing down?

Manufacturing continues its downward spiral, which will be made even worse with Obama’s trade agreements. Image from Astro Manufacturing & Design’s website reminding us to buy American.

Wealth is productivity. A nation is wealthy whose people use the raw materials of the earth to produce goods. Government workers, frequently impeders of wealth producers, do not produce goods and do not create wealth.

BLS data shows that 1989 was the year when the number of government workers first exceeded the number making things. That year has been followed by steady growth in number working for government and a steady decline in the manufacturing field where the things Americans expect to use are made. Over the past 25 years, 4 million more have found jobs for government and 5.6 million have been forced out of manufacturing. Their manufacturing jobs went to Mexico, China, Bangladesh, and plenty of other nations whose wealth is increasing while the wealth of the United States is evaporating.

What does the Obama administration offer to address this problem? More entanglements called trade agreements that will, like NAFTA, result in more manufacturing jobs being lost here and gained elsewhere.

Jeffrey notes that, in 1941, there were 12.8 million workers in the manufacturing sector out of a population totaling 133.4 million – a ratio of 1 person in manufacturing for every 10.6 counted by the census. But in mid-2015, that ratio had shifted from 1 person making things for every 26 people in the nation. The goods Americans want and need are coming from elsewhere.

Nothing is being done to reverse the downward trend that gets worse year after year. If the U.S. doesn’t rebuild its manufacturing sector and shrink the number of government employees, the entire nation will suffer because the few who still produce goods will be taxed to keep the burgeoning rolls of government employees happy. And they will eventually cease producing.

We repeat: Wealth is productivity. Government workers, only some of whom are needed, don’t make things and many of them stand in the way of those want to be manufacturers.

Candidates for high office should take note of these simple facts before there are so many government employees, who are unlikely to vote for anyone wanting to reduce government employment numbers, that a continuance – or even a speeding up – of America’s downward spiral will be our fate.

For more on how money, banking, and the Federal Reserve affect our economy, view Dollars & $ense.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. 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 now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Changing Names To Confuse the Public

Changing Names To Confuse the Public
by JBS President John F. McManus

When the federal promoters of comprehensive new laws and regulations started running into trouble with their claims about global warming, they decided to give their pet project a new name. So, the claim known as “global warming,” resoundingly denied by increasing numbers of weather experts, became “climate change.” The switch is designed to confuse people into accepting a variety of drastic measures to combat a non-problem that will regulate how they live.

Burn coal to produce electricity? It has to stop. Outlaw the combustion engine that’s in your automobile? That’s what these environmental dictators want. Al Gore actually called for such a measure in his book “Earth in the Balance.” He urged effort toward “the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine.” Doing so would surely impact people who use automobiles. Would it affect the earth’s climate? Competent scientists say no. But now, the climate change experts are frightening people with their new terminology, not about global warming.

These are the areas that the United Nations thinks world government should control in the name of sustainable development. How many of these areas are even under the purview of the U.S. Constitution?

In 1992, the United Nations issued the massive Agenda 21, a comprehensive plan to enact controls over all human activity. The John Birch Society exposed this incredibly draconian drive toward what has been termed “sustainable development,” and people began to oppose its implementation. So a new plan that isn’t really new but a rehash of Agenda 21 has emerged. Its name is “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Will changing the name of this totalitarian plan change what was intended? Of course not! But the general public is supposed to think the new program doesn’t aim at a loss of freedom, the actual goal.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry recently produced a treaty with Iran supposed to keep that country from producing a nuclear weapon. Any treaty, of course, is supposed to require two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate. Knowing that they couldn’t get that many senators to go along, they renamed it a “deal” that requires only a majority. But it’s still a treaty. Giving this dangerous proposal a new name is designed to get approval by Congress while it fools the American people.

Social Security has been renamed a “Federal Benefit Payment.” But it’s not a “federal benefit.” It’s money forcibly extracted from wages and employers and it’s owed to the people whose money was taken from them over their lifetime.

The enormous “Food Stamp” program is a form of welfare given to tens of millions, even to illegal immigrants. It has come under fire in recent years for its enormity and widespread fraud. So its name got changed as well and is now the “Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program,” SNAP for short. Will it still make millions of people dependent on government? Yes. Will the program still be replete with vote-buying fraud? Yes indeed.

Finally we turn to the granddaddy of all the name changing and twisting of definitions: inflation. It is not and never has been rising prices, which is what the government and the mass media want everyone to believe. Instead, inflation is creation and use of more unbacked money that dilutes the value of existing money. Prices don’t go up. The value of money goes down. More of it is needed to buy anything. Those who believe inflation is rising prices likely blame the grocer, the gasoline supplier, or the landlord. In the process, the government and Federal Reserve that caused the dollar’s value to shrink get off without a worry.

Switching names and promoting false definitions has become common. The American people have to be told how they’re being conned. Then, they’ll no longer be victims of clever but sinister name changes and word games.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. 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 now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Combat Is No Place For Women

Combat Is No Place For Women
by JBS President John F. McManus

Recently, news reports flooded the nation about two women soldiers who had passed all requirements and were now Rangers, the Army’s elite group of warriors. All Americans were supposed to cheer their accomplishment. But one of the two, both of whom graduated from West Point, stated in an interview that she certainly couldn’t lift the amount of weight her male counterparts could.

1st. Lt. Shaye Haver, Class of 2012, West Point. (Photo courtesy of Academy Photo) –from West Point’s Facebook page

Capt. Kristen Griest, Class of 2011, West Point. (Photo courtesy of Academy Photo) from West Point’s Facebook page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one in the large gathering of media representatives pressed this new Ranger even though she should have been asked whether she can manage to carry one end of a stretcher bearing a wounded comrade on the way to a medical station. Then, she should have been asked if her natural female cycle that brings to most women such consequences as depression, mood swings, suicidal thoughts, self-abuse, and more that men don’t experience. Did she know that when acceptance of women at the nation’s service academies began, physical standards were lowered? Had she read former infantry officer Brian Mitchell’s 1989 book “Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military” where he noted that when women recruits couldn’t complete a required run in boots while carrying a rifle, the new standard allowed both women and men to perform the task in sneakers? Many more questions that should have been asked can be cited but none were offered.

Having served three years as a lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps gives this writer a an excellent perch from which to answer the question, “Should women be placed in combat roles in the military?” And the answer is “No!” Serving in our nation’s armed forces should never be looked upon as a right possessed by everyone. Instead, it’s a privilege, and it should be awarded only to those who qualify – mentally, physically, and emotionally.

Retired Army Brigadier General Andrew Gatsis expressed outrage when the matter of women being given equal status with men became an issue in the 1980s. He stated:

No woman should have the right to go into combat simply because she desires to do so. It’s a matter of jeopardizing the lives of soldiers who depend on all members of the team to do their full share, and of the right of every American citizen to have the strongest national defense possible to protect his and her freedom.

A highly decorated Vietnam veteran, Gatsis had already witnessed situations where female soldiers even in non-combat situations couldn’t lift heavy equipment, drive a truck through rough terrain, erect bulky tents, dig latrines, or construct ammunition bunkers. He insisted that the violence always present during combat “calls for force, and force requires physical strength” that women don’t possess. Current presidential candidate James Webb, a Vietnam veteran, spoke out about this issue in his 1989 article entitled “Women Can’t Fight,” published in Washingtonian magazine.

There are many more reasons why females should not be assigned combat duty. Plenty of opportunities to serve in uniform exist in a variety of non-combat assignments. The current policy that leads to opening every position in the military should be reversed. A likely enemy would send only men while our men in battle would invariably be forced to carry not only their assigned load but also a portion of whatever is expected of a woman. Unit morale, the fundamentally important motivator of all troops in battle, would surely suffer. We conclude: Women can serve in the military but placing them in combat is not only foolish, it endangers all participants.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. 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 now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Is Education Truly Dangerous?

Is Education Truly Dangerous?
by JBS President John F. McManus

It isn’t necessary to explain that Hitler’s Nazi regime amounted to extreme totalitarianism. The leaders of the so-called “Master Race” considered huge numbers of human beings unworthy, even unworthy of life itself. But not all were to be exterminated. Some were needed as workers to produce goods and some were forced to become servants for the Nazi leaders.

In 1959, journalist William Shirer authored “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” a monumental 1,200-page study detailing much about Europe’s experience with the Third Reich. Shirer laid out the attitude of Hitler and his chiefs about virtually everything in his remarkable work. He, of course, pointed to several varieties of horror practiced by the regime, and what he reported about education is especially revealing.

Hitler’s right-hand man, Martin Bormann, explained the Nazi thinking with regard to the already conquered Slavs in a 1942 letter sent to a fellow Party member. In part, it stated: “Education is dangerous. It is enough if they can count up to 100 …. Every educated person is a future enemy.” Heinrich Himmler, the dreaded leader of the secret police wrote that half of the conquered Czechs would be forced to become “workers.” Those from the educated class were “intellectuals” and they were to be “eliminated.”

As for the conquered Poles, Hitler himself stated that they were “born for low labor…. There can be no question of improvement for them. It is necessary to keep the standard of life low in Poland and it must not be permitted to rise.” Addressing the potential problem of Polish priests, Hitler stated, “… they will preach what we want them to preach. If any priest reacts differently, we shall make short work of him. The task of the priest is to keep the Poles quiet, stupid and dull-witted.”

Why bring this up in 2015? Simply because the education being supplied to America’s youth parallels what was given to the people conquered by Nazi Germany, even what many living in Germany were provided.

In December 2013, statistics compiled by the 34 member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranked America’s teenagers as follows: 31st in math; 24th in science; and 21st in reading. Each of these rankings was worse than it had been over the preceding three years. Each continues to sink.

So what have the nation’s educrats done to address the continuing slide? They gave America’s students Race to the Top, Outcome Based Education, Goals 2000, and No Child Left Behind. None of those programs helped to reverse the downward trend. Now they have produced Common Core, which is being resisted by many because it, too, will not bring improvement. It will lead even more surely to the kind of uneducated worker bees sought in years past by the Nazi regime.

“Crimes of the Educators” reveals how the architects of America’s public school disaster implemented a plan to socialize the United States by knowingly and willingly dumbing down the population, a mission closer to success than ever before as the Obama administration works relentlessly to nationalize K-12 schooling with Common Core.

To learn more about how America’s education system became such a failure, we recommend reading “Crimes of The Educators: How Utopians are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” Veteran educator Samuel Blumenfeld teamed up with journalist Alex Newman to warn all Americans, especially American parents, about the need for radical change in teaching the young. Without radical change, including removing federal involvement from education (where it has no constitutional authorization), the ratings will sink further and the students coming out of the system will be ill-prepared to revitalize what was once the finest educational system in the entire world.

Education actually is dangerous for utopians or tyrants. An educated individual is a “future enemy” to a would-be totalitarian. On the other hand, he or she poses no threat to free people living in a free country.

If you want your children or grandchildren to receive a classical education similar to our Founding Fathers, we highly recommend FreedomProject Education (FPE). An affiliate of The John Birch Society, FPE provides a full Kindergarten to 12th Grade curriculum from top teachers via the Internet. The best part? It’s 100% free of Common Core!

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. 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 now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.