Swamp Critter Chosen by Trump

Swamp Critter Chosen by Trump
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Donald Trump loves catchy phrases. Most Americans have heard him insist on the need to “Make America Great Again.” How to attain such a worthy goal doesn’t require a painstaking search. A return to what made our country great in the first place is all that’s necessary. That means strict adherence to the still standing U.S. Constitution.

John Bolton. Image from Wikimedia Commons by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0.

The document governing the nation’s affairs since 1789 created strong brakes on government power and meddling. Decades of drifting away from the Constitution has led to an array of both domestic and foreign problems. Still, the Constitution is the blueprint that made our country the envy of the world. Sad to say, however, reliance on the venerable document hasn’t been the primary focus on the current president’s agenda, or that of his numerous predecessors.

More recently, Mr. Trump has decided that “Drain the Swamp” is a better crowd pleaser. To most Americans, the “swamp” consists of those who don’t have America’s best interest at heart. The president has taken a few steps toward lessening the effect of the swamp denizens, but they’re still around and more needs to be done to lessen their influence.

One who most would consider part of the “swamp” is John Bolton. But this man has just been tapped by Mr. Trump to be our nation’s newest national security adviser. It’s troubling as Bolton is the direct opposite of Mr. Trump’s early claim to be a non-interventionist.

Described by many as an experienced diplomat who served our nation as Ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton should be known as a neoconservative war monger anxious to force the rest of the world to bend to America’s will. His bellicose urgings kept him from gaining senate approval for the UN post given him by President George W. Bush. When the Senate turned thumbs down on that appointment, Bush waited until that body was no longer in session to award Bolton what is termed a “recess” appointment, a tainted award if ever there was one. Numerous senators from both political parties were wary of the man and he couldn’t win Senate confirmation so Bush gave it to him in a legal but underhanded way.

John Bolton has long been a member of the sovereignty-despising Council on Foreign Relations. It would be difficult to find anyone more committed to unnecessary war. He partnered in wanting a second war against Iraq after the lightning quick removal of Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait in 2001. As a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) dreamed up by neocons Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Perle, and Armitage, he joined with his PNAC internationalists to have Iraq invaded again. After the first President Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992, these bellicose internationalists tried to get President Clinton to attack Iraq. But Bill had other concerns to deal with and other ideas about how to create the New World Order.

After Clinton’s eight years in office, Bolton called on President George W. Bush to wage preemptive war against Iran. He has lately insisted that our nation should conduct cyber warfare against Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and any other nation accused of this new form of warfare.

The Constitution isn’t being relied upon by the Trump administration. If it were guiding the President and his policymakers, America’s troops would be brought home from endless wars such as those in Afghanistan and Syria. There would be widespread closing down of U.S. military presence in the 130 nations where American troop contingents are currently posted.

But expecting John Bolton as the president’s national security adviser to change Washington’s reigning militarism is unrealistic. John Bolton should be scorned, not elevated to a very sensitive post.

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.


“Deep State” Exemplar Peter G. Peterson

“Deep State” Exemplar Peter G. Peterson
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

In a lifetime of privilege, Peter G. Peterson amassed a fortune through a variety of business transactions, served in a cabinet post during the Nixon administration, and became a Wall Street Banker and chairman of the Federal Reserve. He gained such a high reputation among the top promoters of a “new world order” that he won chairmanship of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1985. Serving in that prestigious “deep state” post until 2007, he continued to rack up millions, wrote some books about how our country and the world should be run, cooperated in several destructive initiatives that have harmed America, and passed away at his home in New York City on March 20.

Logo of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Image from Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

Born to Greek immigrant parents in Kearney, Nebraska, Peterson was found at age 8 working the cash register at the family diner. Excelling in Kearney schools, the bright youngster from very rural Nebraska went off to Massachusetts Institute of Technology, didn’t care for its scientific curriculum, and quickly transferred to Northwestern University where he graduated summa cum laude in 1947. At Northwestern, he and its dean, George P. Shultz, became very friendly. Shultz soon began his work within several administrations as he demonstrated his affinity for internationalism and liberalism. It didn’t take long for Peterson to realize his friendship with Shultz, a CFR member, would open many doors.

Peterson soon became the top executive at Chicago’s Bell & Howell corporation succeeding Charles Percy who moved into the U.S. senate. President Nixon selected Peterson for Secretary of Commerce and even the New York Times described him as “an outspoken liberal.” Out of government, he took over at Wall Street’s Lehman Brothers where he and Stephen Schwarzman got to know each other. The two later formed the Blackstone Group and earned piles of money buying and selling businesses.

Always anxious to gain influence in the political world, Peterson along with Washington Post chairman Katharine Graham, accepted membership in the Brandt Commission, a project of the Socialist International (SI). Former West German Chancellor Brandt, an ardent socialist, led SI during 1977-1980. Only 18 members worldwide were awarded places on this panel formed by one of the world’s leading socialists. No patriotic American would have anything to do with Brandt and his work. But Peterson was pleased to be a part of it.

SI’s interesting history is worthy of a brief recounting. Begun in 1864 under Karl Marx, it suffered through a contentious reorganization in Paris in 1889, endured a similar makeover in Moscow in 1919 (where it became known as the Communist International, the Comintern), and undertook another reorganization in Hamburg in 1923. Since 1951, SI has functioned as the Fifth Socialist International. Brandt would never have chosen Peterson if he were not a partisan for socialism and world government. Unsurprisingly, the former Nebraska whiz kid won his recommendation for a place on SI’s Brandt Commission from World Bank President Robert McNamara, another world socialist.

Under Peterson’s two decades of leading the Council on Foreign Relations, that bastion of liberalism and internationalism continued its efforts to have our nation – and all nations – cede their independence to the United Nations. CFR bigwigs who never repudiate one of their own never backed away when CFR member Richard N. Gardner publicly called for “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.” That clearly subversive sentiment, published under the title “The Hard Road to World Order,” appeared in the CFR’s flagship publication Foreign Affairs in 1974. Gardner would later repeat his blatantly subversive message while Peterson was the CFR’s leader. His “Practical Internationalism,” full of suggestions about how to lead mankind into the new world order, appeared in the CFR’s journal in 1988. Never repudiated by Chairman Peterson, it and several predecessors can be considered Peterson’s policy.

During a trip to Taiwan in 2006 (a full year before Peterson stepped away from chairmanship at the CFR), the organization’s long-time president Richard Haass spelled out what the CFR has long desired. His remarks appearing in the Taipei Times included insistence that the idea of “sovereignty of nations” had run its course and the time had come “to rethink this notion.” CFR chairman Peterson, who had awarded Haass his exalted CFR post and tolerated his explicitly stated goal, never lifted a finger to challenge what the CFR president was telling Taiwan’s people and others.

No one ever doubted that Peter G. Peterson was a very bright individual. He could have used his God given talents to support continued independence for the nation that had made life so easy for him. But he chose a totally opposite path. He should be remembered as a significant enemy of virtually all that made America great.

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.


Kerry Must Move On

Kerry Must Move On
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

John Kerry is about to step away from the Secretary of State perch he so longed to have. He might have been kept on in this singularly important cabinet position if his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, had won in November. But she turned out to be the loser. And the victor on November 8th, Donald Trump, has already named his choice to be the nation’s next top foreign policy official.

US Secretary of State John Kerry visits the Kremlin, Moscow, July 14, 2016, (photo from the Kremlin President of Russia site, some rights reserved).

Losing Kerry means the “Liberal Eastern Establishment” has lost one of its carefully groomed members. Kerry entered this elitist group when he won a place in the secretive Skull & Bones society during his senior year at Yale. Elevated to membership in the sovereignty-despising Council on Foreign Relations in 1992, he has held membership in this semi-secret organization ever since. Any search of the CFR’s desires would show Kerry to be one of the group’s most eager champions.

As a U.S. senator, he was the Democratic Party’s nominee for President in 2004. Opposed by George W. Bush, another member of Yale’s Skull & Bones, the two were asked, while being interviewed by Meet the Press moderator Tim Russert, about the Skull & Bones secrets. They both deftly refused to discuss the topic. By ducking it and successfully moving on to some other topic, they effectively admitted something’s amiss. That alone should have disqualified each to be President. But it didn’t.

With the departure of Kerry from State, the Establishment loses one very determined ball carrier for its agenda. CFR members and their admirers advocate some of the most dangerous proposals put up for consideration in recent years. These include the Paris climate change pact, the nuclear deal with Iran, and the NAFTA-like trade agreement with eleven Pacific nations. John Kerry had a strong hand in creating each of these, even while he played a key role in steering the U.S. into restoring ties with the Castro-led tyranny in Cuba. He and Barack Obama got what they wanted regarding Iran and Cuba, both arrangements amounting to all give and no take for the United States. But their urgings that our nation formally commit to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate accord have failed.

What will Kerry do next? Will he hook on with one of the numerous globalism-promoting think tanks? Is there a university that might want him as an instructor? Will some corporation take him on because he has contacts with government officials both in America and elsewhere? So far, he isn’t saying. But while speaking in Washington to a liberal woman’s group interested in foreign affairs, he referred to the incoming Trump administration when he said,“ We’re going to have one hell of a debate over the course of the next few years. I promise you this – I am not going to go quietly into the night.”

In other words, John Kerry isn’t giving up advocacy of liberalism and internationalism. That he’ll have to continue as a private citizen, not a government official, is good news for America.

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.


Will There Be a Brokered GOP Convention?

Will There Be a Brokered GOP Convention?
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

As the candidates for the Republican nod in the presidential race become fewer (down from 17 to 3 as we write), and the voters don’t seem to have made a clear choice, the possibility of a brokered convention has emerged.

ABC News’ David Muir and Martha Raddatz host the Republican Debate from St. Anselm College in Manchester, NH, airing Saturday, Feb. 6, 2015 on the ABC Television Network and all ABC News platforms. (ABC/ Ida Mae Astute) Some rights reservedPhoto by Disney | ABC Television Group.

A “brokered” convention occurs when no candidate wins enough delegates in the primary/caucus contests to assure nomination on the first ballot. The decision then passes to convention delegates, something that hasn’t happened at a Democrat or Republican convention over the past 50+ years. When it does occur, the possibility exists that all primary/caucus results can legitimately be ignored by the delegates.

Labeling this eventuality a “brokered” convention is an interesting word choice. The term developed because the eventual choice of the party shifted to “power brokers,” the obvious, or not so obvious, party leaders. This convention type invites bargaining or horse-trading, and it would likely also result in bribery, threats, and other examples of behind-the-scenes skulduggery.

Looking back, we find that Republicans failed to nominate their candidate on the first ballot in 1948. Thomas Dewey, Robert Taft, and Harold Stassen failed to gain victory on the first ballot. Dewey’s numbers rose during the second ballot after persuasive forces began to flex their muscles. Taft and Stassen then withdrew and Dewey became the party’s unanimous choice on the third ballot. He lost to Harry Truman.

At the Democrat Convention in 1924, exhausted delegates finally selected John Davis on the 103rd ballot. Without doubt, the “brokers” made bargains, issued threats, and handed out bribes to hand Davis the victory. He lost to Calvin Coolidge.

Current commentators claim that television coverage of the proceedings pretty much guarantees that there won’t be any brokered conventions. I don’t agree. Today’s power brokers, who should be known as “The Establishment,” have gained control of both major parties. For many years, both Democrat and Republican candidates have either been members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or surrounded by members who were their “advisers.” Founded in 1921, the CFR’s leaders have always favored big government and eventual world government.

A short article in the March 4th New York Times tells of the CFR’s influence. It notes that Donald Trump had a “private briefing” with CFR President Richard Haass in mid-2015. It quotes Trump saying, “I respect Richard Haass … I have a few people that I really like and respect.” It also told of similar Haass briefings already for Republicans Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Jeb Bush. The Democrats who trooped to the CFR for their Haass briefing include Jim Webb and Hillary Clinton.

Among current GOP candidates, the Times article didn’t mention Ted Cruz. But it turns out that his wife held membership in the CFR until 2011. While holding that dubious credential, she worked with the late Dr. Robert Pastor in a CFR project designed to have the United States, Canada, and Mexico become a single nation.

So, will the Republicans end up with Trump? Or Cruz? Or Rubio? Or Kasich? You can bet the power brokers at the CFR aren’t terribly concerned because each will be influenced by the CFR. In like manner, they aren’t a bit concerned about the choice of Mrs. Clinton by the Democrats.

So where does an American turn? The Constitution states very clearly that the House of Representatives has the power of the purse and can put a stop to much of what is driving this country away from its roots. The CFR doesn’t control the House the way it controls who will be President. So, for those who care, the way to rescue our country from power brokers at the CFR and like-minded organizations is to elect uncorrupted individuals to the House. And if anyone reading this brief column wants to learn more about the CFR, read “The Shadows of Power.”

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.


Obama Turns to CFR Globalists To Help Obtain Approval of TPP

Obama Turns to CFR Globalists To Help Obtain Approval of TPP
by JBS President John F. McManus

The President’s campaign to get Congress to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is obviously in need of help. So President Obama gathered several former secretaries of state and national security advisers to a White House confab to get their assistance.

The President promotes the sovereignty-robbing TPP agreement at an undisclosed location (Image by Electronic Frontier Foundation [CC BY 3.0 us], via Wikimedia Commons.

The invitees to the White House included Henry Kissinger, James A, Baker III, Madeleine K. Albright, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Stephen J. Hadley, and William S. Cohen. There were others of course, but we named these seven because they’re all members of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. Expecting these CFR members to warn of the danger to our nation’s sovereignty posed by the TPP is akin to expecting the sun to rise in the west.

In 1974, CFR veteran Richard N. Gardner wrote an article for the CFR’s flagship journal Foreign Affairs. Entitled “The Hard Road to World Order,” Gardner boldly noted there would be difficulty getting the United States into “instant world government” because there would be objections from those who favor national sovereignty. So, in his call seeking a “house of world order,” by which he meant having the United Nations run the planet, he said it would have to be done via an “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.” He stated that this method would, in the long run, accomplish much more than seeking “instant world government.”

Lest there be any doubt what about he was proposing, Gardner recommended added an incremental slide into world government. His article proposed: “In short, the case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of sovereignty that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis.” Calling his goal “interdependence,” he wrote that it would lead nations “to abandon unilateral decision-making in favor of multilateral processes.”

This is precisely the route toward the long-standing goal that has been carried out by a succession of U.S. leaders for decades. America will be persuaded to give up its sovereignty piecemeal via trade agreements, military alliances, environmental pacts, banking agreements with the IMF and World Bank, and more.

Years later, in the spring of 1988, Gardner repeated his call for an end to U. S. independence with another Foreign Affairs article entitled “The Case for Practical Internationalism.” It included urging the next President to convince the America people that strengthening international institutions was in “the national interests of the United States.” The next President happened to be George H. W. Bush who repeatedly called for a “new world order” and always included with it a need to “strengthen the United Nations.”

The individuals named above are aware of the CFR’s plan. They are globalists who have made war on America’s hard-won independence, and they will continue to do so. That is why President Obama sought their assistance in getting the TPP approved by Congress.

The TPP’s text has now been published. It calls for a commission to oversee all of the projected activity among the 12 TPP member states it would dominate if formally created. This is precisely how the European Union has been constructed and its member states are now more subservient to the EU Commission than they are independent nations. And the EU is already subservient to the United Nations.

Our nation’s independence will be severely impacted if Congress approves this pact. It’s another step along “the hard road to world order” so boldly recommended by the CFR 40+years ago. The above-named CFR members will not advise the President to scrap his plan to have the sovereignty-cancelling TPP rejected. That will be up to Congress and the American people.

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.


NATO is a UN Branch Office: Another Reason to Withdraw

NATO is a UN Branch Office: Another Reason to Withdraw
By JBS President John F. McManus

In his recent article where alternatives for a U.S. response to Russia’s designs on Ukraine were discussed, a conservative commentator who calls for “nonintervention” by our nation nevertheless stated, “NATO is outdated and unnecessary.” Obviously, this individual knows little about how NATO came to be, what its chief creators sought, and how it has been used over the years to do the work of its UN parent. So, let’s provide a little history along with reasons why the U.S. should disentangle itself from the pact.

At the close of World War I, President Wilson labored mightily to insert the U.S. into the world government known as the League of Nations. But the Senate refused ratification. The Wilson plan was actually the brainchild of his top adviser, Edward Mandell House, a behind-the-scenes powerbroker who had called for “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” A disappointed House and his disciples, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, Christian Herter and others, licked their wounds and decided to form a new organization to promote a world government. Their creation, formed during 1919-1921, is the New York City-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), frequently and correctly identified as the “seat of the world-government-promoting Eastern Establishment.”

In 1945, more than 40 CFR members could be found in the U.S. delegation to the UN’s founding conference. They got their wish when the U.S. Senate approved the UN Charter and our nation became an initial member of the newest world government organization. John Foster Dulles and other disciples of Edward Mandell House (who died in 1938) led the way. Of note is the Charter’s Article 52-54 that gave authority for groups of nations to form “Regional Arrangement” to carry out UN designs.

In 1949 the U.S. Senate – spurred on by Dulles and other and other CFR members – created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson (a CFR member) championed NATO when on July 8, 1949, he told senators considering U.S. membership that it was “subject to the overriding provisions of the United Nations Charter” and was “an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations.”

One year later war broke out in Korea. The UN decided to respond. Asked how he could send U.S. forces into a UN-led war without the congressional declaration required by the Constitution, President Truman responded: “We are not at war; this is a police action.” He added that, if he could send troops to NATO which he had done, he could send troops to the UN-authorized war in Korea.

In 1954 while serving as Secretary of State and copying the precedent that launched NATO, John Foster Dulles organized the formation of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization). It was under SEATO that U.S. forces fought for years in Vietnam with one hand tied behind their backs. President Lyndon Johnson repeatedly confirmed that SEATO was the overall director of the effort. Having no more need for SEATO after Vietnam, it was dissolved. But NATO grew from 12 original member nations in 1949 to 28 today. Led since March 2014 by Jens Stoltenberg of Norway (the successor of Denmark’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen), NATO is no less a creature of the United Nations. And NATO, as most are aware, has been the director of actions in Afghanistan for years.

Much more can be written about NATO to show that it is hardly “outdated and unnecessary.” Calls for NATO to act in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere continue. All decisions to respond anywhere with military force or even threats of force will be made, not by Americans even if our nation’s might and personnel are employed, but by the UN’s NATO “regional arrangement.”

A much-needed approach to all of this would have the U.S. withdraw from NATO and its parent United Nations. But with the Obama administration led by CFR members (notably Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel), what’s best for our nation will take second place to the plans of those who are building the New World Order’s world government.