The NFL’s Disregard and Disrespect of the Flag

The NFL’s Disregard and Disrespect of the Flag
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Even though many National Football League players, plus some coaches and owners, have championed Colin Kaepernick’s insult to the nation’s flag, he is no hero. As of this writing, he’s also no longer an NFL player.

Image from Wikimedia Commons by Crash Underride, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Kaepernick is the self-serving individual whose refusal last year to stand during the playing of the National Anthem and the simultaneous honoring of the American flag has spawned similar demonstrations throughout the NFL. Kaepernick sought to draw attention to himself by claiming his action constituted a response to cops killing black Americans. He offered himself as a symbol for what he contends is a form of deadly racism. He has become a hero to the Black Lives Matter movement.

We know of no complaint this man has ever registered about black babies being slaughtered via abortion. Approximately 15 million have been butchered since the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for murder in the womb in 1973. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a supporter of such carnage, noted in 2017 that pregnant black women are five times more likely to kill their unborn child than white women. BlackGenocide.org has pointed to an older Howard University study noting that black women over 50 who have had an abortion are five times more likely to develop breast cancer than those who have never submitted to the grisly practice. If Kaepernick is completely unaware of such facts, he has been victimized by the news media that now supplies him with inordinate amounts of attention.

Kaepernick is the son of a white woman and a black man. His biological father took off immediately after finding out that he had fathered a child. Kaepernick’s mother, realizing her inability to care for her baby, carried him to term, and immediately placed him up for adoption. A white couple answered the call, raised him, gave him the Kaepernick name, and provided care for close to 20 years. Kaepernick is surely not a victim of racism.

Having attracted huge amounts of attention through his initial refusal to honor the flag and the anthem, Kaepernick upped the ante by later wearing socks carrying a portrayal of policemen characterized as pigs. He never mentioned the five Dallas policemen who were deliberately sought out and murdered by a black sniper. Nor did he speak out about the black murders of scores of fellow blacks that have become routine in Chicago.

To date, the NFL’s officials have refused to condemn the actions of players, coaches, and owners who have chosen to follow the Kaepernick lead. The league has stiff rules against wearing ads on their uniforms or demonstrating “excessive” joy after scoring a touchdown. There are even penalties for not having one’s shirt properly tucked in. Should not loyalty to country be expected of millionaire players, owners, and coaches?

Claiming that the entire matter should be judged, not by a racial test but by the answer to a single question, columnist Pat Buchanan asks: “Do players, before games, have a right, as a form of protest, to dishonor and disrespect the flag of the United States and the republic for which it stands?” If so, he and others contend, then the NFL should start preparing for plenty of fans who will find something else to do with their dollars and their time when the NFL takes the field.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against former high school football coach Joe Kennedy who made it a practice to gather the players for silent prayer before a game. Kennedy was fired, appealed to get his job back, but was rebuffed by the federal court. Still, Kaepernick is a hero to many.

Patriotic and religious expressions are under attack. Ultimately, the values that made our nation the envy of the world are the targets. Resistance to such a campaign is needed. It is Kaepernick and those who honor him who should be shunned, not the flag and the national anthem.

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.


Nothing New about Fake News

Nothing New about Fake News
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Would anyone deliberately plant and then spread false information on the Internet and elsewhere?  The answer is so obvious that it’s akin to asking if tomorrow’s sun will rise in the East. Of course it will happen. And, of course, deliberate issuance of what is known to be false has lately become a relatively common occurrence.

(Photo by Public Domain Pictures, CC0 Public Domain).

Hillary Clinton recently broke the silence that has been her fate since losing the recent election. She spoke at a farewell party for retiring Nevada Senator Harry Reid. Intoning solemnly about an “epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda,” she obviously hoped that her own use of the tactic wouldn’t be recalled. But she is an expert at issuing falsehoods.

In 1996, she visited Bosnia as America’s First Lady to salute U.S. forces in the region. More than ten years later, she claimed that her plane had landed amidst “sniper fire,” even adding that there “was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” Several news sources eventually debunked the story, some citing Major General William Nash, the U.S. commander in Bosnia who said there was no such “sniper fire.” The fake news she issued was surely delivered to advance her desire to be known as courageous.

Mrs. Clinton would later tell news sources that her daughter Chelsea narrowly managed to flee the vicinity of the Twin Towers in 2001 as those buildings crashed to the earth. Supposedly, Chelsea was fortunate to run away from all of the destructiveness. But Chelsea was nowhere near the site of the 9/11 destruction on that fateful day.

As Secretary of State in 2012, Mrs. Clinton blamed  an inconsequential anti-Islam video made in in Los Angeles for the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. The U.S. ambassador and three others died in that skirmish. But the privately made video wasn’t the reason for the attack at all. Her planting of that bit of fake news went so far as to tell the mother of one of the deceased Americans that the video alone led to the four deaths. She sought to cover up her own inadequacies with that bit of false news.

Fake news has sometimes spawned enormous consequences. In August 1964, President Lyndon Johnson pointed to an attack on U.S. warships by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. The supposed attack spawned congressional passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that led to a huge escalation of the war in Vietnam. But there was no such attack by enemy torpedo boats according to U.S. pilots flying over the area at the time. The mythical Tonkin incident was fake news used by those anxious to expand the war in Vietnam.

In 1963, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren placed blame for the assassination of President Kennedy on the right wing. There was no evidence to back up that assertion but it did result in a few bricks being thrown through the windows of The John Birch Society headquarters in Massachusetts. Fake news does lead to real action.

Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or with the brick throwing. But her use of fake news for her own purposes makes her a leader in the fake news field. In her speech honoring Harry Reid, she called for congressional hearings and eventual legislation to deal with the “epidemic” of fake news that places “lives of ordinary people at risk.” She places herself as a leader in efforts to cancel the right to – rightly or wrongly – discuss political issues.

She knows what can happen when falsehoods are spread, especially when spread by people who are supposed to be reliable. Her newly outspoken concern about falsehoods may indicate her desire for government control of the Internet where false news has found a home.

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.


Score a Big Win For Homosexuality: What Has Happened to Morality?

Score a Big Win For Homosexuality: What Has Happened to Morality?
By JBS President John F. McManus

In days gone by, the incident would never have occurred. Nor would objecting to it have triggered a disciplinary response. But these aren’t ordinary days.

Michael Sam is a football player. While finishing up his college career, he won plaudits from the usual corners for announcing that he was a homosexual. Selected by a National Football League team in the annual draft of future players, he celebrated by promptly and publicly planting a kiss on his male friend while TV cameras were rolling. Already elevated to national prominence and lauded for “courage” and “forward thinking” by the customary gaggle of media leftists, Sam’s gesture rocketed him to fame.

Not everyone applauded the male-to-male display of affection. One who disagreed and said so is Miami Dolphin player Don Jones. He tweeted that he was disgusted, even offended, by what Sam had done in front of national television cameras. For registering that stance, Jones was fined by the Dolphins and banned from attending team activities until he undergoes “training for his recent comments made on social media.” He was disciplined for expressing distaste for Sam’s conduct but even more for indicating opposition to homosexuality.

Ultimately, it isn’t what Jones stated that had to be combated. It isn’t even that Sam is a homosexual willing to flaunt his choice of lifestyle before the public. In a land where free speech is supposed to be guaranteed by the First Amendment, is it no longer possible for someone to express disagreement over conduct that has heretofore been regarded as detestable. Does the comment made by Jones merit dragging him into a session with some sociologists who will work him over to improve his attitude or, at a minimum, keep him from expressing it? How is this Miami Dolphin response different from the reeducation camps that were routinely conducted by communist cadres in Vietnam, China, and elsewhere? Do “thought police” belong in the NFL? Or anywhere in America?

The Dolphin front office doesn’t have to keep Jones on their team. As an employer, they can simply tell him he’s no longer wanted. But that’s not what they did. They obviously want the homosexual lifestyle brought more into the mainstream and they took swift action to demonstrate their preference. By their action, the Dolphin leaders sent a message to all in the NFL and to its millions of fans that homosexuality must now be accepted and no protest, even a tiny negative comment about it in a tweet, will be tolerated. Jones, who objected, not to homosexuality itself but to its public display, got punished. As far as we know, Sam’s televised display of contempt for traditional mores didn’t draw any rebuke from the team that chose him. In some circles, it even drew applause.

Traditional morality took a hit in this instance. This places the incident far beyond the matter of free speech. Will a marriage for Sam and his partner be next? Why not in this “anything goes” descent into the swamps?