Scientific Hokum and its Destructive Political Agenda

Scientific Hokum and its Destructive Political Agenda
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

The war on the use of available energy (coal, oil, and natural gas) not only continues, it received a huge boost at the recent United Nations Climate Summit in Paris.

The doomsayers who gathered in the “City of Light” decided that the world must be saved from certain calamity by markedly reducing the amount of carbon dioxide put into the air by burning fossil fuels. But the carbon dioxide resulting from such fuel burning happens to be well known among competent scientists as the “gas of life.” Simply stated, plants eat carbon dioxide. The more that’s available, the healthier and larger will be the trees and plants that humanity uses for food, building, and more.

Orange trees as part of an experiment to see the effects of elevated levels of carbon dioxide. The result? Plants grew three times larger and produced 10 times more fruit! Photo and charts from U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Several years ago, scientists at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Arizona conducted a remarkable experiment. They planted small orange trees side by side with each tree enveloped in a clear plastic container whose top was left open. Half of the trees were supplied with ambient air and the other half received air enriched with 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide. After four and a half years, the trees enriched with carbon dioxide grew three times larger – both above and below ground – than those exposed only to ambient air. Also, the trees receiving the carbon dioxide produced ten times more fruit than the nearby trees that didn’t receive the added carbon dioxide.

An experiment like that has undoubtedly been duplicated elsewhere. It demonstrates carbon dioxide’s value, not its supposed harm. But what the Arizona scientists showed was politically incorrect. Some even feared that publicizing the results of their work could lead to cancellation of their funding by the government. No one is supposed to conduct experiments that contradict politically correct conclusions.

Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is blamed for melting polar ice, rising sea levels, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and more. But fluctuations in the Earth’s temperature have been occurring regularly for as long as records have been kept. As for the claimed weather anomalies, they too have occurred before coal, oil, and natural gas heated our homes and ran our industries.

The war on carbon dioxide amounts to a war on productivity, even a war on life itself. And there are plenty of scientists who have taken a stand against the scientific fright-peddlers and the hordes of agenda-promoting politicians. As recently as 2014, Dr. Art Robinson, the co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, obtained 31,000 signatures from American scientists on his Global Warming Petition Project. It stated in part, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” If you have never heard of this petition, its political incorrectness is the reason.

Who promotes the fears about climate change? From 2008 to 2015, Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer chaired a prestigious United Nations panel dealing with the topic. He stated his goal in promoting fears about carbon dioxide: “We redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Separately, UN official Christiana Figueres said that the real goal of the claims about climate change was “a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.” These individuals are not alone.

The truth is that carbon dioxide is a blessing and the claims of global warming and climate change alarmists amount to dangerous politically motivated hokum.

The New American, a JBS affiliate, sent a team over to the UN Paris Climate Conference. The January 4, 2016, issue offers their findings. Either download or order physical copies today of “UN Climate Summit: Shackling the Planet to ‘Save’ It.” Learn more about the climate agreement that will affect every American, and what you can do about it.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news by signing up at our Facebook page.


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 War Power Belongs Only to Congress

The War Power Belongs Only to Congress
by JBS President John F. McManus

I happened to be reading a New York Times editorial a few days ago. In it, I was both pleased and surprised to find the following important statement about congressional dereliction of duty:

… by abdicating one of their most important responsibilities under the Constitution, which gives Congress the exclusive right to declare war, lawmakers are unwisely emboldening the executive branch to overstep its powers.

The US heads to the UN when it seeks approval for war, instead of Congress declaring war. Be sure to contact Congress to withdraw from the United Nations (Image from www.jbs.org). 

That sums up what has happened. But the Times editorialist didn’t go back as far as he (or she) should have gone in history. Pointing only to the 1973 passage of the War Powers Act wasn’t enough. Our nation went to war in Korea in 1950 without a declaration of war. Though a cease-fire was arranged in 1953, the state of war in Korea still exists and shooting could break out again at any time. Approximately 30,000 U.S. troops are kept on station in South Korea.

December 1941 marked the last time Congress used its power to declare war, first against Japan and then days later against Germany and Italy when these two nations declared war on the U.S. No one should ignore the fact that World War II happened to be the last war our nation won. We didn’t win in Korea, or Vietnam, or Desert Storm. And we’re not winning in Afghanistan after 13-plus years of struggle.

When a few senators challenged President Truman’s 1950 high-handed decision to send troops to Korea, the president insisted, “We’re not at war; this is a police action.” He got away with skirting the clear intention of the Constitution regarding war-making.

In 1973, after several years of sacrificing thousands of lives and spending billions of dollars in Vietnam, Congress decided to challenge the presidential usurpation of its exclusive war-making power. The lawmakers passed the “War Powers Act” that gave the president the right to use America’s forces without declaring war, requiring only that the president seek a congressional OK to continue using troops. However, whenever troops are already actively involved in combat somewhere, it is certain that very few in Congress would cease funding their mission. The War Powers Act didn’t help the situation; it merely gave members of Congress the opportunity to say they did something.

Our nation’s forces are now employed for humanitarian missions, removal of unfriendly leaders of governments, special missions, etc. All such deployments are initiated by the President acting with illicit regal-like power. Meanwhile, the sole reason for the very existence of our nation to have a military arm – protection of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people – has been forgotten.

Of course, the New York Times never mentioned the seeking of the United Nations (UN) or North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) authorization for the many uses of the U.S. military. When permission to use forces is sought not from Congress, but from elsewhere, the U.S. has placed itself in a subordinate position. The Korean War was fought under authorization supplied by the UN. Authorization supplied by the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (a duplicate of NATO and, like it, a “regional arrangement” authorized by the UN) resulted in the Vietnam War. Desert Storm was authorized by the UN. And the Afghan struggle has been placed in the hands of NATO. The U.S. military has become the UN’s force. This is terribly wrong.

Correcting this situation requires repeal of the War Powers Act and withdrawal from the United Nations, two steps never mentioned by the New York Times. Contact your Congressman to tell them to Get Us Out of the United Nations!

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news by signing up at our Facebook page.


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 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.


Political Correctness Gone Amuck

Political Correctness Gone Amuck
by JBS President John F. McManus

Any mention of persecuting Christians spurs thoughts of the crimes of Nero or Diocletian or one of the other Roman emperors. In portions of today’s world, murdering or persecuting those who won’t budge from their religious beliefs has again become common.

In the early years of the 20th century, Christians made up 14 percent of what is generally referred to as the Middle East. Today, they number only four percent. There were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq in 2003, mostly Catholics. Today, more than a million have either fled or been killed. Even in Israel where Christ lived and died, the number has shrunk dramatically. In Egypt, Coptic Christians who formerly were left alone to enjoy freedom are being targeted. They live uneasily under the new government and the rise of Muslim Brotherhood power. Elsewhere, non-Christian Yazidis have been brutalized for their beliefs.

Catholic Fontbonne Academy (Photo by Patriarca12 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL], via Wikimedia Commons).

What about America? Christians themselves aren’t being physically abused but their beliefs are under attack. In a Boston suburb, a man applied for a job at Catholic Fontbonne Academy. During a July interview, he matter-of-factly responded affirmatively to the requirement that all school employees were expected to be “ministers of the mission.” The mission, of course, was to uphold Catholic values and beliefs. Having assented to that rule and other requirements, he was given the job.

Later that same day, this man listed his “husband” as an emergency contact. Within days, he was told that he could not be hired because his relationship with a male partner was incompatible with Catholic beliefs and principles. With lawyers supplied by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, he sued Fontbonne claiming that he was being denied the job because of his sexual orientation and had suffered harm as a result.

The case went to court and Superior Court Associate Justice Douglas Wilkins ruled that the school violated a Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. Judge Wilkins stated that the school was not exempt from the law because it was a religious institution, and that it had no constitutional protections regarding the matter.

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts protested on the basis of religious liberty found in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. Even more, the League pointed to the Massachusetts Constitution that guarantees not only freedom to worship as one chooses, but also affirms the right of religious institutions to govern their internal affairs free of state interference.

Catholic Action League Director C. J. Doyle noted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had stated in his dissent in the Obergefell decision that the high court’s approval of same gender marriage would have “potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.” Doyle also pointed to the “charade-like character” of the religious exemption to the Massachusetts gay rights law. An appeal is expected.

Forcing a Catholic institution in America to hire a man who admits to holding views that openly mock Catholic principles is certainly not the equivalent of what has transpired for Christians in Roman times or in today’s Middle East. But Catholics can wonder if their rights and those of others will be further eroded in the coming days and years. Will the nearly insane political correctness already sweeping through America lead to physical violence? Or will America turn back to the sanity and good will that marked the nation a mere 50 years ago? Time will tell.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news by signing up at our Facebook page.


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 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.


Refugees: America Not Being Given the Whole Story

Refugees: America Not Being Given the Whole Story
by JBS President John F. McManus

Not everyone is burying details surrounding the refugee crisis and the potential for terrorism. But there surely are some potentially dangerous ideas afloat.

First, President Obama wants to welcome thousands of Syrian refugees to America. Who decides whether someone is a legitimate refugee merely seeking safety and is not a potential mass murderer? The answer is the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Anyone from anywhere who seeks refugee status goes to a UN official who relies for his determination on a set of qualifications contained in the 1951 Refugee Convention. How many Americans know of this arrangement?

America is not being given the whole story in regards to refugees (Image by UNHCRflag.svg: *UN_refugee.jpg: UNHCR derivative work: Kashmiri uploaded by: Montgomery 16:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (UNHCRflag.svg) [CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons).

Not only does UNHCR decide whether this or that individual meets the UN’s criteria, the world body then decides which country should accept them. Are some being directed by the UN to go to America? Will any be terrorists? No U.S. authority knows. As in so many other matters, the UN is the behind-the-scenes controller of the situation. Mr. Obama certainly is aware of this arrangement but he’s not telling us the whole story. Will thorough background checks be made on UN-designated refugees? No problem, says the President. But not everyone believes that either.

Among the needed perspective that some are trying to convey is Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.), the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. A few days prior to the San Bernardino rampage where 14 were killed and 21 injured in what was clearly a terrorist attack, he stated on the MSNBC morning news show, “I am extremely concerned. What the President is telling us is not true.” King insisted that those who would check incoming refugees simply don’t have the capability of determining whether a refugee might be a terrorist. He wrote to both the President and House Speaker Ryan with a plea for terminating acceptance of Syrian refugees until there is “an effective vetting and monitoring process that insures our national security.” He based his concerns on classified briefings he and others in the Congress attended.

King is not alone. As recently as October 22nd, FBI Director James Comey told Congress that the Bureau is unable to vet the Syrians the President wants to welcome. He told lawmakers, “If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity – or their interests – reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.”

What concerns Director Comey is the inability of his people to know of any terrorist inclinations in such persons as Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik who killed 14 and wounded 21 in San Bernardino. Neither of these two was on anyone’s watch list, including the FBI’s. Could a similarly inclined person escape detection by posing as a Syrian refugee? Of course!

Finally, another dangerous idea floating around is one of gun control. Immediately after the carnage in San Bernardino, the New York Times placed its editorial comment not on the Editorial Page but on Page One. This admittedly remarkable departure from normal hasn’t been done at the Times since 1920. Labeled “The Gun Epidemic,” the December 5th editorial called for more gun controls, meaning more cancellation of the God-given right to be armed.

Washington D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier had already registered a “politically incorrect” recommendation during her pre-San Bernardino appearance on the CBS 60 Minutes program. If faced with a gunman, she said it would be a good idea to have a gun to use against a terrorist or a crazed individual. She gave her advice as follows: “If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down – to take the gunman out – it’s the best option for saving lives before the police get there.” While her rhetoric is to be commended, her record of approving concealed carry permits in DC appears to be lacking.

Mr. Obama’s position is totally wrong and the American people had better realize how wrong he is. Congressman King, FBI Director Comey, and DC Chief of Police Lanier should be applauded for making extremely good sense.

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


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 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.


A Welcome Endorsement for Nuclear Power

A Welcome Endorsement for Nuclear Power
by JBS President John F. McManus

Joshua S. Goldstein is emeritus professor of international relations at American University and a research scholar at the University of Massachusetts. Steven Pinker is professor of psychology at Harvard University. These two recently teamed up to pen a lengthy column in the Boston Globe entitled “Inconvenient Truths for the Environmental Movement.”

Steven Pinker is professor of psychology at Harvard University (Photo by Steven Pinker (Rebecca Goldstein) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons Wikimedia Commons).

The two men do believe climate change is caused by human action. They contend that burning of fossil fuels to produce electricity by humans – resulting in carbon dioxide being sent into the atmosphere – causes a rise in the earth’s temperature. There are growing numbers of scientists who disagree. But, unlike most of the would-be banners of fossil fuel, Goldstein and Pinker’s solution doesn’t target its use in generating electricity. They thereby separate themselves from environmental extremists who insist that the carbon dioxide byproduct of burning coal and oil to produce electricity is a hazard serious enough to ban the practice. Then they present a strong case for nuclear power.

Here’s how these two educators addressed this topic: “Nuclear power is the world’s most abundant and scalable [reachable] carbon-free energy source. In today’s world, every nuclear power plant that is not built is a fossil-fuel plant that does get built…. Yet the use of nuclear power has been stagnant or even contracting.” Their point, of course, is that by not relying on nuclear power, the need for burning coal and oil cannot be avoided if electricity is needed – which it surely is. They then make the point that solar and wind power amounts to a mere one percent of the need and cannot be counted on to meet the needs for electric power.

Aware of the fears surrounding nuclear power, Goldstein and Pinker point out that 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan killed no one. But, they note in sadness, it unnecessarily led Germany to shut down some of its nuclear plants. In France where nuclear power produces three-quarters of the nation’s electricity, environmentalists are forcing a shutdown. And the anti-nukes in America also wrongly claim that Japan’s nuclear accident is reason to abandon nuclear power here.

Many Americans can recall the 1979 mishap at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island plant. No one died and no one was even hurt. A camper who might have set up his tent right outside the injured plant would never have received any unwanted radiation during the fright-producing coverage of the incident. Pro-nuclear scientist Dr. Edward Teller worked himself into a state of exhaustion attempting to refute the nonsense about this accident being spread by Ralph Nader, Jane Fonda, and others. He actually suffered a heart attack and claimed his countering of the misinformation aimed at the American people led to him to being “the only victim of Three Mile Island.”

Late Colorado University Professor Petr Beckmann, the author of “The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear,” consistently sought to counter fears about the use of nuclear power. He pointed to the numerous deaths resulting from mining and transporting coal for power generation and the corresponding safety in the use of nuclear power. Pittsburgh University’s Dr. Bernard Cohen, the author of “Nuclear Science and Society,” noted the safety associated with nuclear power production. Before he passed away, he stated: “The radiation that a person is exposed to by living within 25 miles of a nuclear plant is less than he would get from one coast-to-coast airplane flight every ten years.”

America should turn to nuclear power for its electricity. We are grateful to Messrs. Goldstein and Pinker for saying so.

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.


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 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.


House Votes To Keep Syrians From Entering U. S.

House Votes To Keep Syrians From Entering U. S.
by JBS President John F. McManus

On November 19th, the House of Representatives voted 289 to 137 to block Syrians seeking entry into the U.S. The bill requires that the FBI chief, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, and the national intelligence director confirm that any Syrian seeking entry is no threat to our country or its citizens. Approximately 50 Democrats supported the measure despite the President’s strong opposition.

U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) (Photo by United States Congress [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons).

The Senate will consider the matter in early December where it faces more opposition among those loyal to President Obama. Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told fellow Democrats, “Don’t worry. It won’t get passed.” He appeared more concerned about defending President Obama’s oft-repeated desire to open the gates to 10,000 Syrians than he is concerned that any might be terrorists who would do harm to Americans.

The President has repeatedly stated his desire to welcome as many as 10,000 refugees even though the vetting process for incoming refugees is questionable. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) claimed that the President would veto the bill if it ever reached his desk.

In a televised interview, Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.), a member of the House Intelligence committee, forcefully declared, “There is no vetting as a practical matter. What the President is telling us is not true. We can’t vet the refugees. Unless we know who they are, we cannot allow them in.” Even while travelling in Asia, President Obama took to Twitter to repeat to his 5.1 million followers his determination to “provide refuge to at least 10,000” who are fleeing the war in Syria.

Meanwhile, the governors of more than half of the United States have declared that they would not admit Syrian refugees. They have expressed a lack of confidence in the screening system, saying it would not sufficiently detect and bar entry to potential terrorists. Their defiance could end up as a struggle between the growing power of the President and the shrinking power of states rights.

While the matter is high on the list of concerns facing Congress, officials in Honduras arrested five Syrian men who had arrived in their capital city via a commercial airline. The five possessed bogus Greek passports. The Honduran officials noted that these men intended to enter the United States through our country’s porous border.

While the U.S. continues its military offensive of “spreading democracy” across the world, the threat of terrorism continues. And with the threat comes the opportunity for the federal government to take away further freedom from its citizens in what Benjamin Franklin called trading liberty for temporary security.

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.


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.