Transgenders in the Military: the Newest Social Experiment
Posted: August 31, 2017 Filed under: Military | Tags: American troops, gender, military, President Trump, transgender, women in the military 1 CommentTransgenders in the Military: the Newest Social Experiment
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
My 1995 book entitled Changing Commands: The Betrayal of America’s Military devoted an entire chapter to the wrongness of welcoming females into military combat roles. I lost that battle after physical standards were lowered by the Clinton administration and women found openings to hold positions they desired in the several branches of service.
President Donald Trump said that “transgender” individuals will be banned from serving in the U.S. military. Photo from U.S. Central Command by Myles Cullen, public domain.
I never thought in 1995 that there would be a similar drive to open the military to “transgender” individuals. Some of the arguments I employed in the attempt to keep Susie and Liz from combat positions apply in the fight to bar those who seek to change what has always been considered unchangeable.
Here’s the most basic consideration I pointed to in 1995: “Wearing of the uniform of this nation shouldn’t be considered a right; it’s a privilege.” Yes, a privilege!
People no more have a right to a job in the military than they have a right to a job in any other profession. If standards exist for hiring steel makers, drivers of 18-wheel trucks, heavy equipment operators, and more, there can and should be standards for serving in the military, not only mental standards but also those in the physical realm.
The book I penned in 1995 stated: “If the military can properly exclude some persons for not meeting standards for height, age, physical, and mental capabilities, it can and should exclude for such as basic characteristic as gender.” Differences between men and women should never be ignored. But that was prior to the attack on our nation’s culture that saw standards for military service lowered and women welcomed into taking a place alongside men in very demanding posts.
I had the good fortune to develop a friendship with retired Brigadier General Andrew Gatsis. This West Point grad who served 36 years on active duty became one of the U.S. Army’s most decorated combat veterans. Asked about women in combat, he offered sound reasons for his sharp disagreement with the plan. He stated:
I have personally seen female soldiers unable to lift heavy equipment such as ammunition, mechanic’s tool sets, filled sandbags, food crates, or large camouflage nets. They could not move field range stoves, teletype machines, heavy generators, or even desks. During field exercises, they had great trouble changing heavy truck tires, hitching trailers to the trucks, and carrying people on medical litters. They could not brake, steer, and drive trucks in rough terrain, put up cumbersome antennas, erect large bulky tents, construct ammunition bunkers, dig adequate latrines, or lift material off recovery vehicles.
Politicians and questionable legal experts didn’t listen to the likes of General Gatsis. They went ahead and opened up assignments in the military ranks for women that the overwhelming majority can’t perform. One can be assured that an enemy’s fighters will be men.
Today’s issue is the so-called “right” of someone who can’t figure out which gender he or she has been awarded at birth. President Trump has told the Pentagon to reject “transgender” applicants, stop paying for sex-change surgery, and develop plans for handling – and likely discharging – the “transgenders” already in uniform. As expected, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) filed lawsuits to block what Mr. Trump has directed.
HRC points to a 2016 Defense Department study claiming that the annual cost for sex-change operations for military personnel would dwarf the cost for replacing many thousands of transgender individuals already serving in various military posts.
But the issue shouldn’t be economic costs. It should be based on the indisputable fact that some are born male with greater physical assets and some are born female who lack the strength and temperament to be successful fighters. And no one should overlook the fact that serving in the military isn’t a right; it’s a privilege.
Imagine a conflict where an enemy sends a well-trained and physically capable horde against our forces – either here in the U.S. or wherever our troops are stationed. The enemy is made up of strong men who know they are men. If the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, and culture destroyers have their way, this enemy should have little problem overwhelming a force whose personnel – known to include “transgenders” – can’t even figure out which latrine to use.
President Trump is correct. The nation’s military is no place for transgender individuals.
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.
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 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.
Share this:
Debt Ceiling Will Be Raised
Posted: August 24, 2017 Filed under: balanced budget amendment, Budget, National Debt | Tags: debt ceiling, federal government, federal reserve, National Debt, unconstitutional Leave a commentDebt Ceiling Will Be Raised
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
“If you give someone the power to inflate the currency, he will.” That bit of economic truth ranks alongside any indisputable fact – such as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.
US National Debt Clock Image from Wikimedia Commons Credit: ©Benoit Prieur (Agamitsudo) – CC-BY-SA 4.0.
There’s another economic truism ranking just as high. It is: “Raising the national debt ceiling will soon be followed by a need to do so again.” In other words, refusal to address the problem of national indebtedness in the proper manner – reducing the size of bloated government – will assure that the problem will only invite more increases.
The federal government will reach its allowable indebtedness on September 29th. If congressional permission to exceed the amount of red ink currently allowed isn’t forthcoming prior to the September date, the U.S. government will then be in default, something no sane person wants. Failure to increase the debt ceiling will bring about an unwanted economic catastrophe. So we can expect Congress to pass an increase just as surely as we can expect today’s sun to set in the west.
Speaking at an event in his home state of Kentucky on August 21st, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s Majority Leader, announced, “There is zero chance – no chance – we will not raise the debt ceiling.” People in that audience were assured, therefore, that reckless government spending would increase. Sleep well, fellow Americans.
McConnell and practically all of his congressional colleagues in both the Senate and the House will tell anyone they have no choice, that it’s either more debt or default. It’s a classic case of simply ignoring truth. There is another alternative: Reduce the size and cost of government.
The federal government spends billions upon billions in an array of unconstitutional programs that never should have been started in the first place. Education is one. Others include unconstitutional wars, health care, housing, welfare, foreign aid, environment, and so on. Every one of these gigantic spending spigots have not only sped our nation into near insolvency, the efforts of each have made matters worse in each of the areas where their illegal and unconstitutional activity has become common. Educational quality has plummeted; federal housing projects have become death traps; the cost of medical care has risen and forecasts of its availability are unsettling to say the least.
Very few Americans are aware that the U.S. government already includes owing both China and Japan more than one trillion dollars. Lesser amounts, hardly inconsequential because they haven’t exceeded the trillion dollar threshold, are owed to other nations. The admitted national debt already tops $20 trillion, a figure that makes the U.S. the most heavily indebted nation in all of history.
Can debt holders such as China (that’s Communist China to be more specific) dictate U.S. policy? Has indebtedness watered down or even cancelled U.S. ability to act in our nation’s interests in the foreign policy arena? Have our own leaders given China, Japan, and other large debt holders an opportunity to dictate U.S. decision-making? The answers are yes.
Even worse, has U.S. indebtedness placed Uncle Sam’s neck in a noose controlled by the United Nations? The UN’s International Monetary Fund recently bailed out Greece and, in the process, required Greece to follow its dictates about how to run that once-independent nation. Is that where the U.S. is heading? God forbid that the necessity might arise when the UN would step in to bail out our nation.
Raising the debt ceiling is simply postponing a dire reckoning that will surely arrive. Reducing the size, power, and expense of unconstitutional government is the only sane policy. Only the American people can force leaders to act sanely. Will you help?
A good start would be to contact Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve. Then consider joining our effort to rein in the federal government!
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.
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 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.
Share this:
Leftist Labor Unions Losing Clout
Posted: August 22, 2017 Filed under: Civil Rights, Communism, Entitlements | Tags: labor unions, Nissan, unionization, United Auto Workers 2 CommentsLeftist Labor Unions Losing Clout
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
During August 4-5, voting for or against unionization was heavy at the Nissan plant in Canton, Mississippi. After lengthy campaigns waged by both sides that attracted national attention, the verdict rendered by Nissan’s 3,500 employees showed that more than 60 percent wanted nothing to do with the bid of the United Auto Workers (UAW) to be their bargaining agent. As expected, UAW president Dennis Williams accused the company of “intense scare tactics, misinformation and intimidation.” Company officials promptly denied each charge. Union organizers don’t like to lose. But losing has become their frequent fate, most prominently in the southeastern portion of the United States.
Image from Wikimedia Commons by Ralph Chaplin, public domain.
Earlier this year in a 3-to-1 vote, workers at a Boeing plant in South Carolina rejected a bid by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers to unionize that facility. In 2014, the UAW narrowly lost out in its drive to represent workers at a Tennessee Volkswagen plant. Unionization did triumph in a few smaller plants but, generally, it has failed to capture the lucrative larger prizes.
Only days before the recent Nissan vote, opponents of unionization publicized the case of a Fiat-Chrysler official who was accused of pocketing millions taken from a union training facility for himself and a past UAW colleague. That bombshell has been credited with swaying some Nissan fence sitters to vote against the union.
However, most of the Nissan workers had already sung the praises of the company. Paint technician Marvin Cooke previously held a position at a restaurant where he wasn’t able to “have a 401(k) and only have one week of vacation.” Hired by Nissan 14 years ago, he said, “Now I have four weeks of vacation. I’m off on every holiday. Nissan has provided a great living for me.” Working at the Nissan plant has been a joy for many other area residents.
Nationally, the UAW and labor unions in general have seen membership decline precipitously over the past 50 years – down from one-third of workers in the manufacturing sector to 10 percent of workers in all fields. Many automobile and heavy manufacturing companies have chosen to build plants in Southern states where “right to work” legislation has been enacted. These laws bar compulsory union membership in any facility where a majority of workers may have already chosen unionization.
Where labor unions originally won acceptance at manufacturing plants, today’s union membership includes government employees (e.g. postal workers) and many employed in service industries (e.g. hotel and restaurant workers). But gains for the unions in those fields haven’t been enough to overcome losses in manufacturing, the former citadel of labor power.
One consequence of declining labor union membership is the loss of financial and voting power for the Democrat Party. Big Labor, not just the UAW, could always be counted on to swing leftward presidential and congressional elections and even state races. The days of UAW Founder Walter Reuther’s prominence as a Democratic Party kingpin using UAW to push hard for admittedly socialist goals are over. In 1958, Senator Barry Goldwater publicly characterized Reuther as a “more dangerous menace than anything Soviet Russia might do to America.”
Reuther died in a plane crash in 1970, and the parade of his successors as UAW leader and Democratic Party mogul has been just as leftist leaning. So the declining membership and waning political clout of unions is good 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.
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 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.
Share this:
Background of the Two Koreas
Posted: August 21, 2017 Filed under: Communism, Military, Unconstitutional Wars, United Nations, World Government | Tags: Kim Jong-Un, North Korea, South Korea Leave a commentBackground of the Two Koreas
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
When World War II ended in August 1945, Japan’s rule over Korea ceased. Forces from the Soviet Union quickly moved into what is now North Korea on August 14, 1945. Simultaneously, U.S. forces began occupying South Korea. Having a nation divided into communist and non-communist halves would later serve the interests of not only communists but also of the promoters of world government. This unique arrangement worked well for these twin enemies of freedom in Korea. And it worked its magic a few years later by similarly divided Vietnam. But with Korea back in the headlines, a look back at the Korean War is in order.
Do you know the history of North and South Korea? Original image from Wikimedia Commons by Johannes Barre and derivative from TUFKAAP (Patrick Mannion), CC BY-SA 3.0.
On June 25, 1950, North Korean forces armed and trained by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) invaded anti-Communist South Korea. President Harry Truman responded to a United Nations Security Council resolution requiring all UN member nations to send forces to oppose the Communist invaders. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution and relying on ties already made with the UN and its “regional arrangement” North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the U.S. responded. A few other nations also sent forces but the overwhelming number who served in this war were from the U.S.
Led by General Douglas MacArthur, the anti-Communist force – always under less-than-obvious UN control – defeated the forces of North Korea and even liberated the Communist-led northern half of the Korean peninsula. At that point, the war had been won and all of Korea was free of Communist dominance. But huge numbers of Chinese Communist forces soon streamed into North Korea and the second phase of the Korean War began.
MacArthur was refused permission to bomb the bridges over the Yalu River, the northern border of North Korea. Across those structures stormed waves of well-equipped Chinese forces. MacArthur’s complaints about having his hands tied irritated President Truman. And they bothered Council on Foreign Relations members Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk as well. MacArthur was removed from command in April 1951.
In his 1964 book Reminiscences, MacArthur cited the text of a leaflet widely distributed in China by Chinese General Lin Piao. It read:
I would never have made the attack and risked my men and military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communication.
U.S. generals who served under MacArthur and his successors would later state their bitterness about the rules under which they were forced to fight. General Mark Clark stated: “I was not allowed to bomb the numerous bridges across the Yalu River over which the enemy constantly poured his trucks, and his munitions, and his killers.”
General James Van Fleet said: “My own conviction is that there must have been information to the enemy from high diplomatic authorities that we would not attack his home bases across the Yalu.”
General George Stratemeyer added: “You get in war to win it. You do not get in war to stand still and lose it. We were required to lose it.”
After two additional years of heavy fighting, the war wound down to an uneasy armistice in mid-1953. American casualties numbered more than 50,000 dead and many more injured. Now led by youthful despot Kim Jong-Un, North Korea remains under Communist control.
Economically sound and generally stable South Korea benefits from 30,000 U.S. troops based within its borders. These U.S. forces are part of the United Nations Command, a totally unconstitutional arrangement known to only a very few but rarely known to the U.S. forces stationed there or to the American people. The real winner of the Korean War has always been the United Nations.
Will Kim Jong-Un attack his neighboring nations? Or U.S.-owned Guam, or the United States itself? Often described as a “mad man,” not even he would be that stupid. He and U.S. leaders will ultimately do what the UN wants done as the world body continues to acquire increasing world dominance leading to full control of the entire planet.
Stop it in its tracks! Join The John Birch Society today to help Get US Out! of the United Nations!
Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.
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 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.
Share this:
Gore, the Energy Hog, Leaves Hypocritical Carbon Footprint
Posted: August 11, 2017 Filed under: Climate Change, Conspiracy, energy | Tags: Al Gore, climate change, CO2, global warming, Gore Residency, scientists 1 CommentGore, the Energy Hog, Leaves Hypocritical Carbon Footprint
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Former Vice President Al Gore wants to be known as America’s chief guardian of the environment. He’s the “Numero Uno” propagandist concerned about climate change and everyone’s costly energy use. Everyone that is, except his own.
Image from Wikimedia Commons by SSEE, CC BY-SA 4.0.
Senior Fellow Drew Johnson of the National Center for Public Policy Research did some digging and found out that Gore is one of our nation’s heaviest users of energy. His home, a palatial 20-room mansion in the upscale Belle Meade section of Nashville, Tennessee, gobbles up energy as if it were free of the consequences he regularly cites for others.
How overboard is the use of energy at the Gore residence? Johnson reports that during the past year, the monthly energy usage at Gore’s home averaged 19,241 kilowatt hours (kWh). According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the energy per month consumed by America’s average household is a meager 901 kWh. Gore, therefore, uses more than 20 times the nation’s norm! His energy bill per year turns out to be what a normal America residence consumes in a period lasting 21 years.
Does Mr. Gore run up such a large figure because he fills his 20 rooms with the tired, hungry, and poor yearning to be out of the elements and into cozy surroundings? Not on your life. Gore’s routine has him living alone (except for possible servants) without even the former Mrs. Gore from whom he separated in 2010. Their four offspring all reside elsewhere.
During the single month of September 2016, Gore’s home ate up 30,993 kWh. That’s as much energy as is burned up by the average American family in 34 months! Over the past year, the energy used to heat Gore’s swimming pool could have been employed to power half a dozen average U.S. households for a full year. To conclude that this man’s energy use is a bit heavy is no exaggeration.
Having previously been targeted by watchers of energy use as far back as 2007, Gore has taken some face-saving steps including installation of 33 solar panels. They produce a meager 1,092 kWh per month, an amount less than six percent of his energy use. In addition to the solar panels, he purchased energy efficient windows, new insulation, a geothermal heating system, and a new driveway where rainwater gets collected and is used to sprinkle the lawns. But his use of energy is still far above normal.
In addition to his Belle Meade home, Gore owns a farmhouse in rural Carthage, Tennessee, and a fancy residence at San Francisco’s Regis Residence Club. Each uses energy, though not nearly as much as the main Gore residence. Although the total energy usage at these properties hasn’t been made available, we can guess that it still uses ample energy.
Much of the energy for America’s home and industrial use comes from burning coal and natural gas (so-called fossil fuels) resulting in the release of Gore’s favorite target, carbon dioxide (CO2). His newest film, An Inconvenient Sequel, would have viewers believe that CO2 is polluting the entire atmosphere and setting the stage for rising sea levels, destructive weather extremes, and numerous other environmental cataclysms.
If only people would use less energy, then there would be less CO2 to continue wreaking havoc, say Gore and his allies. But the truth is that CO2 is not a poison; it’s a beneficial substance that is necessary for healthy plant life – which is food. More CO2 would result in more food, more trees, healthy animals, and even healthier humans.
All of this suggests a hidden motive for the well-publicized Gore campaign about climate change. Less hidden today than when Gore’s ill-advised crusade began are outspoken claims of fright peddlers at the UN and elsewhere who openly admit that their real goal is world government controlled by them. Gore is their front man who should be shunned, not lionized. Happily, a large and growing number of scientists are challenging Gore and his fright-peddling friends.
Help expose climate change for what it really is, a hoax aiming for world government. Share information on Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 in order to prevent it.
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.
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 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.
Share this:
Socialism: Sanders Compared to Lenin
Posted: August 8, 2017 Filed under: Communism, Healthcare, socialism | Tags: Bernie Sanders, communism, socialism, socialized medicine, Vladimir Lenin Leave a commentSocialism: Sanders Compared to Lenin
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Vladimir Lenin is likely found in any listing of mass-murdering criminals. He is also the founder of Soviet Communism, although he should more correctly be labeled a socialist. The founder of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Lenin knew that establishing socialism, which is government ownership and control of the major industries in any nation, is the surest way to gaining control of any nation.
Image from Pixabay, Open Clipart Vectors, Creative Commons CCO.
Lenin employed both persuasion and terror as his method of gaining power. Along the way, he frankly admitted a major element of his plan. It was that “socialized medicine is the keystone in the arch of the socialist state.” Impose socialized medicine on a population, he believed, and the path to total control has been irrevocably created.
For many years, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been considered a bit of a harmless gadfly, an outsider who affiliated with neither of America’s major political parties. That he represented tiny Vermont made that state the butt of a string of jokes. Some Americans believed Vermonters had lost their minds in sending an avowed Socialist to represent them in the national government. But that’s what they did, first electing Sanders as their lone member of the House of Representatives beginning in 1991, and since 2008, as one of their two senators.
Sanders became nationally well-known during the 2016 campaign he waged for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President. His capability at presenting his views without rancor and with a degree of folksiness endeared him to many Americans who seem to have no idea how far from traditional Americanism are the now favorite socialistic preferences.
Beaten for the Democrat nomination by Hillary Clinton, Sanders has hardly returned to his former gadfly status. He is now a leader with millions of followers who like the sounds of his promise of more powerful and paternalistic government. On August 1st of this year, the energetic 75-year-old Vermonter (born and raised in Brooklyn, New York) made clear his intention to have Congress approve “a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system.”
Sanders indicated that what he proposes will “require a political revolution.” In saying that, he is completely correct. The single payer that he didn’t identify in his August 1st announcement would be the federal government. If Sanders succeeds in getting his proposal enacted by Congress, the U.S. government would totally control 1/6th of the nation’s economy – a huge step toward Lenin-style socialism that would be nearly impossible to reverse.
Cleverly appealing for support among the American people, the Vermont socialist directed his remarks toward “men and women, gay and straight, white, Latino, Asian American, Native American … and the elderly, sick and poor.” He identifies the enemy of his proposal as “Wall Street, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the corporate media, the Republican Party, and the Establishment wing of the democratic Party.” A typically socialist appeal? Absolutely.
The proposal he offers is not unlike one crafted during the administration of John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) though it would have covered only Americans of Social Security age. It was an undeniable step toward gaining the kind of control envisaged today by Sanders. But the American Medical Association (AMA) mounted opposition and it was aided in part by a commercial featuring then-actor Ronald Reagan who called the proposal “an imminent threat.” The AMA issued a widely-distributed pamphlet warning: “Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of American life? Lenin thought so. He declared socialization of medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.”
That was more than a half century ago. The AMA has become so heavily entwined with government involvement in medicine that the alternative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) arose several decades ago. The AAPS is dead set against socialized medicine and socialism in general. It would be helpful in the fight to retain American free enterprise if the AMA would speak out as before, and if a Hollywood favorite would give the American people a warning about socialized medicine just as Ronald Reagan did almost 60 years ago.
Let’s not let socialized medicine bring America down. Support a clean repeal of ObamaCare with no replacement today!
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.
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 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.
Share this:
Gored Again By Dishonest Al
Posted: August 4, 2017 Filed under: Climate Change, energy, taxes, World Government | Tags: Al Gore, climate, climate change, CO2 1 CommentGored Again By Dishonest Al
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
The moniker “Bulldog” fits Marc Morano perfectly. He’s the founder and executive director of ClimateDepot.com, a website sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). In that role, he has traveled the nation attending advance screenings of Al Gore’s new film An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. Morano specializes in debunking the Gore claims made 11 years ago in the global warming champion’s earlier film, An Inconvenient Truth. Morano points out numerous fallacies in the first production while suggesting that the current film is loaded with the same type of misinformation. He has already dubbed the new film pure “bunk.”
A climate realist not a climate sensationalist, Morano claims that Gore’s Sequel film is a self-centered ego trip, a diatribe riddled with more inaccuracies. For an example of Gore’s previous quackery, he asks Gore about the claim made in the 2006 film that the planet would reach a “point of no return” in a decade. That decade has passed and the planet is still functioning quite well.
A 2006 prediction that hasn’t materialized saw Gore insist that Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro’s snow cap would disappear within a decade. Now that the decade has passed and snow is still there, the obvious conclusion is that warming has never happened or has been minimally insignificant.
Gore won a Nobel Prize for his earlier film, a choice that should have left the prize committee red-faced. Now a wealthy man as a result of his misguided campaign, the former Tennessee senator assured viewers in his decade-old Inconvenient Truth that the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York could be traced to global warming. Not true, according to many scientists. Same for the destructiveness resulting from Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast. Saner commentators have concluded that global warming didn’t cause these storms, and won’t lead to more storms in the future. In fact, according to a 2013 report issued by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the decade since 2006 has seen fewer destructive hurricanes, not more.
In his new film, Gore never mentions pocketing millions through contacts he has gained as a result of his propaganda. A firm he co-founded, Generation Investment Management, invested in Elon Musk’s SolarCity. By 2013, the former U.S. Vice President held an $80 million stake in SolarCity while it consumed billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies. But it still went belly up. Did that hurt the famous champion of global warming and foe of carbon dioxide? Of course not. His Solar City stock got converted into shares in Elon Musk’s Tesla.
If, during all of his crusading for cleaner air and stable temperatures, Gore achieved multi-millionaire status honorably (no subsidies and nothing but honesty), no one should complain. But he amassed wealth at taxpayer expense along with dishonest claims crafted to bring in the moolah. And he has done so with no mention of the fact that top UN environmental officials have openly admitted that their goal in promoting the global warming scam is to lead mankind into UN-led socialism and redistribution of the world’s wealth.
Congratulations to Marc Morano for his increasingly successful efforts in combatting Gore and his allies. They are misleading the American people while promoting unadulterated “bunk.”
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.
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 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.
insidejbs 