Slovakia’s Leader Takes a Turn as Head of the EU Council

Slovakia’s Leader Takes a Turn as Head of the EU Council
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

In the wake of the British vote to leave the European Union, Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia took over as President of the European Council. Starting July 1, he will hold that rotating post for six months, followed by another head of state from one of the remaining 27 EU member countries.

Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia took over as President of the European Council (image by MGlen (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons).

Fico has always been an ambitious politician. In the 1980’s when his country (then part of Czechoslovakia) was under Communist rule, he joined the Communist Party. After the so-called “Velvet Revolution” and the end of formal Communist rule, and before Slovakia and the Czech Republic split, he left the Communist Party and won election to the Czechoslovakian parliament in 1992. When Slovakia became independent, he wrangled with fellow political leaders, suffered several setbacks, and eventually formed his own political party that saw him win election as Prime Minister in 2006. After a brief period out of office, voters returned him to the nation’s top spot in 2012.

Cheered by the Brexit result and an outspoken foe of forced immigration into his country, Fico has stated, “Islam has no place in Slovakia; they change the character of a country.” He has pointed disdainfully to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s willingness to accept roughly one million refugees, many Muslims among them. He is well aware of the ruckus raised as a result of this influx into Germany by an angry German population.

Everywhere in Europe, the Brexit result spurred an increase in outspoken objections to immigration. Fico certainly knows this and is responding to that attitude, exactly as should be expected of an ambitious politician. Just prior to Britain’s move to quit the EU, he notified EU heads of state that the Council’s customary “informal” gathering at which he will preside will convene in Bratislava in September, not in Brussels where it usually convenes. The leader of Britain will not be invited to attend.

At the September EU Council meeting, the leaders of the remaining 27 EU states will discuss attempts to diminish the clout of the European Commission, a more powerful body than the EU Council, where decisions increasingly rile member nations. “Brexit brings a new dynamic,” said a Slovak official, an attitude quickly spreading throughout Europe after the shock wave from Britain. Fico himself has stated, “Crucial decisions in the future of Europe cannot be decided by a small group of member states,” a reference to EU decision-making by the six founding countries.

The key matters contributing to the British anti-EU stance – forced immigration, dictation from Brussels, and national independence – are felt all over Europe. They will surely be on the agenda at the Bratislava meeting. Robert Fico’s handling of the conference, and the attitude of other leaders in attendance, will reveal whether the future will bring a crumbling of the EU, or a salvaging of the pact despite the damage inflicted by British voters.

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.


World Government Promoters Punched by Brexit

World Government Promoters Punched by Brexit
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Nationhood is good. World government is bad. Read about an early try at world government in Genesis and know that God Himself intervened to prevent it. Genesis further shows that God set people apart by inducing various languages which led to them starting nations.

The vote by the British people to exit the European Union is good because it restores elements of their nation’s sovereignty many of which had eroded over past decades. United Kingdom Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, a leader in the Brexit campaign, jubilantly and significantly stated that June 23rd should henceforth be known as “Britain’s Independence Day.”

The main issues impelling the people to vote “Leave” were immigration, arrogant dictation from Brussels, and restoration of independence. In 2015 alone, Britain took in 330,000 migrants, an enormous influx that swayed a huge number of voters. Veteran London Times columnist Philip Collins, a supporter of the “Remain” minority, angrily offered his opinion: “This was a referendum about immigration disguised as a referendum about the European Union.“

With a hard-won 52 to 48 majority, the people of Britain said that 53 years of membership in the pact was enough. Most had been persuaded that their country had signed a promising trade arrangement. It was certainly sold that way, not only o Britain, but to the other formerly independent nations who have joined. There was always some British skepticism about what they joined, a cautious attitude that kept their leaders from adopting the Euro currency. Even pro-EU Britons didn’t want to replace the pound with the Euro.

Over in Brussels, EU leaders now worry about rising antipathy toward the pact in France, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Hungary, and elsewhere. A total of 28 nations had signed on to the arrangement that began a step-by-step and deceitful accumulation of power beginning in 1952 when only six nations formed the European Coal and Steel Community. This early arrangement later adopted the name European Economic Community. Britain joined in 1973, the year the pact dropped some of its pretenses by omitting the word “Economic” and subtly indicating its ultimate political goal with the new name, “Economic Community.” By 1991, six more nations joined and the group’s name became European Union.

In a burst of honesty during his 2000 visit to Britain, former USSR dictator Mikhail Gorbachev glowingly described the EU as “the new European Soviet.” His remark created worries for many. Some in Britain began to fear losing their country while arrogant rule from Brussels took increasing control over lawmaking power. In 2003, Christopher Booker and Richard North issued their comprehensive book “The Great Deception,” capably tracing the lies given to the British people about the EU. Then, in 2004, this writer received a letter from an official of the UKIP stating, “The EU was sold to the British people as a ‘trading agreement’ and has turned into a ‘Political Union’ which is changing our laws and traditions.” That summed up the growing British awareness about what was happening.

A few weeks before the June 23rd referendum, a meddling President Obama visited Britain to urge the people to choose staying in the pact. At one point, he angered many by stating that should the vote to leave the EU prevail, Britain would have to go to “the back of the queue” for any UK-US trade agreement. He is credited with helping the “Leave” proponents gain more votes.

Back in 2003, the EU sought to impose a new Constitution on member nations. It openly and repeatedly stated overall subservience to the United Nations. When voters in France and Holland rejected this Constitution, the steps toward UN control showed up in a new “treaty” taking them toward a UN world government. This time, only the leaders of member nations were required to give their approval.

World government under the UN has always been the goal of the EU’s creators. But barriers have now been erected on the sought-after prize. We salute the 52 percent of Britain’s voters and trust that they will now understand how enormous has been their contribution to the sovereignty of all 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.


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.


London Mayor Chides Obama

London Mayor Chides Obama
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Left-to-right: Lord Coe, Boris Johnson, David Cameron – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting (image by World Economic Forum Flickr account, some rights reserved).

Boris Johnson is London’s mayor. He also holds membership in Britain’s Conservative political party, just like Prime Minister David Cameron who is his friend. But the two couldn’t be farther apart about the upcoming June 23rd national referendum. Will the people side with their Prime Minster and stay in the 28-nation European Union? Or will they vote to quit the EU as Johnson urges?

During Barack Obama’s recent visit to England, he managed to anger many Britons by siding with the Cameron position. Because he is an outsider, many think he should have minded his own business. Mayor Johnson quickly responded to the Obama meddling, saying that testimonials on the matter from “American presidents” are unwelcome. Obama’s statement included the following assertion: “If one of our best friends is in an organization that enhances their influence, and enhances their power, and enhances their economy, then I want them to stay in it.” Many doubt that assessment of England’s EU membership. He even suggested that a “No” vote on the referendum by British voters would place them “in the back of the queue” regarding trade deals between Britain and the United States. That got some Brits downright angry.

Johnson took the opportunity presented him by the U.S. president’s comments to list some of the reasons why British voters should want out of the EU. He pointed out that “the Euro [financial] crisis is far from over and the EU remains a gigantic engine of job destruction.” He reminded his countrymen about the promise that England “wouldn’t have to pay for the Greek bailouts” but when the need for such a financial rescue arose, “we did [pay for them].” He scorched the EU Commission’s plan to insert “a new European approach to company law, to property rights, to every aspect of employment law.” He even noted, “the EU has removed a democratically elected government – in both Italy and Greece – and installed Brussels-approved technocrats.” And he feared that such action by the EU “technocrats” would be repeated in England.

As for possible intimidation by Mr. Obama and Britain’s “business leaders, fat cats of every description,” Johnson said that it wouldn’t work because the British people were not about ”to file meekly to the polls and consent to stay in the EU that was costing them the tidy sum of “350 pounds a week.” (The British have never discarded their British pound for the Euro and still rely of the pound.) And he urged his countrymen to realize that the EU court has been “adjudicating on UK criminal law,” that “immigrants should have a job offer before entering the UK,” and that “social and employment legislation should be left to national control.”

Boris Johnson and David Cameron have maintained friendly relations for many years. But Johnson is widely suspected of angling for the post now held by his friend. Should the British people vote to leave the EU, Johnson’s stature would rise and possibly take him all the way to #10 Downing Street. Because many British voters, like voters in any country, don’t like outsiders meddling in their nation’s affairs, the comments issued by Barack Obama may have created an easier path for Johnson to become Prime Minster than existed previously. The choice Britons will make on June 23rd has even more riding on it than staying in or exiting the EU.

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.


Europe Is Awakening!

Europe Is Awakening!
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

In Europe, over several decades, there were numerous warnings about the creation of what would become the European Union. Those who saw the full intention of its early promoters sounded many alarms about the loss of sovereignty for their nations to a burgeoning “Eurostate.” But the concerns raised over previous years didn’t stop the piece-by-piece progression toward one central government for all of Europe. Many throughout the continent are now seeing where they are being taken.

“Great Britain will stage a national referendum on June 23 on whether to leave the European Union” reports The New American, Feb. 25, 2016.

In 2003, for instance, British authors Christopher Booker and Richard North weighed in with their condemnation of the sovereignty compromising European Union in a full-length book entitled “The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union.” It awakened some. In that same year, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus objected to the creation of a European Union Constitution designed to govern each of the EU’s member states. With its clearly stated subservience to the United Nations, the document stated: “… this Constitution establishes a European Union [that] shall have primacy over the law of member states.” Of this proposed EU Constitution, Klaus said passage would mean “there will be no more sovereign states in Europe – only one state will remain.” He pointed to EU headquarters in Brussels at the seat of that eventual “one state.”

In 2005, when voters were asked to approve the new EU Constitution, those in France and Holland soundly rejected it. Dealt a stinging rebuke but not a defeat, the Eurocrats regrouped and in 2006 sent the proposed Constitution (now termed a “treaty”) for another try at ratification. They didn’t send it back to the people however. It was sent to national leaders who met in Lisbon and, there, it won unanimous acceptance and became the dominant government for all of the 25 EU nations.

In Britain over the past few decades, a newly formed United Kingdom Independence Party gathered increasing strength with its call for withdrawal from the EU. On June 23rd, the people of Britain will get a chance to reject EU membership in a long-promised referendum. Supporters of leaving, collectively known as the Brexit (BRitish EXIT) movement, may well pull their country out of the EU. If they prevail, other nations where negativity about EU membership has grown are likely to follow.

On March 15th, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban delivered a major speech in which he blamed “Brussels” for the massive immigration of Middle Eastern refugees into Europe. He thundered, “Today Europe is as fragile, weak, and sickly as a flower being eaten away by a worm.” Pointing to numerous attitudes that he and others were “forbidden” by political correctness to mention, he nevertheless noted that Europe was “threatened by migration,” that “immigration brings crime and terror,” that the arriving masses “endanger our way of life, our culture, our customs, and our Christian civilization,” and that Brussels is “now making a plan for a United States of Europe” that will accomplish destruction of each European nation state. He added that Hungary would refuse to accept hundreds of thousands of Islamic immigrants (as Germany has already done) in a “forced resettlement scheme.”

Yes, many more Europeans are awakening to the designs of the European Union’s leaders whose goal, said Orban, is to “blend cultures, religions and populations until our proud Europe will finally become bloodless and docile … swallowed up in the enormous belly of the United States of Europe.” And he called on his countrymen and fellow Europeans “to defeat, rewrite, and transform the fate intended for us.” His countrymen owe him a great debt of appreciation.

Such awareness and the accompanying courage to publicly speak out about the very real threats to Europe’s nations are welcome developments. The rising tide of resistance in Britain to EU dominance is more good news. Similar awareness and courage must also arise and grow here in the United States because plans have already been formulated to do to our country what has been done in Europe.

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.


Foreign Meddling in U.S. Politics

Foreign Meddling in U.S. Politics
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

As president of Mexico from 2000 to 2006, Vicente Fox disappointed both his countrymen and his neighbors in the United States. Concerned Americans were already feeling the effects of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that spurred the flood of migration into the U.S. It also paved the way for relocation of numerous industries and countless jobs to Mexico after its passage.

President George W. Bush, Mexico’s President Vicente Fox and Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, right, stand in front of the Chichen-Itza Archaeological Ruins Thursday, March 30, 2006. White House photo by Kimberlee Hewitt.

Soon after his surprising election victory that broke a 70-year stranglehold on the Mexican presidency held by the the PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional), Fox became Mexico’s leading cheerleader for NAFTA, even, as the Wall Street Journal noted, calling for it to become “something like the European Union.” In 2002, he told an audience in Spain of his goal: “Eventually our long-range objective is to establish … an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.”

NAFTA opened the floodgates for U.S. factories to close their doors and head for Mexico’s lower worker pay. Many U.S. workers lost their livelihoods and the bleeding hasn’t stopped. General Motors will soon open a huge automobile production facility in the middle of Mexico. But the harm done to U.S. manufacturing and workers isn’t the only negative aspect of NAFTA because America’s sovereignty is at stake should a Fox-backed plan to merge Canada, the U.S., and Mexico into a North American Union materialize. That would constitute a huge step toward building a Western Hemisphere union similar to the European Union that has already compromised the independence of its 28 member nations.

Based on his statements and performance, it’s easy to classify Vicente Fox as a world government booster. But many in England are now backing a plan to have their nation quit the European Union. Other Europeans are reconsidering their entanglement in the EU because they increasingly realize that the pact they thought was merely a trade agreement has become their de facto ruler. The rush toward a “new world order” has been slowed in Europe but Fox has cheered building it in the Western hemisphere.

It comes as little surprise, therefore, to hear Fox outspokenly injecting himself into current race for the presidency here in America. GOP frontrunner Donald Trump has stirred Fox’s ire with his plan to build a fence along the Mexico-U.S. border and to have Mexico pay for it with tariffs on Mexican goods heading north. Trump has also pointed to the cascade of drugs and crime that entered through the America’s porous southern border.

From his home in south-central Mexico, Fox has brazenly called on Americans to reject Trump. He adds that Hillary Clinton will “save” the U.S. from a “Trumpist nightmare” and that Donald Trump is “making the United States look very bad.”

Trump ought to remind Fox that his own people thought so little of the leadership he gave them that millions fled to the United States.

Foreign leaders are certainly entitled to their opinion regarding candidates for office in other countries. But they ought to keep their choices to themselves. In this instance, however, Vicente Fox’s openly stated choice of Hillary Clinton and his distaste for Donald Trump will likely help swell support for the real estate mogul in his bid for the U.S. presidency.

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.


Brexit: EU on Trial

Brexit: EU on Trial
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

England’s Prime Minister David Cameron has announced he will make good on a promise made in 2013. Even though very opposed to Britain leaving the European Union, he has scheduled a national referendum on the matter of membership for June 23rd. The possible loss of the second largest contributor to the EU budget has the moguls managing the Brussels-based EU quite worried. Cameron will do all he can to persuade his countrymen to remain tied to the 28-member super government knowing that other EU member nations may follow if Britain leaves.

Online petition for UK to leave the EU.

England has been a member of the EU since its founding by virtue of already holding membership in the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1973, the EEC was known as the Common Market, a clever but deceitful name persuading many to think their country would benefit from increased trade and nothing more. But after Britain and other European leaders signed the Maastricht Treaty of 1993, the EEC became the European Union and member countries were now not only trading goods; they were trading away sovereignty.

Britain’s membership in the EU is somewhat unique in that the nation variously known as the United Kingdom has never given up its own currency. Where the Euro prevails in almost all of the 28 formerly independent nations, including nearby Ireland, the British pound still exists and is a constant reminder for many Britons of the desire to remain aloof from the many political and economic ties to the continent. Resistance to being dominated by a multiplicity of EU regulations and subjection to the decisions of the European Court of Justice have led many to prefer to quit the EU and go it alone.

In 1994, a Referendum Party formed by Sir James Goldsmith gathered support from many desirous of exiting the EU. But it never gathered enough strength to force a vote on membership and faded out of existence. Almost simultaneously, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) arose and has attracted greater support. UKIP members even won a few seats in Parliament but its main effect has been to increase opposition to the EU.

Soon after Prime Minister Cameron’s Conservative Party won the 2015 election, Parliament passed the EU Referendum Act and the fight to stay or leave the EU captured the nation’s attention. Those who want out are referred to as advocates of a “Brexit,” a cleverly coined term formed from the words Britain and exit. Though an opponent of quitting, Cameron has released his party’s membership from any requirement that they oppose Brexit. A recent count shows that 140 of the 330 Conservative members of Parliament, including half a dozen cabinet ministers, support breaking away. Their numbers are growing. London’s popular Mayor Boris Johnson has announced favoring Brexit even though he is a Conservative Party member and Cameron’s close ally.

Here in America, the Obama administration has proposed the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that will initiate a tying of the United States to the European Union. Just as small steps resulted in Britain becoming subject to the huge EU bureaucracy in Brussels, passage of the TTIP will start in the process of having the United States similarly subjected to Brussels. Should Brexit partisans prevail in the June referendum, prospects for congressional passage of the TTIP will surely be dealt a crippling blow. In what surely would be a huge bit of historical irony, English voters, whether they know it or not, stand poised to provide assistance in the campaign here in breakaway America to scuttle entanglement of our nation in the sovereignty-compromising EU.

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.


New Debunking of Global Warming Claims

New Debunking of Global Warming Claims
by JBS President John F. McManus

British journalist Christopher Booker became well known in 2003 when he collaborated with former European Union researcher Richard North to issue “The Great Deception,” a critical history of the enormous amount of deceit leading to the creation of the European Union. He has also written “The Real Global Warming Disaster,” a 2009 expose of unproven claims about global warming that includes a well-researched condemnation of the costly and unnecessary solutions to the warming problem that he insists doesn’t exist.

Support for Booker’s view that global warming isn’t threatening mankind recently appeared in the work of U.S. scientist Steven Goddard. Pointing an accusing finger at the America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Goddard shows that its U.S. Historical Climatology Network has been “adjusting” its conclusions and substituting “fabricated” temperature data produced by computer models in the place of actual temperature readings. According to Booker, Goddard’s research shows that “the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s,” the hottest decade on record.

On July 28th, a resolution submitted by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) sought to place the Senate on record with a claim that global warming was real. She insisted, “We have a problem” that ought to be dealt with. Senator Barbara Boxer (R-Calif.) supported the resolution saying, “All we wanted to say is climate change is happening.”

But Senator James Inhofe disagreed with his colleagues and blocked the measure. Insisting that “we” don’t know that such a problem exists, Inhofe suggested instead that other parts of the international community are turning away from claims regarding warming. He pointed to Australia’s repeal of a carbon tax that had been imposed as a way to reduce the supposed warming of the planet, something now officially questioned in the “land down under.”

Several years ago, more than 1,000 scientists worldwide signed a document criticizing the global warming claims of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Charges of fudging data and making unprovable claims resounded as the scientists, many of whom called for the IPCC leaders to be fired, added their names to a growing list of “climate change skeptics.”

Of the insistence of global warming or climate change advocates, Christopher Booker concludes: “Any theory needing to rely so consistently of fudging the evidence must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply an alarming study in the aberrations of group psychology.” Debunking unproven claims about the earth heating up is indeed welcome news.