The Boston Globe Attacks JBS with Falsities

The Boston Globe Attacks JBS with Falsities
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Mr. Ted Widmer from The Boston Globe wrote a nasty August 24th article about Robert Welch. Starting with insult-laden labeling of Welch’s followers as a “troll army,” the piece was filled with errors, misrepresentations, and downright falsehoods. Anyone who finds a need for some verifiable history about Massachusetts would be wise to look somewhere other than the Massachusetts Historical Society where Widmer is advertised as a “trustee.”

A great deal of the piece is simply dead wrong. Other parts are shaded to make Welch and the Society he formed seem like unreliable, even libelous, miscreants. For the record, here are some corrections and comments about his screed.

No one in the John Birch Society ever warned that the UN was “going to invade Texas.” For all the years of my association with the Society (I joined in 1964, accepted a staff position in 1966, and stepped aside as a full-time employee in 2016), I either saw other staff personnel put down such rumors or I initiated the put down myself. Same about Obama being born in Kenya and 9/11 being an inside job. Same about numerous other rumors that the Society helped to squelch.

Welch was indeed a “boy genius” but, contrary to the assertion, he never claimed that label for himself. Others who took the time to get to know him, his history, and his prodigious intellect found that indeed, he was a prodigy at an early age.

While a student at Harvard Law School, Welch sought to correct Harvard Professor Felix Frankfurter who insisted that labor and management were “enemies” whose distaste for each other would always be a key to U.S. economic woes. Welch defended the traditional stance that labor and management were partners in productivity, not enemies – an attitude that counters the kind of Marxist divisiveness that Frankfurter spent his life promoting.

The “loss” of China to Mao Tse-tung’s murderous forces wasn’t merely a “so-called” historical event. The government under Mao took the lives of so many innocent millions that he won a place in the Guinness Book of Records as history’s greatest mass murderer. Yet Mr. Widmer  termed Welch’s seeking to alert the American people about such an enormous tragedy as an example of “extremist views.” Incredible!

Welch’s letters in the 1950s weren’t photocopied because photocopying hadn’t yet been invented. (Small point but evidence of sloppy journalism.)

The Welch-led Society opposed fluoridation of water, not because of its supposed health benefits, but because it amounted to government forced mass medication, something advocated by the likes of Adolph Hitler. Shortly after the Society found itself victimized by charges that its stand, absent the reason for its position being given, was worthy of your type of ridicule, a professor at Tufts University suggested that the then-rising U.S. population could be countered by adding birth control substances to the water supply.  And he pointed to fluoridation of the water supplies as a precedent that could be followed. Even the Boston Globe published this man’s totalitarian suggestion.

About Welch’s 1963 book presenting the career of Dwight Eisenhower, no facts in its 300 pages have ever been shown to be false. Even today, readers find the revelations collected and published by Welch to be important history. All of it should be worthy of the time of a “trustee” of any state’s Historical Society.

Earl Warren was never “hated” by any member of the Welch-led Society.  What he did to advance the cause of Communism within the U.S. caused domestic Communists to hold a huge rally in New York City to salute the Supreme Court leader and the help he was providing to further communism’s subversion.  Pointing this out, and showing fellow Americans the harm created by the Warren-led court, wasn’t “hate.” It amounted to supplying facts and perspective needed by Americans.

The Society recommended letter writing. It formed a speakers bureau. It gathered people into rallies. And, yes, it either employed tactics or made recommendations that even Communists were using – each of which was morally based, legal and sensible. But Communists use moral and legal tactics along with immoral and illegal means to carry out their work. Communists have always published a newspaper. The Boston Globe’s owners publish a newspaper. But the Society never accused the Boston Globe’s owners of adopting a Communist practice in publishing their newspaper.

The Society is frequently pilloried for not publishing its membership lists, thereby earning the charge made by Mr. Widmer and others that it is a “secret” organization. But the Boy Scouts, the League of Women Voters, and many other organizations also don’t publish their membership lists. Mr. Widmer seems to have no appreciation for easily understood practices followed by many. Publishing a membership list would violate a trust accorded to members, which is why so many organizations refuse to do so.

The Society never, I repeat never, labeled Martin Luther King a Communist. Its publications did show that he hired communists, accepted funding from communists, attended communist training sessions, and frequently started demonstrations that turned into communist-led rioting and destructiveness. It was these associations that led former Attorney General Robert Kennedy to wiretap King’s phone and take other steps to thwart what King was doing. When J. Edgar Hoover labeled King the “most notorious liar” in America, he had plenty of reason to do so.

Mr. Widmer also claims that some of “the beliefs that Birchers held were racist.” That charge is odious, something our black and Jewish members would eagerly resist.

It goes on to describe members of the John Birch Society as a “merry band of radicals.” Shame on him for denigrating some of the finest people in our nation with that slur.

He and many other opponents of our Society rely on the claims of William Buckley to buttress his attacks. But Buckley betrayed his own beliefs when he announced support for abortion, when he suggested that colleague Joseph Sobran and ally Patrick Buchanan were tainted with anti-Semitism, when he accepted membership in the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, and more. As the “Pied Piper” for the Establishment he once opposed, he became the favorite of numerous liberals who despised constitutional conservatism.

Enough! Mr. Widmer has discredited himself enormously. That the Boston Globe would publish his rantings discredits the Globe.

An apology is due. If one comes, I will gladly have it reprinted here.

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.

JBS Welcomes New National Field Director

JBS Welcomes New National Field Director
by JBS Marketing Manager Kristin Stockheimer 

Former JBS National Field Director Jim Fitzgerald has supported Chris Stevens every step of his JBS career. Starting with hiring him as a coordinator, promoting him to Regional Field Director and recommending him for the top position in the Field, he couldn’t be more pleased to have him move up. Stevens recently accepted the position and has relocated to The John Birch Society headquarters in Appleton, Wis.

Chris Stevens settling in at The John Birch Society headquarters in Appleton, Wis.

“I am very confident that we have a very capable young man to do that job, and he should be here for many years to come. I think with his attitude and his ambition, it will reflect how well we do in the Field and increase dramatically the production of our forces,” commented Fitzgerald.

Stevens, 42, has three daughters, one son, and has been married to his wife Mirelle for nearly 19 years. They made the move from Virginia to Wisconsin and are enthusiastic for him to begin working with the team in Appleton. As he dives into the behind-the-scenes process of how materials are produced and promoted, he bridges the gap from those working directly in the Field to those at Headquarters.

Chris Stevens’s connection to The John Birch Society started when he was 20 years old. He described himself as “ignorant, apathetic, and agnostic,” not unlike a variety of young people today. A stack of New American magazines turned his whole worldview around.

“It [The New American] totally opened my eyes to realize ‘hey there’s a big battle going on between good and evil.’ I figured out what side I wanted to be on and have been fighting ever since. I joined The John Birch Society at that time. And have been a chapter leader, political organizer, and eventually came on staff in 2010,” said Stevens.

His mother gave him the stack of magazines, and she received them from a Birch member. It showcases how far information and perspective can travel and the impact that it can make. Stevens encourages members not to lose hope through this battle by continuously sharing truth wherever you can.

“And so it’s Birching. You’re out there passing along information, but you never know where it’s going to end up. If he knew that he was going to pass this stack of magazines along and pretty soon the guy that was going to end up with them was going to be the National Field Director, he probably would have passed out a whole lot more,” said Stevens.

With Birching as his specialty, he has already made strides at Headquarters to get the word out: creating PowerPoints for JBS’s top action projects to impact and inform community leaders, utilizing online ads for coordinators to generate more activity, and managing feedback from those in the Field.

These projects and many more are key to achieving less government, more responsibility, and –with God’s help – a better world. JBS is strongest when coordinators, members, and headquarters are all focused and honed in on the same agenda. Stevens is aiming to move forward with sharing constitutional principles and bringing up leaders to keep America free.

“We need to hit critical mass. Wake up a sufficient number of Americans in a sufficient number of congressional districts. And that number is 218. 218 is the magic number… When you win a sufficient number of voters in a district, it has a wide impact on every level of government, in restoring the principles of limited government that made America the freest and most popular nation on earth,” said Stevens.

JBS Founder Robert Welch’s original plan was to have 1,000 active JBS members in each Congressional district, which would have enough influence to bring about adherence to the Constitution by elected officials at every level regardless of political party affiliation. Almost six decades of JBS experience has found that it only takes about 500 members who are organized and equipped to have that level of influence in a district.

JBS is aiming for massive progress towards 218 congressional districts with the impact of those active members in the next five years. By bringing up leaders, raising funding, and educating citizens, America will be heading in the right direction. Stevens encourages activism outreach through recruiting to produce our “education action army.” “We need them to come join us and help us because if we have a sufficient sized education army, we win!” concluded Stevens.

He encourages all those interested to learn more about JBS’ turn-key action plan by visiting and exploring the options to join.

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.

Restraining the Courts on Marriage

Restraining the Courts on Marriage
by JBS President John F. McManus

While it is true that many Americans are woefully unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution, it is also true that some members of Congress have a deficient appreciation of the document. They know when they have to stand for reelection. And they know the part about receiving compensation for their services. But many seem to have forgotten (or never knew in the first place) that only Congress – not the President and not the federal courts – has power to make law; only Congress can send the nation into war; and only Congress has power to coin money.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) (Image from Flickr by Gage Skidmore Some rights reserved).

Also little known is the portion of Article III which states: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” In simple terms, this means that the only federal court required is the Supreme Court; all federal district courts could be abolished by Congress. Not only that, Section 2 of this Article gives power to Congress to limit the jurisdiction of all federal courts.

When forced busing of school children was ordered by federal courts in the 1970s, then-Congressman Larry McDonald introduced legislation to bar all federal courts from having anything to say about placement of youngsters in schools. He cited Article III, Section 2 as the authority for such a step. His measure didn’t gather enough support in Congress to be enacted but many who served at the time were at least forced to recognize that Congress possessed such power and that it actually existed and could be employed.

On April 22nd of this current year, Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) filed H. R. 1968, the “Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015.” Relying on Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, he seeks to remove jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to “hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage.” Mr. King stated his belief that the Congress could put a halt to the possibility that the Supreme Court would actually redefine marriage in a decision expected in June.

Nine co-sponsors immediately announced their support for H. R. 1968. They are Babin and Gohmert of Texas, Duncan of Tenn., LaMalfa of Cal., Massie of Ky., Palazzo of Miss., Thompson of Penn., Walberg of Mich., and Yoho of Fla.

Commenting on his measure, Congressman King said that removal of federal jurisdiction over the definition of marriage would have no effect on the states, each of which could decide the matter for its own people. But he was especially concerned that a mere five judges at the Supreme Court level could overturn the definition of marriage for the entire country, a definition that has been held for millennia in which marriage is considered only to be between one man and one woman.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz has introduced an identical bill in the Senate (S.1080). As of this writing, no Senate co-sponsors have been garnered.

Members of the House of Representatives should be contacted (call 202-225-3121 and email) and asked to support H. R. 1968. Thanks should be sent to Rep. King and the co-sponsors of H.R. 1968. A companion bill in the Senate (S. 1080) has been introduced by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. No Senate co-sponsors have yet been enlisted. Contact (call 202-224-3121) your senators to get them to co-sponsor and support the bill. Utilizing the email link above will send to both the House and the Senate, but be sure to call. Congressmen tell us that phone calls are more effective than emails.

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

Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and 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.

Hillary’s War on America

Hillary’s War on America
by JBS President John F. McManus

In 2014, while campaigning in Iowa for Democrat Bruce Braley to win a Senate seat, Hillary Clinton told a Braley rally: “It’s not enough to be a woman; you have to be committed to expand rights and opportunities for all women.” Her listeners knew that her way to increase opportunities for women called for doing away with restrictions on killing helpless babies in the womb. Of course, she casually ignores the fact that half of those whose lives would be snuffed out in abortion chambers would be females who, if left alone in the womb and cared for after birth, would join the ranks of the world’s women.

Candidate Braley lost his election to Iowa’s newest senator, Joni Ernst, who is an outspoken opponent of abortion. Ms. Ernst also happens to be a woman. If elevation of women to higher positons and greater influence were Clinton’s main concern, she should have considered campaigning for Ernst. But restricting abortion is her constant target and any threat to the practice really gets her juices flowing. Her frequent reference to safeguarding and increasing the availability of the practice clearly indicates its place in what she calls the “war on women.”

The message given by this former first lady and would-be president obviously didn’t resonate well with enough voters in the Hawkeye State. Not only did Mr. Braley lose his bid for the high office, he gave up his seat in the House as well. But Hillary’s failed effort in Iowa has had little effect on her determination to proceed with the real war, the one on the unborn.

On April 23rd, the wannabe president took her crusade to the United Nations where she spoke at the “2015 Women in the World Summit.” Surrounded by like-minded enemies of the unborn who desire to upgrade women by killing unborn babies, her message included insistence that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.” Her goal: uncontested acceptance of abortion and contraception. Accordingly, her way to promote women’s empowerment now includes altering the religious beliefs of a majority of the world’s people, especially her fellow Americans. The Clinton “war on women” has now been elevated to battling “deep-seated” cultural codes and religious beliefs wherever they stand in her way. And she expects that such a campaign will carry her to the office of President of the United States. If she wins such a prize, she will obviously use the power it contains to wage war on any opposing traditional religious and cultural standards.

Today, there are numerous countries and regions where enforcement of strict Islamic rule establishes its own religious beliefs and cultural codes. Muslims call it Sharia Law. What’s at stake with Hillary Clinton’s campaign is our nation’s long-established guarantees of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and several other freedoms – all of which are part of the American cultural code. Hillary’s obvious intent is to create something akin to Sharia law here in America. She won’t call it that, but it is what she seeks and she appears as determined as any ruling imam, ayatollah or sheik. Are there enough Americans to block her acquisition of such power? The coming year will provide the answer.

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

McManus_2Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and 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.

The Lynch Filibuster That Never Happened

The Lynch Filibuster That Never Happened
by JBS President John F. McManus

The appointment of Loretta Lynch to be the nation’s Attorney General won Senate confirmation on April 23, 2015. She is now the successor of Eric Holder who had held the office during all the previous years of the Obama presidency.

During hearings leading up to her confirmation, Ms. Lynch was asked about possible use of executive orders by the President to create law, especially law regarding illegal immigrants. Making law with the stroke of a pen has, of course, always been a violation of the Constitution’s very first sentence: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Anyone who understands the meaning of the word “all” would know that no President can make law. The President’s job is to see that laws are “faithfully executed.”

But Ms. Lynch never committed herself regarding the matter, dancing around it like so many federal officials have done over many years. That alone should have been enough reason for senators to refuse confirmation. But she survived thanks to the efforts of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and a number of go-along senators.

The Senate’s procedural rules contain the possible use of the procedure known as filibuster. It allows continued debate about an issue, even drag on indefinitely, until an objectionable measure is withdrawn. While a filibuster in underway, no other Senate business can be conducted. Use of the filibuster, therefore, is a fairly powerful tactic. Senate rules state that breaking one needs the votes of 60 senators. This means that a mere 40 can start a filibuster and continue it for as long as it may take in order to have an objectionable measure or confirmation withdrawn.

Top Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky wanted the Lynch nomination approved. Some Republican senators indicated that they would approve the nomination. Others sought to create a filibuster. But breaking one had to be accomplished first. So he convinced 10 senators who were opposed to the nomination to vote to break any possible use of the filibuster. More than 60 votes were needed to do so and ten senators who would later vote against confirmation of Ms. Lynch dutifully went along with the McConnell plan. With all 46 Democrats and several additional Republicans supporting cloture (the breaking of any possible filibuster), that hurdle was overcome.

The ten who sided with McConnell in the cloture vote went on to vote against her confirmation in the final vote. So they are able to say to constituents that they were opposed to approving Ms. Lynch, thereby seeming to uphold condemnation of the president’s expressed desire to usurp congressional law-making power. But had they not lined up with McConnell in the cloture vote, Ms. Lynch would never have been confirmed. It was a very slippery move. The ten slippery Republican senators who voted to cut off debate on the nomination (the cloture vote) are: Alexander (Tenn.), Corker (Tenn.) Burr (N.C.), Tillis (N.C.),Capito (W.Va.), Gardner (Colo.), Roberts (Kan.), Cornyn (Texas). Rounds (S.D.), and Thune (S.D.).

Constituents might care to let these senators know that they key role they played in confirming Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General will not be forgotten. Ten other senators who voted with the Democrats to approve the nomination of Ms. Lynch were wrong to do so, but they weren’t so devious. Their vote deserves some condemnation as well. The ten GOP senators who voted for confirmation after the filibuster threat had been defeated are: Ayotte (N.H.), Cochran (Miss.), Collins (Maine), Flake (Ariz.), Graham (S.C.), Hatch (Utah), Johnson (Wis.), Kirk (Ill.), McConnell (Ky.), and Portman (Ohio). Now our nation has another Attorney General willing to thumb her nose at the Constitution.

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

Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and 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.

No Longer Dependent on OPEC!

No Longer Dependent on OPEC!
by JBS President John F. McManus

New procedures for extracting oil and natural gas from the earth have skyrocketed the United States to now producing as much as comes out of Saudi Arabia. And the U.S. could soon easily eclipse the Saudis. North Dakota’s Bakken shale field is only one region where hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has made tremendous resources available. Other known locations where fracking can lead to production have yet to be tapped.

For decades, our nation has been yanked around by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Our nation’s need for energy continued to grow and our dependence on OPEC members to sell it to us has always placed the U.S. in a bind, financially and diplomatically. OPEC surely took advantage of our dependence, both in the prices Americans had to pay and in the conduct of our nation’s foreign policy. But all of that is changing.

Oil prices have been halved over the past year, much to the delight of America’s industrial sector and the millions who drive an automobile and use oil to heat their homes. Natural gas prices have likewise come down – or not risen as expected. And there seems now to be a virtually limitless supply of both types of energy within our borders.

As reported by the New York Times, Jason Bordoff, former energy adviser to President Obama and now director of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, has noted that “with a global glut and prices cratering, the United States is in the driver’s seat.” All aspects of energy production have not completely changed however. The hurdle known as environmentalism remains. There are areas within the U.S. where fracking has been prohibited. Construction of the Keystone pipeline that would transport Canadian oil from its tar sands to refineries in the U.S. is still being blocked by the Obama administration due to environmental claims.

With much of the Middle East in turmoil, with U.S. supplier and OPEC member Venezuela unpredictable, and with needs for energy rising not falling, it behooves the U.S. to continue on its current path toward complete energy independence. Being independent of others for critical energy will strengthen our nation’s position financially and diplomatically. What remains to be seen is whether U.S. leaders will take advantage of this remarkable development to reassert political independence as well.

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

Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and 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.

Keeping Track of Militant Islamic Groups

Keeping Track of Militant Islamic Groups
by JBS President John F. McManus

Almost daily, mass media reports contain newer outrages committed by one or more of the militant Islamic groups spreading their particular brand of terror. Keeping track of these murdering terrorists brings to mind going to a sporting event and needing a scorecard. Here’s a brief glimpse at the leading perpetrators of carnage currently spreading murder and mayhem wherever they are able.

Al Qaeda: The oldest of these groups, Al Qaeda, began in late 1988-early 1989 as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was winding down. Led by Osama bin Laden (now deceased), its new leader is Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al Qaeda is responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. that killed several thousand, the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that produced hundreds of fatalities, the 2002 bombings in Bali, and more. This terrorist group has incited sectarian violence among Muslims in several countries. Al Qaeda’s success in these and other attacks has encouraged other militant groups to rise up and begin slaughtering innocent people.

Boko Haram: Based in northeast Nigeria, Boko Haram initially allied with Al Qaeda but recently announced its desire to become part of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). Led by Abubakar Shekau, its adherents made worldwide headlines in 2014 when they kidnapped 276 females (mostly schoolgirls and several teachers) from their school in Chibok. None of the schoolgirls has been seen again. More than 1.5 million have fled the conflict zone that has spread into neighboring Chad. Shekau has boasted of his hope to die in “the garden of eternal bliss.”

Houthis: Named after founder Badreddin al-Houthi (now deceased), this militant Islamic group operates in Yemen where it has gained control of the country’s capital city Sana’a and its parliament. Founded in response to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and linked to Al Qaeda, it is now led by Abdul-Malik al-Houthi. Pronounced admirers of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini who led the ousting of the Shah in 1979, the Houthis receive military aid from Iran.

Al-Shabaab: Based in Somalia, Al Qaeda affiliated Al-Shabaab (meaning “Movement of Striving Youth”) has launched attacks against parts of neighboring Kenya as well as in Somalia. One of its recent forays led to the murder of 148 students and a few college officials at Kenya’s Garissa College. In that raid, warriors identified Muslims from Christians then spared the former and killed those who could not recite a Muslim prayer. Shebaab forces have conducted numerous bombings in Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital, continue to promise more mayhem in their native country and in Kenya.

ISIS: The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIL, the Islamic State of the Levant that looks for territorial conquests beyond Syria and Iraq, has gained control of portions of Syria, Iraq, Nigeria and Libya. Led by self-proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, its origins stem from Al Qaeda in Iraq. It has established a caliphate over large portions of western Iraq and eastern Syria, enforced Sharia law, and conducted sensational beheadings of victims, and slavery for many. Sunni Muslims, ISIS leaders contend that Shiite Muslims are also their enemy. Insurgents in Libya pledged their allegiance to ISIS (ISIL) in 2014.

Of course, no one should ignore that weapons and other categories of aid from America have worked their way into the possession of these groups. U.S. foreign policy that unconstitutionally entangled our forces in several regions where Americans didn’t belong actually spurred the rise of widespread militancy.  Yes, it would be wrong to ignore the determination of these groups to establish Muslim domination and Sharia law.  But an even larger mistake would be refusal to recognize that current and recent U.S. leaders and policies must be reformed or changed. In the long run, that is more important than monitoring any number of militant Islamic groups.

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

Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and 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.

Misrepresenting The John Birch Society

Misrepresenting The John Birch Society
by JBS President John F. McManus

The organization known as Convention of States (COS) wants a constitutional convention although its advocates claim that they want only a limited Convention of the States. Altering the terminology used for a constitutional convention, however, does not alter what is being sought by COS advocates. And the claim by COS or anyone that a constitutional convention can be limited to a single amendment, or to several named amendments, cannot be supported. Article V says that a convention may be called by the states “for proposing Amendments.” No number is given. Once a convention is underway, the number of amendments it produces can be limitless, and the current ratification method by the states could be altered or even abolished.

In addition, a recent COS release entitled “John Birch Society Denies Its History and Betrays Its Mission” accuses the Society of reversing the stands taken by JBS Founder Robert Welch and former Chairman Larry McDonald relative to The Liberty Amendment. It also claims that current John Birch Society President John McManus (this writer) has misrepresented Founder Robert Welch and former Congressman Larry McDonald. This is completely erroneous and irresponsible.

In August 1963, Robert Welch urged JBS members to ask legislators in Alabama to approve a resolution favoring the Liberty Amendment. In his urging, Robert Welch made no mention of the Constitution’s second method for gaining amendments, the constitutional convention. He favored the first choice mentioned in Article V which seeks two-thirds approval of both Houses of Congress before a measure is sent to the States where ratification by three-quarters would be needed to complete the process. This method for adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution happens to be the only method ever employed. For over 200 years, fear of a runaway convention (as occurred in 1787 during deliberations at a convention called to repair the Articles) has kept the amendment process strictly through the first method.

Similarly, Congressman Larry McDonald favored adding the Liberty Amendment to the Constitution. On October 9, 1973, his interview about the matter was published in the Congressional Record. In it, he mentioned that the Amendment was being “advanced in both ways” but he never advocated the convention route. As a member of Congress, he introduced the resolution containing the Liberty Amendment for passage by Congress in the traditional manner. He mentioned but did not favor the existence of the amendment route that would involve a constitutional convention.

Several years before he was slain in 1983, Larry McDonald wrote the 1976 book entitled We Hold These Truths. In it, Larry McDonald capably noted the two routes spelled out in the Constitution for adding amendments. How could he or any constitutional scholar (McDonald was indeed such a scholar) fail to note the existence of these two procedures? But, in the portion of his book discussing amendments, Congressman McDonald expressed explicit choice for neither. To claim that he favored one or the other when he was simply noting both is a complete misrepresentation of what he wrote. The COS release has engaged in misrepresentation, not The John Birch Society.

The COS release notes that, in 1983, Congressman Ron Paul joined with Congressman McDonald in introducing the Liberty Amendment in the House of Representatives. The two men obviously favored the route calling for the amendment to be passed by Congress. They had already introduced the resolution calling for Congress to pass the amendment several times. On no occasion did they express any favor toward the route of a constitutional convention.

On April 30, 2009, Congressman Paul and two co-sponsors again proposed that Congress pass the Liberty Amendment. There is no mention of the constitutional convention route to amend the Constitution in that move.

To learn more about how you can Stop a Constitutional-Convention go to our action project page (Image from

It is true that state resolutions calling for the Liberty Amendment mentioned the constitutional convention route. And it is equally true that Liberty Amendment author Willis Stone counseled state legislators to call for a constitutional convention on behalf of the Liberty Amendment. But during my own very friendly relationship with Willis Stone, the Liberty Amendment author clearly bared the strategy he was employing. Fearing that such a convention might actually occur if sufficient number of states (34) made the convention call, I asked him point blank, “Do you actually want a constitutional convention?” His very prompt and forceful response to me was, “No, I don’t worry about that because no one would be stupid enough to want a Con-Con.” He was relying on fears of many – including members of Congress – that the existing Constitution would be in jeopardy similar to what befell the Articles of Confederation in 1787. He further explained that if his work among the various state legislatures succeeded in getting close to the number 34 (the number that would trigger a convention), members of Congress would move quickly to pass approval of the measure themselves in order to keep a constitutional convention from becoming a reality.

In 1963, the Liberty Amendment Committee headed by Willis Stone published Action For Americans: The Liberty Amendment, a book promoting the Liberty Amendment. No book on this topic could be issued by the Liberty Amendment Committee without Willis Stone approving of every word. In their book, authors Lloyd G. Herbstreith and Gordon van B. King stated:

Some people have expressed fear of what a Convention might do. They point to the fact that the 1787 Convention was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation; however, it did not do this. It wrote an entirely new Constitution. A convention called now might similarly re-write the entire Document, instead of merely proposing an amendment….

As soon as twenty or more State Legislatures have approved the Liberty Amendment, Congress will approve it, and return it to the States for ratification.

There you have the opinion of the chief promoters of the Liberty Amendment, certainly including Willis Stone. What Mr. Stone told me of his plan is what these two authors, both friends and supporters of Mr. Stone and the Liberty Amendment, have confirmed.


1. Neither Larry McDonald nor Robert Welch ever favored the route of a constitutional convention for adding amendments to the Constitution. Both merely knew that the Constitution allowed such a method.

2. Larry McDonald’s book We Hold These Truths does not place him in the camp of those favoring a constitutional convention.

3. Willis Stone’s strategy is clear. He wanted to force Congress to act to pass the Liberty Amendment resolution in order to prevent creation of any constitutional convention.

4. The book by Herbstreith and King confirms the Stone strategy.

5. An apology for accusing The John Birch Society for denying its history and betraying its mission directed to me and to the memory of Robert Welch, Larry McDonald, and Willis Stone should be issued by COS. It would be received with gratitude.

Learn of other false accusations made by Con-Con supporters here.

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

A former U.S. Marine officer, Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and 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.

Women Don’t Belong in Combat

Women Don’t Belong in Combat
by JBS President John F. McManus

Two years ago, the Obama administration announced plans to force the nation’s military to place women in direct combat units beginning in January 2016. This would mean that women would be assigned to the Army’s Rangers, the Navy Seals, elite units of the Marine Corps, and even physically demanding assignments in the Air Force. Opponents of the plan believe that lowering physical standards in such units would unfavorably impact them. Lowered standards (push-ups, pull-ups, endurance runs, etc.) have already shown that women can’t do what a man can routinely perform.

The push for women in the military scored one of its first victories in 1976 when the service academies were forced to admit women in 1976. Forgotten was the very purpose of having military academies at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs. That purpose involved training leaders to meet the enemy on the field of battle – which is no place for women. As the various moves to overturn the 200-year-old practice of barring women from a military man’s job continued, Retired Brigadier General Andrew Gatsis stated in 1987:

No woman, even as a volunteer, should have the right to go into combat simply because she desires to do so. It is not a question of what she wants or is her right. It is a matter of jeopardizing the soldiers who depend on all members of the team to do their full share, and the right of every American citizen to have the strongest national defense posture to protect his and her freedom.

As far back as 25 years ago, columnist Phyllis Schlafly agreed with many opponents of the near-suicidal policy of opening up all segments of the military to women. In 1989, she wrote: “Dying for your country isn’t the purpose of the armed forces. Their mission is to make enemy troops die for their country. Men are demonstrably better at that task than women.”

As has been their custom, high-level Obama administration personnel are blocking access to already compiled reports of female performance in simulated combat situations. What is already known must evidently be shielded from scrutiny to keep the announced plan from being implemented.

The Obama team has refused to produce copies of its plans even after receiving formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Thus, lawyers with the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center have sued appropriate federal agencies to obtain such information. Among other documents, they are seeking results already known about the physical deficiencies of women in general. Military leaders already know the results of strength tests conducted on approximately 400 men and women Marines. These show 80 percent of males successfully lifted 115 pounds while only 8.7 percent of women succeeded. Other tests demonstrated that a significantly high proportion of females cannot load a tank, carry a comrade on a stretcher for a reasonable distance, and perform several other tasks expected of combat-ready warriors.

There’s a lot at stake here. The well-being of females who might be sent into combat would be placed in jeopardy. And because we know how male prisoners have been treated by some adversaries, no woman should ever be made vulnerable to capture. The safety of males who would be forced to rely on physically deficient female comrades has to be considered. And, lastly, our nation itself would become more vulnerable if some who are sent to defend it are physically unable to do the job. Wearing a military uniform of our nation isn’t a right; it’s a privilege that should be made available only to those can be expected to perform at the highest level.

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

A former Marine officer, Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and 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.

Rhodes Scholarship Program Reaches Out to China

Rhodes Scholarship Program Reaches Out to China
by JBS President John F. McManus

Begun a century ago and funded by the estate of Cecil John Rhodes, the Rhodes Scholarship program originally awarded two years of study at Oxford only to promising English male collegians. Soon, the welcome mat was thrown to similarly gifted students from various portions of the British Empire: India, Pakistan, South Africa, Australia, and Canada. The recipients of the prestigious awards were expected to promote the goals of the fabulously wealthy man who, with initial help from Lord Rothschild, accumulated his great fortune from the diamond mines and gold fields of South Africa. So influential was Rhodes in the southern portion of the African continent that the nation of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was named after him.

Born in England in 1853, Rhodes spent several of his early years in South Africa before returning to England and attending Oxford University. There, he came under the influence of Professor John Ruskin who, in his own self-published newsletter, described himself as “a communist of the old school.” By that Ruskin indicated a preference for socialism, not the blood-thirsty Stalinist form of communism. Also an admirer of Enlightenment figure Jean Jacques Rousseau, Ruskin planted in his students a belief that the entire world should be ruled by elitists from Great Britain. Rhodes spent much of the rest of his life working to accomplish that goal by means of the secret society he formed.

A great American admirer of Rhodes, Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley wrote in his “The Anglo-American Establishment” (1981), “The scholarships were merely a façade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately, they were to be one of the instruments by which members of the secret society could carry out his [Rhodes’] purpose.” In the very first of the wills left by Rhodes (there were seven), he pointed to such goals as “The extension of British rule throughout the world … ultimate recovery of the United States as an integral part of a British Empire … the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible….” The latter goal envisioned a world government.

Professor Carroll Quigley praises the efforts of an “international Anglophile network” whose goal is to rule the world. He boasts of having been permitted “to examine its papers and secret records,” confirms the existence of an over-arching conspiracy, and details the origin and eventual power of the CFR and allied groups. This book is available at

In his “Tragedy and Hope” (1966), Professor Quigley credited the Rhodes secret society with the founding of England’s Royal Institute of International Affairs and America’s Council on Foreign Relations. Quigley pointed to the ultimate goal of these two organizations: “confederate the whole of it (the world), with the United Kingdom, into a single organization.” Finally, build a formal world government run by individuals trained in the Rhodes Scholarship program and similar institutions.

At the outset, scholarship recipients were all males but women were welcomed beginning in 1976. No more prominent U.S. participant in the program can be found than former President Bill Clinton. Others include several Supreme Court justices (Harlan, White, Souter), senators (Fulbright AR, Lugar IN, Sarbanes MD, Boren OK, Bradley NJ), executive branch members (Rusk, Rostow, Reich, Turner, Stephanopoulos), and several heavyweights from the mass media.

Welcoming Chinese into the program isn’t something Rhodes himself would likely have done. But, if a world government is to be created, China will have to be part of it. Former Rhodes Scholar Charles Conn, who manages the program in the United States, believes that there will soon be as many Chinese welcomed to participate as there are Americans. Financing for the Chinese students will partially come from Li Ka-shing, the wealthiest individual in all of Asia.

The march toward world government continues. Cecil John Rhodes would be pleased.

Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and 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.