Another Turkey Coup Attempt: Will it Affect Us?
Posted: July 20, 2016 Filed under: European Union, Military, NATO, Trade, United Nations | Tags: coup, Erdogan, government, military, Muslim, NATO, Turkey, United Nations 1 CommentAnother Turkey Coup Attempt: Will it Affect Us?
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
The nation of Turkey sits in Western Asia. That is, most of it. A small part of Istanbul, the great city in Western Turkey (formerly Constantinople), can be found across the Bosphorus Strait that separates Asia from Europe. This European portion of Turkey (a mere three percent of the nation’s land area) is geographically and even culturally part of Europe.
Flag of Turkey (image by David Benbennick (original author) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons).
Turkey has experienced several coup attempts in recent years (1960, 1971, and 1980). Each failed and each sought to increase the secularization of the nation. The latest attempted coup d’état during July 15-16 failed almost immediately. After a surprising absence in the early hours of the plot, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan emerged and reasserted control. Immediately, the government forces captured several thousand military personnel along with an equal number of judges. Some commentators labeled the coup a failure through ineptitude. But others have speculated that Erdogan engineered the short-lived event in order to centralize and increase his power.
Turkey is at least 95 percent Muslim; some claim that the figure should be 99 percent. Without doubt, yearning exists among a small percentage of the people for a more Westernized style of living. But Islam rules, not as strictly as in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and elsewhere, but a dominant force nevertheless. Erdogan himself is a relatively strict follower of Mohammed. Suspicion has arisen that he engineered the plot so it would quickly fail and, while being put down, provide him an opportunity to increase his power and send a message throughout the nation not only that he is solidly in control, but that Islam and many of its controlling strictures would continue to prevail, even grow tighter.
Over the years, military forces within Turkey have become a sort of watchdog or guardian of a partial secularization of the nation. Hence, a more committed Muslim such as Erdogan would surely seize any opportunity to water down, even eliminate, such a challenge to Islam’s power. Ergodan’s allies have claimed that Fethullah Gulen, an exiled Turkish cleric living in Pennsylvania, engineered the coup. Gulen immediately denied having any role whatsoever. But Ergodan has asked the U.S. to extradite Gulen to face charges back in Turkey. Is such a request real? Or has it emerged to help cover up Ergodan’s creation of the now-failed plot that will undoubtedly result in an increase in his power and more dominance by Islam.
Three years ago in Egypt, the military rose up and, in a lightning coup d’état, deposed elected president Mohammed Morsi, a strict follower of Islam. That country went from rule by increasingly dominant Islamists to a more westernized secularism under the generals. Turkey seems to have undergone exactly the opposite transition as a result of the recent coup attempt. How Erdogan deals with the judges and military personnel he has in custody will indicate how deeply Islam will rule in the future. Meanwhile, ISIS in next-door Syria and Iraq looks northward to Turkey to see if help in achieving its draconian goals will be forthcoming from its nearest neighbor.
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:
World Government Promoters Punched by Brexit
Posted: June 29, 2016 Filed under: European Union, Immigration, north american union, Politics, United Nations, World Government | Tags: Brexit, European Union, john birch society, Nigel Farage, United Nations Leave a commentWorld 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.
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:
COOL and the WTO
Posted: June 9, 2016 Filed under: Trade, World Government | Tags: COOL, country of origin labelling, FDA, food recall, john birch society, UN, United Nations, World Trade Organization, WTO 2 CommentsCOOL and the WTO
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Shirts, suits, dresses, undergarments, and numerous other items we purchase carry a little tag that tells where they were produced. “Made in China” appears on many. If not China, then Vietnam, Bangladesh, Japan, Taiwan, Pakistan, or some other foreign nation.
An FDA microbiologist mixes seafood samples with an enrichment broth to test for microorganisms. (Image from US FDA Flickr.)
Clothing, of course, is not the only category of foreign-made products filling our stores. Many of the automobiles, scooters, tools, bicycles, electronics, and more are also foreign made. Sometimes, finding a particular product not imported presents an unsolvable problem, frequently great enough to have many Americans simply give up and settle for foreign-made goods.
What about food? In 2002, Congress enacted a law that came to be known as COOL (Country of Origin Labeling). It required retailers to provide country of origin information for beef, pork, and lamb. In 2008, Congress expanded that requirement to include fresh fruits, nuts, and vegetables. But in late 2015, Congress repealed COOL as part of the omnibus budget bill. There is no longer any requirement for labeling the origin of what we eat.
Five months after the cancellation of COOL, a new report tells us that 47 million pounds of frozen chicken and meat products mixed with vegetables had to be recalled because of worries about listeria monocytogenes. Consuming them could cause listeriosis, an infection that can lead to fever, muscle aches, headaches, confusion, loss of balance, diarrhea and more. The products being recalled carry such brand names as Simmering Samurai, Tai Pei, InnovASIAN, Yakitori, Casa Solano Southwest, etc. They are not made in America.
The recall of these products came out of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It turns out that there’s no need for COOL if these agencies are doing their jobs. In fact, reliance on them and other U.S. safeguards already in place is what led the majority in Congress to repeal COOL as an unnecessary and costly requirement. The vote to repeal was 300 to 131 in the House.
But there’s another reason why Congress voted to cancel COOL. Canadian and Mexican meat producers, both affected by COOL’s past requirements, complained to the World Trade Organization (WTO). That UN agency has four times ruled against the United States and our COOL mandate. Our two neighboring nations were given authority by WTO to impose tariffs totaling several against the U.S.
Here we have the United Nations making decisions about the food we Americans eat. We won’t know if the beef we consume came from Canada, where mad-cow disease had been detected a few years back, or from Mexico whose cleanliness and butchering processes don’t match requirements imposed by USDA and FDA.
But let’s not give these agencies any constitutional legitimacy. Since these powers have not been delegated to the federal government according to the Constitution, the states reserve the power to make these decisions — and definitely not the UN. So having the United Nations making decisions regarding our food supply is a very unsettling development. If the WTO can force its will regarding food, it has gained a truly significant power. This situation brings to mind the attitude of one of the 20th century’s worst tyrants. As leader of the USSR, Joseph Stalin is reputed to have said that controlling the people’s food is the way to gain control of their nation. Enter the Holodomor.
The main point of these comments, therefore, isn’t so much about the food we consume. It’s much more about whether we will always have food to eat. Considering the power already possessed by the WTO presents another excellent reason to break away from 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:
Suing Obama Over the War Powers Act
Posted: May 13, 2016 Filed under: Military, Unconstitutional Wars, United Nations | Tags: john birch society, John McManus, SEATO, UN, United Nations, War Powers Act 2 CommentsSuing Obama Over the War Powers Act
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Army Captain Nathan M. Smith is challenging U.S. involvement in the campaign against ISIS. No conscientious objector, he remains on active duty as an intelligence specialist. He contends that the Obama administration’s military action against ISIS cannot be legally justified by referring to congressional authorization given the president in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Captain Smith has sued President Obama claiming that the military campaign against ISIS is illegal because Congress hasn’t authorized it as required by the War Powers Act of 1973.
Army Captain Nathan Michael Smith. Image from The New American.
The Act requires congressional approval of any presidential assignment of troops to a combat situation that lasts more than 60 days. The president can respond with military force where needed but if the action exceeds 60 days, he must seek congressional authorization to continue it. If Congress refuses to grant its authorization, the troops must be brought home.
This four-decades-old Act sought to control President Nixon’s continuing use of the military during the Vietnam War. Claiming that the proposed law watered down his executive power, Nixon vetoed it. But Congress overrode his veto and the Act became law. Henceforth, according to the War Powers Act, there must be congressional authorization if a president sends troops into any battle and that battle continues beyond 60 days.
Anyone who cares much for the U.S. Constitution knows that the War Powers Act ignores the Constitution’s requirement that Congress declare any war our forces are sent into. There has been no amendment cancelling Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 that clearly states, “Congress shall have power … To declare war.” If military action by U.S. forces is needed to combat ISIS (or any other enemy), the only constitutional way to do so is by referencing this particular portion of the Constitution.
Most of the horrendous casualties suffered during the Vietnam War had occurred during several years prior to 1973. Even at best therefore, the War Powers Act amounted to closing the barn door after the horse had escaped. It amounted to a meaningless and self-serving gesture by Congress intending to show the war-weary American public its toughness. But authorization for deploying forces to Southeast Asia had come from SEATO, a United Nations subsidiary. A succession of Presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon) ignored the Constitution’s sole grant of war-making power to Congress and the members of Congress sought approval from the American people for what was meaningless bravado. In reality, the War Powers Act was a congressional face-saving measure that accomplished nothing of substance.
Wars declared by Congress, such as WWI and WWII, end in victory. Wars authorized by the UN and its agencies (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan) aren’t won. Even a war sanctioned by Congress via the War Powers Act would be violating the Constitution’s requirement for a declaration of war. But that’s not the only problem brought on by our leaders refusing to honor their oath to the Constitution. They have steadily and virtually silently cooperated in a piece-by-piece transfer of U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.
Captain Smith should be made aware that his suing the president for not using the War Powers Act is really a meaningless gesture. A suit aimed at Mr. Obama and at the Congress for violating the solemn oath to the Constitution – especially including Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 – makes a great deal more sense.
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:
Beware of the Strong Cities Network
Posted: May 5, 2016 Filed under: Police, United Nations, World Government | Tags: john birch society, John McManus, Loretta Lynch, Strong Cities Network, UN, United Nations 4 CommentsBeware of the Strong Cities Network
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
It all sounds so reassuring and reasonable! Acting for the Obama administration, the nation’s Attorney General has placed the United States into an international grouping of cities whose advertised purpose involves combating violent extremism. Some of the cities in the new group will even be in other countries where terrorism has occurred or is surely a threat. All of the members of this new group will share their experiences and planning. Everyone should be most grateful that the Strong Cities Network (SCN) has been created.
Logo from Institute for Strategic Dialogue, some rights reserved.
But a closer look at this network reveals some problems. The first is that U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch decided to announce U.S. participation in the SCN at the United Nations. Then, in her speech before the world body last September, Lynch noted that SCN would have an International Steering Committee and an International Advisory Board “run by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a leading international think-and-do tank” based in London whose members include veterans of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.
Representatives of Norway’s Oslo and Canada’s Montreal joyfully announced membership in the new SCN during the world body’s confab. And the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Jordan’s Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, added his enthusiasm for the new organization.
Boiled down to its essence, the SCN is actually a new law enforcement body whose laws will govern participating cities, including New York, Atlanta, Denver, and Minneapolis that have already signed on as members. Law enforcement measures for these cities will dovetail with or emanate from the ISD and the United Nations, not from the U.S. Constitution and locally elected officials and the laws governing them. In her remarks at the unveiling of this new organization, Attorney General Lynch claimed that the new arrangement would work toward being “an alliance of nations” and would aspire to be “a global community.”
The Strong Cities Network, therefore, should be known as a nascent global police force controlled by the United Nations. Where central or global authority doesn’t govern police power, it is controlled locally. When it is controlled by a national or international governing body, as it was in the hands of Germany’s Gestapo, the Soviet Union’s KGB, or the ruling body in a communist-led country, tyranny reigns.
In the U.S., attacks against the very concept of local control over police power have been varied with campaigns regularly complaining about treatment of rioters and protesters. This style of lawlessness customarily includes calls for replacing local control with state or even national oversight. Until the unveiling of the SCN and its Institute for Strategic Dialogue, however, there were no calls for global oversight over police.
In her speech at the UN praising the creation of the SCN, Attorney General Lynch used the word “global” five times. She also employed the terms
“international” and “world” while at the podium. Then she closed her remarks by introducing Sasha Havlicek, the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
Widespread understanding of the slogan “Support Your Local Police and Keep Them Independent” has never been more needed. It reminds all who encounter it that trading the American system of local control over police to any national or international governing body is suicidal. Unfortunately, the Obama administration and its Attorney General seem determined to destroy America’s long-standing police policy and, by doing so, deliver our independent United States of America into the steadily growing power of the United Nations. This is something all decent Americans must oppose. Contact Congress today with our pre-written alert to let them know of your opposition!
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:
Socialist-in-Chief: A History of the UN Secretaries General
Posted: April 26, 2016 Filed under: Communism, United Nations, World Government | Tags: john birch society, John McManus, UN Secretary General, United Nations 2 CommentsSocialist-in-Chief: A History of the UN Secretaries General
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
The United Nations will choose a new Secretary General before the end of 2016. The process for selecting someone for this post begins with a recommendation arising from the Security Council. Its choice has to win approval of the five veto-possessing members of the Security Council (Russia, China, U.S., France, and Great Britain). Communist China and Vladimir Putin’s Russia will have their say and that means no one who advocates liberty need apply. Once the Security Council makes its choice, majority approval by the General Assembly (now numbering 193 nations) is needed for a new Secretary General to be named.
Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General, United Nations, New York looks on during the session ‘Combating Chronic Disease’ at the Annual Meeting 2011 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 27, 2011 (photo from World Economic Forum Flickr account, some rights reserved).
America’s Alger Hiss served as the Acting Secretary General of the UN’s founding conference in the spring of 1945. As the co-author of the UN Charter (with Soviet communist Andrei Vyshinsky), Hiss possessed great power. He was later shown to be a secret communist and went to prison for lying about his communist connections. As America’s chief contributor to the UN’s creation, he appointed scores of like-minded communist sympathizers and world government advocates to UN posts.
After the UN held its inaugural meeting in October 1945, the post of Secretary General became more of a ceremonial or public relations perch. The Security Council has always been where the UN’s real power resides. But knowing who has been Secretary General, and some background and attitudes of such individuals, tells much about the UN itself.
Norwegian Trygve Lie served in the post from 1946 to 1952. He held a high position in Norway’s Social Democratic Labor Party, an undisguised offshoot of the Communist International. He owed his appointment to strong backing by the Soviet Union.
From 1953 to 1961, Sweden’s Dag Hammarsklold served as Secretary General. He actually claimed that his political hero was Communist China’s mass murderer Chou En-lai. Hammarskjold led the UN when the world government’s forces attacked Katanga, the freedom-seeking province of the former Belgian Congo.
Burma’s U Thant followed from 1961 to 1971. Openly advocating world government, Thant praised the murderous Soviet tyrant Vladimir Lenin, even approving Lenin’s goals because, he revealingly stated, they were “in line with the aims of the UN Charter.”
From 1972 until 1981, Austria’s Kurt Waldheim held the post. A favorite of the USSR, his past service as an officer in the Nazi army during World War II was conveniently overlooked. Another admirer of Chou En-lai, Waldheim cheered the successful campaign to oust Nationalist China from the UN in favor of the Communist Chinese regime.
Next came Peru’s Javier Perez de Cuellar (1982-1991). A Marxist, he championed distribution of the world’s wealth.
From 1992-1996, Egypt’s Boutros Boutros-Ghali held the post for only one five-year term and was refused reappointment. While in office, he bluntly called for an end to “absolute and exclusive sovereignty.”
The next Secretary General was Kofi Annan of Ghana who held the post from 1997 to 2006. Known for his consistent attacks on the very concept of national sovereignty, he was accused of complicity in the massacres occurring in Europe’s Bosnia and Africa’s Rwanda.
South Korea’s Ban Ki-moon succeeded Annan and must step aside before December 31, 2016. A believer of the claims of climate change enthusiasts, Ban has also pushed for the goals of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.
Visit our action page to learn how you can help!
No one is certain who will be the next Secretary General. Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark has been busily campaigning to become the first female in the post. She has served at the UN since 2009 as the leader of its Development Program, the third-highest position at the UN. But because it seems to be Eastern Europe’s turn to send someone to be the next Secretary General, Ms. Clark may have to wait. She also may be too pro-Western for some of UN’s heavyweights. Any convinced socialist or outright communist would fit more comfortably in the post.
There is no chance whatsoever that the next UN Secretary General will do anything to slow the steady growth of power possessed by the world body. Nations wishing to be independent, certainly including the United States, should have nothing to do with the UN.
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:
The Refugee Flood and UNHCR
Posted: April 12, 2016 Filed under: Immigration, terrorism, United Nations, World Government | Tags: john birch society, John McManus, refugee, UNHCR, United Nations 4 CommentsThe Refugee Flood and UNHCR
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Completely unknown to most Americans, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is playing a dramatically important role in dealing with the refugee crisis. This UN agency has been placing individuals it designates as refugees in numerous parts of the globe. Using its power, UNHCR personnel decide who is a refugee and, additionally, where those it so designates will be placed.
Flag of United Nations Refugee Agency (image from UNHCR, derivative from Montgomery, some rights reserved).
Europe is currently suffering greatly from the UNHCR’s decisions, with the greatest flood of refugees impacting Germany. But Sweden with a much smaller native population has also found itself swamped. Immigrant arrivals in Greece and in neighboring countries have overwhelmed the area’s authorities. With immigration a continuing concern in France, England, Belgium, and elsewhere in Western Europe, and a future that is expected to be marked by more, worries about the problem have risen sharply in nation after nation. Everywhere, it seems, the refugee crisis figures to impact national culture, even have countries undergo a makeover that will make of them something far different than what they have been in past centuries.
In actual practice, a person seeking refugee status places himself/herself before a UNHCR official who decides whether or not to award such a designation and which country should accept the individual. Many thousands have already been placed in the U.S. via this process and little (most likely nothing) has been done to assure that there are no terrorists among them. Refugees sent to the United States then receive an array of generous benefits at taxpayer expense.
Heretofore, entrants coming to the U.S. through Mexico have been a continuing problem. While those crossing the border into our nation’s southwest have done so without UNHCR’s direction, those currently arriving (with more expected in the very near future) carry the UNHCR’s stamp of approval and do not need to enter through Mexico. So the still leaky Mexican border is not the only concern. In 2016, President Obama intends to welcome 85,000, not from Mexico but from Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere. That number is scheduled to increase to at least 100,000 in 2017.
It is certainly true that America has always been a nation of immigrants. In the past, whoever came here wanted to learn the English language, become familiar with the American governmental system, and assimilate into the culture with those goals in mind. Not so with many arriving in recent years. Change is coming unless our leaders get a handle on the situation.
Continue to take in immigrants, of course. But strictly maintain the decision about who comes here and how many. Establishing the United States of America and making into the great country it became should not become a candidate for change. All of this adds up to another reason why our country should withdraw from the United Nations and cease subjecting the USA to its continuing grasp for power through such agencies as the UNHCR.
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:
Trump, War, and the Constitution
Posted: April 1, 2016 Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election, Military, NATO, Unconstitutional Wars, United Nations | Tags: Donald Trump, john birch society, John McManus, NATO, SEATO, UN, United Nations 1 CommentTrump, War, and the Constitution
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Donald Trump’s recent criticism of NATO includes wanting the pact “rejiggered” and “changed for the better.” He insisted that the U.S. is “spending too much” and “some countries are getting a free ride.” Calling the alliance “obsolete,” he recommended adding “different nations“ because there are “nations that aren’t in NATO and are very much into the world of terror.”
Image from UkraineToday.
Much of what Trump offered deserved the attention he created. But he seems unaware of the pact’s real purpose, something that can be gleaned from a hard look at its history.
Launched as a treaty in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was sold to the Senate and the American people as a military alliance designed to thwart further conquests by the USSR that had already swallowed up the many nations in eastern and central Europe. There was, however, a hugely important purpose behind creation of the pact. Secretary of State Dean Acheson noted this in a March 19, 1945 speech revealing that NATO was totally “subject to the overriding provisions of the United Nations Charter,” and that it was “an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations.” In fact, NATO’s brief charter containing a preamble and a mere 14 articles mentions the United Nations in five separate places.
Begun with 12 member nations but now including more than two dozen, NATO is actually a UN “regional arrangement” authorized by Articles 52-54 of the UN Charter. Article 53 states that nothing it does can be undertaken “without authorization of the [UN] Security Council” which “shall at all times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation” by members of the alliance.
On June 25, 1950, Communist North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Two days later, the UN Security Council issued a resolution calling on member nations to aid South Korea. President Harry Truman responded in a matter of days by ordering U.S. forces to Korea and, when pressed by several U.S. senators to explain how he could so without the required congressional declaration of war, he said it wasn’t war but “a police action.” He added that if he could send troops to NATO (which he had done), he could send troops to Korea. Thus ended the requirement for a declaration of war before sending our nation’s forces into conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. NATO and the UN have overridden the U.S. Constitution.
All military actions taken or contemplated by NATO and its twin SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, created in 1954) had to be authorized and reported to the UN. Victory ceased to be the result of U.S. action – in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Control of U.S. military action was no longer held by Americans but by the anti-American United Nations. Restrictions on military activity became the norm and the actual “rules of engagement” directing the Vietnam conflict were unearthed by Senator Barry Goldwater and published in the Congressional Record during March 1985.
Beginning with NATO in 1949 and continuing during all subsequent years, America lost control of its military. And the U.S. Constitution’s clear requirement for a declaration of war before sending forces into battle has been superseded. Through NATO and its twin SEATO (no longer in existence), the UN now directs our nation’s military arm. Wars aren’t won but are dragged out as in Korea (a conflict never settled with a state of war still in existence) and in Afghanistan where U.S. forces have labored in a restricted manner since 2001.
NATO doesn’t need to be “rejiggered” or changed. What is needed is U.S. withdrawal from it and from its United Nations parent. The United States must again become the sole master of its fate.
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:
Neocon Lindsey Graham Calls For Bypassing the Constitution
Posted: March 16, 2016 Filed under: Military, NATO, neoconservatism, Politics, United Nations, World Government | Tags: john birch society, John McManus, Lindsey Graham, military, NATO, neocon, United Nations, war Leave a commentNeocon Lindsey Graham Calls For Bypassing the Constitution
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham parades as a conservative. But he and his ideological confrere, Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, are neoconservatives. The distinction is important because neoconservatism has become a dominant force among many elected officials and media pundits.
What is neoconservatism? The man who always claimed to be the “godfather” of the movement is Irving Kristol. In his 1995 book Neonconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, he wrote, “We accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.” He also bared the roots of his political and economic preferences when he additionally stated, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” So, he wanted the socialism desired by FDR’s New Deal and the U.S. to be the policeman of the world on the way to world government.
The Leon Trotsky he lauded partnered with Lenin in the takeover of Russia in 1917. A few years later after Lenin died and Stalin emerged as the top criminal, Trotsky fled for his life. The two had split because Stalin favored head cracking and gulags while Trotsky wanted to impose Marxist socialism slowly and patiently. His technique called for propagandizing people into choosing it. Both shared the ultimate goal of a tyrannical world government and differed only in how to obtain it.
So, a neoconservative advocates big government socialism and worldwide internationalism via undeclared wars and entangling pacts. Neocon Charles Krauthammer boldly spelled out these goals in a 1989 article appearing in Kristol’s journal, The National Interest. He advocated U.S. integration with other nations to create a “super-sovereign” entity that is “economically, culturally, and politically hegemonic in the world.” His ultimate goal called for a “new universalism [which] would require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty in general.”
Neoconservatives love war. Not the kind authorized by a congressional declaration that might result in a quick victory and the troops coming home, but a conflict started by presidential mandate with full authorization supplied by the United Nations or its NATO subsidiary. As Senator Graham stated in a recent Capitol Hill press conference, he wants the president given a green light for another undeclared war: “I agree with the president that Congress should act regarding giving him the authority to fight ISIL.”
War without the constitutional requirement for a formal congressional declaration has been our nation’s policy since World War II. Our forces haven’t won a war since that struggle because they have been hamstrung by rules imposed by the UN, NATO, or presidential dictate. The U.S. never lost a war until our leaders departed from formally issuing a required declaration. Congress, which should have insisted on adherence to the Constitution, lamely tolerated stalemates or losses in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now in Afghanistan. If U.S. forces are to be employed to defeat ISIS (or ISIL), there should be a declaration of war, not a presidential dictate.
Neocon Lindsey Graham swore an oath to the Constitution, not to presidential power. He violated that oath when he supported granting President Obama trade promotion authority, the power to entangle the U.S. in sovereignty-compromising deals with the European Union and Pacific nations. He also voted for reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, raising the national debt ceiling, and supplying another trillion dollars to fund socialistic agencies of the federal government. And that’s just some of his record over the past year. Check out his voting adherence to the Constitution as calculated by the Freedom Index.
Not alone in what he supports, Senator Graham has become an outspoken leader of the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party. He supports going to war without a required declaration, entangling the U.S. in the UN and harmful trade pacts, and backing continuation and expansion of federally imposed socialism. This isn’t conservatism; it’s neoconservatism. And it’s terribly bad for our country.
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:
NATO: A Military Entangling Alliance
Posted: March 10, 2016 Filed under: Military, NATO, United Nations, World Government | Tags: john birch society, John McManus, military, NATO, Syrian Refugees, United Nations 1 CommentNATO: A Military Entangling Alliance
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
On February 10, 2016, defense ministers from the 28 member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) met in Brussels at the organization’s headquarters. NATO Secretary General, Norway’s Jens Stoltenberg, announced unanimous approval of a plan to beef up the alliance’s presence in Eastern Europe.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other members of NATO Ministers of Defense and of Foreign Affairs meet at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 14, 2010, to give political guidance for the November meeting of Allied Heads of State and Government at the NATO Summit in Lisbon, Portugal. DOD photo by U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Jerry Morrison.
One day later, Stoltenberg revealed that participants in the alliance agreed to deploy ships in the Aegean Sea to aid refugees fleeing from war-torn Syria. He anxiously told reporters that the new mission was “not about stopping or pushing back refugee boats.” It was a humanitarian venture.
Asked about U.S. participation in the new mission, American General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe, said that he and his staff would be figuring out how to accomplish the task before them. Breedlove said, “This mission has literally come together in the last 20 hours, and I have been tasked to go back and define the mission. We had some very rapid decision making, and now to go out and do some military work.”
It all sounds very nice. Humanitarian needs arise and people work together to keep desperate refugees from harm, even from losing their lives in rickety boats and rafts. But there’s another issue that no one seems willing to discuss. We think it’s worth mentioning. It is that U.S. forces are being directed by other than U.S. superiors. They should not be ordered here or there by other than America’s leaders.
Created in 1949, NATO was sold to the Congress and the American people as a military force able to block any additional conquests of the Soviet Union. Its real purpose was to place the forces of several nations under United Nations control. From its outset, the alliance has derived its legitimacy from Articles 51-54 of the United Nations Charter. It is and always has been a UN “regional arrangement”, a UN subsidiary.
The action noted above includes a General of the United States Air Force receiving his orders from a Norwegian politician. Sadly, no one other than ourselves wants to point this out. Not only will U.S. forces under General Breedlove be carrying out a mission assigned to them by Jens Stoltenberg, other U.S. forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere follow orders issued ultimately by other foreign military and civilian officials.
The issue we raise is not whether someone who has the ability to do so should take on the responsibility of rescuing or guiding desperate refugees fleeing the horrors of war in their homelands. The issue is that, if American forces are employed in carrying out such a mission, their leaders should be Americans. And whatever mission they undertake should fall within the legitimate parameters contained in the U.S. Constitution and congressional action in accord with the Constitution. Placing American military personnel under the command of anyone but an American leader is a betrayal of their intent to serve our nation. If some wish to be policemen of the world, they should turn in their uniform and find some other way to do their will.
America’s forces are currently serving in 130+ separate nations. Various alliances and commitments, NATO being the most obvious, have given a green light for U.S. forces to be involved in just about every spat large or small. The Constitution does not permit our nation to be the “policemen of the world.” And NATO, sold as something other than what its creators really wanted, is an entangling alliance the U.S. should leave.
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 