(John F. McManus graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1957 from Holy Cross College. He then served active duty as a lieutenant in the Marine Corps for three years.)

(In 1966, Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society. He was soon named by JBS founder Robert Welch as the organization's Public Relations Director and Chief Media Rep.)

(Mr. McManus appears on many radio and television programs, including the Larry King show and C-SPAN.)

(With over four decades of staff experience, John F. McManus is the President of the JBS. He is a seasoned public speaker, author , and expert on world government issues.)

The United States of American, born in 1776, our country is the offspring of a religious based heritage of liberty under law. Blessed with great natural resources and a pioneer people given to industry and moral discipline, our nation grew to be strong a prosperous and developed the finest governmental system ever devised by man.

America soon became known as the refuge of the world's tired, hungry and poor. Millions left everything in the old world to start over in a land that rewarded initiative and hard work and perserverience. The many millions who didn't come here found comfort and hope in knowing that indeed there was such a bastion of freedom and opportunity, a place where dreams could become reality.

Today, our nation appears wealthier and more power powerful than ever. New technologies have revolutionized our daily lives. Luxuries once enjoyed only by the rich are commonplace and very affordable. Home ownership is widespread and our people have the expectation of continued economic growth and prosperity.

Yet, more and more people are coming to realize that they may prosper materially only for a time because their freedoms are diminishing . The sobering reality is that America has been led far from its praiseworthy beginnings. Our people and businesses groan under a heavy burden of economic, political, and social problems which are the result of a widespread departure from the fundamental truths that made our nation great. If the United States of America is to endure, citizens far and wide must, once again, come to understand, embrace and live by timeless concepts - concepts called Americanism.

(JBS The Overview of America Written & narrated by John F. McManus) What made America great and set it apart from other lands? Was it natural resources? No. Other lands are equally blessed. Was it the people? No. The people who built America came from elsewhere. Was it government planning and wisdom that spurred our nation to such heights? No again. It wasn't what government did that made America great. It was what government was prevented from doing that made the difference. What set America apart from other lands was freedom for the individual. Freedom to work, to produce, to succeed and especially to keep the fruits of ones labors. America became great precisely because the stifling effect of too much government had been prevented. However, freedom in America was not totally unrestrained. Americans overwhelming chose to limit their actions with moral codes such as the Ten Commandments, personal morality and limited government. It's a combination that characterized America and made it the envy of the world.

(A firm foundation) When our founding fathers decided they'd had enough of British oppression, they broke away and declared independence. They stated as self-evident truth, in the Declaration of Independence, that "Men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." In other words, God gave man his rights. And that among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." And in the very next sentence, the founders defined the proper role of government when they stated "...that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted." This is the entire philosophical base of our nation. Here, the government can not legitimately redistribute the wealth, assume power over the people's lives, and dominate man's existence with oppressive taxation, regulations and controls. According to the founders, government was to be a negative force which leaves people alone. It's sole function is to protect citizens from one another and foreign governments, and especially from their own government itself. The founders did not create a government to be a positive force to do things for people, to take from some, to give to others. They understood that when a government starts doing something for one citizen, it has to take from another to do so. And in the process it gains control over both.

(The Fight for Freedom) Britain's rulers didn't accept the Declaration of Independence so our forefathers had to fight a war to make it stick. By 1783, the War for Independence had been won and British forces were sent back across the sea. But the governmental system at that time was weak. It had no power to settle disputes between the states nor the power to tax for proper needs such as national defense. So, in 1787 delegates from 12 of the 13 states met in Philadelphia to revise the system and they produced an entirely new governmental structure known as the Constitution of the United States. Keeping faith with the thunderous assertions in the Declaration, the Constitution was written "to govern the government not the people and not the states" each of which was a jealous guardian of its own sovereignty. The founders created a central government with strictly limited powers. This left the states free to compete with one another, to be the best state, the one with the least amount of taxation and controls, one where citizens would want to build a business and raise a family. That spirit of competition produced excellence, as honest competition always does.

It's important to note that the Constitution wasn't forced on the people. It was sent back to the states for ratification and several of the founding fathers wrote essays explaining it in an effort to persuade fellow Americans to adopt this new system of government.

Some of the essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were collected into a volume known as the Federalist Papers. Those essays provide valuable insights into the intent of our founders in establishing our government.

Eventually all 13 states ratified the Constitution and then each ratified the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights, further tying the hands of the federal government.

These amendments are indeed about rights. But it would have been better had the Bill of Rights had be labeled The Bill of Limitations on Government. Why? Because it's vital to realize that the Bill of Rights never gave citizens any rights whatsoever. It's "Sole Purpose:" was to "Safeguard God-given rights by limiting government power." The founders even insisted that Congress shall "make no law about speech, religion, the press, assembly." The right to "petitioning". The right to keep and "bearing arms and so on". These amendments are directed squarely at the federal government, not the individual and not the states. They're like most of the 10 Commandments which are essentially though shall nots. The Bill of Rights says Congress "Shall not..., Shall not..., Shall not..." (Shall not..., Shall not...) all the way up to the marvelous tenth amendment which says, in effect, if we forgot anything, you can't do that either.

(The American Form of Government) When Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention, he was asked by a woman, "Sir. What have you given us?" His immediate response was, "A Republic, Ma'am. If you can keep it."

Yet, most of Americans today have been persuaded that our nation's governmental system is a "Democracy" and not a "Republic". The difference between these two is essential in understanding Americanism and the American system.

Before we discuss "Political Systems", however, it's helpful to address the confusion that has been spread about the "Political Spectrum". Many have been lead to believe that the "Political Spectrum" places groups such as "Communists" (shows Mao, Castro, ?, ?) on the far left, "Fascists" or Dictators (Hitler, ?, ?) on the far right, and political "Moderates" or Centrists in the middle (Roosevelt, Reagan, Kennedy shown)

However, a more accurate political spectrum will show government having "0%" power on the far right, to having "100%" power on the far left. At the extreme right, there is "no government", the extreme left features "total government" under such labels as "Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism", (etc.) princesses, potentates, dictators, kings - any form of total government. Those who claim that Nazis and Fascists are right wing never define their terms. (Neither does the speaker.) This amounts to spreading confusion.

Toward the middle of the political spectrum can be found the type of government limited to its proper role of "protecting" the "rights of the people". That's where the Constitution of the United States is. Those who advocate such a form of government are really "Constitutional Moderates". So let's analyze the "basic forms of government". They are "Monarchy" (form of government with a monarch at the head, a kingdom) or Dictatorship (ruler unrestricted, person with supreme authority in any sphere) ruled by one (on the left), "Oligarchy" ruled by a few, "Democracy" ruled by majority, "Republic" ruled by law, "Anarchy" which is ruled by no-one (far right). In discussing these five, we'll see that they can be narrowed down to even fewer.

Looking first at "Monarchy" or Dictatorship, (rule by one) this form of government doesn't really exist in a practical sense. It's always a group that puts one of its members up front. A King has his council of nobles or Earls, and every dictator has his bureaucrats or comicarzs or men behind the scenes. This isn't ruled by one even though one person might be the visible leader. It's ruled by a group so let's eliminate Monarchy/Dictatorship because it never truly exists.

"Oligarchy", which is "ruled by" a "group", is the most common form of government in all history. And, it is the most common form of government today. Most of the nations of the world are ruled by a powerful few and therefore Oligarchy remains.

At the other end we find "Anarchy" which means "without government" (disorder, especially political and social - Lack of government in a society) Some people have looked over history and found that many of its worst crimes were committed by governments so they decided that having no government might be a good idea. But this is a mistake. Because as the ancient Greeks stated, "Without law they (should be "there") can be no freedom." (Shows a Greek statue with those words and a fist with smoke coming out of it.) Our Founding Fathers agreed and held that some amount of government is a necessary force in any civilized, orderly society. In a state of Anarchy, however, everyone has to guard life, liberty and property and the lives of family members. Everyone must be armed and movement is severely restricted because one's property has to be protected at all times. Civilized people have always hired someone to do the guarding, a sheriff, a police force or some branch of government. Once law enforcement was in place, the people were freer. They could leave their property, work in the fields, and so on. In short, "The proper amount of government makes everyone freer."

There are some who advocate Anarchy, however, not because they want no government, but because they don't like what they have. They use Anarchy as a tool for revolutionary change. The condition of Anarchy is very much like a vacuum where something rushes in to fill it. These calculating Anarchists work to break down the existing government with rioting, killing, looting, and terrorism. Tragically, the people living in such chaos go to those best able to put an end to it, and beg them to take over and restore order. And who is best able to put an end to the chaos? The very people who started it. The Anarchists who created the problem then create a government run by them, an Oligarchy where they have total power. This is exactly what happened in Russia that led to Lenin taking total power, and in Germany where Hitler's brown shirts created the chaos that brought him to power. But Anarchy isn't a stable form of government. It's a quick transition from something that exists to something desired by the power hungry. It's a temporary condition. And because it isn't permanent, we eliminate it as well.

The word "Democracy" comes from two Greek words "Demos" meaning "people" and "Kratein" meaning "to rule". Democracy, therefore, means the rule of the people - 'Majority Rule". This, of course, sounds good. But suppose the majority decides to take away one's home, or business, or children? Obviously there has to be a limit. The flaw in democracy is that the majority isn't restrained (shows an angry mob storming a church and it topples.) If more than half the people can be persuaded to want something in a democracy, they rule (as the angry mob topless a pole with the American flag.)

What about "Republic"? Well, that comes from the Latin. "Res" meaning "thing" and "Publica" meaning "public". It means the public thing, "The Law". A true Republic is one where the government is limited by law leaving the people alone.

America's founders had a clean slate to write on. They could have setup a Oligarchy. In fact, there were some who wanted George Washington to be their king. But the founding fathers knew history and they choose to give us the rule of law in a Republic, not the rule of the majority in a Democracy. Why? Let's demonstrate the difference in the setting of the "Old West". Consider a lynch mob in a Democracy. 35 horse back riders chase one lone gunman. They catch him and they vote 35 to 1 (adds up to 36 riders unless the long gunman has the descending vote) to hang him. Democracy has triumphed and there's one less gunman to contend with. Now, consider the same scenario in a "Republic". 35 horse back riders catch the gunman and vote 35 to 1 to hang him, but the Sheriff arrives and he says "You can't kill him. He's got his right to a fair trial." So they take the gunman back to town. A jury of his peers is selected and they hear the evidence and the defense and they decide if he shall hang. Does the jury even decide by majority rule? No. It has to be unanimous or he goes free. The rights of the government aren't subject to majority rule but to the law. This is the essence of a Republic.

Many Americans would be surprised to learn that the word Democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the U. S. Constitution. Nor does it appear in any of the constitutions of the 50 states. The founders did everything they could to keep us from having a Democracy. James Madison, rightly known as the Father of the Constitution wrote in Essay # 10 of the "Federalist Papers" "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been in (should be "as") short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Alexander Hamilton agreed and he stated "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy." Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence stated "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself."

The founders had good reason to look upon Democracy with contempt because they knew that the Democracies in the early Greek city-states produced some of the wildest excesses of government imaginable. In every case, they ended up with mob rule, then Anarchy and finally tyranny under an Oligarchy.

During that period in Greece there was a man named Solon who urged the creation of a fixed body of law not subject to majority whims. But where the Greeks never adopted Solon's wise counsel, the Roman's did. Based on what they knew of Solon's laws, they created the 12 Tables of the Roman Law and in affect built a Republic that limited government power and left the people alone. Since government was limited, the people were free to produce with the understanding that they could keep the fruits of their labor. In time, Rome became wealthy and the envy of the world. In the midst of plenty, however, the Roman people forgot what freedom entailed. They forgot "The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government." When government power grows, people ('s) freedom recedes. Once the Romans dropped their guard, power seeking politicians began to exceed the powers granted them in the Roman Constitution. Some learned that they could elect politicians who would use government power to take property from some and give it to others. Agriculture substitutes were introduced followed by housing and welfare programs. Inevitably, taxes rose and controls over the private sector were imposed. Soon, a number of Rome's producers could not make ends meet and they went on the dole. Productivity declined, shortages developed, and mobs began roaming the streets demanding bread and circuses (should be "services") from the government. Many were induced to trade freedom for security. Eventually, the whole system came crashing down. They went from a Republic to a Democracy and ended up with an Oligarchy under a progression of the Caesar's.

Thus, "Democracy", itself, is not a stable form of government. Instead, it is the gradual transition from limited government to the unlimited rule of an Oligarchy. Knowing this, we as Americans are ultimately left with only two choices. We can keep our Republic, as Franklin put it, or we will inevitably end up with an Oligarchy, a tyranny of the elite.

("The Proper View of 'Capitalism")

Just as there is wide spread confusion regarding political systems, there is similar confusion in the economic arena. All during the 20th century, Americans were lead to believe that there was a great struggle going on between capitalism and the communist world. Undoubtedly a struggle existed, but the real adversaries were rarely identified properly.

No discussion about economic systems will make sense without first defining terms, and one of the most basic terms in economics is "Capital", whose definition is "the means of production". (Money or other assets with which a company starts a business. Accumulated wealth.) To illustrate what capital is, let's consider a very simple economy.

On the sands of a small island, a castaway has just washed ashore. He has no food and he's hungry. He searches the island. He finds no berries, coconuts or anything edible. He goes back into the water and tries to catch fish with his bare hands, but he fails. So, he goes back up on shore. He finds a bush He breaks off a branch. He gnaws at one end to make a sharp tip. Back into the water he goes and with his spear, he catches fish. His spear is "capital". It's "the means of production" for catching fish. He gave up some of his time and some of his energy to produce something he could not eat but something that would help him to produce something that he could eat. Capital, therefore, can be tools, machinery and even a man's handmade spear to catch fish.

Such being the case, consider that the communists in the former Soviet Union as well as in China and Cuba have always used tools and machinery. Officials there even view people as capital. Therefore, by strict definition, are not communists capitalists? For that matter, isn't everyone a capitalist? And so, is not every economic system a capitalist system? What then is the difference between what the communist system is and what the American Capitalist system is supposed to be? The difference is the "ownership of the capital"? Is the system "monopolistic, state-controlled capitalism", or is it competitive, "free enterprise" capitalism? It is between these two opposing economic systems that a battle has always raged.

Before we proceed, let's also define "free market". Basically, it's a self-regulating system in which all parties are completely free to transact with one-another. But where forced, fraud or injury damages one party, government's role is only to punish who commit such offenses and to vindicate the rights of the other party. This protects the integrity of the free market or free enterprise system without intervening in it.

The term "private property" also needs clarification, for private ownership and control of property is a key component in the free enterprise system. In order for ownership of property to be full and complete, all four of its aspects must be met. These are "title, control, use" and the "ability to dispose" of what a person owns. In a free market economy, these aspects are unrestrained so long as the owner does not infringe on legitimate rights and claims of others. True ownership of property and freedom go hand in hand. They always have.

Now let's compare the two systems of capitalism. (Monopolistic, State-Controled) In the "Competitive Free Enterprise" system, capital or property is both "Owned Privately" and "Controlled Privately". In the "Monopolistic" (State-Controlled) system, holding titled to capital can be accomplished (Owned) "Privately" or "by" the "State". But more importantly, capital is "Controlled by" the "State" or by the elite few who control the state.

"The Communist Manifesto", which contains the basic program for all Communist and all Socialists, explicitly preaches "the destruction and abolition of private property". Carl Marx understood the powers of controlling capital and so have all communists and socialists who have ever looked and still look to Marx as their leader. State controlled capitalism results in high prices and low quality. After all, why would a monopoly strive to improve if it has no competition.

On the other hand, honest, thrifty, hard working producers throughout the world prefer "competitive, free-enterprise" system for all. Here, low prices and high quality prevail because a variety of producers will seek to attract the widest amount of customers. Competition results in excellence and always has.

(Yet, even in America, power hungry people with elitist mentalities (Turner, Cheney) want government to create monopolistic systems for their benefit. With government on their side, they can easily crush their competition and repress any would be contenders. This raises a question. What about those who have benefited so greatly from the free enterprise system such as the Rocker fellers, the Morgan's and others. Why have they always been cozy with the world's communists and socialists who are devoted to the destruction of the free enterprise system? The answer is that they would prefer a system insuring that their "Wealth and power" go "unchallenged" Their goals are essentially no different from communists and socialists who favor "monopolistic control." Both groups are united in their efforts to fight those who want competitive free enterprise. These are not to be confused with producers advocating free enterprise that may have a temporary monopoly on a product or service they offer. These producers know there's always someone who will eventually come along with a better offering or figure out how to make a product that they make. Monopolists who advocate government control in the markets, however, do so at the expense of other's freedom. Without the power of government giving them a legal monopoly, they know that their power and wealth won't last very long.

Just as the political spectrum shows the range of government power, we can also plot the various economic systems along another spectrum. These forms of "government control in the market" stand in sharp contrast with a "completely free market".

In the last century of so, there have basically be four forms of "state control economies", all on the far left of the economic spectrum. "Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, Communism." In each, the "Government Controls" the "Capital". The difference among these is "how much" is "owned or controlled outright" by the government.

In a "Fascist" system, the government doesn't own businesses on paper, but it does control them. In Mussolini's Italy, even though he didn't hold title to businesses, he told the owners what to produce, how much to produce, when to produce, where to buy raw materials, who to hire, who to fire, and what price to charge. The rest, he said, was up to them.

The "Fascist" system is more efficient that other state controlled systems in so far as those living under still think they still own their businesses. Shopkeepers concern themselves with maintenance the machinery, employee relations, painting the building, and so forth, but the government controls owners through an array of taxation and regulations.

Under "Nazism", which means "National Socialism", its proponents went one step further and acquired ownership of some corporations, such as Volkswagen. However, Hitler didn't seize ownership of other industrial giants, he simply controlled them, just as Mussolini had control businesses in Italy.

"Socialism" is where government officials acquire possession of major industries such as transportation, communications and utilities in order to leverage control over the entire economy. Through ownership of these vital segments of industry, and by creating government regulatory agencies, socialists gained control over virtually everything else.

Finally, there is "Communism", the granddaddy of all in the economic sense. In a way, Communism is more honest than Fascism because all of the capital is owned and controlled by the state. There are no pretenses about it.

Now let's combined political and economic systems because ultimately one never exists without the other. We see again that there are only two ultimate choices. A "Competitive, free enterprise" system in a "Republic", or a "Monopolistic, state-controlled" system under an "Oligarchy".

(The Morality Factor) A moral people have always been a vital element of America's strength. The founding fathers well understood the Biblical teaching that "righteousness exalteth a nation." (Proverbs 14:31) They also knew that expecting a free market economy and limited government under a Republic, to endure without morality was expecting the impossible. James Madison cautioned that "Limited government alone" was "inadequate for" our "nation." And John Adams observed "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." George Washington stated "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

(Believe the bell range somewhere around here.)

Yet there are people today who think that liberty is license and that morality is unimportant or irrelevant to politics and economics but as Benjamin Franklin added "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

(America at a Crossroad)

The alternative to Americanism is what has condemned most of the human race to live as slaves throughout the millennia. It's the idea that rights are privileges dispensed by an Oligarchy according to the unlimited rule of men, that the state should control or own the nation's capital with all economic activity directed from a central power and that morality is inconsequential, and that security is preferred over freedom and opportunity.

Our nation continues to be steered off course, and the principles that lead to America's greatness are being cast aside.

While it's not too late to reverse and prevent our decent into a tyrannical oligarchy, it is essential that many more Americans become involved in this battle to preserve freedom. The John Birch Society with its chapter based volunteer membership exists for the purpose of "keeping our republic." Reversing the dangerous course our nation is now on and with God's help, "building a better world." Join our nationwide effort formed by many thousands of Americans of good character from all walks of life. As the John Birth Society founder Robert Welch stated at the close of many of his programs "Come join us in our proud companionship and in our epic under taking." 

(For more information
visit www.JBS.org) 

(Contact headquarters
1-800-JBS-USA1)

(Headquarters address
The John Birth Society
PO Box 8040
Appleton, WI 54912)

(c) MMVI
Overview of America
is a production of
The John Birth Society)

(JBS.org
The John Birth Society)

Note: The following portion was not on the DVD but was on the extended Internet versions shown as MMVII

A simple question for us is "Do we continue the slide away from our nation's founding principles?" Or "Do we return to the kind of government we inherited?" Time is running out for American's who sense that something is wrong. They have to decide what kind of a country we shall leave for future generations. All that is needed is for a sufficient number of Americans to get involved in the fight for freedom and to return our nation to less government, more responsibility, and with God's help, a better world.

(Attribution) (Overview of America is a production of The John Birch Society C MMVII)

(For more information visit www.jbs.org)