Ron Paul Finally Endorses

On a day we honor WFB's memory, let us carry on his work

By Neil Stevens Posted in | | | | Comments (67) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

After all this time, and all the anticipation, Ron Paul has finally made peace with his compatriots, and made his endorsement.

What's that? John McCain? Oh my, no. Ron Paul is still running for President, and trying to steal other candidates' pledged delegates. Even though he's perfectly happy to take the endorsement of a party his campaign claims is not "viable" (ibid.), he won't step up and acknowledge the victory of the man who earned enough pledged delegates to assure a first ballot GOP victory, and who will be leading us to November.

No, Ron Paul won't endorse the man who has earned the endorsement of the Republican Party's voters, but he will and has endorsed the John Birch Society. Yes, that John Birch Society. The one that accused President Eisenhower of being a Communist. The one that William F. Buckley, whom many of us remember today, rightly threw out of the conservative movement.

Ron Paul endorsed them, and removed all doubt of his position with respect to the conservative movement.

Read on...

Quoting a release sent out via email by JBS PR Manager Bill Hahn:

Dr. Paul stated, "The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts to foster 'less government, more responsibility ... and with God's help ... a better world.'"

Dr. Paul has also agreed to be the keynote speaker at the Society's 50th anniversary celebration, Oct. 2-5, in Appleton.

What kind of group is it that Ron Paul is "endorsing," as Hahn says, wishes success for, and will speak to? Conspiracy nuts. That's all they are. They were when they envisioned Ike as a secret Red, and they are when they claim that "just four years from now... the United States may cease to exist as an independent political entity" due to the North American Union machinations oft he Council on Foreign Relations.

Yes, it's from there that all those nuts come and start ranting about NAU roads and highways taking over America. And Ron Paul values their "educational program!"

More importantly, this is a group that puts the lie to Ron Paul's statements in the debates. He told Carl Cameron in the January 10 debate that while he refuses to denounce the 9/11 truthers and respects their freedom to have their views, he does not agree with them. It was a pretty weasely answer for a Constitution-thumper who talks simply of civil liberties and an isolationist foreign policy. However now that camera is off, all eyes looking at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he goes and endorses the JBS, when they're one of the bigger truther societies around.

Just look at this DVD they are selling. In fact, it's one of their "featured products" at the John Birch Society. 9/11 Press For Truth by Ray Nowosielski, using work by Paul Thompson, claims to present " some of the most glaring discrepancies, lies, and coverups concerning the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil." And what kind of "coverups" do they expose? Let's list a few: the story that some Israelis were warned of the attacks, WTC7 building alarm issues, and alleged oddities in the President's schedule that day.

The whole site reads like someone who believes the attack to be an inside job: "(9:03 a.m.-9:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001: President Bush Enters Classroom Photo-Op, Still Claims to Think WTC Crash Is Accidental." Claims? Claims? Does anyone in touch with reality actually think that President Bush knew more about these attacks than he let on? Seriously?

But alright, that's just a DVD that the John Birch Society is selling. What about their own magazine, The New American? Do a search for "9/11" and you get an article entitled "Able Danger" and 9/11 Foreknowledge that concludes with these lines:

It is a pattern that reflects not incompetence or “lack of coordination” but something much worse. It is a pattern of conscious, purposeful action aimed at thwarting those who are tasked with defending America in the “war on terror.” It is a pattern that is being carried out by policymakers at the highest levels of our government, and it is time to ask why.

My friends, this is the effort of "education" that Ron Paul cheers. This is where Ron Paul is at home: among the kooks and nuts. And this isn't just a fluke, either. In Pressing for the Truth on 9/11, the Birchers cheer 9/11 Press for Truth as they continue to suggest the US Government to be in league with Al Qaeda:

The 9/11 families are still demanding to know what really happened and why? Ditto for other unexplained (and seemingly inexplicable) subsequent events such as the repeated “escapes” of Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Afghanistan — apparently courtesy of the governments of Pakistan and the United States. 9/11 Press for Truth presents interviews with Gary Berntsen, the CIA’s field commander in charge of Operation Jawbreaker, the agency’s hunt for bin Laden in the caves of Tora Bora. Berntsen and others have charged that bin Laden and large convoys of his followers were repeatedly allowed to get away when they were about to be taken by U.S. forces. When the Taliban and al-Qaeda legions were trapped by U.S. forces in Kunduz, Afghanistan, in November 2001, the Pakistani government sent in planes to airlift the terrorists to safety in Pakistan, with the apparent blessing of the U.S. government.

The time has come to stop distinguishing Ron Paul from his tin foil hatted supporters. He is not above them, he is of them. He agrees with them, he joins them in their gatherings, and he cheers them in their spreading of nutty conspiracy theories. This is the real Ron Paul.

Do we want this in our party? I say no. On today, the memorial day of William F. Buckley, we should excuse Paul from our political movement once and for all, just as he threw out the Birchers once upon a time.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | "100 Years"Comments (2) »
Ron Paul Finally Endorses 67 Comments (0 topical, 67 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

He is clearly no longer a Republican. His extremist views, and those of the groups that support him, do not belong even in the big tent of Reagan.



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

He needs to be tossed out of the Fepublican Party by the leadership. He should absolutely get no time at the convention.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Ron Paul endorsed the John Birch Society because for 50 years the JBS was and still is the ONLY Conservative organization that actually acts to save this nation and return it to Constitutional limited government which is what Cong Paul advocates. I suggest you visit www.jbs.org and learn.

Mr. Buckley, who so many of you have been taken in by, was able to enthrall y'all into harmless inaction while attacking the very organization that was on the front lines actually doing something rather than pontificating about it.

Buckley was an excellent CFR member carrying out his instructions to create a nice place conservatives can feel happy running to while this nation continued on a course to create a more powerful central government.

Here is a snippet of a vintage quote from a 1952 essay by William F. Buckley, Jr. published in the Catholic magazine Commonweal. Buckley wrote:

"...we have got to accept Big Government for the duration -- for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy...

Andy "Hirsh" Dlinn

Bad choice of snippet by the way.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

[Pimping Ron Paul still = immediate banning. More so since we have come to understand just how crazy he really is. Please enjoy the following video instead of the moRon trolling that previously occupied this space. - LHW]


Thanks Leon.
I know what I'm going to the store for tomorrow.



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

Everyone else is going to miss my witty response to his multiple reposts of his garbage.

For the rest of you a rundown:
Moby:Blah blah blah...RonPaul!
Me: Quiet moby...watch this:




Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

The playoffs start in a little less than 48 hours. I am jazzed beyond belief.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Although, as a Blues fan I am starting to understand what it must be like to be a Cubs fan:
Maybe Next Year ™



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

There are only 4 first round games on NBC.



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

Check your cable listings, it's easy to miss, but if you have either Cable or DirecTV, you probably have Versus. Most of the first round games are on that channel.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

and I don't want to pay 40 bucks a month to upgrade to the package that includes Vs.



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

Alexander the Great, comin atcha.

Some reason my responses are being pushed down. This reply is in response to Simpson.

But the thread moves to the right. So, you are responding just fine...I'm just not sure about your length (and the repeat RonPaul!RonPaul!RonPaul!RonPaul!).

Erik

"He is clearly no longer a Republican"? So you admit he "once was" a Republican? What has changed?

"His extremist views"? Please define extremist in your view.

..."and those of the groups that support him, do not belong even in the big tent of Reagan."

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
- Ronald Reagan



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

I am no apologist. I strongly stand behind the principles represented in our nation's constitution and bill of rights.

I have found the leadership in the Republican party lacking over the last decade as we've become the party of spending wildly, starting unjust wars, and using fear tactics to scare the nation into thinking al quaeda is going to come into our home any moment now...or maybe Iran might have a nuke and use it...the former Soviet Union had thousands of nukes and that was resolved through negotiations NOT terribly bloody/costly wars.

are you saying this threat is not real?...Please, shed some light on this..

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

Just because he had nothing better to do with his time doesn't mean that we don't.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

If he is this obsessed, he'll respawn.



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

Please, restudy history. You have a lot to learn about how the Soviet Union fell.



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

The Texas GOP should find any way possible to remove Ron Paul from the Republican ballot line. The House Conference should make it clear that he is no longer welcome at the Party's functions and he should be asked to return himself to the Libertarian Party.

Let him run on their line. Right now I don't actually believe that he will draw that many actual Republicans away from McCain - and he won't stand a chance with voters after a couple of mentions of the company Paul keeps.

Ron Paul's supporters are not Republicans - and the Republican Party has never stood for the things that Paul advocates. Paul has taken every good idea that the conservative movement has had and taken it to an extreme that makes it unpalatable and impossible (and improper) to implement. His supporters would not be "returning the Party to Taft, Goldwater and Reagan," they would be undoing the Party altogether.

It is time for the GOP and the conservative movement to do to Paul and his devotees (who, btw, resemble Obama fans in their messianic adoration of their candidate) what WFB did to the Birchers 50 years ago - discredit them and banish them from the ranks of acceptable discourse.

If the TX GOP cannot get rid of Paul and replace him, then we should do what WFB did to Weicker - organize and encourage voters in his district to opt for his opponent. I would rather a Democrat hold the seat (probably for one term) than see our Party brought to disrepute by Paul's alleged affiliation with it.

While I don't agree with some of his outlandish ideas, the concept of removing him from a ballot that he deserves to be on is not a good idea. If the Texas GOP wants Paul out of it, there was a primary a short while back that they could have put more effort into. Otherwise, the registered Republicans of his district went out and voted for him. You may not agree with their decision, but that's part of elections.

"The Texas GOP should find any way possible to remove Ron Paul from the Republican ballot line"

So if you don't like someone just have them removed? That is NOT American and certainly not democratic.

"The House Conference should make it clear that he is no longer welcome at the Party's functions and he should be asked to return himself to the Libertarian Party."

He is a ten term Republican and was just reelected in his district by an overwhelming majority.

So the Texas residents and Republicans in his district actually wanted RP back in Congress. Imagine that? Our system at work by allowing a democracy to function instead of the powerful party line towers to pull an opponent out they don't like.

By the way, we don't let Ron Paul supporters shill for their man-god here, so stop.

[holding up hand] I said stop. I already know that I'm just another damn Jew-loving neocon statist bully, thanks.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

freedom of discourse is a bad thing.

Get in line.

Do as you are told.

Don't ask questions.

I never said nor would I call you a Jew loving neocon statist bully. Insulting individuals does not address actual issues and therefore I refrain from attacking you personally.

What I attack are ideas and attitudes.

So keep it up like the others who simply sling insults. Those are fantastic for furthering discourse about topics that matter most.

Life's Not Fair™

Good job taunting a moderator. I hope you feel big for that one.

[Just to help you out a little bit here: Ron Paul's craziness has been established on this site for many months now. Your support of him is further evidence.]



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

You'd think that the Ronulans would have looked up the concept by now.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

could have been an inside job. Congressman Paul seems to believe that we need an independent investion of 9-11, as he told the Scholars for 9-11 Truth.

As grist for the investigative mill, he could start by reading this entire issue of Popular Mechanics.

Once he's perused what several hundred professional engineers have to say on the likelihood of it having been an inside job, he can also read the testimony of The 9-11 Commission.

Then he could follow that up by eliciting the testimony of Bill Whittle on why conspiracy nuts are intellectually dangerous, and bad for the nation as a whole. Don't worry. The truth is out there somewhere.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

You realize, of course, that asking them to read that issue of Popular Mechanics only proves that you're a part of the conspiracy, right?

Let's remember who we're talking with here. This is most probably one of Bermas' or Avery's acolytes, and it could be them in the flesh.

In any case if anyone would like to see their view of 9/11 in an interview with the editors of Popular Mechanics, you can watch it at Democracy Now!

My big question is this: is Ron Paul a beard for Lenora Fulani? Signals point yes.

One other interesting exchange happened while I was at St. Anselm the previous day, talking to Mike "The U.S. Is GOING to Invade Iran" Gravel:

I suggested to Mike that he should be running on a joint ticket with Ron Paul and it elicited the biggest belly laugh from the dude I've ever seen.

He strikes me as one of those guys who'd be a nice guy.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

He was avuncular, very jolly, and engaging. Willing to talk, particularly willing to expound at length about how the Congress was conspiring with the Bush administration to invade Iran or at least create the pretext for it. Extremely convincing to the people who wanted to listen, and obviously a polished manipulator. I was chilled and impressed in equal measure.

And there is good reason to believe that Mike Gravel and Ron Paul would have a lot in common, not just because Gravel himself told me that they do, albeit from somewhat different directions. But he didn't rule it out. You can also look at Gravel's erstwhile 2008 candidacy website, which is heavy on the Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy meme, with Manson (yeah, that Manson: caution flashbacks) brought along for local color...


Two peas in a pod, those guys. In a way I'm proud to have covered the Spin Room for both of those early debates, because it really exposed me to the loose nuts of both parties.

"I've got blisters on my fingers!!!" -Charlie's Favorite Song.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

Nobody ever thought to label Mike Gravel as Mike "Charles Manson" Gravel -- he did it to himself! You can't make this stuff up.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

DO you do these things to mock me, Kowalski? Should I berate you or feel deeply question myself?

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

I don't mock my friends, but anyone who is interested in the Freinds of Ron Paul Society should watch that video very carefully. Bermas is hyperkinetic, almost preternaturally afflicted. I thought he'd take a shot at one of the Pop. Mech. editors a couple of times during the course of their debate.

That video, BTW aired here in Massachusetts on Link-TV (the one that Cher advertises for gratis) the same night ABC aired "The Path to 9/11" as counterprogramming.

I actually watched them both, PIP on my monitor.

As someone who is probably more libertarian than Republican, nuts like this are the reason why libertarianism is not taken seriously. Being a libertarian means you believe in freedom over state power. It means you believe in the Founding Fathers over activist judges and big government liberals. All of this 19th century BS, foreign policy wimpiness, and conspiracy theories scare people away from the most reasonable, pro-freedom ideology.

I would be so incredibly happy if a reasonable libertarian became a nationally popular politician. With a good leader there is no reason that a libertarian who leans conservative couldn't win a national election as a fusionist candidate. I actually thought Giuliani would be a fantastic candidate. I'm really bummed he lost.

is no libertarian. whatever you might call him, he is quite happy to use state power for whatever ends he thinks are appropriate uses of that power. He is certainly not constrained by any principle of personal liberty and is not looking to return to the Founding Fathers.

On that point I would say that the creation of the Founding Fathers, while substantially intact, was considerably altered by the Civil War and the passage of, especially, the 14th Amendment, which greatly centralized government and gave Congress and the federal judiciary the powers over state legislation and state action (states as opposed to federal, not state as in any government unit). Without the "incorporation" doctrines that stem from the 14th there would be almost no "activism" as the federal courts would have no grounds to strike state laws that they believe conflict with the Bill of Rights. The Founders would probably be horrified at the wholesale redistribution of power that was effected by the 14th Amendment and the actions taken by the Radicals during the War and Reconstruction.

But that is life, and we need to deal with those changes. We should not seek to return to a period (the 1790s) that ceased to exist in that form 150 years ago. Those people who claim that we should are rightfully treated as political cranks and ignored in serious discourse.

No doubt - but a rather ordinary, run-of-the-mill conspiracy nut.

Ah, but thanks for the memories, Doc . . . all those multitudes of half-witted fanatical followers, assuring us the Revolution had come . . . I think of them sometimes, where they must be - living in a cardboard box on some dirty city alley, or in jail, or trapped in a hospital for the criminally insane. Some of them, the only child their mother had.

Sad, sad, what a waste of potentially adequate manual labor.

Keep insulting people. It makes your argument stronger and more truthful if you keep insulting those you oppose.

In what sense isn't Ron Paul a conspiracy nut? There's a preponderance of documentation and personal evidence on my part to suggest that at the very least, he cultivates and was supported by conspiracy nuts.

Do you think the conspiracy nuts who are his supporters are now apologizing and moderating their conspiracy-nuttiness? What has taken place recently to cause this transformation? Could it be their repugnance at Ron Paul's endorsement of the John Birch Society? Has he disavowed 9/11 conspiracy theorists working illicitly to infiltrate debates as legitimate media commentators?

In what sense isn't Ron Paul the product of his own conspiracy nuttiness? His supporters certainly think he's the bees knees because of it.

on those JDAM's for trolls?



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

It's taken almost a year since I was in New Hampshire at the 2nd debate and witnessed the conspiracy theorists who crashed the Republican Spin Room.

Maybe the New York Times will stop running articles about him now attempting to keep his candidacy alive...

on 9-11 and the war in Iraq he certainly has good company and I suspect a few million votes on the left....he is an idiot...pay no attention to the court jester....he is only around for amusement.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

again I repeat insulting those you oppose makes your argument more valid. Don't address the issues - just use rhetoric and insults to get your point across.

Nor does the 'victim' tack do anything to get *your* point across.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies
-- Frank J

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

From my diary of October 23, entitled Connecting the Dots: Meet the John Birch Society:

As a kid in the '60's I was aware of a political nut group called the John Birch Society.

They wrapped themselves in the flag and tried to sound like superpatriots, the only True Americans. ...

But they marginalized themselves with their paranoia. In their worldview, there was this international cabal, see, and it's run by the CFR and the Bilderbergers, and they're under the control of the Jooooooooooos, you see... And mainstream Republicans are just a bunch of saps that have fallen under the influence of these groups.

Check out the comments of poster ernie1241.

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

"There are two things that are infinite,human stupidity and the universe, and i'm not sure about the latter" Einstein
and im not refering to Dr. paul or the JBS
seems like the JBS is getting some poeple panties in a twist......we are such a nation of sheep, sometimes you need to look closer....not wasting anymore of my time here
this is G.H signing off

"Fools" I.J.

If Barney Frank decided on a whim to become a Republican, would we accept him? I would think not. So why should we accept Ron Paul. He is at the least an ass and at most the head nut job at the tinfoil hat convention.

But I think he should just be shunned by the leadership. Let him become the next Jim Traficant of the house. Besides, we all need the laughs.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

Dear Mr. Stevens and Redstate Readers,

After reading the blog regarding the news release I sent, please allow me to respond to Mr. Stevens assertions.

Mr. Stevens asserts that JBS “accused President Eisenhower of being a Communist.” Had he read the 300-page document that people point to as the source of this assertion, he would have found that Robert Welch, prior to founding JBS, never said Eisenhower was. Moreover, JBS has never taken a position on whether or not Eisenhower was communist.

Mr. Stevens suggests that, according to our web site, the US may cease to exist as an independent political entity.” However, he left out an important element. As we make clear, that's what would happen “if the CFR template is followed.” Stevens, conveniently, ignores this. He also conveniently ignores the fact that, because of the Society's efforts, the further dilution of our sovereignty won't happen as fast as the CFR desired.

The original plan, as outlined in the CFR publication, "Building A North American Community" (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community....), calls for this community to be established by 2010. The report describes how to set-up common economic, trade, labor and security agreements for the three countries, using a plan strikingly similar to the path the countries of the European Union were duped into traveling. The report calls for high levels of cooperation between the US and Mexican militaries and intelligence agencies and promotes illegal immigrant amnesty for workers in the three countries. It also proposes to establish a common security perimeter for the three countries while opening our borders through the relaxing of customs, immigration, and airport security laws, all done through a biometric pass.

Mr. Stevens ignores all this and calls us "conspiracy nuts" and continues, next raving about "nuts" who worry about, “NAU roads and highways taking over America.” The very well-known fact is that the government of Texas has decided to take by eminent domain millions of acres of private property for the construction of massive highways that are to be built and leased by a foreign company which will extract tolls from motorists. Texas gets money up front from the lease, but generations of families are forced to relocate while the privately leased highway rakes in the tolls and the state is not allowed to build roads that would bypass it. Is JBS ranting about this as Mr. Stevens suggests? You darn right we are. We devoted an entire issue of our news magazine to the North American Union: http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/documents/MergerInTheMaking.pdf
And we continue to cover it.

Mr. Stevens continues his complaints with “they're one of the bigger truther societies around.” If he would have looked at our site and read through our 9/11 coverage in The New American magazine, he would see that we do not take a stand on 9/11 theories. Our coverage on 9/11 has poked holes in some of the earlier theories:
http://thenewamerican.com/node/159

Do we think the government orchestrated 9/11? No, we have no evidence to prove that. But we do question why it is more and more difficult for the US government to sustain the cover story that they had no way of anticipating the attack:
http://thenewamerican.com/node/3652

Our DVD that we sell, "9/11 Press For Truth," is a DVD we have purchased for sale. The DVD is a documentary about some of the 9/11 victim families. The families present their 2 1/2 year struggle to create an investigation and inquiry into the events of 9/11 -- which was at first heavily resisted and even explicitly prohibited by the President and Vice-President, which resulted in the 9/11 Commission. We feel it’s one of the best documentaries covering the events of the fateful day.

When Mr. Stevens quotes a concluding paragraph from one of the above listed 9/11 articles written in 2005, he does so out of context and attempts to draw the conclusion for the reader. Consider reading the entire article and see for yourself how the communication between the FBI and Pentagon operation “Able Danger” was thwarted prior to the 9/11 attacks, and how the administration tried to cover up this bungling of information years after the attacks, including destroying records that would bring important elements of this to light.

In our 2006 article on "Pressing for the Truth on 9/11," senior editor William Jasper concludes:
"This documentary is important not only for its content but for its professional packaging and high production values, which add to its credibility. But its main value may lie in the hope it gives that common, ordinary people — without office or power — can make a difference. It transcends partisan politics and should be seen by all Americans who are committed to justice and are determined to secure our country against similar — or worse — attacks in the future."

Again, we do not think the government orchestrated 9/11. We think it could have done much more than it did to prevent it, and that is what has been covered up. Watch the video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=9%2F11+Pre...

Finally, Mr. Stevens invokes the name of William F. Buckley. Today, Mr. Buckley is perceived as a conservative pioneer. In fact, he was not so much a pioneer as a disruptive force among conservatives. Generally, conservatives applaud openness, honesty and integrity. Mr. Buckley, by contrast, had a penchant for the secret and the subversive. At Yale he was a member of the secretive Skull and Bones. After graduation, by his own admission, he became a "deep cover" agent for the CIA.

By contrast, the leaders of the conservative movement in the 1950s were largely Senator Robert Taft and industrialist and author Robert Welch. Eventually going on to found the John Birch Society, in the 1950s one could describe Mr. Welch as "America’s conservative ambassador to the world" as he then was corresponding with and meeting world leaders like Korean President Syngman Rhee, West German Chancellor Konrad Adenaur, and Republic of China leader Chiang Kai-shek.

To build up his own prominence and that of his publication, National Review, Mr. Buckley decided to attack both Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. Such a move, given the prominence of both the Society and its leader at the time, was a brilliant public relations effort, even though it was dishonorable and underhanded. It was mudslinging, pure and simple. While, collectively, we’re accustomed to such tactics today, at the time it was a novel approach and it served to garner for Mr. Buckley all the attention he sought.

To the detriment of the nation and the world, over the ensuing years Mr. Buckley steered his new found audience more and more away from the classical liberalism of Taft and Welch toward increasing accommodation with ideas from the left of the political spectrum.

Today, to a great degree, the Bush administration is a monument to the success of that decades long effort. And what, exactly, has been the outcome? Ruinous spending, acceptance of big government interventionism, the weakening of the Fourth Amendment, acceptance of torture, disastrous trade policies, ongoing attacks on freedom, and empire building overseas. No, Mr. Buckley was not personally responsible for all these -- but, in large part, it was his considerable intellect and influence that patiently molded and guided the neoconservative movement that today holds the reins of power.

We believe that all the people of the world have natural, God-given liberties and freedoms and that, instead of intervening in people’s lives, governments are created to respect and protect those liberties and freedoms. To that end, our mission is simple: To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.

So I conclude with a slightly different version of the question Mr. Stevens asked. Do we want less government, more responsibility and — with God’s help — a better world in our lives? Absolutely, and you might be surprised at the number of folks that say they agree. Perhaps someday even Mr. Stevens might similarly give his assent, a hope of ours that proves, if nothing else, that the John Birch Society is incorrigibly optimistic about the future.

Thank you for allowing me to respond,

Bill Hahn
Public Relations Manager
The John Birch Society

speak volumes. Pretty much indicates that Neil was right.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

It's the JBS itself that's the problem, not the messenger.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I think we should call him "The JBS Baghdad Bob"



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service