The John Birch Society of Bigots [ADMIN - info disputed]

[yongrel]

I found this while puttering around the John Birch Society's website, which has been redesigned since I last looked. Check out this post: http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/974-userblogs/4939

Craziness and insanity. Someone took the time out of their day to write that entire screed of insanity.

Reason #1,931 why I don't support the John Birch Society.

For your reading "pleasure," here is the article in full:

[Admin note- the piece was posted on an open enrollment blog system and was removed from the JBS web site (and the user banned) for violation of the JBS Community Terms of Service. It clearly does not reflect the JBS organization.]

********************************************
"Latinos In Film" festival uses WHITE stereotypes

Written by Chuck Christopher
Thursday, 28 May 2009 00:00


Background: Turner Classic Movies hosted a month-long series called

"Latino Images In Film," every Tuesday and Thursday in May 2009, the fourth

of "Race In Hollywood," which previously featured blacks, asians,

homosexuals, and this year hispanics.

One of their most common complaints was that of alleged racial

"stereotyping," which referred to every time hispanics were portrayed as

being the way they really are, different from white people.

What's really ironic about this is that white people, who they are trying

to imitate (the only way they get civilized), are also being ridiculed

as follows in this intro to the film "Old San Francisco:"

Robert Osborne: ...Dolores Costello, one year before she became Mrs. John Barrymore.

Now, she is about as "white bread" as you can get. I haven't seen this film,

don't tell me she plays a Spanish senorita or something like that.



STOP THE TAPE ! ! ! And why shouldn't she? I thought she did a good job at it.

Whitebread is a term used by Jewish authors, journalists and television

personalities that refers to alleged blandness or plainness

in White people, meaning their perceived enemies, whom they call "WASP",

(White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). I found it in a recent Sociology textbook as well.

Its usage is similar to that of the term plain vanilla. In the DC comic book,

Justice League International, the sarcastic Green Lantern Guy Gardner would often refer to his innocent,

pure-hearted teammate Captain Marvel as ‘Captain Whitebread'. (from Wikipedia)

Conclusion: So Jews produce comic books as well, and use them to spread their propaganda.



Chon Noriega: Well, actually she plays the heiress to a long line of Spaniards

who helped found California, San Francisco in particular (Dolores Costello seen

dancing a Spanish dance, presumably with castanets).



Robert Osborne: Now this is a stretch in casting, you have to admit.



STOP THE TAPE ! ! ! Why is that? An American playing a Spaniard, or a

Mexican -- That's called "acting," is it not? It is! And it is NOT a "stretch in

casting." She did it quite well. Y'all have been taking in too much of this

multiculturalism and PC garbage, and it's clouding your thinking.



One other film I found really interesting, "The Lawless," from (1950):


Scene One: fruit pickers in California, get off work, one complains that
there's gotta be a better way to make a living, the other says, "Sure, for Anglos,"
and the theme is set, as a young white couple walk by.
Big Boss Man, white of course, is mean -- It's Saturday, end of day shift,
and he tries to get the kids to work all night as well. They refuse, and he sneers,
well, guess you're in a hurry to get "tanked up." One of the young Mexican guys
starts to retalitate, the other says, "Let it go, Loco (crazy), you know what kind of
guy he (the boss) is"...

Next, the two young Mexican guys ride home together in a car, wistfully chatting
about what the ideal life would be like. "My own land, orchard, etc.," for one,
the other wants something else. Nice young kids, good kids, just got off work.
While they're daydreaming the driver accidentally runs a stop sign and collides with
another car -- with two young white guys. Uh-oh, now we've got trouble.

They get out, and the white driver begins browbeating the Mexican driver, demanding
to see his license! "You people" this, and soon they're fighting. A motorcycle cop
"just happens" to come along, and he pulls over, asks questions, the Mexican kid
has insurance, so the cop sends the white guys away, fines the Mexican kid $5.00.
This is 1950. $5.00.

To recap -- first conflict, the Mexicans were at fault, but the white guys started the fight.
Later on, during the second conflict, at a dance, white guy comes on strong to
Mexican girl, first leaning on arm against wall, then blocking her from leaving with
other arm also against wall, pinning her there. She brushes past, Mexican boy sees it,
comes over, says something to white guy, and white guy takes a swing at him, which
starts THE WHOLE ROOM fighting, a riot.

The film goes to great length to show that the white kids are "rich" and the Mexicans
are "poor." This is dramatically demonstrated earlier when the Mexican kid takes a shower
IN THE BACK YARD (are they kidding?) and immediately after the white kid is seen
taking a shower in a nice bathroom...gimme a break...

To make matters worse, during the riot at the dance, one of the kids slugs a cop,
then freaks out and steals an ice cream truck, the police chase him, he steals another
car, then he gets caught. The cop who got slugged hits the kid, and the other cops
say shame on you, but they put him and the kid together in the back seat of the cop car,
where he beats the kid some more. The driver gets distracted, runs off the road,
and the kid escapes and runs off into the brush, and a posse/lynch-mob begins.

Now it gets even worse. At the police station, the white kids LIE about what happened,
blaming it all on the Mexican kids, who are forced to plead guilty. Two journalists,
a white man and a young Mexican woman (Gail Russell), who met at the dance, become
involved in the case, and the woman uses her sex-appeal to bring him over to her side,
the victims of this storybook injustice.

Before the movie is shown, Noriega comments that Gail Russell is "in brown face," a new
liberal term, a spinoff of "blackface" which white actors used on stage and in films to
look like black people. Since blacks complained about that, alleging that whites were
making fun of them, which makes them "victims," now asians and hispanics are jumping
on the "victim" bandwagon by alleging "yellow-face" and "brown-face," every time a white
actor plays an asian or hispanic! Can you believe it? What will they come up with next?

One thing needs to be pointed out here: many people watch movies, and believe they are
seeing true events, even though it's just a story. Noriega himself pointed this out earlier
when he complained about films resembling "documentaries" while portraying his people
in a bad light. Well, guess what -- that's PRECISELY what this film does, except that
THIS TIME it's the WHITES who are being STEREOTYPED and portrayed in a negative
light. This is just a story, HOWEVER, it's a story about alleged INJUSTICES, and it
seems to be telling about REAL EVENTS. Noriega even says the riot "was based on a
real event" -- which occurred during a Paul Robeson concert !

Time out -- So what are we saying here? White males force themselves on hispanic females,
never the reverse, where hispanic males force themselves on white females. This is blatant,
shameless RACE-BAITING. Nobody's ever seen hispanic males harassing white females?
Or are we supposed to just ignore that?

Meanwhile, the young Mexican fugitive hides in a haystack while white farmer is singing
"Streets Of Laredo," (amusing irony here), sees kid, kid jumps up, grabs pitchfork to defend
himself, then drops it and runs...Later the sensational news reporters claim that "he tried to
kill a farmer"...Next he hides in a barn, dog barks, pretty young white girl goes out to
investigate, finds kid in barn, screams, turns around, bops head on something, is knocked out
cold, the kid runs away, and the reporters claim he attacked her.

What are we saying here? Poooor Mexican victims, baaaaad white villians, rich whites,
lying whites, cowardly whites, oppressing those pooooor hispanics....

People watch this foolishness and believe it's true! And there's much more of it today --
Consider the film "The Green Mile," in which a pooooor black man is on death row, and,
once again, it turns out a white guy committed the crime. I don't know about you, but I am
getting really SICK OF THIS sort of propaganda. Stories are being written, then published
and turned into movies, AND PEOPLE BELIEVE THEM.


Another film, "Mexican Spitfire" was introduced as "a precursor to

the Lucy Show," and stars Lupe Velez as a pretty, likeable young

Puerto Rican woman who marries a nice young white guy, whose

mother (and most of the rest of the whites) are STEREOTYPED

as stuffy, upperclass bigots. Nothing was mentioned about the

stereotyping of WHITES, but plenty was about an IMMIGRANT

WHO ISN'T GOING TO ASSIMILATE. And she's the protagonist.

And the whites are the antagonists. Again. And again.

[FrankRep]

http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/974-userblogs/4939

This posting removed for violation of section 4 of the JBS Community Terms of Service.


This is why I SUPPORT the John Birch Society!

:D

John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/

The New American
http://www.thenewamerican.com/

[ARealConservative]

ummm....you ever looked at hot topics Yongrel?

Why would a few crazies in the attack allow you to not support a great organization?

[RevolutionSD]

I found this while puttering around the John Birch Society's website, which has been redesigned since I last looked. Check out this post: http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/974-userblogs/4939

Craziness and insanity. Someone took the time out of their day to write that entire screed of insanity.

Reason #1,931 why I don't support the John Birch Society.

For your reading "pleasure," here is the article in full:

********************************************
"Latinos In Film" festival uses WHITE stereotypes

Written by Chuck Christopher
Thursday, 28 May 2009 00:00


Background: Turner Classic Movies hosted a month-long series called

"Latino Images In Film," every Tuesday and Thursday in May 2009, the fourth

of "Race In Hollywood," which previously featured blacks, asians,

homosexuals, and this year hispanics.

One of their most common complaints was that of alleged racial

"stereotyping," which referred to every time hispanics were portrayed as

being the way they really are, different from white people.

What's really ironic about this is that white people, who they are trying

to imitate (the only way they get civilized), are also being ridiculed

as follows in this intro to the film "Old San Francisco:"

Robert Osborne: ...Dolores Costello, one year before she became Mrs. John Barrymore.

Now, she is about as "white bread" as you can get. I haven't seen this film,

don't tell me she plays a Spanish senorita or something like that.



STOP THE TAPE ! ! ! And why shouldn't she? I thought she did a good job at it.

Whitebread is a term used by Jewish authors, journalists and television

personalities that refers to alleged blandness or plainness

in White people, meaning their perceived enemies, whom they call "WASP",

(White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). I found it in a recent Sociology textbook as well.

Its usage is similar to that of the term plain vanilla. In the DC comic book,

Justice League International, the sarcastic Green Lantern Guy Gardner would often refer to his innocent,

pure-hearted teammate Captain Marvel as ‘Captain Whitebread'. (from Wikipedia)

Conclusion: So Jews produce comic books as well, and use them to spread their propaganda.



Chon Noriega: Well, actually she plays the heiress to a long line of Spaniards

who helped found California, San Francisco in particular (Dolores Costello seen

dancing a Spanish dance, presumably with castanets).



Robert Osborne: Now this is a stretch in casting, you have to admit.



STOP THE TAPE ! ! ! Why is that? An American playing a Spaniard, or a

Mexican -- That's called "acting," is it not? It is! And it is NOT a "stretch in

casting." She did it quite well. Y'all have been taking in too much of this

multiculturalism and PC garbage, and it's clouding your thinking.



One other film I found really interesting, "The Lawless," from (1950):


Scene One: fruit pickers in California, get off work, one complains that
there's gotta be a better way to make a living, the other says, "Sure, for Anglos,"
and the theme is set, as a young white couple walk by.
Big Boss Man, white of course, is mean -- It's Saturday, end of day shift,
and he tries to get the kids to work all night as well. They refuse, and he sneers,
well, guess you're in a hurry to get "tanked up." One of the young Mexican guys
starts to retalitate, the other says, "Let it go, Loco (crazy), you know what kind of
guy he (the boss) is"...

Next, the two young Mexican guys ride home together in a car, wistfully chatting
about what the ideal life would be like. "My own land, orchard, etc.," for one,
the other wants something else. Nice young kids, good kids, just got off work.
While they're daydreaming the driver accidentally runs a stop sign and collides with
another car -- with two young white guys. Uh-oh, now we've got trouble.

They get out, and the white driver begins browbeating the Mexican driver, demanding
to see his license! "You people" this, and soon they're fighting. A motorcycle cop
"just happens" to come along, and he pulls over, asks questions, the Mexican kid
has insurance, so the cop sends the white guys away, fines the Mexican kid $5.00.
This is 1950. $5.00.

To recap -- first conflict, the Mexicans were at fault, but the white guys started the fight.
Later on, during the second conflict, at a dance, white guy comes on strong to
Mexican girl, first leaning on arm against wall, then blocking her from leaving with
other arm also against wall, pinning her there. She brushes past, Mexican boy sees it,
comes over, says something to white guy, and white guy takes a swing at him, which
starts THE WHOLE ROOM fighting, a riot.

The film goes to great length to show that the white kids are "rich" and the Mexicans
are "poor." This is dramatically demonstrated earlier when the Mexican kid takes a shower
IN THE BACK YARD (are they kidding?) and immediately after the white kid is seen
taking a shower in a nice bathroom...gimme a break...

To make matters worse, during the riot at the dance, one of the kids slugs a cop,
then freaks out and steals an ice cream truck, the police chase him, he steals another
car, then he gets caught. The cop who got slugged hits the kid, and the other cops
say shame on you, but they put him and the kid together in the back seat of the cop car,
where he beats the kid some more. The driver gets distracted, runs off the road,
and the kid escapes and runs off into the brush, and a posse/lynch-mob begins.

Now it gets even worse. At the police station, the white kids LIE about what happened,
blaming it all on the Mexican kids, who are forced to plead guilty. Two journalists,
a white man and a young Mexican woman (Gail Russell), who met at the dance, become
involved in the case, and the woman uses her sex-appeal to bring him over to her side,
the victims of this storybook injustice.

Before the movie is shown, Noriega comments that Gail Russell is "in brown face," a new
liberal term, a spinoff of "blackface" which white actors used on stage and in films to
look like black people. Since blacks complained about that, alleging that whites were
making fun of them, which makes them "victims," now asians and hispanics are jumping
on the "victim" bandwagon by alleging "yellow-face" and "brown-face," every time a white
actor plays an asian or hispanic! Can you believe it? What will they come up with next?

One thing needs to be pointed out here: many people watch movies, and believe they are
seeing true events, even though it's just a story. Noriega himself pointed this out earlier
when he complained about films resembling "documentaries" while portraying his people
in a bad light. Well, guess what -- that's PRECISELY what this film does, except that
THIS TIME it's the WHITES who are being STEREOTYPED and portrayed in a negative
light. This is just a story, HOWEVER, it's a story about alleged INJUSTICES, and it
seems to be telling about REAL EVENTS. Noriega even says the riot "was based on a
real event" -- which occurred during a Paul Robeson concert !

Time out -- So what are we saying here? White males force themselves on hispanic females,
never the reverse, where hispanic males force themselves on white females. This is blatant,
shameless RACE-BAITING. Nobody's ever seen hispanic males harassing white females?
Or are we supposed to just ignore that?

Meanwhile, the young Mexican fugitive hides in a haystack while white farmer is singing
"Streets Of Laredo," (amusing irony here), sees kid, kid jumps up, grabs pitchfork to defend
himself, then drops it and runs...Later the sensational news reporters claim that "he tried to
kill a farmer"...Next he hides in a barn, dog barks, pretty young white girl goes out to
investigate, finds kid in barn, screams, turns around, bops head on something, is knocked out
cold, the kid runs away, and the reporters claim he attacked her.

What are we saying here? Poooor Mexican victims, baaaaad white villians, rich whites,
lying whites, cowardly whites, oppressing those pooooor hispanics....

People watch this foolishness and believe it's true! And there's much more of it today --
Consider the film "The Green Mile," in which a pooooor black man is on death row, and,
once again, it turns out a white guy committed the crime. I don't know about you, but I am
getting really SICK OF THIS sort of propaganda. Stories are being written, then published
and turned into movies, AND PEOPLE BELIEVE THEM.


Another film, "Mexican Spitfire" was introduced as "a precursor to

the Lucy Show," and stars Lupe Velez as a pretty, likeable young

Puerto Rican woman who marries a nice young white guy, whose

mother (and most of the rest of the whites) are STEREOTYPED

as stuffy, upperclass bigots. Nothing was mentioned about the

stereotyping of WHITES, but plenty was about an IMMIGRANT

WHO ISN'T GOING TO ASSIMILATE. And she's the protagonist.

And the whites are the antagonists. Again. And again.

Yup. They also are anti-gay, and think there is a "homosexual agenda" that's ruining the country. It's a nutty group with SOME of the right ideas.

[specsaregood]

http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/974-userblogs/4939
This posting removed for violation of section 4 of the JBS Community Terms of Service.


Not surprised, it didn't sound like any of the birchers I know. Was that just an open blog that anybody can create/post on?

yongrel, how did you find that posting? I didn't see a "blogs" link on the jbs site.


Yup. They also are anti-gay, and think there is a "homosexual agenda" that's ruining the country. It's a nutty group with SOME of the right ideas.
Interesting...There is an out of the closet gay guy that is very active in our Ron Paul group and by association the local birchers. He comes to a great many of the jbs events and all the jbs members treat him like they do any other friend. In fact last year he ran into some personal issues and the jbs members went out of their way to help him out.

[LibertyEagle]

So Yongrel, you're going to sit there and condemn an entire organization, for the ignorant comment of ONE poster? A comment that was removed by the organization for violation of the terms of service.

C'mon man. You're better than this.

[RevolutionSD]

Interesting...There is an out of the closet gay guy that is very active in our Ron Paul group and by association the local birchers. He comes to a great many of the jbs events and all the jbs members treat him like they do any other friend. In fact last year he ran into some personal issues and the jbs members went out of their way to help him out.

That's good to hear. Those JBS members are going against one of their organizations' stated beliefs about the homosexual agenda.

[LibertyEagle]

That's good to hear. Those JBS members are going against one of their organizations' stated beliefs about the homosexual agenda.

Not at all. Most gays don't have anything whatsoever to do with trying to use the state to force an agenda. So, why would they be treated as such? They wouldn't.

[specsaregood]

That's good to hear. Those JBS members are going against one of their organizations' stated beliefs about the homosexual agenda.

I don't know, I think it is all matter of "privacy" and that they don't care what goes on in others' bedrooms. Everytime I hear these comments about the JBS being bigotted, racist, etc -- I look at the birchers I know and see nothing of the sort. And as I have said before, I am not a member but if I was looking to join an activist "group" they would be my first choice.

[RevolutionSD]

I don't know, I think it is all matter of "privacy" and that they don't care what goes on in others' bedrooms. Everytime I hear these comments about the JBS being bigotted, racist, etc -- I look at the birchers I know and see nothing of the sort. And as I have said before, I am not a member but if I was looking to join an activist "group" they would be my first choice.

Most Christians I know aren't violent people either, but if you read the bible, non-believers are supposed to be killed.

People are contradictory, but that doesn't mean the JBS isn't a bigoted organization.

[malkusm]

"That's one thing about freedom; you have to tolerate the nonsense too." -Ron Paul

I've always thought that groups that promote freedom attract the bigots and the crazies like flies to honey, because they do tolerate them to a greater extent than anyone else will. It's almost a sign that you're doing something right if you attract these people (of course, the negative stigma that attaches itself is not desired).

[FrankRep]

That's good to hear. Those JBS members are going against one of their organizations' stated beliefs about the homosexual agenda.
The JBS is a Christian leaning organization, but it's not a requirement for you to be Christian. The issue the JBS is against is Gay Marriage. I think the JBS and the Libertarians would agree that the Government should get out of the Marriage business.

[RevolutionSD]

Not at all. Most gays don't have anything whatsoever to do with trying to use the state to force an agenda. So, why would they be treated as such? They wouldn't.

I don't know why the JBS has this crazy belief either.

[pcosmar]

Seems to be an example of the old smear tactic that has worked so well all these years.

Someone post something inflammatory, someone spreads it around. Ignorant people don't know the difference.

I had grown up with misconceptions about JBS from disinformation I had heard (often) in my youth.
False information repeated. It wasn't till I researched it myself that I saw that they had been working for freedom for years.

So Yongrel, you're going to sit there and condemn an entire organization, for the ignorant comment of ONE poster? A comment that was removed by the organization for violation of the terms of service.

C'mon man. You're better than this.

Assumes Facts not in evidence.

[FrankRep]

Was that just an open blog that anybody can create/post on?

yongrel, how did you find that posting? I didn't see a "blogs" link on the jbs site.


Anyone can create an account on the JBS website and Blog freely. The Bloggers that show up on the front page are the trusted educated bloggers.

[max]

youre an ass..

first of all...there's nothing wrong with the post. "White bread" Americans are in fact negatively portrayed in the media...


2nd.....1 poster does not define an organization.

[RevolutionSD]

Seems to be an example of the old smear tactic that has worked so well all these years.

Someone post something inflammatory, someone spreads it around. Ignorant people don't know the difference.

I had grown up with misconceptions about JBS from disinformation I had heard (often) in my youth.
False information repeated. It wasn't till I researched it myself that I saw that they had been working for freedom for years.


Assumes Facts not in evidence.

You're right, there is a LOT of disinfo that was spread heavily about the JBS in the 70's about them being aligned with KKK.

This was wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that they are opposed to gays and Mexicans.

[ARealConservative]

You're right, there is a LOT of disinfo that was spread heavily about the JBS in the 70's about them being aligned with KKK.

This was wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that they are opposed to gays and Mexicans.

post something factual and verifiable or go away

[moostraks]

Most Christians I know aren't violent people either, but if you read the bible, non-believers are supposed to be killed.


perplexed...where does the new testament decree mudering non-believers?

[RevolutionSD]

post something factual and verifiable or go away

Why should I "go away"? This is why this movement is doomed. As soon as there's a disagreement, people become closed minded and start making demands like this.

I read one of JBS' books a couple of years ago about the CFR called "The Insiders" and it talked about the homosexual agenda that's ruining America. It's actually a really good book that exposes the ties between the last 5 administrations (Carter-Bush), too bad they have to get crazy with the anti-gay stuff.

[RevolutionSD]

perplexed...where does the new testament decree mudering non-believers?

I didn't say the new testament, but there are plenty of examples of violence in it. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

[pcosmar]

You're right, there is a LOT of disinfo that was spread heavily about the JBS in the 70's about them being aligned with KKK.

This was wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that they are opposed to gays and Mexicans.

Woah, Wait a damn minute.
I can accept Gays and still oppose a Gay agenda.
I have no problem with Mexicans or Mexico in general, but am adamantly opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. Whether from Mexico, Cuba, South Am. or anywhere else.
I have no problem with individuals, but oppose groups that try to push a collectivist agenda.

To say someone that opposes the agenda (any agenda) is bigoted is just flaunting ignorance.

[Crash Martinez]

...there are plenty of examples of violence in it. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

Way to jump gears in your argument.

NOT ONE of the examples in that link is a command to kill unbelievers. The vast majority of them are examples of the wrath of God against the sinfulness of men. And lest these "examples of violence" on the part of God be erroneously re-interpreted as calls to some sort of Christian jihad to murder unbelievers, God, who is the only holy and righteous Judge, declares "vengeance is mine; I will repay," lest we violate the sixth Commandment, which is part of God's eternal, moral law (incidentally, found in the Old Testament).

[Crash Martinez]

I could go into a whole "thing" about the distinction between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament era Church, but I suspect it would be a waste of time. Suffice it to say that God's moral law has never changed, and He does declare that sin, because it is an affront to HIM, is worthy of death and hell. He does not call on sinful men (which the Bible teaches are all of us!) to execute death and hell against our fellow sinners. Rather, we are called to preach to all the gospel of repentance, grace and forgiveness through the righteousness, perfect obedience, sacrificial death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[FrankRep]

This was wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that they are opposed to gays and Mexicans.

Sam Antonio would disagree with you.

http://www.jbs.org/action/speakers-bureau

http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/samantonio.jpg

Sam Antonio Bio (http://www.jbs.org/action/speakers-bureau/1728)


Mr. Sam Antonio currently serves as Coordinator for The John Birch Society for Southern California and Southern Nevada. In addition, he serves as The John Birch Society National Spokesman on Immigration. He is also a contributor to the JBS Bulletin and to New American Magazine where as a correspondent he covered the recent National Council of La Raza Annual Conference in Los Angeles, CA. Sam has served on the full time staff of The John Birch Society for seven years and has been a member of the organization for the past fourteen years. In those seven years of the staff in The John Birch Society he has also served in the capacity of being a coordinator in Northern California and being a Regional Field Director with the responsibility of providing leadership in four states: California, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico.

Born and raised in San Diego, he was active in party politics from the precinct to the state level. He has also held leadership positions in many youth organizations such as College Republicans, Young Republicans, The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and Young Americans for Freedom.

Sam is a graduate of San Diego State University with a degree in Political Science and Economics. As an undergraduate he served as the Assistant Opinion Editor of the campus newspaper, The Daily Aztec and co-hosted a talk show radio program Adams and Antonio.

Because of his expertise on global economic issues such as the upcoming Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the North American Union (NAU), Sam has proven to be a popular speaker through out Southern California. Sam has addressed many groups such as the Orange County Freedom Forum, The California Reform Party, The American Independent Party, The California Libertarian Party, Republican Women Federated, Pro-America, The Junior Statesmen of America, The Rush Limbaugh Club of Orange County, and the California Republican Assembly. He has been a guest on many radio programs such as KRLA AM 870 Risky Business Radio with Anthony Rather, Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith and The George Putnam Show. He was a featured guest on Fox 11 Los Angeles' award winning television show "Midday Sunday" with Tony Valdez and most recently on CNN's Glenn Beck Show.



Reverend Steven L. Craft
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/rev.stevencraft.001-001.jpg


Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/rev.jessepeterson.001-001.jpg


Wilton Alston
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/wiltalston.001-001.jpg

[FrankRep]

http://www.jbs.org/john-birch-society-national-council


David Eisenberg - The JBS Jewish National Council Member

http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Article_Images/JBS_Leaders/eisenberg_sm.jpg



David Eisenberg was born in Detroit, Michigan, in 1926. After his family relocated to southern California, he received his early education in Los Angeles schools. He served in the U.S. Army during the latter stages of World War II.

Dave graduated from Inglewood, California’s Northrop University with a degree in aeronautical engineering in 1948. The specialized training he received enabled him to obtain employment in one of our nation’s up-and-coming industries. Upon graduation, he began a brilliant 40-year career as a project engineer for the Hughes Aircraft Company at a southern California plant and later transferred to its Tucson, Arizona, facility in 1956. He retired in 1988.

In the early 1960s, Dave, who is Jewish, launched a determined personal effort to combat the work of The John Birch Society, having been assured by many that it was anti-Semitic. He carefully examined many of the Society’s materials and eventually met with some members. Upon learning the truth, he became a proud member and has since been a fearless and effective voice against false charges hurled at our organization. Appointed to the JBS Council in 1995, he resides with his wife, Natalie, in Tucson, Arizona.

[FrankRep]

Conclusion: The Main Stream Media lies! Who would have thought!

[Original_Intent]

A little surprised Yongrel has not posted to retract his OP. Looks like he had an axe to grind with the JBS, found a post that supported his dislike of the organization and went ballistic without fact checking.

[pcosmar]

A little surprised Yongrel has not posted to retract his OP. Looks like he had an axe to grind with the JBS, found a post that supported his dislike of the organization and went ballistic without fact checking.

Smear Campaigns rarely fact check.
In fact they spread lies and misinformation on purpose, hoping that the masses will not bother to check facts.

[ARealConservative]

Why should I "go away"?

Because you bring nothing to the discussion. You continually post the same opinion as fact. An opinion that is highly divisive to this group.


This is why this movement is doomed. As soon as there's a disagreement, people become closed minded and start making demands like this.

If the movement is doomed, which I’m unwilling to take at face value, , it is because people in the movement doom it by becoming useful idiots for those that wish to cause us harm. People like you……


I read one of JBS' books a couple of years ago about the CFR called "The Insiders" and it talked about the homosexual agenda that's ruining America. It's actually a really good book that exposes the ties between the last 5 administrations (Carter-Bush), too bad they have to get crazy with the anti-gay stuff.


Based on how you have acted on this thread, I question your ability to comprehend properly what was written.

[specsaregood]

A little surprised Yongrel has not posted to retract his OP. Looks like he had an axe to grind with the JBS, found a post that supported his dislike of the organization and went ballistic without fact checking.

In fact, if I understand the blogging capability correctly if somebody wanted to do harm to JBS' reputation they could easily:
1. Setup a blog on the site.
2. Make racist, biggotted posts.
3. Link to said post on forums as proof of JBS's biggotted positions.

Not saying that happened here; but it seems like it *could* happen.

[misterx]

It's easy to label something you don't understand as "crazy", then you don't have to think about it. There are reasons some people are against the promotion of homosexuality that have nothing to do with blind religious bias, bigotry, or anything "crazy".

[Kludge]

It should be noted that the article-writer was banned by JBS, and all of his postings were retracted from JBS's website.

[RevolutionSD]

Way to jump gears in your argument.

NOT ONE of the examples in that link is a command to kill unbelievers. The vast majority of them are examples of the wrath of God against the sinfulness of men. And lest these "examples of violence" on the part of God be erroneously re-interpreted as calls to some sort of Christian jihad to murder unbelievers, God, who is the only holy and righteous Judge, declares "vengeance is mine; I will repay," lest we violate the sixth Commandment, which is part of God's eternal, moral law (incidentally, found in the Old Testament).

So you're okay with violence as long as it's not in the name of a jihad?

[RevolutionSD]

I could go into a whole "thing" about the distinction between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament era Church, but I suspect it would be a waste of time. Suffice it to say that God's moral law has never changed, and He does declare that sin, because it is an affront to HIM, is worthy of death and hell. He does not call on sinful men (which the Bible teaches are all of us!) to execute death and hell against our fellow sinners. Rather, we are called to preach to all the gospel of repentance, grace and forgiveness through the righteousness, perfect obedience, sacrificial death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But, I don't believe there is a god. So, I how can I believe anything you say, as it is simply just opinion?

[RevolutionSD]

It's easy to label something you don't understand as "crazy", then you don't have to think about it. There are reasons some people are against the promotion of homosexuality that have nothing to do with blind religious bias, bigotry, or anything "crazy".

My opinion is that it is crazy to be anti-gay. JBS clearly states in their literature that they believe there is a homosexual agenda that is trying to destroy the country. This is why I want nothing to do with the JBS, despite the fact that SOME of there beliefs are libertarian in nature.

[LibertyEagle]

My opinion is that it is crazy to be anti-gay. JBS clearly states in their literature that they believe there is a homosexual agenda that is trying to destroy the country. This is why I want nothing to do with the JBS, despite the fact that SOME of there beliefs are libertarian in nature.

By saying "homosexual agenda", they are saying that there are some who want to use the force of the State to push their beliefs on everyone else. Since you are a libertarian, I would think you would be against this too. Or, are you like the neocons, who think it is fine to use big government force, as long as it is used to force an agenda with which you agree?

Being against the use of big government force, does not equate to being "anti-gay". The JBS are firm believers that government has no place in our bedrooms.

[FrankRep]

I think the JBS and the Libertarians can both agree that the government needs to get out of Marriage. Less Government is good for everyone.

[Kraig]

Or, are you like the neocons, who think it is fine to use big government force, as long as it is used to force an agenda with which you agree?


That is pretty much everyone who supports government, including almost everyone here. Many people here seem to be morally okay with taxing me and using my money to pay for what they want, like you said it just depends on if they agree with the agenda.

You guys don't want to pay for our foreign empire, national healthcare, bailouts, etc. and you seem to be all "libertarian" about those things, but as soon as I say I don't want to pay for police or a federal army, the libertarian virtues of this "movement" seem to disappear pretty damn fast.

[ClayTrainor]

That is pretty much everyone who supports government, including almost everyone here. Many people here seem to be morally okay with taxing me and using my money to pay for what they want, like you said it just depends on if they agree with the agenda.

You guys don't want to pay for our foreign empire, national healthcare, bailouts, etc. and you seem to be all "libertarian" about those things, but as soon as I say I don't want to pay for police or a federal army, the libertarian virtues of this "movement" seem to disappear pretty damn fast.

I hate to admit it, but the an-caps really are making compelling arguments.

[LibertyEagle]

That is pretty much everyone who supports government, including almost everyone here. Many people here seem to be morally okay with taxing me and using my money to pay for what they want, like you said it just depends on if they agree with the agenda.

Actually, we started out in support of Ron Paul's platform, which was to reinstate the Constitution and return everything else to the states and to the people. I still support that.


You guys don't want to pay for our foreign empire, national healthcare, bailouts, etc. and you seem to be all "libertarian" about those things, but as soon as I say I don't want to pay for police or a federal army, the libertarian virtues of this "movement" seem to disappear pretty damn fast.

Oh really? Who here have you seen that supports any of this crap?

[Kraig]

Actually, we started out in support of Ron Paul's platform, which was to reinstate the Constitution and return everything else to the states and to the people. I still support that.

Which involves taking tax money to pay for certain things, as authorized by the constitution, which is the agenda you agree with, but it's still "my" money.


Oh really? Who here have you seen that supports any of this crap?

I was saying you didn't support it, most people here DO support using taxes to pay for police and a federal army, other than the an-caps.

[ARealConservative]

Which involves taking tax money to pay for certain things, as authorized by the constitution

If we followed the original constitution sans amendment, the Federal Government would tax the state based on population, and each state would then decide how to find the funds.


which is the agenda you agree with, but it's still "my" money.

"Mine" is a pretty useless concept without a society of set laws.

[angelatc]

You guys don't want to pay for our foreign empire, national healthcare, bailouts, etc. and you seem to be all "libertarian" about those things, but as soon as I say I don't want to pay for police or a federal army, the libertarian virtues of this "movement" seem to disappear pretty damn fast.

The Constitution gives the fed gov the right to maintain a military. It's pretty much the reason that the fed gov was required. If you want to change the constitution then fine, but you can't pretend that the right isn't constitutional.

Police funding should be decided by the individual states.

[Kraig]

If we followed the original constitution sans amendment, the Federal Government would tax the state based on population, and each state would then decide how to find the funds.

Which is a beating around the bush way of saying they will still pull the money out of my pocket. The State of Texas isn't going on a scavenger hunt to "decide how to find the funds", they are going to tax me for it.


"Mine" is a pretty useless concept without a society of set laws.

Yes which is why I advocate a society with no government and private law. "Mine" is an utterly destroyed concept with a state has the last word on your property ownership.

[LibertyEagle]

Which involves taking tax money to pay for certain things, as authorized by the constitution, which is the agenda you agree with, but it's still "my" money.
Which might be why Ron Paul has mentioned a small across-the-board tariff as a way of paying for the very small government that we would have, were we able to return it to its constitutional limits.


I was saying you didn't support it, most people here DO support using taxes to pay for police and a federal army, other than the an-caps.
Actually, you listed a whole lot of BS, such as socialized medicine, that virtually no one here that I've seen, with the exception of PaulaGem, agrees with.

By the way, police are a state and local deal. If you don't want 'em, then sell it in your state and the city in which you live. That's the beauty of a limited constitutional republic. One size does not have to fit all.

As far as some kind of limited military goes, I'm torn on that. Personally, I think we could do most everything we needed to defend our country from a volunteer-type deal, much like what Switzerland does. I'm not sure about the Navy though; I've not looked into it enough.

The bottom line is that we all want to reduce government by leaps and bounds.

[Kraig]

The Constitution gives the fed gov the right to maintain a military. It's pretty much the reason that the fed gov was required. If you want to change the constitution then fine, but you can't pretend that the right isn't constitutional.

Police funding should be decided by the individual states.

Yeah and some other piece of paper with some law written on it will give the government the right for national healthcare. They are just laws of men written on paper, be it the constitution or anything else.

I never pretended it wasn't constitutional, my point is that it isn't RIGHT.

I don't think you're understanding me. :(

[angelatc]

Yeah and some other piece of paper with some law written on it will give the government the right for national healthcare. They are just laws of men written on paper, be it the constitution or anything else.

I never pretended it wasn't constitutional, my point is that it isn't RIGHT.

I don't think you're understanding me. :(

I understand you perfectly. You don't want the power to exist. My point is that, like it or not, it does exist, and it always has. The Constitution was a tool that attempted to restrain the power.

[ARealConservative]

Which is a beating around the bush way of saying they will still pull the money out of my pocket. The State of Texas isn't going on a scavenger hunt to "decide how to find the funds", they are going to tax me for it.

Correct. But you have a greater voice in state government and can always migrate to a region that holds your view. The real problem is your view is unworkable so you will never hold a simple majority.


Yes which is why I advocate a society with no government and private law. "Mine" is an utterly destroyed concept with a state has the last word on your property ownership.

Again, with no government, mine is a completely meaningless concept, and private law is an oxymoron.

[Kraig]

Which might be why Ron Paul has mentioned a small across-the-board tariff as a way of paying for the very small government that we would have, were we able to return it to its constitutional limits.

Which means you point the gun at people's head and prevent them from trading freely without giving tribute to your "tariff". Taxes are taxes, you can change the wording, you can change where they are collected, you can change you they are collected from, but they will always involve a gun pointed at someone's head to make them give what you want.


Actually, you listed a whole lot of BS, such as socialized medicine, that virtually no one here that I've seen, with the exception of PaulaGem, agrees with.

I know it was a whole lot of BS, that's why I listed them, just showing you the agenda you don't like. However people here don't think police and military are a bunch of BS, so because they like the agenda, they are okay with forcing me to pay for it.

Saying police is a local deal is just passing the buck, you still support the constitution, which is a document that gives my state government the authorization to deprive me of my property.

[Kraig]

I understand you perfectly. You don't want the power to exist. My point is that, like it or not, it does exist, and it always has. The Constitution was a tool that attempted to restrain the power.

No, the state thrives off the power of violence, obviously violence isn't going to go away, so to say I don't want the power to exist is incorrect.

What I don't want, is for good people like everyone here to give their support to the violent organization.

If that is what the constitution attempted to do I think we can all see that it failed miserably.

[FrankRep]

If that is what the constitution attempted to do I think we can all see that it failed miserably.
Your post is cloudy. What did the Constitution attempt to do? Stop violence?

It attempted to stop massive growth, power, corruption of the Federal Government. It's up to WE, THE PEOPLE, to actually enforce it.

Lady: What have you given us?
Franklin: A Republic ma'am, if you can keep it.

YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

[Kraig]

Correct. But you have a greater voice in state government and can always migrate to a region that holds your view. The real problem is your view is unworkable so you will never hold a simple majority.

No that is not the real problem, the problem is all the people around me who think it is okay to take my money for the the sake of "society" or whatever they want to call it. There are too many statists for me to defend myself against, that is the real problem.


Again, with no government, mine is a completely meaningless concept, and private law is an oxymoron.

Not true at all, you should do some reading. Don't tell me it is a meaningless concept when you think the simple act of me only spending my money voluntarily is "unworkable".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

[angelatc]

No, the state thrives off the power of violence, obviously violence isn't going to go away, so to say I don't want the power to exist is incorrect.

What I don't want, is for good people like everyone here to give their support to the violent organization.

If that is what the constitution attempted to do I think we can all see that it failed miserably.

It indeed failed miserably.

I'll never be an anarchist. Deal with it.

[Kraig]

It indeed failed miserably.

I'll never be an anarchist. Deal with it.

You think I care so much about the word "anarchist"? Let's get back to me spending my money only when and where I want to, you don't have to call that anarchy if you don't want to.

[angelatc]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Great.

Realistically speaking, how do you anticipate achieving that goal? Do you honestly believe that if you could get Obama to click that link, he'd dismantle everything tomorrow?

[angelatc]

You think I care so much about the word "anarchist"? Let's get back to me spending my money only when and where I want to, you don't have to call that anarchy if you don't want to.

So, the people who can hire the biggest guns will get to make the rules.

[RevolutionSD]

It indeed failed miserably.

I'll never be an anarchist. Deal with it.

What are you afraid of?

Anarchy, or voluntaryism, is simply allowing people to have the freedom to choose what they feel is best for themselves in their lives.

Why do you want to restrict this freedom and have violence in the system?

[Kraig]

Great.

Realistically speaking, how do you anticipate achieving that goal? Do you honestly believe that if you could get Obama to click that link, he'd dismantle everything tomorrow?

No of course not, I work towards that goal my exposing the true evil of ALL government to people I talk to, and by not associating with people who want to rob me.

[Kraig]

So, the people who can hire the biggest guns will get to make the rules.

That is what government does right now. I am saying don't support groups who act like that.

[LibertyEagle]

Maybe instead of the thousandth try of the anarchists to convert us to their ideology, we could all work together to reduce the size of the government. I think we all agree on that, right?

Harping on each other isn't going to change a damn thing. The bad guys are still running away with our country and will finish it up unless we do something about it.

[LibertyEagle]

No of course not, I work towards that goal my exposing the true evil of ALL government to people I talk to, and by not associating with people who want to rob me.

Well, THIS board has Ron Paul's name on it and he advocates reinstating constitutional government.

Geez, can you guys give it a rest? Most of us are not going to become anarchists.

[Minarchy4Sale]

Again this devolves into a ancap/atheist/no objective morality vs minarchist/theist/objective morality debate...

It is perfectly compatible to recognize and oppose a gay political agenda and disapprove of the gay lifestyle without hating any particular gay person...

If I oppose Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Lou Farrakhan and their racial politics on the grounds that I want a color blind society, does that make me a bigot too?

[Kraig]

Maybe instead of the thousandth try of the anarchists to convert us to their ideology, we could all work together to reduce the size of the government. I think we all agree on that, right?

Harping on each other isn't going to change a damn thing. The bad guys are still running away with our country and will finish it up unless we do something about it.

Well if you go back and look at ClayTrainers post it would seem like "the anarchists" are making some headway, if not much. See this is where we disagree, you don't think me trying to convince people one at a time is going to change a damn think, and I don't think political activism will change a damn thing.

Of course whenever I try to convince *you*, you change the damn subject on me. ;)

[Minarchy4Sale]

Most of us are not going to become anarchists.

QFT. Never in a million friggin years...

The rule of law and an objective morality is the only thing keeping us from turning into one big poo flinging monkey house like at the zoo.

[Crash Martinez]

So you're okay with violence as long as it's not in the name of a jihad?

Thanks for replying to me, but I'm not sure how carefully you read my post, as I clearly indicated the exact opposite of being "okay with violence."


But, I don't believe there is a god. So, I how can I believe anything you say, as it is simply just opinion?

I am not commanding you to believe anything. I am only explaining what the Bible clearly teaches. Belief in God is not a prerequisite to understanding and recognizing, at least on a basic level, what is and what is not in fact taught in the Bible.

[Kludge]

What are you afraid of?

Gang warfare, endemics, de facto corporatocracy, significant potential for raising of children without basic skills outside of their parents' occupation, inability to handle extradition in an effective manner, inability to distribute license to use EM spectrums and other "public" resources, inability to regulate air pollution... Off the top of my head.

[Kraig]

Most of us are not going to become anarchists.

Why do you have to word it like that then? Why don't you deal with my points of want to keep my money?

Or maybe you should just say "most of us aren't going to give up taxes as a way to get what we want" and get right to the point?

[ARealConservative]

No that is not the real problem, the problem is all the people around me who think it is okay to take my money for the the sake of "society" or whatever they want to call it. There are too many statists for me to defend myself against, that is the real problem.

You actually agree with me then. The states sole purpose is to protect rights, I think we agree with that.

You just admitted that too many statists exist to be protected against. So do we just give up, or try to maximize freedom the best way we can?

I vote to maximize freedom, which means we seek to diminish the scope of statist powers by delegating their authority at as low level of government as we can. Then different regions of the county will fluctuate in regards to what level of statism is adopted.


Not true at all, you should do some reading. Don't tell me it is a meaningless concept when you think the simple act of me only spending my money voluntarily is "unworkable".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

I seriously doubt anybody on this forum can produce the volume of reading material I have personally digested, but I certainly could be wrong. I would take you more seriously if you attempted to debate concepts in your own words rather then cut and pasting articles from Lew Rockwell as Truth Warrior so often did.

Your link does not even remotely address my point. The very terms property, and theft, only have meaning in a society of codified laws. With no such uniformity, you can call the coin in your hand “yours”, but I too can call that coin in your hand “mine”. Without a mutually agreed upon concept of property, such as what a social contract provides, the term “mine” becomes meaningless. Even if Natural Rights exist without government, enforcing them in a unified manner is not possible. Whichever one of us is stronger, or has the stronger group looking to protect natural rights, wins the “mine” argument. In this sense, anarchy functions quite similar to statism in regards to projecting rights, so you solve nothing removing the state.

[tpreitzel]

Anarchists can't seem to leave their imaginary world of fantasy. Instead of accepting the fact that most of us can see the fallacy of their idealism, they refuse to acknowledge it. Consequently, anarchists retreat into isolationism (ignoring the "wolves") or conversion (attempting to convert "wolves" into lambs so they can venture off Fantasy Island occasionally).... Hmmmm, you'd almost think most of them should be preachers... and apparently so! ;) Lastly, the JBS is as reputable an organization of men who promote constitutional liberty as one is likely to find in the real world.

[Kraig]

QFT. Never in a million friggin years...

The rule of law and an objective morality is the only thing keeping us from turning into one big poo flinging monkey house like at the zoo.

Funny how you use the zoo for the comparison, when it is in fact a bunch of animals locked up in cages by men, very similar to government.

[angelatc]

No of course not, I work towards that goal my exposing the true evil of ALL government to people I talk to, and by not associating with people who want to rob me.

But we already know that a segment of the population disagrees that all government is evil. An even smaller segment, but certainly significant segment, of the population absolutely embraces the power that "evil" gives them.

What are you planning on doing about them?

[angelatc]

Why do you have to word it like that then? Why don't you deal with my points of want to keep my money?

Or maybe you should just say "most of us aren't going to give up taxes as a way to get what we want" and get right to the point?

Ok, here ya go: Most of us aren't going to give up entirely on taxes as a way to permit a duly elected government to provide services.

Now what are you going to do about it?

[FrankRep]

Maybe a new thread needs to be created.
This is beyond the scope of the John Birch Society.

[Kludge]

Anarchists can't seem to leave their imaginary world of fantasy. Instead of accepting the fact that most of us can see the fallacy of their idealism, they refuse to acknowledge it. Consequently, anarchists retreat into isolationism (ignoring the wolves) or conversion (attempting to convert wolves into lambs).... Hmmmm, you'd almost think most of them should be preachers... and apparently so! ;)

I imagine they're annoyed that many libertarians and conservatives believe the government should keep their hands off others' lives as a matter of respect for rights, even though those same non-anarchists are unwilling to go to the obvious end of that road, which is anarchy.

A non-anarchist does not believe in property rights.

[Kraig]

You actually agree with me then. The states sole purpose is to protect rights, I think we agree with that.

Maybe it's stated purpose, it actual does the exact opposite of that. Basically you are saying you have to deprive me of my rights through taxation to protect my rights. You destroy your own goal before you even start.


Your link does not even remotely address my point. The very terms property, and theft, only have meaning in a society of codified laws. With no such uniformity, you can call the coin in your hand “yours”, but I too can call that coin in your hand “mine”. Without a mutually agreed upon concept of property, such as what a social contract provides, the term “mine” becomes meaningless. Even if Natural Rights exist without government, enforcing them in a unified manner is not possible. Whichever one of us is stronger, or has the stronger group looking to protect natural rights, wins the “mine” argument. In this sense, anarchy functions quite similar to statism in regards to projecting rights, so you solve nothing removing the state.

Well sorry, I don't have time to go into the details with all of the basic shit that gets questioned on the forums, if you really wanted to debate me though send me a PM, no links I promise.

[angelatc]

I

A non-anarchist does not believe in property rights.

Sure they do. They don't believe that property rights can exist without a definition shared by everybody.

And "everybody" never agrees with everything.

[Lord Xar]

maybe Yongrel is the one that posted it... just saying :-)

i kid i kid.

[ARealConservative]

I imagine they're annoyed that many libertarians and conservatives believe the government should keep their hands off others' lives as a matter of respect for rights, even though those same non-anarchists are unwilling to go to the obvious end of that road, which is anarchy.

A non-anarchist does not believe in property rights.

property is a nonexistent concept in anarchy. The word is based on codified laws setting forth a condition where one, or many people possesses legal title to something, whether tangible or intangible.

Without a state, law as we know it ceases to exist, and so does property and theft.

[Kraig]

Ok, here ya go: Most of us aren't going to give up entirely on taxes as a way to permit a duly elected government to provide services.

Now what are you going to do about it?

I'm going to have a little distaste in my mouth every time I see one of your posts and think "this girl right here thinks it's ok to rob me, what a jerk" and spend my time focusing on the other, more open-minded and moral people.

[Kraig]

property is a nonexistent concept in anarchy. The word is based on codified laws setting forth a condition where one, or many people possesses legal title to something, whether tangible or intangible.

Without a state, law as we know it ceases to exist, and so does property and theft.

How on earth can you say you believe in property rights when you have to deprive me of them to protect them? Seriously?

[ARealConservative]

Maybe it's stated purpose, it actual does the exact opposite of that. Basically you are saying you have to deprive me of my rights through taxation to protect my rights. You destroy your own goal before you even start.

Actually I ‘m saying that your rights will never be fully protected, but we’ll try to setup a system that does the best it can. Anarchy is definitely not such a system though.


Well sorry, I don't have time to go into the details with all of the basic shit that gets questioned on the forums, if you really wanted to debate me though send me a PM, no links I promise.

I only debate in the public arena. If I’m going to spend the time putting my thoughts down, I would prefer the audience to be larger than 1 person to make the juice worth the squeeze.

[Minarchy4Sale]

property is a nonexistent concept in anarchy. The word is based on codified laws setting forth a condition where one, or many people possesses legal title to something, whether tangible or intangible.

Without a state, law as we know it ceases to exist, and so does property and theft.

THIS.

Self ownership, and all that stems from it is a natural right.

Property rights beyond the product of one's labor simply don't exist without the law, and even then, every other human on the earth has a claim on the raw materials you gathered for it. What happens when there is a dispute? Who decides? The meanest mother fucker in the valley, that's who, and he will just take it for himself.

No law, no state, no property. We are all just relegated to being monkeys in the zoo.

[ARealConservative]

How on earth can you say you believe in property rights when you have to deprive me of them to protect them? Seriously?

I will allow some rights to be violated in order to protect others.


For instance, do you want a 4 year old to be able to walk around with a loaded weapon?

[angelatc]

I'm going to have a little distaste in my mouth every time I see one of your posts and think "this girl right here thinks it's ok to rob me, what a jerk" and spend my time focusing on the other, more open-minded and moral people.

Woman. The proper phrase for any female aged 18 or over is "woman."

Philosophy is fun, but it's no match for reality, kid.

So I'm a jerk. A thief. A terrorist. An immoral statist. For the sake of argument I'll concede that.

I'm also the majority. Even if you managed to convince 85% of the world that you are the light, what exactly are you going to do about the other 15% of us? Do you not have an answer?

[angelatc]

I will allow some rights to be violated in order to protect others.


For instance, do you want a 4 year old to be able to walk around with a loaded weapon?

That's the reason that parents should have rights over children.

[ARealConservative]

Woman. The proper phrase for any female aged 18 or over is "woman."

Philosophy is fun, but it's no match for reality, kid.

So I'm a jerk. A thief. A terrorist. An immoral statist. for the sake of argument I'll concede that.

I'm also the majority. Even if you managed to convince 85% of the world that you are the light, what exactly are you going to do about the other 15% of us?

proper?

seriously, fuck you.

signed,

pc police hater

[ARealConservative]

That's the reason that parents should have rights over children.

and what of parents that allow 4 year olds to walk around with loaded weapons?

[Kludge]

Sure they do. They don't believe that property rights can exist without a definition shared by everybody.

And "everybody" never agrees with everything.


property is a nonexistent concept in anarchy. The word is based on codified laws setting forth a condition where one, or many people possesses legal title to something, whether tangible or intangible.

Without a state, law as we know it ceases to exist, and so does property and theft.

Ownership of oneself is only possible when what I imagine to be one of the most important decision a person could make, the decision of which governments (if any) they want to associate with, is allowed.

While a coercive government exists, the people it "represents" are its slaves.

If one person ever disagrees with the decision of a government which is claiming to represent them, a rights violation has occurred.

This would be fine if the government did not force people in a set geographic location be a citizen, of course. The person could work to change the government or leave, and they would deserve whatever happens, because they chose to associate with that government.

Property rights, as a concept, would exist in anarchy as it does now, but anarchy makes it obvious that rights don't exist.

[angelatc]

I only debate in the public arena. If I’m going to spend the time putting my thoughts down, I would prefer the audience to be larger than 1 person to make the juice worth the squeeze.

This is a great example of how majority rule functions. There's no doubt that his argument is morally and ethically pure.

It is just not realistic.

[yongrel]

I see that JBS has taken down the article in the time since I stumbled upon it and posted it here.

I think it is interesting to note that the article was online without censure from JBS for a whole month, and only taken down when Reason magazine pointed to it specifically as being loony.

What does it say about JBS that it only removes this sort of material when others make fun of them for it?

[ARealConservative]

This is a great example of how majority rule functions. There's no doubt that his argument is morally and ethically pure.

It is just not realistic.

I agree. I respect anarchists more then I respect libertarians.

[Kraig]

Damn Kludge you are sounding pretty an-cap to me.

[angelatc]

proper?

seriously, fuck you.

signed,

pc police hater

Fuck you too. Like it or not, "woman" both grammatically and journalistically correct. Girl is demeaning.

He can't respect me, I have no reason to anticipate he will respect my argument, little one.

[ARealConservative]

I see that JBS has taken down the article in the time since I stumbled upon it and posted it here.

I think it is interesting to note that the article was online without censure from JBS for a whole month, and only taken down when Reason magazine pointed to it specifically as being loony.

What does it say about JBS that it only removes this sort of material when others make fun of them for it?

I think it says that the mods don't pay enough attention to what goes out in their name, likely because they attempt to use their limited resources in a different manner.

[Kraig]

This is a great example of how majority rule functions. There's no doubt that his argument is morally and ethically pure.

It is just not realistic.

Well at least you gave me that much. The moral high ground isn't a bad place to be, not worth much if people like you think it is unworkable, but it's a start.

[angelatc]

I see that JBS has taken down the article in the time since I stumbled upon it and posted it here.

I think it is interesting to note that the article was online without censure from JBS for a whole month, and only taken down when Reason magazine pointed to it specifically as being loony.

What does it say about JBS that it only removes this sort of material when others make fun of them for it?

I think somebody hijacked Yongrel's account.

[Kludge]

Damn Kludge you are sounding pretty an-cap to me.

Nah, I'm a Red.

[LibertyEagle]

I see that JBS has taken down the article in the time since I stumbled upon it and posted it here.

I think it is interesting to note that the article was online without censure from JBS for a whole month, and only taken down when Reason magazine pointed to it specifically as being loony.

What does it say about JBS that it only removes this sort of material when others make fun of them for it?

Yongrel,

There is a ton of crap on THESE forums, that the Mods and Admins do not agree with. And I'm quite sure there is quite a lot of BS that none of us in moderation have even seen. Are you saying that we should remove all the posts that we do not agree with and if we do not, we are agreeing with what has been posted?

[angelatc]

Well at least you gave me that much. The moral high ground isn't a bad place to be, not worth much if people like you think it is unworkable, but it's a start.

You admit that a large majority of people agree with me. And you're not going to waste time talking to me, so I can assume you're not going to waste time talking to them either.

Good luck creating your society.

[Kraig]

You admit that a large majority of people agree with me. And you're not going to waste time talking to me, so I can assume you're not going to waste time talking to them either.

Good luck creating your society.

Actually no, there are very FEW people who support government are and willing to admit that I am morally right. Usually we just waste time trying to convince each other who is morally right.

[LibertyEagle]

Nah, I'm a Red.

No you're not. :p

[FrankRep]

I see that JBS has taken down the article in the time since I stumbled upon it and posted it here.

I think it is interesting to note that the article was online without censure from JBS for a whole month, and only taken down when Reason magazine pointed to it specifically as being loony.

What does it say about JBS that it only removes this sort of material when others make fun of them for it?

The JBS didn't know the stupid post was there.

Each one of these people will tell you that the JBS doesn't support racism.



http://www.jbs.org/action/speakers-bureau

http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/samantonio.jpg

Sam Antonio Bio (http://www.jbs.org/action/speakers-bureau/1728)


Mr. Sam Antonio currently serves as Coordinator for The John Birch Society for Southern California and Southern Nevada. In addition, he serves as The John Birch Society National Spokesman on Immigration. He is also a contributor to the JBS Bulletin and to New American Magazine where as a correspondent he covered the recent National Council of La Raza Annual Conference in Los Angeles, CA. Sam has served on the full time staff of The John Birch Society for seven years and has been a member of the organization for the past fourteen years. In those seven years of the staff in The John Birch Society he has also served in the capacity of being a coordinator in Northern California and being a Regional Field Director with the responsibility of providing leadership in four states: California, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico.

Born and raised in San Diego, he was active in party politics from the precinct to the state level. He has also held leadership positions in many youth organizations such as College Republicans, Young Republicans, The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and Young Americans for Freedom.

Sam is a graduate of San Diego State University with a degree in Political Science and Economics. As an undergraduate he served as the Assistant Opinion Editor of the campus newspaper, The Daily Aztec and co-hosted a talk show radio program Adams and Antonio.

Because of his expertise on global economic issues such as the upcoming Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the North American Union (NAU), Sam has proven to be a popular speaker through out Southern California. Sam has addressed many groups such as the Orange County Freedom Forum, The California Reform Party, The American Independent Party, The California Libertarian Party, Republican Women Federated, Pro-America, The Junior Statesmen of America, The Rush Limbaugh Club of Orange County, and the California Republican Assembly. He has been a guest on many radio programs such as KRLA AM 870 Risky Business Radio with Anthony Rather, Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith and The George Putnam Show. He was a featured guest on Fox 11 Los Angeles' award winning television show "Midday Sunday" with Tony Valdez and most recently on CNN's Glenn Beck Show.



Reverend Steven L. Craft
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/rev.stevencraft.001-001.jpg


Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/rev.jessepeterson.001-001.jpg


Wilton Alston
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Speakers_Bureau/wiltalston.001-001.jpg

=======================


http://www.jbs.org/john-birch-society-national-council


David Eisenberg - The JBS Jewish National Council Member

http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Article_Images/JBS_Leaders/eisenberg_sm.jpg



David Eisenberg was born in Detroit, Michigan, in 1926. After his family relocated to southern California, he received his early education in Los Angeles schools. He served in the U.S. Army during the latter stages of World War II.

Dave graduated from Inglewood, California’s Northrop University with a degree in aeronautical engineering in 1948. The specialized training he received enabled him to obtain employment in one of our nation’s up-and-coming industries. Upon graduation, he began a brilliant 40-year career as a project engineer for the Hughes Aircraft Company at a southern California plant and later transferred to its Tucson, Arizona, facility in 1956. He retired in 1988.

In the early 1960s, Dave, who is Jewish, launched a determined personal effort to combat the work of The John Birch Society, having been assured by many that it was anti-Semitic. He carefully examined many of the Society’s materials and eventually met with some members. Upon learning the truth, he became a proud member and has since been a fearless and effective voice against false charges hurled at our organization. Appointed to the JBS Council in 1995, he resides with his wife, Natalie, in Tucson, Arizona.

[Kludge]

No you're not. :p

I am.

I figured I should combine the best of both worlds.... Anarchy and Communism.

Bundle that with Ignosticism and I see merit in every argument... Except coercive government... And pride, even though I believe myself to be the most proud and Puritan person I've ever known.

[angelatc]

Actually no, there are very FEW people who support government are and willing to admit that I am morally right. Usually we just waste time trying to convince each other who is morally right.

Ah! I can also make a very good case that the true philosophy of communism is also morally and ethically right.

It doesn't work in the real world either though.

[yongrel]

Yongrel,

There is a ton of crap on THESE forums, that the Mods and Admins do not agree with. And I'm quite sure there is quite a lot of BS that none of us in moderation have even seen. Are you saying that we should remove all the posts that we do not agree with and if we do not, we are agreeing with what has been posted?

Is this forum a 501(c)3 nonprofit with a stated mission and ideology? Are authors of text on this site said to be representatives of the organization? Apples and oranges, I think.

Folks here jump all over Cato, Reason, Mercatus, etc when a single author posts something deemed objectionable on their sites, under their brand, and I think it's interesting that there's a double-standard here for JBS. I wasn't expecting to see that, but there ya go.

[Kludge]

Ah! I can also make a very good case that the true philosophy of communism is also morally and ethically right.

It doesn't work in the real world either though.

Maybe not in the way Marx and Lenin envisioned it, but it served many Indian tribes well before the Europeans invaded and started with that Manifest Destiny nonsense.

[ARealConservative]

Is this forum a 501(c)3 nonprofit with a stated mission and ideology? Are authors of text on this site said to be representatives of the organization? Apples and oranges, I think.

Folks here jump all over Cato, Reason, Mercatus, etc when a single author posts something deemed objectionable on their sites, under their brand, and I think it's interesting that there's a double-standard here for JBS. I wasn't expecting to see that, but there ya go.

Has CATO or Reason even once recanted the story that caused such a fuss over here as JBS did?

[ARealConservative]

Ah! I can also make a very good case that the true philosophy of communism is also morally and ethically right.

It doesn't work in the real world either though.

I'm skeptical, but I would love to see you try.

[specsaregood]

Is this forum a 501(c)3 nonprofit with a stated mission and ideology? Are authors of text on this site said to be representatives of the organization? Apples and oranges, I think.

Folks here jump all over Cato, Reason, Mercatus, etc when a single author posts something deemed objectionable on their sites, under their brand, and I think it's interesting that there's a double-standard here for JBS. I wasn't expecting to see that, but there ya go.

Uhm, actually I'm pretty sure the JBS is NOT a nonprofit organization. Feel free to prove me wrong; but I recall being told they aren't a nonprofit partly for privacy reasons.

[yongrel]

Uhm, actually I'm pretty sure the JBS is NOT a nonprofit organization. Feel free to prove me wrong; but I recall being told they aren't a nonprofit partly for privacy reasons.

I assumed they were nonprofit, but I don't know for certain. I'll take your word for it. The point that they are a formal organization with codified positions and structures still stands, independent of my error, I think.

[LibertyEagle]

Is this forum a 501(c)3 nonprofit with a stated mission and ideology? Are authors of text on this site said to be representatives of the organization? Apples and oranges, I think.

Folks here jump all over Cato, Reason, Mercatus, etc when a single author posts something deemed objectionable on their sites, under their brand, and I think it's interesting that there's a double-standard here for JBS. I wasn't expecting to see that, but there ya go.

[Admin note- the piece was posted on an open enrollment blog system and was removed from the JBS web site (and the user banned) for violation of the JBS Community Terms of Service. It clearly does not reflect the JBS organization.]

Can CATO, et al. say the same?

[specsaregood]

I assumed they were nonprofit, but I don't know for certain. I'll take your word for it. The point that they are a formal organization with codified positions and structures still stands, independent of my error, I think.

Yeah, IIRC I was told that one reason they don't have a nonprofit status is that doing so would require them to turn over their membership list to the govt. I don't know how factual that is; but a quick search of online nonprofit seach engines turns up no results for them.

[LibertyEagle]

Maybe not in the way Marx and Lenin envisioned it, but it served many Indian tribes well before the Europeans invaded and started with that Manifest Destiny nonsense.

Well then, you shouldn't call yourself a Red. Because being Reds involved quite a coercive government.

[Kraig]

Ah! I can also make a very good case that the true philosophy of communism is also morally and ethically right.

It doesn't work in the real world either though.

No you can't, not if you are going to maintain that my position is morally right. My position is the direct opposite to communism.

[Steeleye]

http://www.jbs.org/john-birch-society-national-council


David Eisenberg - The JBS Jewish National Council Member

http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Article_Images/JBS_Leaders/eisenberg_sm.jpg

They cater to the Israel lobby! It's a Zionist front organization! ZOMG!

[ARealConservative]

No you can't, not if you are going to maintain that my position is morally right. My position is the direct opposite to communism.


The similarities are much greater then you think. The communism espoused my Karl Marx was some Utopian fantasy where the state withers away and dies because we all voluntarily agree to live within our means and share resources based on need rather then ability.

[Kraig]

The similarities are much greater then you think. The communism espoused my Karl Marx was some Utopian fantasy where the state withers away and dies because we all voluntarily agree to live within our means and share resources based on need rather then ability.

Well I'm sure you know that I would have no problem with people voluntarily agreeing to share resources, so there wouldn't be much to argue with on that. Government combined with communism is far different however, and if you wanted to combine anarchy + communism, then we would still be arguing for the same side.

[ItsTime]

You are a fucking idiot

/end thread

[ARealConservative]

Well I'm sure you know that I would have no problem with people voluntarily agreeing to share resources, so there wouldn't be much to argue with on that. Government combined with communism is far different however, and if you wanted to combine anarchy + communism, then we would still be arguing for the same side.

My point was that government was not a factor in Marx’s view of communism, so he can claim just as much moral superiority as you can.

The problem is both his ideals and yours amounts to Utopian fantasy. I love the concept, but as you previously stated, far too many statists exist. I’m not going to be apologetic for pursuing policy intended to function efficiently while also seeking to preserve/restore many rights in the here and now, which is what the C4L is designed to do.

[Kraig]

My point was that government was not a factor in Marx’s view of communism, so he can claim just as much moral superiority as you can.

The problem is both his ideals and yours amounts to Utopian fantasy. I love the concept, but as you previously stated, far too many statists exist. I’m not going to be apologetic for pursuing policy intended to function efficiently while also seeking to preserve/restore many rights in the here and now, which is what the C4L is designed to do.

Yeah and my point was that I wasn't talking about Marxs view of communism, I was talking about communism in practice. My ideals are not Utopian fantasy, your belief that government is able to protect your rights is.

Far too many statists exists? That doesn't mean I'm going to give up and start stealing just because everyone else is doing it, I'm going to do what is better.

[swed]

Sorry but the JBS is much too socially conservative for a libertarian like me. They have some great ideas don't get me wrong, but a little too much wing nuttery.

[Lord Xar]

all kidding aside, because of this thread I was reminded to join them. I've been meaning to, just haven't gotten around to it. I agree that some of their ideals are a little divergent to mine, but all in all - good org. Thanks for the reminder. Signing up by end of day.

[FrankRep]

all kidding aside, because of this thread I was reminded to join them. I've been meaning to, just haven't gotten around to it. I agree that some of their ideals are a little divergent to mine, but all in all - good org. Thanks for the reminder. Signing up by end of day.

Welcome aboard!
http://www.jbs.org/support-us/membership


Try to find a Meetup group in your area.
http://jbs.meetup.com/

JBS headquarters can tell you who the field director is in your area.
http://www.jbs.org/contact-jbs-headquarters

[ARealConservative]

Yeah and my point was that I wasn't talking about Marxs view of communism, I was talking about communism in practice. My ideals are not Utopian fantasy, your belief that government is able to protect your rights is.

Marx’s views of communism have never materialized, nor have your version of anarchy. There is a reason for this that you simply aren’t willing to acknowledge.

I’m well aware that no system is perfect. Rights will always go unprotected no matter what system is implemented to protect them.


Far too many statists exists? That doesn't mean I'm going to give up and start stealing just because everyone else is doing it, I'm going to do what is better.

I never asked you to start stealing, nor have I asked you to renounce your views and embrace my own. I even stated I have more respect for anarchists then I do libertarians, because you do not practice hypocrisy as they do.

[Kraig]

Marx’s views of communism have never materialized, nor have your version of anarchy. There is a reason for this that you simply aren’t willing to acknowledge.

The reason being too many statists? I think the reasons Marx's communism have never materialized and the reasons a stateless society has not lasted for a long period of time are far different, but I would really like to hear how you think they are the same.


I never asked you to start stealing, nor have I asked you to renounce your views and embrace my own. I even stated I have more respect for anarchists then I do libertarians, because you do not practice hypocrisy as they do.

...and thanks for pointing that out, sorry if I was being condescending, you did say that. What do you consider yourself? A constitutionalist? A minarchist?

[ARealConservative]

The reason being too many statists? I think the reasons Marx's communism have never materialized and the reasons a stateless society has not lasted for a long period of time are far different, but I would really like to hear how you think they are the same.

Again, Marx’s communism really is stateless. I don’t think they are the same, I just find them similar. They both rely on a fantasy view of what human kind will embrace. Maybe we will all collectively evolve far enough to embrace such a thing, but I remain skeptical.


...and thanks for pointing that out, sorry if I was being condescending, you did say that. What do you consider yourself? A constitutionalist? A minarchist?

I do consider myself a constitutionalist, but that definition really leaves a ton of issues undefined at lower levels of governance. I consider myself to be a “real conservative” in that I agree strongly with the rule of law and would also allow some level of social control, but never at the federal level, and preferably not at the state level either for most issues.

Some examples of my statism at play:

I would allow my state to determine the level of firearms that we allow, and will happily trample on the rights of a person that wishes to possess nuclear or biological weapons, as well as setting age requirements to possess other types of weapons.

I would be in favor of living in a community that implements some basic types of zoning laws designed to preserve and protect property values.

Child pornography would be illegal in my community, even if it is animated in nature, meaning no force was initiated against anyone in making it, but it is still illegal.

I would want Crystal Meth to remain an illegal substance in my state as the manufacturing of such a substance is too volatile (see biological weapon views)