Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Constitutionalists

[FrankRep]

Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Constitutionalists


John F. McManus, John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) President
August 2010


Early members of The John Birch Society commonly labeled their own and the Society’s political preference as “conservative.” These doughty Americans were opposed to government controls, the United Nations, and anything that smacked of communism. Occasionally, someone with a bit of history under his belt would interject that liberals of the 19th Century were the equivalent of conservatives in the 20th. True enough, but “So what!’ was the frequent rejoinder. It had already become obvious that the terms conservative and liberal weren’t defined with any precision.

Jump ahead 20-30 years and JBS members found themselves being lumped together with so-called conservatives who were advocating bigger government and foreign interventionism. Mercifully, some prominent promoters of these very un-conservative views adopted the term “neoconservative” for themselves. The most prominent of the neocons, journalist Irving Kristol, reveled in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism,” a title he richly deserved.


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxKy0xWYQfTN6FrdrHgBH3flC8bukVQ fZsNmmWsNY1zGbX29c&t=1&usg=__xhP1W-LdDRoNYWQ_XDzrcOAXIhA=
Irving Kristol took delight in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism.”


Kristol spelled out neocon belief in his 1995 opus Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/1566632285). He said that it squared with Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” and wanted nothing to do with “the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.” There you have the definition of neoconservatism: socialism and internationalism. Kristol went so far as to candidly admit, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” The partner of Lenin in communizing Russia, Trotsky later fell into disfavor for backing the slower route to deadly totalitarianism. If one accepts Kristol’s definition, and there is no reason not to do so, Trotsky was the first neoconservative.

Though few knew for many years, William Buckley actually preceded Kristol as a neocon, although he postured as a conservative while leading many otherwise patriotic Americans into the neocon swamp. In 1952 while working in “deep cover” (his term) for the CIA in Mexico, Buckley penned an article in the Catholic periodical Commonweal in which he called for “Big Government for the duration,” “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores,” “large armies and air forces,” and “the attendant centralization of power in Washington.” No neocon ever said it more clearly.

Buckley, of course, is still lauded by unthinking conservatives, especially for his incessant and dishonest castigation of The John Birch Society. If he is the epitome of conservatism, JBS members of the 21st Century want nothing to do with it. Which is why the term “constitutionalist” has been adopted. Unlike conservative or liberal, constitutionalist can be defined. And it can’t be shifted into backing tomorrow what it rejected yesterday. The mass media may refer to the two Bush presidents, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, William Kristol and a host of others as “conservatives” but even these propaganda organs wouldn’t call them constitutionalists.

The Constitution is defined. Conservatism is not. Neoconservatism has taken conservatism’s place and, while we emphatically disagree with what Irving Kristol wanted for America, we can at least thank him for his honest definition. Not so with Bill Buckley who bared his real beliefs in 1952 but then dishonestly postured as America’s premier defender for decades.

Today’s neocon favors the United Nations, undeclared wars, a form of socialism slightly milder than what is offered by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, steps toward world government such as phony free trade agreements, open borders, and a Supreme Court peopled by justices who will “interpret” rather than obey the U.S. Constitution. It is increasingly obvious that Americans are discovering (some are re-discovering) the Constitution. There’s hope for the future there. Let’s do all we can to spread awareness of the worth and the need to enforce the “supreme law of the land.”


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

[constituent]

Which is why the term “constitutionalist” has been adopted.

lol, is Mc "Stealing the American Dream" Manus really calling himself a constitutionalist?

[FrankRep]

lol, is Mc "Stealing the American Dream" Manus really calling himself a constitutionalist?

Ron Paul also calls himself a Constitutionalist; are you going to mock Ron Paul as well?

[ernie1241]

Interestingly, although McManus claims that William F. Buckley (WFB) only "postured" as a conservative, he nevertheless tirelessly supported many of the same people and causes which Robert Welch supported.

In fact, WFB was a charter member of the first JBS front group. Committee Against Summit Entanglements (CASE)

Even after WFB and the National Review criticized the JBS, WFB frequently defended the JBS such as during the controversy over whether or not JBS members should be allowed to become police officers -- which developed from controversy in Philadelphia and New York City.

Furthermore, the JBS continued to recommend and sell books written by Buckley and other National Review contributors because the viewpoints expressed in those books conformed to the JBS interpretation of our postwar history.

In addition, if you review the private correspondence between Buckley and Robert Welch which exists in the private papers of Buckley archived at Yale University -- you will discover that they frequently agreed about many matters and they often had the same circle of friends.

Conclusion: The current JBS "posture" against WFB is just sour grapes because (unlike the JBS), WFB had a pre-eminent and indelible role in the history of the postwar conservative movement which both Robert Welch and the JBS cannot even hope to match. One hundred years from now, conservatives and constitutionalists will still read about the contributions of WFB whereas Robert Welch and the JBS will be a minor footnote that won't even rate more than a couple pages in subsequent histories of the conservative movement.


Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Constitutionalists


John F. McManus, John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) President
August 2010


Early members of The John Birch Society commonly labeled their own and the Society’s political preference as “conservative.” These doughty Americans were opposed to government controls, the United Nations, and anything that smacked of communism. Occasionally, someone with a bit of history under his belt would interject that liberals of the 19th Century were the equivalent of conservatives in the 20th. True enough, but “So what!’ was the frequent rejoinder. It had already become obvious that the terms conservative and liberal weren’t defined with any precision.

Jump ahead 20-30 years and JBS members found themselves being lumped together with so-called conservatives who were advocating bigger government and foreign interventionism. Mercifully, some prominent promoters of these very un-conservative views adopted the term “neoconservative” for themselves. The most prominent of the neocons, journalist Irving Kristol, reveled in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism,” a title he richly deserved.


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxKy0xWYQfTN6FrdrHgBH3flC8bukVQ fZsNmmWsNY1zGbX29c&t=1&usg=__xhP1W-LdDRoNYWQ_XDzrcOAXIhA=
Irving Kristol took delight in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism.”


Kristol spelled out neocon belief in his 1995 opus Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/1566632285). He said that it squared with Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” and wanted nothing to do with “the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.” There you have the definition of neoconservatism: socialism and internationalism. Kristol went so far as to candidly admit, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” The partner of Lenin in communizing Russia, Trotsky later fell into disfavor for backing the slower route to deadly totalitarianism. If one accepts Kristol’s definition, and there is no reason not to do so, Trotsky was the first neoconservative.

Though few knew for many years, William Buckley actually preceded Kristol as a neocon, although he postured as a conservative while leading many otherwise patriotic Americans into the neocon swamp. In 1952 while working in “deep cover” (his term) for the CIA in Mexico, Buckley penned an article in the Catholic periodical Commonweal in which he called for “Big Government for the duration,” “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores,” “large armies and air forces,” and “the attendant centralization of power in Washington.” No neocon ever said it more clearly.

Buckley, of course, is still lauded by unthinking conservatives, especially for his incessant and dishonest castigation of The John Birch Society. If he is the epitome of conservatism, JBS members of the 21st Century want nothing to do with it. Which is why the term “constitutionalist” has been adopted. Unlike conservative or liberal, constitutionalist can be defined. And it can’t be shifted into backing tomorrow what it rejected yesterday. The mass media may refer to the two Bush presidents, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, William Kristol and a host of others as “conservatives” but even these propaganda organs wouldn’t call them constitutionalists.

The Constitution is defined. Conservatism is not. Neoconservatism has taken conservatism’s place and, while we emphatically disagree with what Irving Kristol wanted for America, we can at least thank him for his honest definition. Not so with Bill Buckley who bared his real beliefs in 1952 but then dishonestly postured as America’s premier defender for decades.

Today’s neocon favors the United Nations, undeclared wars, a form of socialism slightly milder than what is offered by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, steps toward world government such as phony free trade agreements, open borders, and a Supreme Court peopled by justices who will “interpret” rather than obey the U.S. Constitution. It is increasingly obvious that Americans are discovering (some are re-discovering) the Constitution. There’s hope for the future there. Let’s do all we can to spread awareness of the worth and the need to enforce the “supreme law of the land.”


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

[constituent]

Ron Paul also calls himself a Constitutionalist; are you going to mock Ron Paul as well?

Why would you attempt to smear Ron Paul with the taint of McManus?

I don't remember Ron Paul's anti-mexican immigrant coast-to-coast speaking tour. :confused:

[FrankRep]

Why would you attempt to smear Ron Paul with the taint of McManus?

I don't remember Ron Paul's anti-mexican immigrant coast-to-coast speaking tour. :confused:


Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration.



Border Security (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/)


A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.

If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:



1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.


The facts on the ground are being created right now. Every day that passes makes it more difficult to reverse the damage that has already been done.

YouTube - RON PAUL 101 - IMMIGRATION (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfJFcSF80dE&feature=player_embedded)


SOURCE:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/


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




Ron Paul on Immigration:


The Immigration Question (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html)


Ron Paul
April 4, 2006


The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.

We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume – especially medical care.

We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html



YouTube - Ron Paul on Immigration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwZsBiZYocg&feature=related)

[Paleo]

I find the existence of the words taint and McmANUS in the same sentence deeply disturbing.

[Cowlesy]

Nice, will read this after work. I ran into John McManus at CPAC and chatted for a minute -- nice fellow!

[constituent]

Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration.



Border Security (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/)


A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.

If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:



1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.


The facts on the ground are being created right now. Every day that passes makes it more difficult to reverse the damage that has already been done.

YouTube - RON PAUL 101 - IMMIGRATION (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfJFcSF80dE&feature=player_embedded)


SOURCE:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/


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




Ron Paul on Immigration:


The Immigration Question (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html)


Ron Paul
April 4, 2006


The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.

We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume – especially medical care.

We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html



YouTube - Ron Paul on Immigration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwZsBiZYocg&feature=related)




And none of those dated, copy/pasted clips show Ron Paul supporting McManus' "Stealing the American Dream" line.

Go figure!

BTW, got anything current?

[johnrocks]

Few live in a "black or white" prism where we are pure libertarian,paleo conservative,liberal or whatever. I heard someone once say something like "there are very few neo cons but there are millions of followers", I believe that also, there are good solid "run of the mill" people out there that have simply fell for the neo con BS that can be convinced that the neo con ideology is not the way to go; that it's not in line with a small government ,fiscal conservative mindset and mocking/harassing does nothing but to get them to dig their heels in, I've seen posters right here that have stated that they once were supporters of an interventionist f/p but finally came over to our side.

What this rant has to do with this thread, I haven't the foggiest.:p

[specsaregood]

Why would you attempt to smear Ron Paul with the taint of McManus?

I don't remember Ron Paul's anti-mexican immigrant coast-to-coast speaking tour. :confused:

I take you haven't been to one of his talks? It certainly was not "anti-mexican immigrant" and less than half was actually about immigration issues.

[constituent]

I take you haven't been to one of his talks? It certainly was not "anti-mexican immigrant" and less than half was actually about immigration issues.

You're right. I guess all the agitprop he put out supporting his "Stealing the American Dream" tour (what an idiotic name, btw), pumped here by frankrep endlessly was quite enough to turn me off.

Well, that and the JBS' storied history and established role in the "patriot" community.

JBS 1960's: Support Blacks in the South; You're a Commie!
JBS 2000's: Support State's Rights to determine immigration, disagree that there's a Mexican "invasion;" You're a Commie!

-BTW "Illegal Mexicans" are stealing "our" America

I know garbage when I smell it. No need to peek into the dumpster. :)

[specsaregood]

I know garbage when I smell it. :)

I think you should probably attend one of them. You might find yourself agreeing with him for the most part. IIRC, he is coming to your neck of the woods sometime soon. He usually does a Q&A portion at the end of his talk, that would be a great opportunity for you to ask him some of the constitutionality questions you have brought up here.

[FrankRep]

John Birch Society on the Illegal Immigration Invasion

Jack McManus of the John Birch Society explains our current open borders policy and how continued unrestricted immigration threatens our nations future and independence.

Jack McManus on the Immigration Invasion (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8777665565344843988#)

[constituent]

I think you should probably attend one of them. You might find yourself agreeing with him for the most part. IIRC, he is coming to your neck of the woods sometime soon. He usually does a Q&A portion at the end of his talk, that would be a great opportunity for you to ask him some of the constitutionality questions you have brought up here.

No frankrep went ahead and confirmed it all for me.

Thanks frank. :)

Here, check it out for yourself.



John Birch Society on the Illegal Immigration Invasion

Jack McManus of the John Birch Society explains our current open borders policy and how continued unrestricted immigration threatens our nations future and independence.

"Invasion" (a lame attempt to pretend like the fed is authorized to regulate immigration)

"Current open borders policy." (an obvious falsehood)

"Unrestricted immigration" (a strawman to avoid the actual questions concerning the unconstitutional federal immigration policy he advocates)

At this point, plenty said.

[specsaregood]

No frankrep went ahead and confirmed it all for me.
Thanks frank. :)
Here, check it out for yourself.


Ok, be afraid of interacting. I'd think if you were righteous you would attend for the opportunity to ask him about these issues you bring up. He usually hangs around a bit and mingles with the crowd too. Last time I saw him he was there for at least 40 minutes after the talk just mingling and answering questions. Who knows, maybe you could make him see some things differently. And as I said, the majority of the talk was about the constitution, political activism and the original intent of the founders on issues.

[FrankRep]

Well, that and the JBS' storied history and established role in the "patriot" community.

JBS 1960's: Support Blacks in the South; You're a Commie!
JBS 2000's: Support State's Rights to determine immigration, disagree that there's a Mexican "invasion;" You're a Commie!

-BTW "Illegal Mexicans" are stealing "our" America


ABSOLUTE LIES!


The John Birch Society has NEVER been a racist organization!

[constituent]

Ok, be afraid of interacting. I'd think if you were righteous you would attend for the opportunity to ask him about these issues you bring up.

No, I don't care to help legitimize this clown with numbers. Not even one.

Unless, of course, he's buying. Then, maybe.



He usually hangs around a bit and mingles with the crowd too. Last time I saw him he was there for at least 40 minutes after the talk just mingling and answering questions.

It's called "glad-handing," but whatever.




Who knows, maybe you could make him see some things differently.

He is the ignorant (giving him the benefit of the doubt, of course), double-speak talking, ideologically driven leader of an ideologically driven smear group (which happens to be a joke in every circle EXCEPT this one, and the infowars crowd, lest i forget). He's not there to hear and think, he's there to SELL SELL SELL.

I do appreciate your faith and idealism though.



And as I said, the majority of the talk was about the constitution, political activism and the original intent of the founders on issues.

A guy who can't figure out that the power to regulate immigration was left to the states who presumes to give a talk the "majority" of which concerns the constitution... hmmm, yea, i'll take a pass. :)

[constituent]

ABSOLUTE LIES!


The John Birch Society has NEVER been a racist organization!

Where did I say they were a racist organization?

Oh wait, I didn't! You're absolutely lying!

I have noticed this common thread amongst the birchers on this board though.

If you can't actually defeat the argument, pretend they called you a racist, lol.

[specsaregood]

I do appreciate your faith and idealism though.

That is what I thought. All talk, no action. Ignore that you could affect people's thinking. Keep talking on the internet, that will really affect things.

[constituent]

That is what I thought. All talk, no action. Ignore that you could affect people's thinking. Keep talking on the internet, that will really affect things.

I know, I'm well aware that I can affect people's thinking. I don't really need affirmation from you, but thanks. :)

Maybe one day you'll see that you've been bamboozled. Maybe not.

I don't really care either way.



Keep talking on the internet

Yea, you too. ;)


Have a good one. :)

[Dr.3D]

And none of those dated, copy/pasted clips show Ron Paul supporting McManus' "Stealing the American Dream" line.

Go figure!

BTW, got anything current?

How about you post clips that are more current than the ones posted here?

We would really like to see how Ron Paul has changed since those clips were recorded.

[constituent]

How about you post clips that are more current than the ones posted here?

We would really like to see how Ron Paul has changed since those clips were recorded.

Yea, me too. I can't make Ron Paul shoot a youtube vid. though.

Hopefully he's returned to sound constitutional principles since the dated videos that FrankRep keeps copy/paste spam posting.

He was, after all, running for office just right then.

Frankly, I'd rather him avoid it for now knowing that if he came up with the right answer folks like yourself
would be the first rats off the ship, trashing him across the internet as an enemy of America, a Marxist, a traitor!

Now, specs, Ron Paul, that's someone actually worth convincing. ;) :D

[FrankRep]

Y
JBS 1960's: Support Blacks in the South; You're a Commie!



ABSOLUTE LIES!
The John Birch Society has NEVER been a racist organization!


Where did I say they were a racist organization?



What kind of game are you playing?

The John Birch Society HAS been supportive of Blacks, as individuals, but the John Birch Society didn't support the (Big Government, UnConstitutional, Statist) Civil Rights Rights Act.

That doesn't make you racist.

[specsaregood]

Maybe one day you'll see that you've been bamboozled. Maybe not.

Actually I enjoy hearing other people's opinions, even those I disagree with. Certainly not afraid of it.




I don't really care either way.

I think that about says it all.



Yea, you too. ;)
Have a good one. :)
No, you see I went to his last talk, hosted by a 9/12 group. I talked to many of the people there afterwards. They were new blood, not members of our previous local rp meetup. Many of them talk about how they had been bamboozled by the republicans. We talked about the federal reserve, the wars and other assorted topics. I was greatly surprised by how many had/were coming around to the liberty-way of thinking.

[constituent]

No, you see I went to his last talk, hosted by a 9/12 group. I talked to many of the people there afterwards. They were new blood, not members of our previous local rp meetup. Many of them talk about how they had been bamboozled by the republicans. We talked about the federal reserve, the wars and other assorted topics. I was greatly surprised by how many had/were coming around to the liberty-way of thinking.

Let's see, hosted by a Glenn Beck 9/12 group, at a JBS function where the speaker builds on the premise that people here legally somehow constitutes an "invasion," and the "were" bamboozled by republicans.

Now they're bamboozled by Glenn Beck (republican establishment hack), Fox News (republican establishment) and John McManus (wanna guess?)...

Hey, someone's got to reach out to these folks, and I applaud you for doing so.

They just ain't the kind of company I keep. :)

[specsaregood]

Hey, someone's got to reach out to these folks, and I applaud you for doing so.

Speaking of applause, the biggest applause line of the whole speech was when McManus declared that we needed to bring our troops home from around the world including iraq and afghanistan. It heartened my spirits and caught me by surprise.


They just ain't the kind of company I keep. :)
It is infinitely more fun than echo chambers. :)

[constituent]

What kind of game are you playing?

I'd ask you the same question if I didn't already know the answer. ;) :D



The John Birch Society HAS been supportive of Blacks, as individuals, but the John Birch Society didn't support the (Big Government, UnConstitutional, Statist) Civil Rights Rights Act.

Actually, you're oversimplifying the issue, glossing it over, and pretending like you've made a refutation.

I'm not going to repost all of the info. ernie dropped on you the other day, but let's just say the JBS has been totally pwnd and exposed on this issue.




That doesn't make you racist.

Again, where did I say that the JBS was a racist organization?

Can you maintain a dialog where you don't have to make your opponent's argument up out of whole cloth?

I mean that seriously.

BTW, you're might touchy and defensive about the racism thing considering no one brought it up but you. ;)

[FrankRep]

Actually, you're oversimplifying the issue, glossing it over, and pretending like you've made a refutation.

I'm not going to repost all of the info. ernie dropped on you the other day, but let's just say the JBS has been totally pwnd and exposed on this issue.


Are you going to insult now Tom Woods for being against the Civil Right Act?



Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was UnConstitutional, Statist, and a Failure


Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.

http://www.mises.org/

YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH52tkt0C1A)

[constituent]

lol, you can always tell when Frank gets straight-up desperate.

I oppose the civil rights act too! How about that?

Opposing the civil rights act was not a singular, exposing act, nor does it form the
backbone of the argument ernie made against the JBS, which again,
neither you nor the JBS' paid rep could adequately refute.

[FrankRep]

lol, you can always tell when Frank gets straight-up desperate.

I oppose the civil rights act too! How about that?

Opposing the civil rights act was not a singular, exposing act, nor does it form the
backbone of the argument ernie made against the JBS, which again,
neither you nor the JBS' paid rep could adequately refute.

You just accused the John Birch Society of calling people Communist for supporting Blacks in the South, which is a lie.

[constituent]

You just accused the John Birch Society of calling people Communist for supporting Blacks in the South, which is a lie.

No, actually, it's not. That's exactly what the JBS did and continues to do to this day. That's the Bircher modus operandi.

You do the same damn thing here everyday.

The whole premise justifying the JBS' existence is that the US is the victim of a gigantic communist conspiracy. Anyone
who disagrees is a communist or a communist dupe.

Again, you (and other birchers here) do the same damn thing every single day.

You have read None Dare Call it Treason, just for starters, correct?

[Imaginos]

Neoconservatism = WHOREism for special interest groups in and out of Washington, D.C.
The Kristols = Like father, like son. For me, both of them are traitors.

[FrankRep]

No, actually, it's not. That's exactly what the JBS did and continues to do to this day. That's the Bircher modus operandi.

You do the same damn thing here everyday.

The whole premise justifying the JBS' existence is that the US is the victim of a gigantic communist conspiracy.


Conspiracies don't exist and everything happens by accident?
Is the Federal Reserve just a silly Conspiracy?

[constituent]

Conspiracies don't exist and everything happens by accident?
Is the Federal Reserve Money control just a silly Conspiracy?

Is that what I said?

Again, can you maintain a dialog without having to resort to making your opponent's "argument" up out of whole cloth?

BTW frank,


You do the same damn thing here everyday.


Care to deny it?

[FrankRep]

Now they're bamboozled by Glenn Beck (republican establishment hack), Fox News (republican establishment) and John McManus (wanna guess?)...

Did the John Birch Society bamboozle Ron Paul?
Ron Paul supports and endorses the John Birch Society.


Ron Paul At the 50th Anniversary of John Birch Society
Viddler.com - Ron Paul At the 50th Anniversary of JBS - Uploaded by jbirch (http://www.viddler.com/explore/jbirch/videos/1/?advanced=fa23b1da)

[constituent]

lol @ desperation

I'm sure he spoke gratis, too. right. :rolleyes:

And of course doing a speaking engagement for an organization means that
you support it and its tactics 100%, right?

How about even a modicum of intellectual honesty from you frank?

Just a little nibble, a drop, a speck if you will.


Care to deny it?


...didn't think so

[Dr.3D]

And none of those dated, copy/pasted clips show Ron Paul supporting McManus' "Stealing the American Dream" line.

Go figure!

BTW, got anything current?






How about you post clips that are more current than the ones posted here?

We would really like to see how Ron Paul has changed since those clips were recorded.


Yea, me too. I can't make Ron Paul shoot a youtube vid. though.

Hopefully he's returned to sound constitutional principles since the dated videos that FrankRep keeps copy/paste spam posting.

He was, after all, running for office just right then.

Frankly, I'd rather him avoid it for now knowing that if he came up with the right answer folks like yourself
would be the first rats off the ship, trashing him across the internet as an enemy of America, a Marxist, a traitor!

Now, specs, Ron Paul, that's someone actually worth convincing. ;) :D

Now how can you ask if FrankRep has anything more current, if you yourself can't find anything more current? It's not like FrankRep can make Ron Paul shoot a youtube vid either.

And since you say, "Hopefully he's returned to sound constitutional principles since those dated videos that FrankRep keeps copy/paste spam posting." That would imply you don't in fact know if he has changed his viewpoint since he made those "dated" videos.

[constituent]

Now how can you ask if FrankRep has anything more current, if you yourself can't find anything more current? It's not like FrankRep can make Ron Paul shoot a youtube vid either.

The issue is that if frankrep wants to try to prove something he needs to come up with current information.

I can present dated information that supports my case too, but that would be EQUALLY invalid.



That would imply you don't in fact know if he has changed his viewpoint since he made those "dated" videos.

Yea, that's what I've been saying all along... congrats captain obvious! :)

[FrankRep]

The issue is that if frankrep wants to try to prove something he needs to come up with current information.

How Current is "Current"? I posted a video from the 2008 Presidential elections about Ron Paul's Pro-Immigration Law stances. Not current enough?

[Dr.3D]

The issue is that if frankrep wants to try to prove something he needs to come up with current information.

It would seem FrandRep has the most current information since you can't find anything more current.



I can present dated information that supports my case too, but that would be EQUALLY invalid.
Sure you can, but since your dated information predates the latest information, it would tend to show Ron Paul changed his view on the situation since your dated video was made.



Yea, that's what I've been saying all along... congrats captain obvious! :)

Well, now you admit you don't know how Ron Paul views the current situation yet won't admit the most current videos available are valid?

[erowe1]

Why would you attempt to smear Ron Paul with the taint of McManus?


Maybe you should ask Ron Paul that.
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/2775-the-john-birch-society-at-ron-pauls-rally
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/409

[FrankRep]

Maybe you should ask Ron Paul that.
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/2775-the-john-birch-society-at-ron-pauls-rally
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/409


Ron Paul At the 50th Anniversary of John Birch Society
Viddler.com - Ron Paul At the 50th Anniversary of JBS - Uploaded by jbirch (http://www.viddler.com/explore/jbirch/videos/1/?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da)

[constituent]

Well, now you admit you don't know what how Ron Paul views the current situation yet won't admit the most current videos available are valid?

The debate on immigration, particularly the constitutionality of federal immigration regulation, has shifted dramatically since that time.

..and again, I give an allowance considering he was running for president in the repuglican party.

Plus, without an exhaustive search on your own, you can't validly claim that Frank's agenda driven, copy/paste vids actually represent the "most current videos available."

And again, it's not in my interest to convince folks like yourself, frankrep and the birchers, nor the alipac army that Ron Paul has come to reason on the federal immigration racket. Even if I KNEW it was out there, I wouldn't be posting it here.

[constituent]

Maybe you should ask Ron Paul that.
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/2775-the-john-birch-society-at-ron-pauls-rally
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/409

So because Ron Paul goes on Alex Jones' show, would it be a valid claim that Ron Paul supports all of Alex Jones' ideas, tactics, etc.?

Turn it around, and you'd be labeling it "guilt by association." ;)

You should know better than that. :)

[John Taylor]

There are conspiracies, but that doesn't mean that everything IS a conspiracy.

Recall Ludwig von Mises' comment in Human Action regarding the arrangement of human affairs: Our condition is result of HUMAN ACTION, but not HUMAN DESIGN.

The same could be said of much of the evil around us today.

[FrankRep]

The debate on immigration, particularly the constitutionality of federal immigration regulation, has shifted dramatically since that time.

..and again, I give an allowance considering he was running for president in the repuglican party.


Oh, Ron Paul was LYING about supporting immigration laws?



Plus, without an exhaustive search on your own, you can't validly claim that Frank's agenda driven, copy/paste vids actually represent the "most current videos available,"

What's my agenda? My political views align with Ron Paul's views and you're attacking me for that.



And again, it's not in my interest to convince folks like yourself, frankrep and the birchers, nor the alipac army that Ron Paul has come to reason on the federal immigration racket. Even if I KNEW it was out there, I wouldn't be posting it here.

Ron Paul doesn't support Open Borders, Sorry.

[specsaregood]

Ron Paul doesn't support Open Borders, Sorry.

He doesn't support them in the current govt climate of a welfare state. Philosophically in a free market climate he does. It is called pragmatism, admittedly not something he is well known for.

[John Taylor]

He doesn't support them in the current govt climate of a welfare state. Philosophically in a free market climate he does. It is called pragmatism, admittedly not something he is well known for.

Sure, and I dout most people would have a problem with allowing immigrants to relocate to the United States provided the welfare/warfare state is first abolished.

[Dr.3D]

He doesn't support them in the current govt climate of a welfare state. Philosophically in a free market climate he does. It is called pragmatism, admittedly not something he is well known for.

That is exactly what he stated in those videos and the reason why we can take them as being his current stance. Those who would wish to prove he has changed his stance since then, would have to go to the trouble of finding supporting evidence to prove that is the case.

[constituent]

Oh, Ron Paul was LYING about supporting immigration laws?

Is posturing lying? Good question.

(More importantly, does Ron Paul write everything he signs his name to?)

But no, I believe that Ron Paul was mistaken concerning the constitutionality of his position, but was in no place in his life for a drastic reassessment.

Way to fail again, frank.



What's my agenda?

Lol, you don't see it? I'm pretty sure everyone else does.

I believe it was ZippyJuan who laid it out so clearly and concisely the other day that I wouldn't dare bungle my way through restating it.

Perhaps if I'm up to it later, I'll go find his post and quote it for you. :)



My political views align with Ron Paul's views and you're attacking me for that.

Actually, I'm attacking your anti-constitutional views, and neutralizing your JBS agitprop.

If you think it's personal, well, that sucks for you.



Ron Paul doesn't support Open Borders, Sorry.

Actually, Ron Paul does support open borders. Sorry. :)

BTW, the issue here isn't open borders, it is state enforced, constitutional immigration regulation or unconsitutional fedgov immigration regulation.

Leave it to you to invent your opponent's argument and get it wrong.

Just a shred frank. C'mon, a shred?

[specsaregood]

Sure, and I doubt most people would have a problem with allowing immigrants to relocate to the United States provided the welfare/warfare state is first abolished.

Agree completely. BTW, Welcome back JT!

[John Taylor]

Agree completely. BTW, Welcome back JT!

Thanks buddy.

[constituent]

He doesn't support them in the current govt climate of a welfare state. Philosophically in a free market climate he does. It is called pragmatism, admittedly not something he is well known for.

I know right.

So why the exception for this one issue?

On this one issue, why does Ron Paul believe that more fedgov is the solution even despite his advocacy against interpreting the constitution as a "living document?"

I would love for someone to ask him that. Maybe AFTER Rand gets elected... :)

[specsaregood]

So why the exception for this one issue?

On this one issue, why does Ron Paul believe that more fedgov is the solution even despite his advocacy against interpreting the constitution as a "living document?"


Perhaps he does see it as an "invasion". A reasonable interpretation when people south of the border advocate the takeover of the US via immigration.

[constituent]

That is exactly what he stated in those videos and the reason why we can take them as being his current stance. Those who would wish to prove he has changed his stance since then, would have to go to the trouble of finding supporting evidence to prove that is the case.

Actually, the evidence is quite simple.

Ron Paul said that he supports open borders with the caveat that the time may come where immigration represents an "invasion," which would of course give fedgov the constitutional grounds to regulate immigration. (maybe)

As he has made no efforts to declare an invasion or state of emergency/whatever, and furthermore has not had the militia called up to repel the invasion, the only legitimate conclusion based upon his actions rather than words is that Ron Paul still does support open borders and does not believe immigration from the south represents an "invasion."

It's kind of embarrassing that you folks need to have this spelled out for you.

[constituent]

Perhaps he does see it as an "invasion". A reasonable interpretation when people south of the border advocate the takeover of the US via immigration.

If that were the case he'd have called up the militia as the constitution prescribes.

[FrankRep]

Actually, Ron Paul does support open borders. Sorry. :)


OPEN BORDERS?


Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration.


Border Security (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/)


A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.

If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:



1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

[constituent]

OPEN BORDERS?


Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration.



Spambot, spambot!

I'll ask again if Ron Paul personally writes everything he signs his name to. Does he?

And again, I'll ask why Ron Paul has not called up the militia if he believes immigration from the south equals an invasion as you suggest.

Why not?

Given the multiple controversies in the past over what Ron Paul has written versus what he's signed for, I think I'll stick to judging his position based on HIS actions rather than SOMEONE'S word.

Thanks. :)

[specsaregood]

If that were the case he'd have called up the militia as the constitution prescribes.

Is calling up the states' militia the role of a congressman? I don't know, you evidently do. can you cite it? Thanks in advance.

[Dr.3D]

Is calling up the states' militia the role of a congressman? I don't know, you evidently do. can you cite it? Thanks in advance.

I kind of thought that was the job of the Governor of the state.

[specsaregood]

I kind of thought that was the job of the Governor of the state.

That would have been my assumption as well. hopefully constituent can clarify for us.

[constituent]

is calling up the states' militia the role of a congressman? I don't know, you evidently do. Can you cite it? Thanks in advance.

np. :)


to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

[constituent]

I kind of thought that was the job of the Governor of the state.

I know you're not a fan of the constitution, but it couldn't hurt to read it. :)

[FrankRep]

I'll ask again if Ron Paul personally writes everything he signs his name to. Does he?

And again, I'll ask why Ron Paul has not called up the militia if he believes immigration from the south equals an invasion as you suggest.

Is Ron Paul lying to John Stossel about his views on Immigration?


John Stossel: Ron Paul on Illegal Immigration - 2008

YouTube - Ron Paul on Illegal Immigration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y3zEP75kFM&feature=related)

[Dr.3D]

I know you're not a fan of the constitution, but it couldn't hurt to read it. :)

Well, please show me where in the constitution it says it is the job of a congressman to call out the 'National Guard'.

[constituent]

You should really try to show some courtesy frank and answer my question before you try to pose another of your own. That is if you're interested in an actual dialog.

(It's ok, I know that you're not. ;) :))

[constituent]

Well, please show me where in the constitution it says it is the job of a congressman to call out the 'National Guard'.

Where did I say it was the job of a congressman to call out the "National Guard?"

The relevant clause to the argument I'm making has already been quoted/cited.

Maybe calm down on the trigger finger, and try reading the thread you're attempting to participate in. :o

[specsaregood]

np. :)

Thanks, have you looked at all legislation he has submitted over the years? Perhaps he did call for it or co-sponsored legislation that another congressman submitted that included that? I would be less than surprised if Tancredo had submitted such legislation when he was there.

[Dr.3D]

Where did I say it was the job of a congressman to call out the "National Guard?"

The relevant clause to the argument I'm making has already been quoted/cited.

Maybe calm down on the trigger finger, and try reading the thread you're attempting to participate in. :o

Well, Ron Paul is not the Governor nor is he the President.

Well, perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us the difference between the millitia and the National Guard? It has always been the job of the Governor to call out the National Guard, that is until recently, now that the President has some how been also given that authority.

[LibertyEagle]

Constituent, I love you and all, but geez, you're acting obnoxious.

[constituent]

Thanks, have you looked at all legislation he has submitted over the years?

Believe it or not, I used to be a big fan of RP and was keeping tabs on his stuff (sharing w/ fam, friends, etc.) for a long time.

Really, it wasn't until seeing his posturing concerning immigration while he was running for president that I really lost all concern...

I've had a loose eye out and have seen nothing. Maybe someone can scrounge something up. I'd be interested in seeing it. (If only to confirm what already seems clear.)



Perhaps he did call for it or co-sponsored legislation that another congressman submitted that included that?

It would be interesting to hear. Consider that if it exists it was never passed and won't excuse his voting to increase funding to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers to bully Americans at the state-armed constitution free zones known as "designated border crossings," it'd be kind of a moot point anyway, constitutionally speaking of course.



I would be less than surprised if Tancredo had submitted such legislation when he was there.

I would almost assume that Tancredo has done such a thing at some point in his career.

Again, if you find anything, let me know. :)

[constituent]

Constituent, I love you and all, but geez, you're acting obnoxious.

Nothing personal LE, but you are one to accuse. :)

If you can't disagree with the argument, why sit there and drop flame bait?

Trolling is trolling, moderator or not. ;)

(What I find particularly obnoxious is when the conversation is chilling out, someone disagrees
with my position, but rather than state their own they just drop pot shots from the peanut gallery. THAT is obnoxious. :))

[constituent]

Well, perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us the difference between the millitia and the National Guard? It has always been the job of the Governor to call out the National Guard, that is until recently, now that the President has some how been also given that authority.

The point is so auxiliary to what we're talking about that it's almost diversionary to sit and lay out for you what the differences may or may not be between the militia and the national guard.

What's in the constitution is in the constitution, period. :)

[Dr.3D]

The point is so auxiliary to what we're talking about that it's almost diversionary to sit and lay out for you what the differences may or may not be between the militia and the national guard.

What's in the constitution is in the constitution, period. :)

Oh okay... since there is no militia anymore....

[specsaregood]

Again, if you find anything, let me know. :)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3622ih.txt.pdf




H.R.3622 -- Border Protection Corps Act (Introduced in House - IH)
HR 3622 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3622
To authorize the Governor of a State to organize and call into service a militia of able-bodied and eligible citizens to help prevent individuals from unlawfully crossing an international border and entering the United States anywhere other than a port of entry, to appropriate funds to support this service, and for other purposes

No Paul as cosponsor but the bill fits the purpose. But it was 2005, perhaps it was before he came to his current viewpoint.

[constituent]

Oh okay... since there is no militia anymore....

"Woe is me..."

Maybe it's time for a constitutional amendment?

Or maybe it's time to call one up?

I dunno, but it's no excuse for ignoring the constitution for the sake
of political expediency or ideological adherence at the expense of
everyone else and the abandonment of the rule of law.

[constituent]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3622ih.txt.pdf



No Paul as cosponsor but the bill fits the purpose. But it was 2005, perhaps it was before he came to his current viewpoint.

Yea, had it passed that would probably have sufficed.

Interesting though that RP wasn't a cosponsor. He was in the house
back in 2005.

Sorta lends credence to my argument that Ron Paul doesn't agree with
the sensationalist windbags at the JBS as it concerns immigration.

[specsaregood]

Interesting though that RP wasn't a cosponsor. He was in the house
back in 2005.


I think it is a question worth asking RP and seeing if he will submit similar legislation himself.

[constituent]

I think it is a question worth asking RP and seeing if he will submit similar legislation himself.

Yea, but really, I'd probably leave it alone until after election night.

[specsaregood]

Yea, but really, I'd probably leave it alone until after election night.

Why? You think such legislation would hurt him or other liberty candidates?

[Anti Federalist]

Constituent, I love you and all, but geez, you're acting obnoxious.

No kidding.

WTF?

I heard Ron Paul's position on immigration and birthright citizenship with my own ears, straight from the man's own mouth.

It mirrored what FrankRep has already posted, numerous times.

There is no video or audio evidence to suggest that has changed since 2008.

[constituent]

No kidding.

WTF?

What'd I say, peanut gallery...

Hey Braveheart, you figure out the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional immigration enforcement yet?



I heard Ron Paul's position on immigration and birthright citizenship with my own ears, straight from the man's own mouth.


Actions speak louder than words.

Hell Braveheart, I figured you of all people with your hardcore, bad ass cop killa bravado had figured that one out by now! :)

[constituent]

Why? You think such legislation would hurt him or other liberty candidates?

Why stir the hornet's nest?

It appears to me that the republican hacks threw together the Arizona bill to shift the debate away from comprehensive immigration reform to combating Arizona.

Probably best to let that one simmer a little while.

[Anti Federalist]

^^^ My point.

You forgot "boat ******" and "BP shill".

Fuck you, asshole.

[constituent]

^^^ My point.

You forgot "boat ******" and "BP shill".

Fuck you, asshole.

Boat ******? You mean bugger-boater, right?

What's wrong braveheart? Hit a sore spot?

I know you've heard the term before. You have to have by now.

Perhaps you were better off watching from the sidelines if you had nothing to add to the conversation,
and were just going to get all butt hurt when I returned your volley?

Specs and I were having a nice, civil conversation just as you and LE showed up trying to derail it...

How you chose to enter the conversation was entirely up to you. :)



Fuck you, asshole.

Not in a million years, Mel. ;) :)

[specsaregood]

Probably best to let that one simmer a little while.
Or strike while the iron is hot.

A bill such as this by RP, has a good chance of getting a lot of support in the party. And it pushes state solutions not a federal solution. And it seems like it would be constutional, yes?

[Anti Federalist]

Boat ******? You mean bugger-boater, right?

What's wrong braveheart? Hit a sore spot?

I know you've heard the term before. You have to have by now.

Perhaps you were better off watching from the sidelines if you had nothing to add to the conversation,
and were just going to get all butt hurt when I returned your volley?

Specs and I were having a nice, civil conversation just as you and LE showed up trying to derail it...

How you chose to enter the conversation was entirely up to you. :)

Not in a million years, Mel. ;) :)

Spin, splutter, spew and spurt all you want.

Ron Paul's position on immigration is clear.

Evidence of that has been voluminously posted.

If you have anything that indicates his position has changed from 2008 to now, post it or STFU.

[constituent]

Once more, braveheart, particularly in the world of politics, actions speak louder than words.

btw, I do agree that Ron Paul's position on immigration is clear. He made it clear that he is for open borders unless immigration becomes an "invasion."

Ron Paul has put forth zero effort in Congress toward declaring that invasion, and furthermore has made zero effort toward calling up the militia to repel said non-existent "invasion."

That's life. Deal with it, or go cry in the corner. I don't care. :)

And, just to return the volley, post proof of Ron Paul declaring the invasion or calling up the militia or, in your words, "STFU."

This is, afterall, a thread about "constitutionalists." Let's stick with that. :)

Ron Paul only came into the conversation because FrankRep tried to use him to drag the JBS up out of the muck.

[specsaregood]

One of you needs to let the other get the last word and move on. just my humble opinion. there are much greater enemies out there we should focus on.

[constituent]

Or strike while the iron is hot.

A bill such as this by RP, has a good chance of getting a lot of support in the party. And it pushes state solutions not a federal solution. And it seems like it would be constutional, yes?

It would be a constitutional solution, albeit is disproportionate use of force considering the size and nature of the problem, so long as that militia minds the constitutionally protected rights of the people.

[constituent]

One of you needs to let the other get the last word and move on. just my humble opinion. there are much greater enemies out there we should focus on.

Yes, I've dismissed Mel. He can fire back if he wants, but I'll just write him off.

I'm actually enjoying our conversation. :)

[erowe1]

Once more, braveheart....

Are you going to keep using that nickname over and over until somebody comments about it? If so, please consider this post a comment.

[erowe1]

Yes, I've dismissed Mel...

And, lest you replace an old cliche with a new twist on the same thing, count this post as a comment too.

[constituent]

Your point being erowe?

Do you have one, or have you merely dropped in to deliver another
semantic debate about the semantics of semantic disagreements?

Or are you here to deny that his avatar is Mel Gibson as Braveheart?

I don't need you to comment in order to derive pleasure from scoffing at such a ridiculous bag of wind after
being told "Fuck you ASSHOLE!" Pretty much all attempts at courtesy end there.

How about this? Try sticking to the actual topic being discussed. You'll probably fare much better than he. :)

[erowe1]

Your point being erowe?

Do you have one, or have you merely dropped in to deliver another
semantic debate about the semantics of semantic disagreements?

Or are you merely here to deny that his avatar is Mel Gibson as Braveheart?

I was just taking your bait so that you could finally pat yourself on the back for your originality and move on to some other line instead of continuing to throw that one out and look like a comedian who asks if his microphone is on when nobody laughs at his jokes.

[constituent]

I was just taking your bait so that you could finally pat yourself on the back for your originality and move on to some other line instead of continuing to throw that one out and look like a comedian who asks if his microphone is on when nobody laughs at his jokes.

yawn....

my bait?

you bore me...

(that would have been a nice zinger if you could have kept it under twenty words. I understand you have a problem with that. :))

anyway, have anything to discuss about the actual topic of the thread?

[erowe1]

have anything to discuss about the actual topic of the thread?

Thanks, I'll pass.

[constituent]

Like I said, the peanut gallery...


You mean with you? Thanks, I'll pass.


Probably a good idea. I've already got your number. ;) :)

[Dr.3D]

Thanks, I'll pass.

Don't blame ya.... there has been little if anything of substance said in this thread anyway.

[constituent]

Haha, little bit of sore loser syndrome, eh doc?

I will admit that you, braveheart, libertyeagle and erowe have done your best to derail the conversation.

That's ok though, the folks that count see right through you. :)

It's about education. I know that ideological hacks refuse to learn, so I kick back, toy with you a little and laugh.

[Dr.3D]

Haha, little bit of sore loser syndrome, eh doc?

I will admit that you, braveheart, libertyeagle and erowe have done your best to derail the conversation.

That's ok though, the folks that count see right through you. :)

LOL... guess we can let those who are reading this thread decide for themselves about that. :D

[LibertyEagle]

btw, I do agree that Ron Paul's position on immigration is clear. He made it clear that he is for open borders unless immigration becomes an "invasion."

Just stop it with your BS, Constituent. Dr. Paul is NOT for open borders and he has made that quite clear.

[constituent]

Just stop it with your BS, Constituent. Dr. Paul is NOT for open borders and he has made that quite clear.

So where do you stand on constitutional immigration enforcement LE?

(and don't get me started on YOUR BS.)

I realize you'd like to make this about me, but I'm irrelevant.

Are you still all gangbusters about trashing the constitution?

(Here comes the thread split folks....)

[constituent]

LOL... guess we can let those who are reading this thread decide for themselves about that. :D

Indeed. :)

[LibertyEagle]

Nothing personal LE, but you are one to accuse. :)

If you can't disagree with the argument, why sit there and drop flame bait?

Trolling is trolling, moderator or not. ;)

(What I find particularly obnoxious is when the conversation is chilling out, someone disagrees
with my position, but rather than state their own they just drop pot shots from the peanut gallery. THAT is obnoxious. :))

Because Constituent, I have been here long enough to remember when you said you had given up on this whole movement. You also mentioned the reason you were here was to just get your jollies.

C'mon, man. Just don't be so insulting on every post. That's all.

[constituent]

C'mon, man. Just don't be so insulting on every post. That's all.

Now wait just one cotton pickin' second here.

You want to get on me about insulting?

Hun, you need to check your premise.

BTW, what movement?

And for the sake of full disclosure, so that we can understand where you're coming from,
you are or are not a member of the John Birch Society?

[LibertyEagle]

Constituent, you know exactly what I'm talking about. lol.


And for the sake of full disclosure, so that we can understand where you're coming from,
you are or are not a member of the John Birch Society?

No, I am not a member.

[constituent]

No, actually, I don't.

I mean, I see you trying to derail the conversation.

I watched you try to shoot the messenger, because you
disagree with my message but you can't refute it.

You've made up a falsehood about me (that every post was an insult).

You directly insulted me as your first post in this thread ("obnoxious")

So no, LE, really I don't know what you mean other than do as you say not as you do. :confused:

[constituent]

And for the sake of full disclosure, so that we can understand where you're coming from,
you are or are not a member of the John Birch Society?

^^^

[John Taylor]

^^^

This is funny to observe.

[constituent]

This is funny to observe.

More fun to participate in. ;) :D

BTW, she is a member of the JBS. That's why I asked. :)

[John Taylor]

More fun to participate in. ;) :D

BTW, she is a member of the JBS.

Are YOU now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?:p

[constituent]

Are YOU now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?:p

BUT McCARTHY HAS BEEN VINDICATED!!!!!!! :D

(It's good to know where people are coming from if we're to judge their presence/agenda in a given thread.)

[FrankRep]

BUT McCARTHY HAS BEEN VINDICATED!!!!!!! :D

(It's good to know where people are coming from if we're to judge their presence/agenda in a given thread.)

You laugh, but McCarthy really was right.


Glenn Beck: History Vindicated Joe McCarthy
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/37-history/3876-glenn-beck-history-vindicated-joe-mccarthy


Fox News host Glenn Beck aired an extraordinary program June 24 explaining how author M. Stanton Evans exposed how the facts released from the files of the FBI and the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services over the past two decades have vindicated the controversial charges of communism in the U.S. State Department by Senator Joseph McCarthy. by Thomas R. Eddlem

[John Taylor]

BUT McCARTHY HAS BEEN VINDICATED!!!!!!! :D

(It's good to know where people are coming from if we're to judge their presence/agenda in a given thread.)

I agree, we should all identify our past affiliations and be vetted by a panel here... perhaps we can call them the Commissars of Classical Liberalism??

[John Taylor]

You laugh, but McCarthy really was right.


Glenn Beck: History Vindicated Joe McCarthy
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/37-history/3876-glenn-beck-history-vindicated-joe-mccarthy


Fox News host Glenn Beck aired an extraordinary program June 24 explaining how author M. Stanton Evans exposed how the facts released from the files of the FBI and the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services over the past two decades have vindicated the controversial charges of communism in the U.S. State Department by Senator Joseph McCarthy. by Thomas R. Eddlem

I agree with you regarding McCarthy.

[constituent]

I agree, we should all identify our past affiliations and be vetted by a panel here... perhaps we can call them the Commissars of Classical Liberalism??

Nah, but when a bircher drops into a thread concerning the constitutional hypocrisy of the society president's stance on immigration and tries to play objective observer, then it certainly becomes noteworthy.

(Really, the only thing that matters in all of this is that those who agree that people should migrate freely as they choose
see that there is actually a pretty bulletproof constitutional argument that can consistently work in their favor. I don't care
what anyone else thinks. :))

But yea, I agree that ol' Joe was vindicated too. :)

[AuH20]

You laugh, but McCarthy really was right.


Glenn Beck: History Vindicated Joe McCarthy
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/37-history/3876-glenn-beck-history-vindicated-joe-mccarthy


Fox News host Glenn Beck aired an extraordinary program June 24 explaining how author M. Stanton Evans exposed how the facts released from the files of the FBI and the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services over the past two decades have vindicated the controversial charges of communism in the U.S. State Department by Senator Joseph McCarthy. by Thomas R. Eddlem

Even a supposed ideological opponent like JFK considered McCarthy a patriot.

[specsaregood]

(It's good to know where people are coming from if we're to judge their presence/agenda in a given thread.)

For the record, I am not a member although I have been to many of their events and by far the most active liberty-oriented activists in my part of the state are all jbs members. Say what you want about the organization or its history, the majority of their members are great individuals who I am happy to work with.

[constituent]

For the record, I am not a member although I have been to many of their events and by far the most active liberty-oriented activists in my part of the state are all jbs members. Say what you want about the organization or its history, the majority of their members are great individuals who I am happy to work with.

Yea man, that's cool. I only bring up the JBS' past as it acts as a reflection of its present.

I actually know lots of Birchers too who happen to be great people.

However, as the saying goes, "the fish rots head-first."

Maybe not related, but it's always interested me to see the different approach to organizational hierarchy that G. Edward Griffin's Freedom Force International has striven for compared to that of the JBS where he was something of a muckity-muck for many years. :)

[FrankRep]

Maybe not related, but it's always interested me to see the different approach to organizational hierarchy that G. Edward Griffin's Freedom Force International has striven for compared to that of the JBS where he was something of a muckity-muck for many years. :)

Is G. Edward Griffin a member of the John Birch Society? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=202274)


YES. He's a Full Member of the John Birch Society.

[constituent]

Is G. Edward Griffin a member of the John Birch Society? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=202274)


YES. He's a Full Member of the John Birch Society.

Cool. I wonder if he agrees with McManus that legal Mexican migrants are "Stealing the American Dream?"

[specsaregood]

Maybe not related, but it's always interested me to see the different approach to organizational hierarchy that G. Edward Griffin's Freedom Force International has striven for compared to that of the JBS where he was something of a muckity-muck for many years. :)

Different approaches for pretty much the same or at least very similar goals. Many of the FFI members nearby attend the jbs events too. The organizations attract different types of people with different strategies. Complimentary one might say.

[constituent]

Different approaches for pretty much the same or at least very similar goals. Many of the FFI members nearby attend the jbs events too. The organizations attract different types of people with different strategies. Complimentary one might say.

hmmm...

[Anti Federalist]

Because Constituent, I have been here long enough to remember when you said you had given up on this whole movement. You also mentioned the reason you were here was to just get your jollies.

C'mon, man. Just don't be so insulting on every post. That's all.

Oh, FFS, that explains a lot.

I can't believe I fell for that. I actually thought he was being serious.

Boy, is my face red.

Carry on...

[constituent]

"Every man dies; not every man really lives!"

...and you still want to trash the constitution.

It's not that I've given up on a movement. It is that there never was a movement where half the people chanting "constitution"
have never even read the damn thing.

Enjoy your slumber.

[Anti Federalist]

"Every man dies; not every man really lives!"

...and you still want to trash the constitution.

It's not that I've given up on a movement. It is that there never was a movement.

Enjoy your slumber.

Carry on...

[constituent]

Enjoy your slumber.

:)

[LibertyEagle]

More fun to participate in. ;) :D

BTW, she is a member of the JBS. That's why I asked. :)

Uh no, I am not.

[MikeStanart]

http://memegenerator.net/troll-expert/ImageMacro/799994/troll-expert-trolls-on-my-internet.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

LOL, I had forgotten this thread....

[Brian4Liberty]

Nice summary... the interesting thing is that I had come to these realizations without even knowing the word "neo-conservatism". It was apparent during the Clinton years by observing the pundits Bill Kristol and John McCain. They were portrayed as conservatives, but it was obvious that they had an agenda, and it fit this description nicely:


Today’s neocon favors the United Nations, undeclared wars, a form of socialism slightly milder than what is offered by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, steps toward world government such as phony free trade agreements, open borders, and a Supreme Court peopled by justices who will “interpret” rather than obey the U.S. Constitution.

The term "neoconservative" didn't enter my vocabulary until right after GWB was elected.


Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Constitutionalists


John F. McManus, John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) President
August 2010


Early members of The John Birch Society commonly labeled their own and the Society’s political preference as “conservative.” These doughty Americans were opposed to government controls, the United Nations, and anything that smacked of communism. Occasionally, someone with a bit of history under his belt would interject that liberals of the 19th Century were the equivalent of conservatives in the 20th. True enough, but “So what!’ was the frequent rejoinder. It had already become obvious that the terms conservative and liberal weren’t defined with any precision.

Jump ahead 20-30 years and JBS members found themselves being lumped together with so-called conservatives who were advocating bigger government and foreign interventionism. Mercifully, some prominent promoters of these very un-conservative views adopted the term “neoconservative” for themselves. The most prominent of the neocons, journalist Irving Kristol, reveled in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism,” a title he richly deserved.


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxKy0xWYQfTN6FrdrHgBH3flC8bukVQ fZsNmmWsNY1zGbX29c&t=1&usg=__xhP1W-LdDRoNYWQ_XDzrcOAXIhA=
Irving Kristol took delight in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism.”


Kristol spelled out neocon belief in his 1995 opus Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/1566632285). He said that it squared with Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” and wanted nothing to do with “the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.” There you have the definition of neoconservatism: socialism and internationalism. Kristol went so far as to candidly admit, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” The partner of Lenin in communizing Russia, Trotsky later fell into disfavor for backing the slower route to deadly totalitarianism. If one accepts Kristol’s definition, and there is no reason not to do so, Trotsky was the first neoconservative.

Though few knew for many years, William Buckley actually preceded Kristol as a neocon, although he postured as a conservative while leading many otherwise patriotic Americans into the neocon swamp. In 1952 while working in “deep cover” (his term) for the CIA in Mexico, Buckley penned an article in the Catholic periodical Commonweal in which he called for “Big Government for the duration,” “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores,” “large armies and air forces,” and “the attendant centralization of power in Washington.” No neocon ever said it more clearly.

Buckley, of course, is still lauded by unthinking conservatives, especially for his incessant and dishonest castigation of The John Birch Society. If he is the epitome of conservatism, JBS members of the 21st Century want nothing to do with it. Which is why the term “constitutionalist” has been adopted. Unlike conservative or liberal, constitutionalist can be defined. And it can’t be shifted into backing tomorrow what it rejected yesterday. The mass media may refer to the two Bush presidents, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, William Kristol and a host of others as “conservatives” but even these propaganda organs wouldn’t call them constitutionalists.

The Constitution is defined. Conservatism is not. Neoconservatism has taken conservatism’s place and, while we emphatically disagree with what Irving Kristol wanted for America, we can at least thank him for his honest definition. Not so with Bill Buckley who bared his real beliefs in 1952 but then dishonestly postured as America’s premier defender for decades.

Today’s neocon favors the United Nations, undeclared wars, a form of socialism slightly milder than what is offered by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, steps toward world government such as phony free trade agreements, open borders, and a Supreme Court peopled by justices who will “interpret” rather than obey the U.S. Constitution. It is increasingly obvious that Americans are discovering (some are re-discovering) the Constitution. There’s hope for the future there. Let’s do all we can to spread awareness of the worth and the need to enforce the “supreme law of the land.”


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