Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Constitutionalists

[FrankRep]

Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Constitutionalists


John F. McManus, John Birch Society 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.



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. 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 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.



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. 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.

[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.

Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration.



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


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


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




Ron Paul on Immigration:


The Immigration Question


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

[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


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


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


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




Ron Paul on Immigration:


The Immigration Question


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

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.

[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.

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

[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.

[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.

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.]

[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.