Posted on 01/09/2010 9:09:37 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
Uh, WHERE did I compare JBS to NAMBLA? I didn't--I asked where YOUR line was drawn, and asked YOU if NAMBLA did the same thing you would respond in the same way.
And you didn't want to answer, and went straight to the insults.
Nice try, but I in no way, shape or form compared JBS to NAMBLE. But since you can't answer honestly (still), you prove your dishonesty by claiming I did.
If I asked "So which is worse, a bank robber or a Nazi?" am I comparing bank robbers to Nazis?
I know you won't answer, because if you answer honestly you'll prove my point.
Game, set, and match to me.
No. You would be asking someone else to compare bank robbers to Nazis.
If this gives you any trouble, ask me to explain. I will.
To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure the Republican Party is a Conservative organization.
As for NAMBLA, I am a conservative, and they do not get my support anyway. However, they have a right to their thoughts and opinions, just not the legal right to act on them.
Where do you get this "one or two members" standard? At what number do you say, "I'm seeing a trend, no matter what the organization's 'official' statements"?
It is my own. admittedly. How many would you require? One troll and FR is down the toilet? Two? How many?
Yours is the My Lai argument, used to brand returning veterans from SE Asia as "baby killers" because a few in one unit stepped over the line.
Unless you can prove that persons who are involved in setting the policy of the organization are in fact lying in their official statements, with the intent to diabolically deceive, then the actions of the individual members taken as individuals are just that--individual people's actions. Or would you brand every cop a criminal because some are taking bribes from drug dealers?
Should we support ACORN because they don't explicitly state they're going to try to steal elections?
When criminal behaviour is endemic in an organization, and the leaders and primary sponsors can be shown to have criminal intent, then the organization should be treated appropriately.
ACORN's founders and subsequent management, local and national, appear to be in direct alignment in their goals. There is evidence of wrongdoing, and the RICO investigation would take quite a while and tremendous resources, but will not happen because of connections to the very same people who on this website are decried as Marxists, ironically, often by the same people you seem to feel are "nutjobs", and who were asking about ACORN long before I saw anything about the organization in the news.
I've met a lot more than just one, and I've yet to meet the 'one' who is as clean of bizarre ideas as the "official" organization claims. Who should I believe, their "official" position or my lyin' eyes?
Even though I am a Christian, I must admit any idea presented in the right way can be bizzare. Like those of us who believe the Son of God was born to a virgin, lived as a sinless man, was executed by crucifixion, and resurrected before ascending into Heaven that those of us who could not live such a blameless life might be forgiven our sins and able to spend eternity close to the God wo loves us.
Everyone has a crackpot idea or two, and it all depends on how you look at it whether you consider it "crackpot".
So, specifically, what bizarre beliefs do you mean?
We've gotten over the one about the world being round (uh, true), and not the center of the universe (gosh, that one, too), so what heresies did you have in mind?
You have no idea how I "look at history," so this paragraph is menaingless straw.
True, which is why I said "might".
I can't despise both wacko leftists (who never "officially" say they're going to socialize this country--only a few in the bunch SAY it--AND wacko rightists?
Last I heard, you are free to despise anyone who isn't of a protected group, which means conservative, generally melanin deprived folks who are likely to breed their own children.
I guess if your 'friends' stab you it doesn't bleed as much, but the Constitution hasn't really been followed since before 1860 and most even here would scream bloody blue murder if it was.
Again, straw, has nothing to do with the issue we're discussing.
Not this time. In fact, it is the essential part of the whole argument. The only "crackpot" idea I have seen from the JBS folks is one of upholding the Constitution of the United States.
There is no Constitutional authority for many things our Government does, whether they were instituted by Democrat or Republican administrations, and many people--even on this site--would howl like skinned cats if those programs were shut down tomorrow. Not all of the programs, but this place is inhabited by a fair contingent of exceptional conservatives, who are conservative...except...
If SSI was shut down tomorrow, some would complain. Medicare. Federal Highway funding. Medicaid. The list goes on.
You're making my point--they pay lip service to their anti-communist stuff, but what do they REALLy do?
Well, for starters, they inform anyone who will listen what is going on. Before I 'found' Free Republic, I read their magazine, and they were way ahead of any other news source on what was going on in Washington--by six months to a year. Their position on the Constitution and their evaluation standards for those in office have not changed in that time, nor have their stringent criteria of evaluating political behaviour regardless of the party of the actors involved.
Of course, if you assume they are "crackpots", you won;t see that. Which is why I question your and other Alinskyite attempts to brand them as such. Isolate...etc.
What have the Birchers done to protect the constitution, other than that lip service you're talking about?
Educate people as to the Consititution and original intent. An ignorant populace is easily enslaved.
Which makes me wonder why you, specifically, have such animosity toward them. Surely you must have something other than them supposedly being "crackpots", something other than their saying for years that we have been trending toward global socialism, whether you call it "The New World Order" or not (Daddy Bush's words, not mine). SOmething other than their decrying the extraConstitutional actions taken by the Federal Government, regardless of who takes those actions.
So please, spell out the official positions they are taking, or even have taken which have led you to where your attitude is today.
I do not know the deep dark history of the organization, and I am not a member, I have only read some of what they have put out over the last couple of decades and have not seen anything so wrong nor objectionable as you seem to have seen. .
Re your post #16.
I read the blurb from Skousen’s book you posted and found everything in his list of Communist Goals to be true with many if not most most of them accomplished.
The PC hand wringing and pissing and moaning on this thread is sickening and disgusting.
“........the Birchers they are a vile group that should be categorically dismissed by conservatives, and not only when we can connect them to someone we dislike.
17 posted on Saturday, January 09, 2010 11:47:55 PM by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian conservative, atheist prolifer”
Atheists like you are much more distasteful than the Birchers. Atheists are a vile group that should be categorically dismissed by Conservatives.
Yeah, that was my point. The guy was supposed to be such an extremist yet there he was in 1958 pretty much predicting the Democrat Party platform of 2008.
I’d wondered about JBS. A couple of years ago I heard the ‘racist’ label applied to the organization. Didn’t give it much thought until I stumbled across JBS’s founder, Robert Welch’s 1974 speech on YouTube [Pamela Geller also has it on her AtlasShrugs2000.typepad.com site.
What Welch stated was that the lefties would try to bust the finances of the US by continually increasing spending through entitlements, military adventures and more. That the currency would be debased and a NWO would move in, coupled with giving up our sovereignty.
Looks to me like he had it spot on.
This led me to do a bit more research. Ike chose to pave the US, instead of upgrading railways. This undoubtedly led to a trade imbalance as we became ‘hooked’ on foreign oil. Dependence on external resources has weakened our nation.
Regan, for all of his positive traits, did overspend, which also weakened the nation.
It seems to me that the JBS is truly a solid constitutional supporter, which equates to a free people, small government, solid currency, and limited foreign war entanglements.
Sadly, both parties appear to have run candidates who do not believe in these values.
Palin’s hesitation is understandable as the JBS has been portrayed as a boogey-man and the media would have latched on her appearance with JBS sponsorship spinning the story to her discredit and the discredit of constitutional conservatives.
Sometimes, one retreats to regroup and fight on a different field. Smart woman, is Sarah Palin.
There seems to be a major concern that the Society is fast becoming a puppet for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One document that I received suggests that Smith's course of action is tied in with his Mormon belief that, "The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread."
Note the words of Mormon Prophet Brigham Young:
"Will the Constitution be destroyed? No; it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, 'The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from threatened destruction.' It will be so." (Journal of Discourses,7:15.) Young also made another "prophecy" about the same circumstances: "Brethren and sisters, our friends wish to know our feelings towards the Government. I answer, they are first rate, and we will prove it too, as you will see if you only live long enough, for that we shall live to prove it is certain, and when the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the "Mormon" Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forward and do it." (Journal of Discourses, 2:182.)
There is yet a third voice explaining this" prophecy," and that is the voice of Orson Hyde, a contemporary of Joseph Smiths because he was one of his Twelve Apostles, who wrote this, also quoted in Journal of Discourses:
"It is said that brother Joseph in his lifetime declared that the Elders of this Church should step forth at a particular time when the Constitution should be in danger, and rescue it, and save it. I believe he said something like this - that the time would come when the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he, If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church. I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it." (Journal of Discourses, 6:152) Does Vance Smith believe that this is a prophecy made by his Prophet that has yet to be fulfilled, and does he see the Birch Society in all of its endeavors striving to be the group to "step forward and do it" to save the Constitution in junction with the LDS Church? Is this why he is systematically removing longtime Birchers from leadership positions and replacing them with Mormons? Time will tell." ~ Dennis Wright.
I am of the opinion they cannot.
What I see in this thread is what I normally see and have come to expect from liberals and other socialist, which is primarily, accusations without substantiation.
When I was younger, much younger, I believed the John Birch Society was un-American in its scope and purpose. I cannot recall what influence caused that belief and I was at that age than many young Americans are at now…too busy to care.
A few years ago, I came across a short video that impressed me as an accurate view of America and its Constitution. I now have grown children and eight grandchildren. I feel one day the grandchildren would wonder why their grandfather left the country in the mess they now had to deal with. I am at the age now were I do care and sorry I didn’t begin to care much earlier in life.
The video was presented as a Ten Minute History Lesson and titled “The American Form of Government”. In those ten minutes, I saw a very concise and accurate description of the Constitution’s vision for America. I say concise because it was easy to understand in its brevity and accurate because it agreed with my knowledge of the Constitution.
View the video and let me know if you disagree with its assessment. Much later I was surprised to discover the video was provided by the John Birch Society, which motives were suspect to me.
Yep. The liberals have come close to banning those, too.
It was a huge red flag for me when Glenn Beck had the nerve to call the Constitution a "divinely inspired" document...That is blasphemous. ONLY the *BIBLE* is God-breathed!
While I appreciate a lot of the material covered on his show and his obvious patriotism--I am not sure how clear the line is between his religion and his politics. I am not aware of how a "Mormon worldview" works.
I obviously am not against the free expression of religion in this country, nor am I against allying with members of different religions around common causes--such as the pro-life movement. THAT being said, I hope Christians keep a discerning eye and remember that their primary allegiance is to Jesus Christ, HIS Gospel, HIS kingdom (which is "not of this world") and living by the Word of God. Christ must take primacy over nation, over the Constitution.
Jesus never advocated political revolt against Caesar, nor did he ever wave an American flag. Christians in this country need to keep that in mind as they prayerfully sift through how to participate in the democratic society we're so blessed live in. The early Christians of the Bible and Christians throughout other parts of the world today live under very different political conditions, places that make Obama seem like George Washington.
I am not sure where Palin stands theologically with regard to her Christianity. However, I know that her faith is genuine and not a front, and that she seeks guidance from the God of the BIBLE and not the false, creepy Book of Mormon.
There’s one point in Romney’s favor, among all the digs he’s been getting here.
None of the above.
Unlike you I don’t support pro-abortion candidates from any party. You’re okay trampling on the Constitution and condemning the unborn to horrible death. I’m not. Carry on, jackass.
can somebody explain to me the bad baggage the john birch society has?
... uh yes, the “baggage” is that they were so effective in fighting American Communists, that the leftist press planted a ton of lies that have been swallowed by the public, much like the smears of Joe McCarthy. They have no racist past, but when the left was recruiting MLK and most of the civil rights movement, JBS pointed it out and that to the state controlled media is “racis”...
ymmv
JBS becomes mainstream *ping*
*ping*
I stopped reading the guy's responses after he failed to perceive the ridiculousness of his argument bringing NAMBLA into it -- whether or not the JBS is good or bad has become beside the point; the point is that this particular poster is worthy of being skipped on this thread because he lacks sensible arguing skills. I don't know about on other threads or other topics, but on this one ... nah.
Mitt Romney was even farther left before he won the race for Governor of Massachusetts, it was during his Governor's term that Mitt started trying to reshape himself as a moderate republican for the 2008 race rather than the hard left man that he was.
It is much worse than that, Mitt himself did fund raising for Planned Parenthood, he used to donate and fund raise only for pro abortion candidates in races against republicans, in the interview with Mickelson, Romney says that Mormon leaders can be pro choice, that the Mormons do not have to be pro life.
Romney says that the Mormon church does not say that all Mormons have to be prolife, and that even some in leadership are proabortion.
I don't remember the JBS doing anything, I was trying to learn about them in the 50s and 60s but in time I came to think of them as a bunch of weirdos that sold books to each other and did not participate in politics, it was like a closed little group of conspiracy nuts marketing their writings to each other.
Did they used to win elections, write legislation, endorse winning candidates? What did they do do that was significant to American elections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.