BluegrassBulletin.com

Is There Any Daylight Between Ron Paul And John Birch Society?

Ask any blogger, politician or journalist.  The minute one raises any questions about Ron Paul's ideas keyboards start clicking as if on auto-start and disagreement rains down like arrows in Braveheart.  On the other hand, if you speak highly of Dr. Paul, any number of his fan sites will spread your words far and wide.

So in order to set this discussion in proper perspective for his millions of excitable fans let me first say that I assign no negatives to any of the questions I am about to raise.  It's just that considering the facts, I think it is a legitimate question to ask whether the Ron Paul movement is a John Birch movement by another name.

For some of the younger readers out there the "John Birch Society" might not be a familiar group.  I could spend pages describing them but think it would be better if they educated themselves.  Remember the brilliant slogan "Google Ron Paul"?  Well, "Google John Birch Society", and I think you will find plenty of information.  But here's a thumbnail sketch.

The John Birch Society was founded in Indianapolis in 1958 by Robert Welch.  He named the group after John Birch, a Baptist missionary and Army Intelligence Officer who was killed by the Communist Chinese in 1945.  One of the founding members was Fred Koch.  You might have heard of the Koch Brothers.  They are the current heirs of the industry founded by Fred Koch.

Here is what the John Birch Society stands for.  They are anti-communist, oppose the Federal Reserve, advocate for a limited government, advocate for an originalist Constitutional Republic based upon Christian values, argue for more personal freedom, oppose the UN and believe that it could be the nucleus of a "One World Government".  They oppose wealth re-distribution, economic interventionism and opposed the Civil Rights movement because of alleged Communist ties and upon grounds that it violated the 10th amendment.  The group opposes socialism and NAFTA.

While the John Birch Society has been labeled by its detractors as "ultraconservative", "far right", "extremist" its leaders have said that the John Birch Society belongs to the "Old Right" rather than the "New Right".

The "New Right" is called by many Birchers "Neoconservatism".  They label those like George Bush, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as "neo-cons".

Neoconservatism is  phrase which, though rooted in a group of former liberals, combines features of traditional "conservatism" with individualism and free markets.  During the administration of George W. Bush, the term found wider use and the "Bush Doctrine" was added to its definition.

The phrase "Bush Doctrine" was originally used by Charles Krauthammer to describe various foreign policy positions adopted by then president George W. Bush, namely that the US had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorists.  Later other pundits added to the definition such things as the controversial belief that the USA had the right to launch "pre-emptive" war which included the right to depose foreign regimes that represented a potential threat the the security of the United States even if the threat was not immediate, including a policy of unilaterally pursuing military interests. The largest umbrella under which the "Bush Doctrine" can be found is the belief that the United States is locked in a "global war" against terrorism.

In addition to its non-intervention views in  opposition to the "Bush Doctrine" and the "neo-cons" who support it, in modern times the John Birch Society has taken a very strong stand against the Federal Reserve and has argued that the Federal Government has overstepped its authority by creating "fiat money", that is paper money not backed by gold or silver.

In 2010 the John Birch Society emerged from a long period of quiet behind the scenes work to sponsor the CPAC convention.  At that convention, you will recall, Ron Paul won big.

As we listen to Ron Paul's views on some of the topics mentioned above, it would appear that his thinking is very much in line with that of the John Birch Society.  Yet he is often more closely identified with the libertarian movement.  Some might question if there is any daylight between the modern day libertarian movement and the John Birch Society, but that would be a distraction.  Regardless whether people label Ron Paul a libertarian or not, he clearly has a close relationship with the John Birch Society.

To many who consider themselves establishment republicans "Birchers" are considered too far right.  They have often been called the "black helicopter" bunch.  For those republicans who do not understand them fully, they appear to be a dangerous group of potentially racist, anti-semitic, neo-nazi Klan members. Do any of these attacks sound familiar in the context of things being said about Ron Paul?

So the question isn't really whether the John Birch Society can gain any respect in the modern world of politics, the question is whether Ron Paul is able to enhance its respectability with his candidacy for president, or whether his connection with a group which does not enjoy much in the way of a favorable public image will drag down his chances.

Recently I questioned Ron Paul's positions regarding Iran.  I only published a few of the many comments I received because though listed as having been from a number of different people, many of them were nearly identical.  I said that Ron Paul was a pacifist and was quickly taken to task.

As they argued against my position, Paul supporters drew a distinction between pacifism and non-interventionism coupled with the need for a constitutionally required mandate that no armed action can take place without a congressional declaration of war.  Of course those things don't directly address whether Ron Paul is a pacifist or not.  What they address instead, but only obliquely, is whether the War Powers Act which limits the President's ability to take military action is or is not constitutional.

I was supplied with a very scholarly article which made the case for why we should not even consider any armed conflict with Iran, war powers act or not.  In a nutshell the article made the point that Iran poses no real threat to us. (Read article here)  That article is what got me interested in writing this column today.  You see, that article which was sent to me was published in The New American, a product of the John Birch Society.

Might many of the ideas, principles and logic of the John Birch Society make sense in today's world?  That is up to you to decide.  In fact, ignoring for a minute the irritating nature of their intransigence, aren't many of the arguments of the John Birch Society the same ones being advocated by some in the TEA party?  Don't those arguments track pretty closely to what Ron Paul says?  And might not this adoption of ideals by the TEA party explain why it too has been painted in some quarters as racist?

I would encourage you to educate yourself.  I for one still believe that you have the right to believe whatever you want. 

So after you have explored these topics on your own, I'd appreciate your comment in answer to the question posed in the title to this article.  Is there any daylight between Ron Paul and the John Birch Society?

It might be a bit of a snowy weekend here in the midwest and a good time to look at some of the links I put into the article above, as well as finding some more on your own.

Let me hear from you.  I really am interested in what you have to say.

TEA Party Needs To Build From Ground Up

Rand Paul's win in Kentucky, Sarah Palin's national prominence, Herman Cain's temporary popularity and a handful of other races around the nation gave those who like the TEA party plenty of excitement over the last year or so.  But looking across the nation now it is hard to see a growing TEA party influence this cycle.

Newt Gingrich might get more TEA party support than Romney but Newt is far from the kind of outsider candidate which the TEA party seemed to prefer just a few months ago.  Ron Paul has his followers within the TEA party but the group was not formed around him and many TEA partiers have noticed how he has faded in the polls.  What many are beginning to notice is how the money interests of the establishment gives it an advantage over the long haul.  In other words, though the TEA party flashed quickly onto the national stage, those with the most chips can stay in the game longer.

Perhaps what the TEA party needs to do is put aside its emphasis on national races and the ones that get all the attention and instead focus on party re-organization and the local races.  When the chance arrives to put one of their members on a party committee, the city council, the school board or in a county office, that is where they might find a better shot at building a movement from the ground up.

Where's The TEA Party This Year?

In a thoughtful article written by Ed Morrissey at HotAir, he examines why the GOP doesn't seem to have a strong TEA party presence in the presidential nomination process.  He wonders why, given their success in 2010, that they are not heard from as much this cycle as last.  But he has an answer, and it's a good one.

Consider the impact of the New Left movement in the 1960s. Originally outside of the two-party paradigm, the rise of the New Left created a rift among Democrats during the Vietnam War that led to their disastrous 1968 convention in Chicago and resulted in the election of Richard Nixon, and then his re-election in 1972. The New Left’s absorption into the Democratic Party took years — and arguably, didn’t produce a legitimate presidential nominee until Barack Obama, 40 years after the Chicago convention.

The key to success for the Tea Party is the long view.  Given the spectacular success of 2010, it would be very easy to expect nearly-instant revolution in political thinking, but that’s unrealistic.  The American political process is designed to prevent sharp lunges in any direction; it’s one reason why our political structure has remained stable.  Real change takes decades, not months, as fresh blood and fresh ideas work their way into the mainstream. 

I would add to Ed's analysis my belief that the TEA party will have a big influence on the outcome in November, but it might be signaled by the re-election of Obama.

Some, particularly the more militant Paul supporters, see the chance to defeat Obama as a long shot and would prefer to wait him out another four years, use the blow-back to elevate more TEA party folks into various offices and then run a strong candidate for the open seat, rather than challenging an incumbent republican president.

While there is a whiff of logic in this approach, there is a much greater flaw.

A second Obama term could spell the end of our economy, which means that the advocates of this strategy are putting poltical advantage above national interests.

They better be careful.

Geoff Davis: "How Dare You Question Me?"

While maybe not his exact words this is the sentiment he seemed to express Saturday night in Boone County, according to a number of witnesses.  The setting was the Boone County GOP Christmas Gala.  Davis was visiting with a number of TEA party folks when the issue of detaining citizens came up.

Someone asked if he supported Senator Rand Paul's amendment which would eliminate the right of the executive branch to brand an American citizen as "connected with terrorism", have the military seize them, imprison them and deny them the right to counsel, the right to a hearing and potentially hold them in custody forever.  When Davis said no, someone else asked him why Rand Paul would make an issue of this.  As the story goes, here is what followed.

Davis began by saying that Rand Paul doesn't know what he is talking about.  Davis confirmed that he had supported the bill, and Senator McCain's position on it, in the House. 

Davis then said that he had received a letter from a TEA party person asking him to support Rand Paul's position.  When questioned why he wouldn't support Rand Paul as the letter from the TEA party member requested, Davis, according to eye witnesses, went too far by saying: "How dare that person question ME on this issue.  I don't see stars on his shoulder!"

Let me be clear.  We all are grateful for the service of our men and women in uniform.  And over the years there have been millions of them.  What seems to stick in some people's craw is when one of those millions seeks to claim some special position by virtue of that service. 

What makes even that offensive attitude completely unacceptable is when one of those millions of servicemen declares that a civilian "dare not" question his vote in Congress because that citizen is not military.  It's as if this mere public servant views himself as now occupying some exalted position which is above any question, any petition and any criticism.

On this day of rememberance it might be a good idea for Geoff Davis to remember for whom he works, who pays his salary and to whom he must answer when legitimate questions are asked of him.

And it might be a good idea for Geoff Davis to consider whether standing around with a group of TEA party folks and saying out loud that Rand Paul doesn't know what he is talking about, is a good idea.

When Davis aligns himself with John McCain, joins the Council on Foreign Relations, insults Rand Paul and castigates a voter for "daring" to ask him a question if he doesn't have "stars on his shoulder", he makes a pretty good case for forced term limits.

Something You Must Know About Who Pulls The Strings

Have you allowed yourself to become convinced that the grand movements of government which play out before our eyes are driven and directed by "WE THE PEOPLE"?   Or do you wonder about such things as why wars are started, how interest rates are set and what kind of high level behind closed doors meetings steer world affairs?

Let me introduce you to Professor Carroll Quigley.  Born in 1910, graduated from Harvard, later to teach at Princeton and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, Quigley is cited as having made a great impact on one student in particular, Bill Clinton, who referenced Quigley in his 1992 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Quigley was the author of several books.  One in particular is of interest for this article, "Tragedy And Hope".

Here are some excepts I think you need to see from that book.  In a moment I will tell you why knowing these things is important:

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. 

In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Group has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, of any other groups, and frequently does so. 

I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records.  I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments.

     The chief backbone of this organization grew up along the already existing financial cooperation running from the Morgan Bank in New York to a group of international financiers in London led by Lazard Brothers.

    This front organization, called the royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group.  In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations and was a front for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.

    The American branch of this "English Establishment" exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript )

If you are not familiar with the Council On Foreign Relations, please take the time to learn.  This video is filled with facts.  It is a good place to start:

Now, why is this important?  Well wouldn't you like to know if any of your elected officials were members of such a secret organization with the avowed purpose of creating a new world order?

Wouldn't you feel more informed if you knew more about the membership of this organization?

Okay, well then let me tell you.  Of the entire federal delegation from Kentucky, consisting of two U.S. Senators and six congressmen, only one is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Geoff Davis.

It is a secret organization devoted to one world government.  Why would Davis join this group?

Why don't you ask him? 

KREF Dismisses Complaint Against Northern Kentucky TEA Party

At a meeting today in Frankfort the Board of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance approved a staff recommendation and report and dismissed the elections finance complaint which had been filed against it by a citizen of Boone County regarding the 2010 general elections.  A full copy of the report and order will be available soon.

I was honored to have served as attorney for the group and to have worked with attorney Duane Skavdahl on the matter.

 

OWS Out To Destroy America?

Occupy zombies gathered to scream chants of "shame" at Black Friday shoppers around the country.  What is their goal?  While it is very hard to answer that question with any degree of credibility, one could reasonably surmise that they are out to destroy America, by disrupting the normal flow of commerce.

Yes, they really are that ignorant.  Commerce is not unique to America.  Buying, selling, making a profit and improving one's station in life are all things which have been part of human life during all of recorded history.

But should they succeed at anything, what they might accomplish is to help struggling businesses fail by driving away customers, making the sidewalks around stores seem like dangerous places to go.  This of course would further complicate our predicament by ending jobs, creating more mortgage defaults, lowering the tax base thus increasing the pressure on government and thrusting more and more people into a state of despair and crisis.

But then again, we have an president whose administration never wants a crisis to go to waste when it can be exploited to help advance its agenda.  So what if the crisis isn't big enough yet to create the kind of widespread panic out of which history teaches that tyranny and oppression emerge?  Why, what about helping to speed up the process of crisis creation?  Why not "occupy" the cities and add fuel to the fire?

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is looking more and more like it is out to destroy America.  How do we fight back?

Support your local small businesses this holiday season and when you lay down your money on the counter, turn it so that the picture of the eagle is facing up.  In other words, flip those maggots the bird.

Measure And Assess, Don't Overestimate TEA Party

A number of observers, including me, have commented on the role of the TEA party in Kentucky politics since last Tuesday's elections.  For me it seemed that a portion of the GOP second place finishes was in part due to TEA party disaffection with the mainstream.  But others wrongly give them too much credit.

I say it's time to measure the TEA party and assess its role in politics, but don't let the few most vocal of them get by with claiming more power than they really have.

Yes there has been an increase in vocal protest to higher taxes, bigger government and far reaching regulations.  And this vocal protest has been given a name "The TEA Party".  But what is it really?

There is no registered party by that name.  No candidates appear on the ballot under the TEA Party banner.  No "TEA party" candidate in Kentucky has run as anything other than a republican, after first winning that party's nomination.

The TEA party has no global organization, no statewide organization and the loosely organized groups which have adopted for themselves the name "TEA Party", for the most part don't function by any rules.  In essence they remain a gathering of like minds out in front of whom some have jumped and gained recognition as "leaders".

But that suits the gatherers just fine.  They don't like being told what to do.  In that sense they are in fact a potent spark which could rekindle the flame of an independent spirit in America, but right now they are still just a spark.

What impact did they have on the elections last week?  Some of those who supported Phil Moffett for example never gave up on his campaign rhetoric and as such didn't vote for the GOP ticket.  But the margin of victory for Beshear was larger than the impact they had.

Many of them adopted John Kemper as their candidate, but they didn't represent enough votes to carry the day for him.  K.C. Crosbie was the favorite of the McConnell camp and yet she could have won if the libertarian candidate hadn't been in the race, and it was he who probably gathered most if not all of his support from the disenchanted who lurk around TEA party gatherings.

And it is certainly not the vocal "leaders" of the TEA party movement who deserve any attention from the GOP.  If anything their rhetoric helped the democrats.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Though the TEA party continues to chant that it should be about "principles and not politics", I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's always about politics. 

The TEA party candidates who use the campaign slogan "its' about principles and not about politics" are playing politics.  They use this language in order to attract TEA party voters in an effort to win an election to office.  By definition, THAT'S POLITICS!

What the GOP and the RPK need to be doing is trying to figure out what it is that people really want.  Not just the party insiders, as they have in the past.  Not just the party leaders, as they have in the past.  And not just the TEA party mouthpieces, as they are being pressured to do today.   They need to open their minds to thinking outside the box.  They need to have a message that wins the hearts and then the votes of as many people as possible.  And to do that they need to be studying what it is that people want most.

I have a suggestion where to start.  Assess where the votes come from.  You can have all the best ideas in the world but if you don't get the power you can't make them happen.  What will inspire people to vote?

Ernie Fletcher won with a message to "clean up the mess in Frankfort".  He won against the odds.  That ought to tell you what people think of government. 

Ron Paul consistently polls higher than any one expects with his message that government isn't the solution, government is the problem.  Rand Paul won with a similar focus.

Yes there are blocks of voters who depend upon government hand outs to survive.  You can win the more honest and selfless among them, but not a majority.  And yes there are people who depend upon government jobs who will usually support the incumbent, but you can win some of them despite who the incumbent is with more of an honest approach about reducing the size of government, so long as you can successfully ride that razor's edge and not threaten their livelihood.

The GOP continues to lean on the message of "lower taxes" as if it will support their entire weight.  But it won't.  That's not because it's a bad message, but because it's just part of the message.  Lower taxes is one by-product of reducing the reach of government and giving control of peoples lives back to them.

People do not trust government.  They do not like living in fear of it.  They want to be as free as children romping in a park to live their lives as they see fit.

Forget trying to appeal to the TEA party, the "conservative base", the "religious right" the "libertarians" or any other group.  Credibly appeal to that most basic human spirit that yearns to be free and you will have all the votes you need.

How you govern after that will determine upon how long you keep them.

Richmond TEA Party Demands Refund

From The Republic:

Richmond Va. — The Richmond tea party is demanding a refund of about $10,000 from the city, claiming it unfairly charged them for rallies while allowing the Occupy protesters to use the same space for several weeks for free.

Atlanta TEA Party Threatens Suit Over "Occupy" Treatment

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Local Tea Party organizers are threatening to sue the city of Atlanta, saying Mayor Kasim Reed has given special treatment to Occupy Atlanta protesters.

Atlanta Tea Party co-founder Julianne Thompson told Channel 2 Action News that the group, which supports limited taxes and reduced government deficits, has made a request in writing after being denied permission to hold an event downtown because city officials said there was too much red tape and cost involved.

"I think it's very sad that in the city of Atlanta, we seem to have a mayor who picks and chooses who receives special rights regarding free speech -- based on his political ideology," Thompson told Channel 2.

Debbie Dooley, national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, told the AJC that the group had inquired about renting Woodruff Park or Centennial Olympic park but had decided against it due to fees, red tape and restrictions.

If Tea Party members had used civil disobedience, "we would have been removed and arrested," Dooley said.

"We feel like the mayor is selectively deciding who can use the parks," she said.

The Tea Party members say Reed should grant them a special executive order -- as he did for Occupy Atlanta  -- allowing an outdoor event last past 11 p.m.

Reed gave a brief response Tuesday. "I think we'll handle it on a case-by-case basis," he said.