The John Birch Society (JBS) is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government, and a constitutional republic. It has been described as radical right, and from its earliest days has faced much ridicule and derision from mainstream and leftist opposition. However, it's obvious that we failed to heed the advice Welch offered in this video, and now we are paying dividends to those forces he rightfully opposed.
Established in Indianapolis, Indiana, on December 9, 1958, by a group of 12 led by Robert Welch, Jr., a retired candy manufacturer from Belmont, Massachusetts. Welch named the new organization after John Birch, an American Baptist missionary and United States military intelligence officer who had been shot by communist forces in China in August 1945, shortly after the conclusion of World War II. Welch claimed that Birch was an unknown but dedicated anti-communist, and the first American casualty of the Cold War.
Welch developed an elaborate organizational infrastructure in 1958 that enabled him to keep a very tight rein on the chapters. After an early rise in membership and influence, opposing efforts by people like conservative William F. Buckley, Jr. and The National Review led the JBS to be identified as a fringe element of the conservative movement, mostly in fear of the radicalization of the American right. It should be noted that oil industrialist Fred C. Koch, founder of Koch Industries, and father of the infamous brothers Charles and David Koch still operating today, was one of the Society's founding members.
IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME to realize that communism and socialism are just the rebirth of economic late feudalism. I kind of got it well enough before this one conversation, but it was something the son of a Cuban immigrant, whose father started his own small restaurant, that clarified it for me. It was simple: He said of the Europeans and their socialism, "Yeah. They want to have the money and not let anyone else get it." Doesn't sound profound, but it hit the nail on the head for me:
These rich advocates of socialism and communism, like a Bill Ayers, know they will always be part of a privileged class. They are not going to give away all their money. And they will not allow the government to take all their money. They will make sure their offspring are "cared for"and not cared for by the state...
So, instead of selling off all their assets, donating almost all of it to the poor, and living off, say, $50,000 a yearthey are willing to give up an ultimately inconsequential amount of their wealth in the form of taxes if the government will do the same to everyone in a draconian tax system that funds a government "wealth redistribution" system. That will make them feel better about being elite. The problem isthe draconian tax system ends up dramatically freezing social mobility. There has never been a system with as much social mobility as capitalism. Communism produced only revolutions in which old aristocrats were slaughtered by those who became the new ones.
Socialism is less bloody. It just freezes things as they are. Which is a pretty good deal for the rich. Competition is stifled and upstarts don't crash their dinner parties...
B-I-N-G-O! Been telling my wife that for years. Obama did it for me. His disgruntled women Hillarycrats continue to be in denial about how false communism really works. Grab all the money, then...well, one can suggest that socialism is less bloody unless one actually counts the corpses of the state's enemies in the case of rigid communism, or a considerable slide in the quality of life for those trapped in the cage of confused and confusing socialism. While each of those centralized governing systems believes that practice makes perfect, we here at the Project still maintain that capitalism, and capitalism governed by a moral and just democratic infrastructure remains the purest form of communism every practiced.
But we do appreciate your insights. Oh yeah, the Hillarycrat women still think Obama is Bush III, as they did even before the election of 2008 in which they had their Hillary votes stolen at every turn right up to the Democratic Convention. So we learned a thing or two from these women, these lifelong Dems. But we immediately saw his special deep pockets connection to Wall Street a natural place for a pseudo-Marxist (the only kind the world has ever seen) in motion, to suck all the money upward, and truly cripple the economy. Part Two is far worse should he get re-elected. God forbid.
BUT HEY WAIT, there's more, this Cass Sunstein fellow says that Americans are too racist FOR SOCIALISM. And he defends communism and the welfare state but says that this nation's 'white majority' opposes programs aiding blacks and Hispanics. What about all those obese out of work white folks still clinging to guns and religion? Guess they don't even figure into the race-baiters wealth redistribution strategies. Methinks, of course, we need a new deck. That race card is so frayed, we can see it coming, and it's ALWAYS coming, from the bottom of the deck, from the top of the deck, from somebody's cuff-linked sleeve, yes, it's always coming from somewhere, no matter how skewered the results...
Socialism? This despite the fact that nearly every former socialist nation, including those in western Europe, are warning the US that socialism isn't all it's cracked up to be, as even they are moving away from the organizing system that suffers from too much rampant idealism and not enough bootstrap periphery.
In "The Second Bill of Rights," WND reported, the self-professed communist Obama aide Cass Sunstein proposed a new "bill of rights" in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. Among his mandates:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
The Obama czar's controversial comments were made in his 2004 book "The Second Bill of Rights," which was obtained and reviewed by WND. On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."
Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments." WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.
Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.
Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."
That's rich. Notice how Sunstein in his first amendment says that everyone should have the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation. He didn't mention that everyone has the "right" to a publishing contract, or a paying gig in the arts, a cush talking head job, or a gravy train in politics.
Rather, he intends his own brand of segregation touting a system that demands that everyone participate in this new slavery, the new feudalism, enunciated and controlled by the prestigious oligarchy of beautiful and bright, hand-picked elites who know to toe the party line, and are amply rewarded with entry into the gated communities of government from on high.
Notice also, the usage of the word "decent" when describing certain guarantees this new world order claims to represent. Who gets to decide what is decent or just shy of Shantyville? Who tells me that what I choose to attain or acquire or inherit is too extravagant, and what in all this decision-making is based on criteria other than the equalitarian limits of the open marketplace? We've all seen this movie before. From the September 29 issue of New York Times, itself a bastion of liberal pretentions:
"Even in the midst of one of the greatest challenges to capitalism in 75 years, involving a breakdown of the financial system due to “irrational exuberance,” greed and the weakness of regulatory systems, European Socialist parties and their left-wing cousins have not found a compelling response, let alone taken advantage of the right’s failures.
German voters clobbered the Social Democratic Party on Sunday, giving it only 23 percent of the vote, its worst performance since World War II. Voters also punished left-leaning candidates in the summer’s European Parliament elections and trounced French Socialists in 2007. Where the left holds power, as in Spain and Britain, it is under attack. Where it is out, as in France, Italy and now Germany, it is divided and listless."
No matter what methodologies these aggressive statists intend to use in cutting the materialistic pie, we are told that we will be guaranteed decent jobs, decent health care, decent wages, decent lives. Meanwhile why are these cut-throat millionaires doing all the talking, doing the deciding for us? As constitutional Americans we are already guaranteed an equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, within the realms of moral responsibility. We are not guaranteed a bowl of soup, a box of rocks, a diamond ring, or a job, but we are at liberty to pursue any and all of these things.
But a totalitarian statism is like a skin disease which encompasses all and threatens to spread to every organ in the body, and I respond with a deliberately loud and progressiveNO THANK YOU!
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, Socialist
As for me, I would rather fail completely while chasing a dream, embrace my aching inner hobo, and take my God-given liberty to my grave than to play with the scorching fires of committed communism. The founding fathers knew what they were talking about as they studied man's history in dealing with other men. We were warned. And now, perhaps, the greatest threat to America as a freedom-seeking nation since the Civil War is upon us.
That peculiar stealth threat is already upon our shores. While Mister Obamasigns away our rights of freedom of speech to the OIC-dominated United Nations, we must ponder how quickly and where the enemy may pounce next.
SCRAPING THE BARREL and putting in buckshot, hey, get your hands off my scripture, and help me out from under this utopian bus, please. No, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I did find this tasty bit of humor at the clutch hitting Confluence site. Man, will I be glad when this election is over, EVEN if it means that REAL HOPE becomes as rare as the great spotted owl, also. The suspense is killing me! Anyhoover, read on...
Name into work today and saw this notice in the employee lounge: Notice to All Employees
As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama is officially elected into office, our company will install a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:
1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a “fair shake.” 2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves. This will help those who are “too busy for overtime” to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours. 3. All top management will now be referred to as “the government.” We will not participate in this “pooling” experience because the law doesn’t apply to us. 4. The “government” will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging it’s workers to continue to work hard “for the good of all.” 5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it’s “good to spread the wealth.” Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more “patriotic.” 6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don’t feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he’ll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can’t pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our Democratic Congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn’t all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!
If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th.
Okay, that was a wonderful parody of the Obama Doctrine, but did you ever wonder where all this bright-eyed and bushy-tailed utopianism of the Uber Left got started? Here is a scholarly look at this utopianism and its more recent by-product that is currently sweeping the globe, and why incidentally, Barack Obama seems to feel that he is not necessarily America's first Black President, but he expects to be hailed as the first Black Global President by general acclamation, titular head of the United Nations, one presumes.
Don't you just LOVE the truth! Here is a short excerpt from the Lee Harris lengthy essayThe Intellectual Origins of America-Bashing (The Utopian Leanings of Latter-day Radicalism).
America-bashing has sadly come to be “the opium of the intellectual,” to use the phrase Raymond Aron borrowed from Karl Marx in order to characterize those who followed the latter into the twentieth century. And like opium it produces vivid and fantastic dreams.
This is an intellectual tragedy. The Marxist left, whatever else one might say about it, has traditionally offered a valuable perspective from which even the greatest conservative thinkers have learnedincluding Schumpeter and Thomas Sowell. But if it cannot rid itself of its current penchant for fantasy ideology of the worst type, not only will it be incapable of serving this purpose; it will become worse than useless. It will become a justification for a return to that state of barbarism mankind has spent millennia struggling to transcenda struggle that no one felt more keenly than Marx himself.
For the essence of utopianism, according to Marx, is the refusal to acknowledge just how much suffering and pain every upward step of man’s ascent inflicts upon those who are taking it, and instead to dream that there are easier ways of getting there. There are not, and it is helpful to no party to pretend that there are. To argue that the great inequalities of wealth now existing between the advanced capitalist countries and the Third World can be cured by outbreaks of frenzied and irrational America-bashing is not only utopian; it is immoral.
The Left, if it is not to condemn itself to become a fantasy ideology, must reconcile itself not only with the reality of America, but with its dialectical necessityAmerica is the sine qua non of any future progress that mankind can make, no matter what direction that progress may take.
The belief that mankind’s progress, by any conceivable standard of measurement recognized by Karl Marx, could be achieved through the destruction or even decline of American power is a dangerous delusion. Respect for the deep structural laws that govern the historical processwhatever these laws may bemust dictate a proportionate respect for any social order that has achieved the degree of stability and prosperity the United States has achieved and has been signally decisive in permitting other nations around the world to achieve as well. To ignore these facts in favor of surreal ideals and utterly utopian fantasies is a sign not merely of intellectual bankruptcy, but of a disturbing moral immaturity. For nothing indicates a failure to understand the nature of a moral principle better than to believe that it is capable of enforcing itself.
It is not. It requires an entire social order to shelter and protect it. And if it cannot find these, it will perish.