some sage words from the John Birch Society

[welshTerrier2]

talk about a diamond in the rough and strange bedfellows ... even these guys have bush's number ...

source: http://www.jbs.org/ (link: it's not just a piece of paper)

The report also stated that when one aide in the meeting said "there is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution," Bush allegedly screamed: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a g*******d piece of paper."

Since the report did not reveal its sources, I have no proof that Bush said such a thing. However, given his utter contempt for the Constitution and for the rights of the people he supposedly serves, I have no reason to doubt that he thinks that way. Had Thomas Jefferson lived today, he might be tempted to pen the following:

"When in the course of U.S. events it becomes necessary for Americans to demand that their duly elected representatives impeach and remove from office a president, a decent respect to the opinions of their fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to such a course of action.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that elected officials should not be removed from office for light and transient causes. But when a long train of unconstitutional executive branch abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to take back delegated authority from an official who is manifestly unsuitable to exercise it.

"The history of the current president of the United States of America, like many of his predecessors, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these United States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid public.

"He has obstructed the administration of justice, by derailing or refusing to cooperate with the efforts of those who seek to uncover the intelligence 'failures' which led to 9/11 -- and then he created the inauspicious Department of Homeland Security.

"He has elevated federal deficits to new levels, and sent hither swarms of dollars to finance our spending, which are silently eating out our substance through the insidious tax of inflation. <skip>

"He has plundered our nation's treasury, plunging Americans headlong into bankruptcy, leading ultimately to the obliteration of the American middle class.

"He is at this time transporting accused terrorists to foreign mercenaries at 'black sites' to complete the works of interrogation, 'rendition,' and torture with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

"A president, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be a leader of a free people."

Mr. President, when you placed your hand over the Bible, raised your arm, and swore an oath before God to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Article II, Section I), that wasn't "just a book" you put your hand on. And it certainly wasn't a mealy-mouthed "agreement" you made before your Maker -- whose name you have no compunction about taking in vain. And Mr. President, the Constitution is not just a piece of paper.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Not too surprising...

The JBS practically defines "paleo-con," and a lot of those types are against the war -- just look at Pat Buchanan.
Of course, that doesn't making them right about, oh, the other 99.9% of public policy.

[justabob]

4. paleocon question

Are paleocons simply the old style republicans? Or does the term imply a certain degree of conservativism? Or both? Just curious, I have heard it used a few different ways.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Paleo-cons are old-school conservatives...

which means one of their big tenants is the avoidance of foreign entanglements. Old-school conservativism is fairly isolationist in terms of foreign policy.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. The Birchers have sensed for years that there's something

fundamentally wrong in America. They're right that there is a problem. It's just that they don't have the problem correctly identified, and as a consequence their proposed solutions are crazy.

[justabob]

3. Strange bedfellows indeed

There are a lot of conservative and libertarian groups we can agree with, at least on this most important point... Restoring the Constitution and its provisions. I think even liberals are "conservative" where the Constitution is concerned. We don't have to be especially friendly to these groups, but I think it might be wise to at least call a truce of sorts and work with anyone who sees what is really going on. We can go back to hating each other after we have saved the country. There is so much happening right now, but I really think that getting the Constitution out of intensive care and healthy again should be the priority. If we lose the Constitution, nothing else will matter really.

[TankLV]

6. They've correctly defined the problem. It's their "solution" I'm afraid

of.

Their "solution" is close to banning/killing all gays and non-white-christians.

Scary times, indeed.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. Can you document that? Link?

I know the Birchers are far right but have they actually advocated what you say?

[woodsprite]

8. All these "fringe" groups, if you will, have at least one thing

in common with us - the fact that the Constitution is being shredded before our very eyes and nobody in power is upholding their oathes to "preserve, protect, and defend". I don't think there is much that a currently elected repub in the House or Senate can say that will lead people to believe they've been "hoodwinked" into not defending the Constitution. It's all about the almighty dollar and how big the payoff is. OK, I'll not count the drain-bramaged freepers who just spout any old line the repubs tell them, but the ones that can read and reason on their own should not be blind to what's happening.

Is there something we can do to promote this commonality?

[welshTerrier2]

9. promoting commonality

i don't think electorally that Democrats are going to receive any support whatsoever from John Birchers ... they bitterly oppose the intrusion of government into their lives ...

however, the idea of fighting to defend the Constitution and opposing laws and conduct that would deprive Americans of their liberties should be at the core of any Democratic platform ... the goal would be to attract as many Americans as possible to the theme of renewing America's democratic (Small "d") spirit ... the target group should be much, much wider than just Birchers ...