See other Resistance Articles
Title: CPAC, the JBS and Conservatism's Real Fringe
Source:
The New American
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index ... -and-conservatisms-real-fringe
Published: Feb 21, 2010
Author: Thomas R. Eddlem
Post Date: 2010-02-21 17:04:05 by farmfriend
Keywords: None
Views: 437
Comments: 39
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem One frequent news angle in stories regarding The John Birch Society's sponsorship of this week's ongoing CPAC conference has been the question of whether so-called “fringe groups” like The John Birch Society should be admitted to the conference. Neo-conservatives like David Horowitz, whose website called CPAC's acceptance of The John Birch Society a “monumentally stupid decision,” has repeatedly fretted the sponsorship. Horowitz's view is to “Keep the Fringe on the Fringe.” Other “fringe groups” that should be “purged,” according to some analysts, include “birthers” (those who dispute President Obama's U.S. birth) and “9/11 truthers” (those who claim that the U.S. government was somehow complicit in the September 11 attacks). Of course, despite the fact that the “birthers” and “truthers” pursue an erroneous train of thought, neither would bring government to a course of action that would pick citizens' pockets or violate the U.S. Constitution. The same cannot be said for the neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives like Horowitz unnecessarily cheer on expensive wars in the Middle East and attack the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. That's the real fringe of the current conservative movement. Positions like Horowitz's have led some principled conservatives to boycott the conference altogether. Former Congressman Mickey Edwards explains that he wasn't going to CPAC because of neo-con attacks on the Bill of Rights: Stop at CPAC today and you will find rooms full of ardent, zealous, fervent young men and women who believe the government should be allowed to torture (we condemned people at Nuremberg for doing that), who believe the government should be able to lock people up without charges and hold them indefinitely (something Henry VIII agreed was a proper exercise of government authority). Who believe the government should be able to read a citizen's mail and listen in on a citizen's phone calls, all without a warrant (the Constitution of course prohibits searches without a warrant, but nobody cares less about the Constitution than some of today's ersatz conservatives). While none of what Edwards describes represents The John Birch Society's view (nor does it represent the view of all the groups and speakers at the conference), this was precisely the tone of many CPAC speakers Thursday and will be the tone of others as the conference progresses. It also represents the views of David Horowitz's writers, who have opposed giving the jury trials (that the Sixth Amendment clearly requires) for detainees in the “war on terror.” Incidentally, many of those denied a trial turned out to be innocent, including those who had been tortured by U.S. interrogators with permanent blindness, genital mutilation, anal rape and even death. This attitude by neo-conservatives explains the warm welcome former Vice President Dick Cheney got at the CPAC conference Thursday. Cheney, who had just finished an ABC-TV interview last weekend endorsing torture (in violation of the Eighth Amendment) once again, received such a warm round of applause from the CPAC crowd that he remarked: "A welcome like that almost makes me want to run for office.” As far as the U.S. Constitution goes, Dick Cheney merits the label of “Sith Lord” that the left often used to satirize him. But if erstwhile neo-conservative attendees can be prompted to dust off their long-neglected copy of the U.S. Constitution and read it, they might learn something. That's why The John Birch Society is there this week. The JBS is not seeking legitimacy for itself, but to bring CPAC attendees to a level of legitimacy and consistency with the U.S. Constitution. One thing neo-conservatives might learn by cracking the binding on their copy of the U.S. Constitution is that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee that everyone in U.S. custody — even foreigners — a right to trial and due process of law, and that this right has been protected by the courts since at least the Amistad case in 1841: Fifth Amendment: “No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” Note that the Bill of Rights is categorical on this issue; it makes no exceptions for foreigners, for military trials or during a time of war. “All” are entitled to a trial by jury, the same jury trial that Cheney and Bush spent seven years trying to deny detainees. Note also the Sixth Amendment requirement that trials must take place in courts “previously ascertained by law,” obviating any option for creation of a military commission at this late date to try detainees who have already been imprisoned for as long as nine years. While the Cheney/John Yoo wing of the neo-conservative movement would argue that detainees are under the “law of war,” what they really mean is “no law and no Constitution for anyone.” After all, it's not just foreigners that the Bush-Cheney regime imprisoned without trial, they imprisoned American citizens as well, fighting for the right to detain American citizens without charges all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court three times (see here, here and here). CPAC is indeed a case of missionary work for constitutionalist organizations like The John Birch Society. Many conservatives are still stuck in the Dred Scott era, where some persons are legally “non-persons” and not entitled to rights. These conservatives implicitly reject the American Founders who asserted that God gave all men “unalienable rights.” If there's a purge to be made from the conservative movement, it shouldn't be the Birchers, birthers or truthers, but instead the wacky fringe that opposes the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Of course, it's better still to persuade them of their errors and grow a larger population who are informed supporters of the Constitution. To Visit The John Birch Society website, click here.
CPAC, the JBS and Conservatism's Real Fringe
Friday, 19 February 2010 13:00
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: farmfriend (#0)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
I think true conservatives should purge out all neocons and anyone raised by communist parents in NYC in the early 50s. Horowitz fits nicely into both categories.
Terrific article ...
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
Brilliant piece - thank you.
Yeah, these pretend conservative Jews are a pain in the ass.
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
How, exactly, has the author, Mr. Eddlem, determined that as fact? Those two topics still are under intense scrutiny; the honest jury still is deliberating these cases. Only dishonest 'juries' have closed the cases. ( closed their minds).
"The 'uniter' has brought the entire world together - to despise and deride us." lodwick ('uniter' = G.W.)
Sarcasm, I think !
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
Yeah I have to agree. It was good that Dr. Paul and JBS were their though. We are more likely to gain ground amongst fellow "conservatives" than we are with today's liberals.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Possible but JBS as an organization has tried to steer clear of those topics as much as possible. They are more focused on ending the Fed. It is quite possible that the author doesn't agree with birthers and truthers.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." There was a time when I would have agreed wholeheartedly, but these days I'm not sure. The stuff that Bush pulled economically and otherwise has caused me to make statements like 'I used to think the commie/dems were the dumbest people on planet earth ... until I saw people RE-elect Bush. Voting for Bush once was alright ... voting for Bush twice should have resulted in the voter's placement in a looney-bin !!!
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
The birther issue is a "Constitutional" issue ... and the author claims his purpose is to re-introduce the "ersatz conservatives" to the Constitution.
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
Voting for Bush once was alright ... voting for Bush twice should have resulted in the voter's placement in a looney-bin !!! I would agree with you except that I voted for Bush the second time around. I was still lost in "lesser of two evils" mentality. Take heart, there is hope. Not much maybe but hope none the less.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I agree but not all constitutionalists are on the same page. While we may be reading from the same book, he may have the Reader's Digest abridged version.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I voted for Slick Willie twice, due to fact my head was up mi arse.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
That's the sad part.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." LOL makes you feel that way anyway.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas R. Eddlem, the author of this article, believes that only a select few people should have the right to political expression. Do you agree? Because I sure as hell don't agree with this elitist scum.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
Hahahaha !!! One of my oldest and best friends voted for Bush Jr. twice ... and I have never let him hear the end of it. Bush's second term insured Barry's first term. We need a bloody revolution, otherwise the politicians will continue to jack us around forever. As we speak, Barry's bullshit has Republicraps thinking they'll be back in the driver's seat soon ! It's like ping-pong.
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
What makes you say that ? When you go to Wal-Mart or the Mall do you look around and wonder ... if those people made educated voting decisions ?
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
You didn't read the article.
Go forward my friend, and sin no more.
I have repented, and better late than never, eh?
Hey, I did a double Nixon so who am I to get all preachy :P
My Statement: What makes you say that ? Your statement: You didn't read the article. Let's take a vote on it. I say you didn't read the article.
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
Are you the same W T P on el pee ?
I did a single Nixon ... that was bad enough !!!
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
Huh ?????
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
I was reading We The People on el pee...not intended for you amigo.
Go forward my friend, and sin no more. Oh, dear. Thank goodness that you've righted yourself. Good thinking.
Like a sail boat tacking left and then right but always heading in the same direction.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." I think I was about 10 or less. What year was Nixon pres?
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Actually he was speaking against that.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." 1968 (took Office in Jan. 69 ... was re-elected and later impeached. He was re- elected in 1972 and remained in Office until 1974. He resigned.
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
Thomas R. Eddlem, the author of this article, believes that only a select few people should have the right to political expression. Do you agree? Because I sure as hell don't agree with this elitist scum. Actually he was speaking against that. Thank you ... PaulCJ must have taken a part out of context or something !
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
I was born in 63 so was 6 in 69. I would have been 10 in 73.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." You're just a pup !!!
Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American People into one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.
Yep.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
#2. To: farmfriend (#0)
#3. To: farmfriend (#0)
but nobody cares less about the Constitution than some of today's ersatz conservatives).
#4. To: farmfriend. all (#0)
#5. To: Jethro Tull (#2)
I think true conservatives should purge out all neocons and anyone raised by communist parents in NYC in the early 50s. Horowitz fits nicely into both categories.
#6. To: farmfriend (#0)
The author writes: "Of course, despite the fact that the “birthers” and “truthers” pursue an erroneous train of thought,...."
#7. To: Bub (#6)
"Of course, despite the fact that the “birthers” and “truthers” pursue an erroneous train of thought,...."
#8. To: Eric Stratton (#1)
CPAC should be renamed NAPC! Neo-con Agenda Pushing Conference
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#9. To: noone222, Bub (#7)
Sarcasm, I think !
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#10. To: farmfriend (#8)
We are more likely to gain ground amongst fellow "conservatives" than we are with today's liberals.
#11. To: farmfriend (#9)
It is quite possible that the author doesn't agree with birthers and truthers.
#12. To: noone222 (#10)
The stuff that Bush pulled economically and otherwise has caused me to make statements like 'I used to think the commie/dems were the dumbest people on planet earth ... until I saw people RE-elect Bush.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#13. To: noone222 (#11)
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#14. To: farmfriend (#12)
I voted for Bush the second time around. I was still lost in "lesser of two evils" mentality. Take heart, there is hope. Not much maybe but hope none the less.
#15. To: farmfriend (#8)
#16. To: Eric Stratton (#15)
It probably already is.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#17. To: CadetD (#14)
I voted for Slick Willie twice, due to fact my head was up mi arse.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#18. To: farmfriend (#0)
#19. To: farmfriend (#16)
#20. To: farmfriend (#12)
I would agree with you except that I voted for Bush the second time around. I was still lost in "lesser of two evils" mentality.
#21. To: PaulCJ (#18)
Thomas R. Eddlem, the author of this article, believes that only a select few people should have the right to political expression
#22. To: noone222 (#21)
(Edited)
What makes you say that ?
#23. To: CadetD (#14)
I voted for Slick Willie twice, due to fact my head was up mi arse.
#24. To: Jethro Tull (#23)
sin no more
#25. To: CadetD (#24)
#26. To: PaulCJ, All, Hey everybody we need your opinion here !!! (#22)
Your statement: Thomas R. Eddlem, the author of this article, believes that only a select few people should have the right to political expression. Do you agree? Because I sure as hell don't agree with this elitist scum.
#27. To: We The People (#26)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#28. To: Jethro Tull (#25)
Hey, I did a double Nixon
#29. To: Rotara (#27)
Are you the same W T P on el pee ?
#30. To: noone222 (#29)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#31. To: Jethro Tull (#23)
I voted for Slick Willie twice, due to fact my head was up mi arse.
#32. To: noone222 (#20)
Bush's second term insured Barry's first term. We need a bloody revolution, otherwise the politicians will continue to jack us around forever. As we speak, Barry's bullshit has Republicraps thinking they'll be back in the driver's seat soon ! It's like ping-pong.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#33. To: Jethro Tull (#25)
Hey, I did a double Nixon so who am I to get all preachy :P
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#34. To: PaulCJ (#18)
Thomas R. Eddlem, the author of this article, believes that only a select few people should have the right to political expression. Do you agree? Because I sure as hell don't agree with this elitist scum.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#35. To: farmfriend (#33)
What year was Nixon pres?
#36. To: farmfriend, PaulCJ (#34)
#37. To: noone222 (#35)
1968 (took Office in Jan. 69 ... was re-elected and later impeached. He was re- elected in 1972 and remained in Office until 1974. He resigned.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#38. To: farmfriend (#37)
I was born in 63 so was 6 in 69. I would have been 10 in 73.
#39. To: noone222 (#38)
You're just a pup !!!
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest