Frankly I dunno how such a distorted (and preying on the fears of people set within a certain frame o' political mindset) piece could even be conceived, but considering some of the downright lies being passed off as undeniable facts o' life all over the place maybe I answered my own question. But this 'un really got my gall not only because of the playin' 'round with facts (which a good portion of the political spectrum has done w/regards to the John Birch Society o'er the years despite calmer claims to the contrary) but because it defames a guy who I consider one of the few if not ONLY truly honest and trustworthy man working in that slut-riddled thing we know as Congress (let alone any of the other branches of govt. which also need a good pruning). A man whose enemies seem to be the most controlling, micromanaging and downright altruistic people to stroll the face of this earth and if you ain't willing to march lockstep with 'em with a nice smile on your face right off of a Cultural Revolution-era Chinese poster well then, better get ready for the blindfold and cigarette because you're gonna need it!
So many bubbles to burst in the above hitjob that I don't know where to start, but duty deems that I must. First off, isn't it time that we all just faced the fact that, despite what all of the enlightened minds at work have been telling us for nigh on fiftysome years, the John Birch Society is not some ultra-drooling barbaric organization that is having a hard time hiding its Nazi-like slip. 'n yeah, I also read the MAD articles and how HELP! used to make light of the Birchers with old Nazi-era photos just like the rest of the sixties cadre of wishy-washy commentators would, and for years I believed the exact same thing about them as Dave Berg. However, after some perhaps not-so thorough investigation my opinions have changed somewhat, at least to the point where I believe that all of the ire directed towards the Birchers by various postwar commentators and satirists was heavily due to the fact that they were anti-communist, and as it has been said for quite a long while it might have been uncool to have been a communist even in the chic confines of lower Manhattan anything goes-ism or press rooms for that matter, but it was way more uncool to be an anti-communist!
But in actuality, the Birchers, despite the innuendo and downright prefabs directed against them, held and continue to hold many political positions that I must admit to finding very admirable. While some might call them "isolationist", I find them to be more in the old paleo-conservative and libertarian mold, concerned about the United States trying to shape the world in its geopolitical image and all of the negative ramifications years of "democracy building" has left us. Face it, the last number of presidents we've been blessed with, including the current Commander-In-Chief, were/are way too concerned about spreading our influence overseas instead of keeping its nose in its own backyard where it pretty much belongs. And although many would find me to be an alarmist in saying so, I truly believe that the way the United States is handling its foreign policy will only lead to more situations the nation will never be able to wiggle their way outta, anti-American ire (and deservedly so) and perhaps even a "war without end" as we battle on in the Middle East trying to get the populace to be nice 'n friendly and maybe sell a few McRibs to 'em in the process. Frankly you didn't see any Birchers coming out solidly for war the way the last few decades of both democratic and republican administrations had, usually to the point of mass destruction of populaces who for some strange reason seem to have it in for us all. Maybe it should be noted that the founder of the John Birch Society, Robert Welch, for all of his hatred of communism, was adamantly against the Vietnam conflict which is more than I can say about the "enlightened" politicos of the early/mid-sixties who didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it came to foreign policy.
Secondly, I gotta laugh when I see both Rush Limbaugh and David Duke's names crossed off the above list, as if the John Birch Society would even consider inviting them to speak at their Golden Anniversary celebrations. Both of these gentlemen are strictly off the Birch reservation, and I could assume that the only reason they would have been included on this list was for the purpose of misleading the uninitiated into thinking that these two somehow share the same values and beliefs of the Birchers (but I guess if you've committed one sin against "the people", you've committed 'em all!) . First off, let's deal with Limbaugh who is a standard post-NATIONAL REVIEW conservative who has on at least one occasion lambasted the JBS in the tradition of his spiritual forefather William F. Buckley, a man whose purging of the Birchers and libertarians from the pages of his magazine is perhaps the only positive accolade the guy has received from the Old Time Television/Radio/Print establishment who somehow thought slightly better (but not that much) of him for doing so. Frankly, I can not see the Birchers inviting Limbaugh to speak at any of their functions considering how the two are diametrically opposed on such issues as the use of the military overseas, nor could I see them even considering the possibility of having noted klansman David Duke speak for them. Although airbrushed out of the memories of quite a few commentators over the past five or so decades, the Birchers were anything but racist or even racialist in their opinions. Their wariness of the civil rights movement had more to do with the communist infiltration of these groups and how certain elements were more or less for agitation real equality be damned, and considering the heavily Marxist makeup of many in the movement history did bear the JBS out. But the Birchers as a whole were far from being racists and in fact expelled such highly-visible members as Revilo Oliver and Westbrook "You Stink" Pegler for opinions and actions that most civilized humans would find reprehensible.
So where does this leave Ron Paul? A highly principled man with many opinions that I believe would lead to the betterment of those around us, unlike those usually being spouted off by the republicans who are interested in starting an even newer Cold War with the Middle East and the democrats who are still buried deep in the old sixties liberal mantras to the point where you kinda get the impression that their idea of a good time would be singing "Kumbaya" around a campfire. He's for a constitutional government (an idea which might be considered treasonous nowadays and if so try me and lock me up!), an end to those hideous overseas military excursions which even our "peace" president (whose rings of "bringing all of the troops home" rings about as hollow as Woodrow Wilson's pledge to stay out of World War I) has been fuddy duddy on and drug legalization which should benefit people who need to smoke weed for medicinal purposes or those who just wanna get high, as if any of it is our business unless you're an old maid busybody who likes calling the cops all the time. And what's more, he's for a more localized idea of how your government and life should be run, meaning that perhaps the same standards that would be fine and dandy in Bumhole Iowa wouldn't pass the test in San Francisco, and vice versa for that matter!
Or, as a commentator on a recent TAKI'S TOP DRAWER article said:
There is a reason that Ron Paul supporters tend to stand by the man so strongly, and that reason is: Reason. Paul's platform is not some hodgepodge of conflicting positions aimed at pleasing special interest groups, but a cohesive philosophy of government based on the constitution, economic reality and basic common sense. I came to my own conclusions about government a long time ago, and when I found that Paul's ideas were very similar to my own, I was shocked and highly enthusiastic. In that sense, I am a lot like many Paul supporters: an individual who greatly appreciates a kindred spirit.Simplistic maybe, but these words pack a whole lot more meaning and vision than anything I could find coming out of the Tea Party as it stands, or the Occupy Movement which as time goes on just seems like a jumbled rehash of old Lower East Side politics being re-lived in hooded jackets 'stead of flannel workshirts.