Home › Blogs › Rensen's blog ›

Faux Grassroots Website Debunked..

Submitted by Rensen on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 17:50

Edit: I think we have come to the conclusion that the issue initially addressed in this post was a very, very, very stupid stunt intended to provoke Huckabee supporters.

It was a knee jerk reation to post it over here, and for that I apologize sincerely. It was in poor taste.We're doing the best we can on our end to kill any overreaction in the Huckabee base before it gets out of hand, but people are understandably upset.

As a show of good faith, I'm taking down the post. But I I think the observation in the comments that implies this was about us making Mitt look bad is unfair..

If anything, WE were the targets of some very offensive and borderline threatening bigotry from someone claiming claiming to support Mitt. (although it is difficult to prove that they are sincere supporters)

What good will it do us or the party to fume in the shadows when challenges occur. There is a good chance if we hadn't hashed this out together that some may have run with it to forums that could have done way more damage.

JMHO

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Comments

I thought Mormons didn't use alcohol or drugs

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 17:54.

after reading this I think I might have been wrong...at least as it relates to these Mormons..

Idunno. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 18:30.

. . .the Danites blog looks so over-the-top as to be a parody.  I don't put anything past internet advocates, but there's something about the wording that strikes me as an attempt at satire.

I hope so..

Submitted by Rensen on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 12:56.

But its no joke to talk about 'the final solution' to Hucks Army..and to put people on hit lists..

And the nitwit who put it up was too stupid to know it would do far more harm to Mitt and his image than it would ever do to us.

I'm betting if the shoe were on the other foot and Mike's supporters declared a holy war on Mitt somebody would have sounded the alarm right quick.

Our reaction is to just keep doing what we do..

 

This is total BS!

Submitted by jefflebowski on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 19:05.

This is a sham and has nothing to do with Romney supporters.  The idiots who wrote this are not even Mormons.  The jargon is not what Mormons use.  No Mormon believes that Joseph Smith judges anyone.  "Angels of the priesthood" is also unheard in the Mormon vernacular.

Somebody with a very vague knowledge of Mormonism did this.  I'm surprised that it would be published in a fine blog like thenextright.

Jeff Lebowski

www.angrywhitedude.com

so it was some whacked out drunk. then

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 19:08.

whatever, it certainly wasn;t going to make Mitt look good, that's for sure  

I'll take it down.

Submitted by Rensen on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 19:26.

If site mods want to do that..

But this is the type of stuff going on below the veneer of a civil debate.. and this helps explain why some evangelicals may be hesitant to embrace Mitt.

We know it is a radical element, but it is this caricature that many uninformed may think of when they think of that faith..

This does not need to be the face of his supporters that is presented to the other side.

My guess. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 19:39.

. . .is that it was put together by a Huck supporter trying to tweak some Mitt supporters who had been harrassing the Huck's Army forum in a really in-your-face way.  It shouldn't be a reflection on either camp, really.  It's just the kind of thing that people do to taunt one another under the cloak of anonymity afforded by the internet.  Typical troll stuff.

Inicidentally, rather than take this post down, I think it could prove instructive on some level.  If the right is going to create a viable online presence, this kind of thing is going to be a part of it, and we may as well be prepared for it.

a huck supporter doing this??!?!?!?!?

Submitted by geekworks on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 20:29.

IF it is a huck supporter that did this, we need to find them and boot them for this kind of action.

in the general election, having the mormons on our side would be a good thing against obama. we're gonna need help. and HOW in the world are the believers going to convince mormons to listen to us if we're spewing that kind of junk?

IT HAD BETTER NOT BE A HUCK-HEAD THAT PUT THAT SITE UP.

Rensen, we all know you're a

Submitted by Lisa on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 22:01.

Rensen, we all know you're a Mike fan, but even so I'm suprised you fell for this. It's a common tactic to put up fake posts to make the opponent's supporters look bad. It was a widely used strategy in the Obama-Hillary ruckus this year.

I'm with Lebowski. Neither a Mormon nor a Mitt supporter put this up.

But this goes a little too far..

Submitted by Rensen on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 22:24.

First..

I too am of the opinion that we need to investigate the owner of the site..

It was posted on Huck's Army today by a member wanting suggestions for how to counter the Mitt surge in the 'battle for the polls' and was the second post referencing this particular group. Maybe it was a taunt.. but it was a tasteless taunt. How would we all react if a fake KKK site went up talking about destroying Obama because of his blackness.

There is a double standard when it comes to religion, but that's another post.

My gut instinct is that it's not a Huck supporter...it's not how we do things, unless its one rogue looking to stir up trouble. But we have seen a trend of weeks and month old polls that we won for Mike being challenged in the last week or so, so it looks like somebody, somewhere is finally getting organized for Mitt. This is a good thing, and healthy for the party, but not if the motivations described in this post are why they're finally on the move.

I don't neccessarily think that it's a massive Mitt organization either. My initial thought was..30k members.. how conveniently bigger than the 20k Huck's Army grassroots membership.

Most likely it is one guy and 30 of his friends goofing around.. but he must be REALLY stupid if he didn't think this would damage Mitt, or that there was anything that could stay secret on the internet.

We're doing our own investigation internally to explore how the poster came across the site to begin with.. but if any of you know this guy.. or think you may know how to reach somebody who may be into this..

Tell them, they REALLY do not want to go there. This would be very bad for GOP unity if it blew up. We're doing our best to put it to bed over on HA. had to lock up the thread because folks were getting a bit testy.

I guess I'm not explaining

Submitted by Lisa on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 00:51.

I guess I'm not explaining myself very well. It's just a jackass with a laptop. There's no army. There are no members. He just made it up this week. The owner posted it himself in Huck's Army just to stir things up and see how far he could take his joke.

Look at the dates on the "blog archive"

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 22:42.

Lo, this powerful army of 30,000 avenging angels has a total of two, that would be (2) posts, both of which were posted June 14, 2008.  We should recruit these people to come over from the Dark Side, their organizational skills are as formidable as hell. 

I named this screen grab "anti-Huck tools".  I thought that was well...a perfect title. 

Mitt would never encourage anything like this, nor would any LDS that I've ever met. But  somebody who hates Republicans certainly would. 

Yea, Rensen, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of trolls on Blogspot.com, I shall fear no evil for Chuck Norris is with me.

LOL

Submitted by Rensen on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 23:16.

Ahh Rebel

You made my day..

But thats a lot of work just to try to freak some people out...

I noticed the dates, but wondered if the blog was just the newest element to their dastardly 'undercover operation'

Ehhhh.. if it's a joke, its a bad one. It would be dastardly if the Obamabots went this far to stir up GOP mayhem wouldn't it?

Barack would never put up with this either

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 23:24.

And the only real dastardly thing would be if we were near-sighted enough to fall for it.  Aren't we smarter, better looking and taller than that?  Or - wait - is that us, or is that Michelle?  Well whatever, let's just not be blind enough to drive into a ditch after a dog that won't hunt.

That was good reporting, btw - I'm glad you brought it to the light of day out here where we can all make a laughing stock of it.

Slainte mhath, lassie o

Actually. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 23:40.

. . .the more I think about it, the more it looks like the work of Ron Paul's RLOV3utionaries.  They're all about sowing discord.

BTW edited original post

Submitted by Rensen on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 23:55.

To reflect that this may be a hoax... and you may be right about the Paul folks.

There is no love lost between the Paul and Huckabee camps, and the last thing they want is a unified GOP that is capable of winning.

Still better safe than sorry... and extremists in all camps should know they'll get called on it.

danitesavengingangels.blogspot.com is so ridiculous...

Submitted by CIDaily on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 02:03.

We have so many things to do to help America...we need to not fight about this.

Huckabee people: Realize that we have no idea who did this. It could just be someone stiring up trouble. Even if it is a Romney supporter, the blog is not worth the time of day to respond to.

Romney people: Don't take this blog post as thinking that Huckabee people think you are all like this...we all know Romney/Huckabee/McCain/etc people are not like this...in general they are all just good Americans who want the best for the country we love.

So let's all just say that danitesavengingangels.blogspot.com is stupid and not worth talking about and move on and not try to pin this on anyone.

Huckabee's Army of Haters

Submitted by Lynn on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 08:32.

Is there any depth too low for Huckabee supporters to sink in an attempt to make Mitt Romney look bad?

A child would have known that blog site wasn't any kind of official Romney website. Dragging it over here was nothing more than a really sorry attempt to smear Romney's religion.

The kind of "Christian" example set by posting this thread isn't doing evangelicals any good at all. It's time to stop the religious war that some evangelicals are waging against the Church of Latter Day Saints in general and Mitt Romney in particular.

Romney has treated evangelicals with a far more Christian attitude than Huckabee and his supporters have managed on their best days. Remember, you are known by your works. This work is shameful, Rensen.

 

Lynne, I had a similar

Submitted by Lisa on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 11:20.

Lynne, I had a similar thought last night, that the inferences drawn from the fake Danite site are pretty revealing of certain prejudicies. But I think the poster above you is correct and we need to just let it go. Nothing good can come of us continuing to pit the two camps against each other.

Too quick to judge

Submitted by Rensen on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 12:55.

It is easy to sit back and judge Lynn,

I'll admit there was an instinctive desire to throw a counter punch... somebody brought the fight to our doorstep..there was a desire to make them pay for that..

You didn't see the pm's that came pouring in from some of our folks inexperienced with the blogosphere who were concerned they were going to be put on a 'hit list' there were people so mad that they wanted to call the media, email McCain.. it was a mess.

In time cooler heads previaled, but some wanted it to be publicly stated that we were not going to take extreme rhetoric laying down. If the object is to make people fearful..we were going to fight.

As for us being the haters.. we're not the ones wasting time on sites with rhetoric like that one.

That being said.. it was better off delt with privately, and we won't bring our fights here again.

I wouldn't question. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 16:07.

. . .Rensens' sincerity on this.  I suspect he/she was truly concerned about the rhetoric on that blog and wanted to raise it as an issue to be addressed in the process of building a right-of-center online presence.  Things like that are going to be a part of the process -- even the Kos Kidz cracked down on people who insisted on posting 9/11-truther material and other crackpot conspiracies after a while.  The right is going to have to do the same thing eventually.

Like Lisa said, this in all likelihood wasn't some organized onslaught undertaken by the nefarious forces of either campaign.  More probably, it was the work of a couple of trolls who like to frequent the Huck's Army site exchanging IM's and deciding, "Hey!  Watch this.  They'll go nuts!"

I still say it's probably the work of one of Paul's RLOV3utionaries, as it fits right in with their modus operandi, which is to use the web in every way possible to draw attention and sow discord.  They spammed the Meet-Up boards relentlessly, regardless of the candidate they were geared toward, or even what topic they were devoted to.  This sort of thing is just what the doctor ordered.

Thanks Walt

Submitted by Rensen on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 16:20.

For the benifit of the doubt..

You are right that I was very concerned that the rhetoric could be 'real.' My error was in posting before thinking... I literally put it up on TNR within the half hour of it coming in.. I was pretty mad.. I was feeling very 'bring it on'

Lynn's comment stung.. but in a way was still a reminder that everything that you may be 'entitled' to do, is not always wise to do.

I can be impulsive sometimes, and if I did or said anything that would have portrayed Mike or his supporters in a negative light I regret it.

 

Let's back up for a second

Submitted by Lisa on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 16:31.

Let's back up for a second and look at how this can be illustrative of a bigger issue.

First off, I think that we all know that Rensen is a passionate but sincere and honest person, and would not post simply to stir up strive.

However, it's clear that the historical animosity between the two camps has led to prejudices (on both sides) that made it easy for Rensen to jump to conclusions about the authorship and intention of the blog.

(Incidentally, the blogger must love all this attention. This was his whole goal.)

Now, forget about who said what and look at the bigger picture. This incident is indicative of the crisis our political wing is facing. For better or worse, there are many facets to the modern right-wing movement. But if we get caught up in what separates us - in our disagreements - then we can't move forward as a party/wing/movement. Our focus should not be how to root out the elements we personally may not like, but how instead we can unite all the various reconcilable elements into one cohesive unit that can move forward toward the same goals together. This is the daunting challenge facing our end of the spectrum. We can continue to point fingers, call names, and caricature each other if we want, sowing division and strife amongst ourselves; but to do so only ensures that the left will take over and begin to monopolize our politics.

Renson

Submitted by Lynn on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 17:54.

It is easy to sit back and judge Lynn,

Evidently it is. You were certainly quick to blame that nothingburger website on Mitt Romney.

As for us being the haters.. we're not the ones wasting time on sites with rhetoric like that one.

Renson, I ask you to think about that statement. You were the one spreading it to other forums. That blog probably had 10 readers but now, thanks to you, many more people saw it.

Yes, I will continue to respond politely when I see this kind of unwarranted attack from evangelicals on Romney. Ignoring it simply encourages it. Huckabee supporters need to be accountable for unwarranted attacks on others.

It's time for Republicans to unite behind McCain, who IS our candidate, but instead there seems to be a religious war still going on.

Accountability

Submitted by Rensen on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 18:27.

And although it is uncomfortable.. I appreciate being held accountable.. this is why I apologized.

We do support McCain..at least most Huckabee supporters that I am aware of will vote for him, but it is a little naive to pretend that there will not be tension about the direction that the party will grow after this election, one way or another.

There is tension because most people acknowlege that either Mitt or Huck will be percieved as the standard bearer for the GOP in the future once we are past this race, and the supporters of these men Think that they are diametrically opposed, when in reality their governing philosopy is probably more similar than most will give credit for.

It is a natural tension and has to be dealt with. Sweeping it under the carpet, or just expecting one or the other to go away, and leave the field open for the other is not going to happen.

They're just going to have to battle it out, and I guess the message that resonates more with people will win..

HA's Imminent Demise

Submitted by Rensen on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 18:30.

For those who care..

We got linked to another post from that site today that claimed HA was going to be shut down tomorrow as part of the 'final solution' *rolling eyes*

Apparently they have 'highly respected' agents on the inside who're going to do the deed..mmm

If we survive doomsday..the site will be exposed for the farce that it is..

If someone does mess with our server..or whatever 'shutting down' entails.. somebody went to the trouble to point the finger at Mitt's supporters. (Whom I'm increasingly sure now are not behind this.)

And yes Lisa..its way past time we look for the ties that bind us together, and not the wedges that drive us apart...

 

 

 

Hmmm

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 18:20.

If it involves 'cyber sabotage' my money is officially on the Revolutionaries...

And yes Lisa..its way past time we look for the ties that bind us together, and not the wedges that drive us apart...

One of these things is not like the other, ....

 

Sorry Jon!!

Submitted by Rensen on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 18:34.

It's the track record!!

Oopphh.. OK.. then I don't know who gets the blame!! *embarrassed*

I took it out.. Libertarians are part of the family too.. gosh we're dysfunctional!

How about we acknowlege that there are nutjobs in every branch..and its our job to keep the 'normal' members of our varying tribes in the forefront as reps.

Maybe we can just put the

Submitted by Lisa on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 19:05.

Maybe we can just put the "function" back in dysfunctional and call it good?

Agreed.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 19:47.

its our job to keep the 'normal' members of our varying tribes in the forefront as reps

Well put.

 

 

Sometimes the wedge. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 19:26.

. . .is a necessary thing.  And, if you take a look at history, and note what part of conservatism the RLOV3utionaries most closely resemble, it becomes fairly plain what needs to be done.

I'm curious.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 20:00.

Looking at history, what part of conservatism does Commentary most resemble? But set that aside for now.

 

 “Every other person in Phoenix is a member of the John Birch Society. Russell, I’m not talking about Commie-haunted apple pickers or cactus drunks, I’m talking about the highest cast of men of affairs. Any of you know who Frank Cullen Brophy is?”

I raised my hand. “I spent a lot of time with him. He was going to contribute capital to help found National Review. He didn’t.” Brophy was a prominent Arizona banker.

The modern equivelent of Brophy and the Birchers is not Paul and his supporters, it is David Koch and his creations, the Cato Institute and Reason magazine. They oppose the Iraq War, and they hate Paul.

 

It's ironic that you cited Kirk, since his strain of conservatism is another one you'd like to destroy. He opposed GWI, and would presumably have opposed this one as well.

 

 

Are you suggesting. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 20:36.

. . .that a Buckley article's appearance in Commentary magazine somehow renders it less credible?  If so, what shall we make of this:

William F. Buckley,  Jr. is the founder and former editor-in-chief of National Review. The present essay, in different form, will  appear in his new book, Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater, forthcoming from Basic Books. Copyright 2008 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

Does that restore its credibility, or do you just have something against Commentary magazine because it's run by "moneyed interests"?

That aside, I would submit that the Ron Paul RLOV3utionaries are very much akin to the Birchers -- at least that segment of them which finds a conspiracy in every cereal box, be it 9/11 truthers, North American Union-New World Order-Council on Foreign Relations kooks, or simple gold bugs.  They're one in the same.  But, I don't see a whole lot of that sort of thing emanating out of CATO or Reason, which are far closer to the Goldwater tradition which the Birchers threatened to undermine.

Purpose of the question mark.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 21:04.

See, when I ask you a question, it's not an invitation for you to ignore the question and ask several of your own. It's an invitation for you to respond.

In spite of your peculiar and misleading question, I never suggested that "a Buckley article's appearance in Commentary magazine somehow renders it less credible", and it's hard to see how even you have extracted that meaning from anything I wrote. You did not bother to explain how you added two plus two and arrived at the square root of negative one.

 

But, I don't see a whole lot of that sort of thing emanating out of CATO or Reason, which are far closer to the Goldwater tradition which the Birchers threatened to undermine.

 

You know as much about Cato as you do about the other strands of the libertarian movement, or as you do about the conservative movement.

Absolutely nothing, other than what you googled five minutes ago. Goldwater tradition!

 

 I would submit that the Ron Paul RLOV3utionaries are very much akin to the Birchers -

And I would submit that you should read the blasted article you linked to, where you would have found that Buckley has a description of the Birchers faults rather different from yours.

“How would you define the Birch fallacy?” Jay Hall asked.

“The fallacy,” I said, “is the assumption that you can infer subjective intention from objective consequence: we lost China to the Communists, therefore the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wished China to go to the Communists.”

 The person I know of who is most obsessed with infering subjective intention from (perceived) objective consequence is named "Walt Gilbert".

So, in essence. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 21:38.

. . .what you were attempting to do was to change the subject from the content of the article to the web site on which it appeared.  I'll take that as a concession that you really don't want to address the issue at hand.  After all, what on earth does the fact that the essay was published in Commentary magazine have to do with anything?  And, what was your purpose in asking?  How does that have any relation to what I posted?

You know as much about Cato as you do about the other strands of the libertarian movement, or as you do about the conservative movement.

Absolutely nothing, other than what you googled five minutes ago.

How about taking five minutes to Google CATO and Reason magazine and coming up with some evidence that shows their advocacy of the NAU-NWO-CFR conspiracy so that you can prove me wrong?

And I would submit that you should read the blasted article you linked to, where you would have found that Buckley has a description of the Birchers faults rather different from yours.

What to make of this?  It seems to me that the meeting at which the discussion took place wasn't to map out a logic tree, but to rid the GOP and the Goldwater campaign of the influence of the Birchers.  The "fallacy" issue was only an extraneous issue -- one of tactics and strategy rather than objective.  After all, the objective was decided well before they arrived at the means by which they would go about implementing the objective.  I humbly submit:

Kirk said he could not imagine Bozell disagreeing on the need to excommunicate the John Birch Society from the conservative movement.

And:

Goldwater would seek out an opportunity to dissociate himself from the “findings” of the Society’s leader, without, however, casting any aspersions on the Society itself. I, in National Review and in my other writing, would continue to expose Welch and his thinking to scorn and derision. “You know how to do that,” said Jay Hall.

And then, once the "fallacy" had been arrived at, Kirk offered:

What would Russell Kirk do? He was straightforward. “Me? I’ll just say, if anybody gets around to asking me, that the guy is loony and should be put away.”

In the end, I'll take Kirk's view of the Birchers and apply it to the Ron and the RLOV3utionaries.  And, I would also submit that my description of the bunch tracks pretty closely with Buckley's description of the Birchers:

His method of organization caused general alarm. The society comprised a series of cells, no more than twenty people per cell. It was said that its members were directed to run in secret for local offices and to harass school boards and librarians on the matter of the Communist nature of the textbooks and other materials they used.

Reminds me an awful lot of the Cult of Paul's activities with regard to exhorting its membership to register as Republicans if they're not already registered as such and run for positions in their Republican Executive Committees and various other Republican organizations.

No.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 22:21.

what you were attempting to do was to change the subject from the content of the article to the web site on which it appeared.

I asked you a very simple and straighforward question, before I went on to discuss the subject you raised. And it's amazing to me that you still cannot or will not answer that question. Who know I was was setting such an Olympian task for you?

How about taking five minutes to Google CATO and Reason magazine and coming up with some evidence that shows their advocacy of the NAU-NWO-CFR conspiracy so that you can prove me wrong?

How will that "prove you wrong" about your bizarre insistence that the Birchers were the forefathers of Ron Paul?

The "fallacy" issue was only an extraneous issue -- one of tactics and strategy rather than objective. 

Have I pointed out recently that you are a moron? The "fallacy issue" gets to the core of the problem with the Birchers. it was not some excuse Buckely made up to justify his actons. And you skipped effortlessly over the point that Kirk would likely be supporting Paul today. How come?

The idea that the Birchers were like Paul just shows how utterly ignorant you are of anything and everything to do with the right. The real ancestors of the Paul movement are the Taft Republicans, the isolationist movement. The Birchers were the ultra-hawks of their day, convinced the US goverment was too soft on the communists.

Quick, what group of people are the ultra-hawks today, and believe that the Bush administration has been too soft in its war on radical Islam? Do any of them write at Commentary? 

 

 

Reminds me an awful lot of the Cult of Paul's activities with regard to exhorting its membership to register as Republicans if they're not already registered as such and run for positions in their Republican Executive Committees and various other Republican organizations.

 

 

Oh, sure, running for positions in the GOP via the lawful process is just like "secret cells". The only paranoid conspiracy nut I see here is you.

OK, Jon. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 22:31.

In answer to your question with regard to Commentary's origins, and the sort of conservatism that it represents today, I'll point you to their "About Us" page, which tells you what they're all about:

Commentary is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970’s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

As to your asinine assertion that Russell Kirk would be supporting Ron Paul today, and that Ron Paul has nothing whatsoever to do with the John Birch Society, well, I'll just let Ron and the Birchers tell you themselves:

Congressman Ron Paul endorses The John Birch Society; congratulates Society in its 50th year

APPLETON, WIS. — April 4, 2008 — Congressman Ron Paul has endorsed The John Birch Society in a statement received from his office this week.  His statement also congratulates the Society on being “a great patriotic organization” now in its 50th year. 

John McManus, president of JBS, responded, “We graciously accept Dr. Paul’s endorsement.  He continues to demonstrate what an elected official should be doing … obeying the Constitution.  We thank him for his continuous commitment to protect the freedoms of all Americans.  There’s a reason why he consistently rates toward the top of the Freedom Index, our Congressional scorecard rating legislators’ votes published twice a year in The New American magazine.”

Dr. Paul stated, “The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts to foster ‘less government, more responsibility … and with God’s help … a better world.’”

Dr. Paul has also agreed to be the keynote speaker at the Society’s 50th anniversary celebration, Oct. 2-5, in Appleton.

Now in its 50th year, the John Birch Society, headquartered in Appleton, Wis., is dedicated to restoring and preserving freedom under the U.S. Constitution.  Members come from all walks of life and are active throughout the 50 states on local, regional and national issues.  United by a strong belief in personal freedom and limited government, plus a sense of duty, members have played a continuous, pivotal role in halting legislation and federal policies that threaten the independence of our country and the freedom of American citizens.  Visit www.JBS.org for more information and see why JBS continues to fulfill its founder's vision of “less government, more responsibility, and … with God's help … a better world.”