A big thank you to Rachel Maddow for making us a last minute add to the MSNBC Christmas list for 2009.  We've been enjoying her thoughtful presents. 

Keeping in the jolly Christmas spirit that Rachel has established, our response to her follow-up reportage on The John Birch Society Wednesday night is, "Ho! Ho! Ho!" 

For your own hearty chuckle, we ask that you take a closer look at what she infers we said in her latest monologue* versus what we really said.  

On the Civil Rights movement...Yes, we did end up on the losing side of trying to stop the expansion of federal government control over our lives under that banner.  However, The John Birch Society never endorsed segregation.  The John Birch Society argued that the federal government should stay within its constitutionally defined restrictions of power.   It argued for Jim Crow laws to be repealed at the state level. 

Admittedly, that route would likely have taken longer and left the many victims of Jim Crow laws wanting.   And yes, we admit that most of the leaders of The John Birch Society not being directly affected by the worst elements of segregation, could more freely choose to stand on the principle that the Federal government, restricted by the U.S. Constitution,  had no authority to enact the civil rights laws.

Taken in the proper context, The John Birch Society statement Ms. Maddow quoted regarding Chief Justice Earl Warren needing to be impeached for exceeding the constitutional authority of his office in Brown v. Board of Education cannot be equated to being segregationist.   This is just the conclusion the fast talking Maddow wants her viewers to jump to.   The very quote Maddow posts to attack us on this, makes this clear.  Read the quote.  We stand by it.  Don't listen to Maddow's affected interpretation of it.

The clearly stated purpose of The John Birch Society campaign to impeach Earl Warren was to stop the Supreme Court of the United States from furthering a precedence to make law by judicial decree rather than interpret law.  That is, the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice need to follow their oath of office to stay within the restrictions placed on them by the Constitution of the United States.

The position of The John Birch Society and its founder was that the strife in the segregated South was being used to further the expansion of federal power through the Supreme Court.  This concept of fighting against an activist judiciary, is perhaps anathema to many of Rachel Maddow's followers, but it is a long standing campaign supported by most of those who will be attending the upcoming CPAC conference.

And, yes, while were at it, and for the record, The John Birch Society is against "civil" rights.   That's because rights granted by civil authorities are no rights at all.  They are privileges.  They reduce the concept of unalienable rights coming from nature and nature's God to arbitrary privileges doled out by the most capricious of sources — governments ruled by men.  

The federal government of the United States was founded to protect our pre-existing rights.  It was not created as a source of privileges masquerading as rights.

Anyone who believes that civil privileges are as good as unalienable rights need only look at the deferences made to civil law in making the case for suspension of habeus corpus, the use of torture on untried detainees, and the warrantless surveillance of any and all people.

To be sure, when criminals are in charge, even unalienable rights fall under threat.  That is why it loosening the chains of the Constitution, which were designed to shackle government not the people, is such a dangerous course to follow — no matter how noble the cause given as an excuse by those seeking more power over others.

In Maddow's latest outing of the Birch Society let us also give one "ho" of a chuckle to her fact-checkers' discovery of the word "negro" in early 60's Birch literature.  "Negro" of course was the term in vogue for African-Americans back in the day when real newsmen could still be found on national TV.  Use of the word is hardly prima facie evidence of racism as Maddow seems to want to pass it off as. 

As for the certainly more stunning full phrase, "Negro Soviet Republic," Maddow is also in error to imply that this was a phrase and concept cooked up by the tin foil hat crowd of the day running the John Birch Society.  It was in fact a real initiative launched by mass murderer, and Roosevelt drinking buddy, papa Joe Stalin himself 30 years earlier, just as The John Birch Society quote used by Maddow on communists stirring racist fears in the United States correctly indicates.  The John Birch Society did not make this provocative phrase up.  Stalin did.  And yes, most people to this day believe that Stalin was a communist.

As for our comments regarding another famous communist Comrade Mandela — we don't deny that enough good press can set any one up as an inspiration.  In fact, if we had the $139 billion dollars of taxpayer bailout money Ms. Maddow's corporate parent General Electric recently received, we think we could even make The John Birch Society an inspiration for rugby players. 

The fact remains that Comrade Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) has maintained a working alliance with the South African Communist Party (SACP) going back at least as far as 1928 — not withstanding the current row over ANC charges that the SACP is plotting to take it over outright.  

Our defense for using "terrorist" and "thug" as preceding adjectives to Comrade Madela's name, is because we have chosen to judge a man by the company he keeps.  In this case, we point to his wife Winnie Mandela, who had a woman's penchant for necklaces - except only when worn by other people (her black opponents) as they were slowly burned to death. (See April 1986 — Yeah, we enjoy PBS too)

Mandela's Nobel Peace Prize of 1993 is no absolution of his character and history either.  It was only a year later that the Nobel committee confirmed that you can be a "communist terrorist thug" and still win their peace prize. 

Note: That you can be the spokesperson for the escalation of a war of aggression on a country on the other side of the planet and  be awarded a peace prize for your efforts, was no shock to regular members of The John Birch Society.

Another item we need to get clear on — the use of the word "communist."  Maddow seems really hung up on this.  Let's clarify quickly. 

When the John Birch Society was founded in 1958 — after Brown v. Board of Education, after the McCarthy era, and after Robert Welch had made several disparaging remarks in an analysis of General Eisenhower in a private letter circulated among his associates — the term communist was in vogue.  Used in its fully pejorative sense, it was understood to mean someone advocating a system of total government control in a police state-type regime as in Communist China or the Soviet Union.  The reason the label was employed so widely by The John Birch Society, was because it was also applied it to anyone, who knowingly or unknowingly, worked to achieve the goals of the communism as detailed in the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.  

By the early 60's, The John Birch Society began using an expanded term to describe the enemies of freedom within our own government and society.  This term was and remains, "Insiders."  We are, however, equally comfortable using the terms "criminal" or "crime syndicate," particularly when describing the kind of people that secretly arrange to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to corporations (syndicates) that are deemed "too big to fail."

Our definition of an Insider is a person within either of the two wings of our ruling party, or on Wall Street or in academia, who conspiring actively with others,  or simply to further their own self-interest, moves our country in the direction of more government and less freedom.  An Insider furthers the goals of a small ruling elite that the The John Birch Society believes is constantly at work to maintain and expand it's power.  This ruling elite has to work constantly, because many of their fellow travelers are nothing more than well appointed criminals who think nothing of stabbing their comrades in the back if they sense weakness or an opportunity to get ahead at another's expense.

That this ruling elite or "Establishment" exists is not the product of wild imaginings going on in the underground bunkers of The John Birch Society's compound in Appleton, Wisconsin as Ms. Maddow and her employers would like the world to think.  The existence of this ruling clique has been documented by people like like Georgetown University historian Carroll Quigley.  (This, by the way, is the same Georgetown professor who Bill Clinton called an inspiration in his 1992 presidential nomination acceptance speech.)  In his book Tragedy and Hope professor Quigley writes on page 1036:

"[The Eastern Establishment believes that] the two parties should be almost identical, so that [they can control the elections] without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

Does this sound plausible?  Or,  is it a "conspiracy theory?"  Professor Quigley continues:

"But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigor-less.  Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."

So, should Obama voters who thought the change they were going to get was less war, less torture, less spying on Americans and less taxpayer money being shoveled into the vaults of Wall Street be surprised?  Sorry, but we think the answer is clearly, no, had they been paying attention to information sources other than the likes of MSNBC.  For those who don't like getting it straight like this from The John Birch Society, try the same message served up by one of our top, double-secret members who writes over at The Rolling Stone

Trust us.  We really don't make this stuff up.  Even one of our top all-time bad guys, David Rockefeller finally confessed in his 2002 autobiography Memiors:

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

To be fair, Rockefeller goes on to explain that someone like himself, ever using his power and wealth to work for the betterment of his fellow man, cannot be called a conspirator.  A conspirator must have evil intent.  This is critical element that the conspiracy theory issue turns on.  

Mr. Rockefeller argues from the position of a benevolent dictator.  As we read between the lines of his defense and real world history, we sense that it is deemed OK to break a few eggs on the way to the one world government omelette that will usher in an era of world peace and prosperity.  After all, there are some real bad guys out there!

That Rockefeller and his ilk are working on their new world order gig is not debatable.  It's the means and the sincerity of the ends that we are debating.  The John Birch Society only asks impartial observers to look at what is happening on Wall Street and in our wars of aggression abroad and make an honest call.  Our call is that looting and murder are the means and that domination and tyranny are the ends.

So, at this point we have to stop and ask ourselves what is really going on here?  What is the whole point of the Maddow rip on The John Birch Society anyway?  Why does she have a problem with the faction of the "conservative" movement that really is for less war, less torture, less spying and less bankster theft showing up at the upcoming CPAC confab?

We think it has something to do with her working for the premier press organ of the General Electric Corporation.  The same major defense contractor General Electric that has worked tirelessly to offshore its US production to places like communist China and then has the chutzpah to pilfer $139 billion dollars from U.S. taxpayers to cover up its tracks.

But hey.  This is just the first conspiracy theory that popped into our heads after watching Maddow's show last night.

We'll have something better cooked up soon.

Gotta run now to see if there are any presents we missed under the tree.

* We're trying to get through to Maddow's program scheduling office to offer her a spokesperson to go mano a mano with, but they aren't taking our calls.  We're, "Shocked...shocked!"