@UncleMikeNJ You are probably correct because the Teabaggers would oppose some of the occasional small government virtue that is espoused by the John Birch Society, and it is whacked that a Norman Thomas Socialist like myself would be finally saying something even remotely positive about the John Birch Society. That, however, comes to show everyone how messed up the Tea Party really can be...
@moonseller On the sale album with this song and Lizzie Borden, the trio does "Green Grow the Lilacs." Their version is not on youtube that I can find. Please post it if you can.
Sadly this is so dated. I was born in 1957 and my mother bought everything the Chad Mitchell Trio ever did. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. Which moved me to see the JBS was.
No one now can appreciate this but it was a superb piece for it's time. Thanks so much for posting and bringing back my youth in hearing this.
By the way..I known who the JBS is and their background. Its just sad that the youth of today can't appreciate it or this parody.
Gee, I haven't thought of that weird stand-up comedian Pinkie Lee (between Rosemary Clooney and Red Skelton in the song). I know people raising money for them thar Fur'rn Chilluns were clearly KGB dupes, but why pick on . . . oh, GOT it: "Pinkie"
Without Conservatives our society would be so more: advanced technologically, socially, more intelligent, peaceful, equal etc... Just better...WAY better...
@boblasouris Great, we'd be like Russia or China or North Korea or Cuba. So much better, so much more advanced. Is this the direction the progressives are trying to get to? WAY better?
Conservatism: opposition to change and innovation (Wow... opposition to innovation, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard)
Conservative: a person who is reluctant to change or consider new ideas (Wow... So a conservative is a close minded person that doesn't listen to others except those who preached the traditional values... EVEN IF THEY WERE PROVED TO BE WRONG! Like creationism...)
That nearly came true when the RePugnican Senator from Idaho got busted in Minneapolis Airport. He was confused by the words "Glory Hole" on the cubicle wall,
this is an example of poe's law (read the wiki article). to someone on the right, it may not be received as sarcasm but something they may totally agree with.
Hey, all you right wing wackos: You're right. This song is indeed making fun of you ! ( However true and richly deserved it was then, it is much more deserved now because there are more of you crackpots today !)
Doesn't anyone understand satire anymore? This song is funny as hell, as it was meant to be when it was first performed. Don't get so uptight over a bit of humor.
Hmmm...why is it that I can picture Glenn Beck saying on his show that Norman Vincent Peale keeps on preaching brotherhood but WE KNOW WHAT HE MEANS? Beck's techniques are oddly similar to the illogical accusations the actual JBS made back then. Perhaps as an update, the group would be called the John BIRTHERS Society?
Wow! It's only a song, people. Lighten up. This isn't supposed to be a politcal venom forum. I don't see any comments on the song itself so let me add an observation or two. This longer version has a few verses I never heard before on the cut version of the 45 in my collection. These guys were the best at political satire. I miss that great folk music era of social commentary. Everything's so superficial these days with bimbo celebs grabbing all the headlines. Bring back the '60s!
The USA was less than 600 Billion in Debt when this song debuted! Now its official - mathemactically its impossibe to pay off the US Debt (so says Dr. Ron Paul)! Remember when the JBS issued TRIM (Tax Reform IMMediatedly)?
@capt777737 Ron Paul isn't going to be head of a damn thing, keep dreaming son cause the Tea Party will be Ross Perot 2.0 for the Republicans in 2012, learn some history son, oh wait you are a "conservative" you have no interest in history....lmfao!
@capt777737 Oh I know you get all wet dreaming about your chance to do violence you pathetic coward, thats why you chicken little types have been hording ammo since the day Obama was elected, you are a simpleton Capt. it is almost too easy to make fun of you, PLEASE run Sarah palin, the more that idiot opens her mouth the more you people will be known for what you really are. Nothing but plutocratic sycophants & bootlicking zealots who bit their pillow for two terms of republican traitors.
@capt777737 Holy fuck look who it is its capt77737 aka Phil Realing from the redneck state of Wyoming. How are you doing felon? Do you want me to tell everyone here why your on YouTube? Everyone, Phil Realing here raped his 9 yr old niece and sodomized the little girl, he served 12 years and now the town he is from, is freaked out. Phil, get back in prison and suck on Bubba's cock some more bitch!
@capt777737 You fat mother fucker you still in Wyoming or have they run your child molesting fat ass out yet? You should have gotten life for molesting your niece, not 12 years. Phil you are a gay mother fucker, so shut the fuck up before I tell everyone your dead mother is under your bed.
@capt777737 Everyone be careful dealing with this fat skin head. He hates black people because he was beaten on a daily bases by blacks in prison. Phil Realing married his cousin and had a butt fucken ugly incest baby. Phil is a redneck backwoods uneducated hillbilly. I am not making this shit up, He lives in Wyoming and holds militia rallies on Sat nights in his neck of the woods. Phil tell everyone here you are scum, do it. It is rumered that his dead mother is stuffed under his bed too.
Yeah, like how Eisenhower was a conscious agent of the communist conspiracy, or how the "complaining" as the JBS called what the rest of us have come to call "the civil rights act" was actually another part of the communist conspiracy, with the aim of creating a "Negro Soviet republic". As the JBS said back then - The Negro was on equal terms with the whites.
William F. Buckley was no Conservative. Buckley worked for the globalists. He was their controlled opposition. He was given air time on national television for losing gracefully in the name of Conservatism.
Buckely's goal was to destroy the John Birch Society, and while he has gone on to his reward, we're still here.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's a funny song, but consider how people in 1962 would view the US in 2009.
The Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Terrorism, the bail outs, the takeover of the auto industry, the attempt to control health care, the further assault on the Second Amendment.
Endless undeclared wars around to globe based on lies (the Tonkin Gulf Incident, and Weapons of Mass Destruction).
The attack on traditional marriage and "Gay" rights. Do you really think they were wrong?
How would people of 1962 view today? The Patriot act... Given we were just past the era of Mccarthyism and only 20 years after WWII I doubt they would have a problem with it nor with the wars.
They would probably be shocked at how low taxes are, in 1962 the top tax rate was 92%! They would probably view many of the tax cuts of the last reckless given the size of the deficit.
Gay marriage and rights might be viewed in a negative way by them, though. Though, that's not an economic issue.
(The above was in response to abukamoon). I think the change in view points follows from our current alliance of Progressives with Individualists rather than the alliance of Progressive and Neoconservatives we saw in WWII and after. This puts those who desire imperialistic wars on opposite sides from those desiring progressive reforms but also has the progressives with the individualists supporting such issues as gay rights.
Paleocons.. sorry for you it will get worse before it gets better!
I have always thought that Progressives were aligned with Communists, since Communists sometimes call themselves Progressives.
The NeoCons are really descended from the Trotskyites. They have little in common with traditional Conservatives who favor small government, personal liberties and staying clear of foreign entanglements. The wars are not imperialistic, they are globalist. The NeoCons want to rule the world.
"Gay Rights" is not about liberty, it is about license.
A political chart I've seen divides these up nicely. Up/down access being simple (top) vs. precise (bottom) rules and the left right being trust in authority (right) and suspicion of authority (left). The old conservatives (paleocons) are in the top right, neocons in the bottom right, progressives in the bottom left and individualists (left wing libertarians) in the top left.
In WW2 it was the bottom 2 the united to make up the left and the opposition was the paleocons in the top right. In this crisis what I think we are seeing is the 2 on the left side (the progressive and the left wing libertarians) uniting, and ultimately the neoconservatives will become the base of conservatism. Authoritarian governments are really the in the bottom right, which is no longer aligned with the progressives.
Essentially I think what we will see emerge is a big government conservative right and a small government liberal left. Instead of FDR style big government programs we'll see programs that set guidelines and allow individuals freedom to work within those guidelines.
For instance, instead of single payer health care we are likely to have a free market insurance exchange. Instead of a carbon tax we'll likely to see a free market exchange under cap and trade.
Allowing individuals and groups to develop in their own way independently will become a virtue in and of itself. Those who value tradition may find this very frustrating. You'll find a conservative party you can't support as they prefer big government programs and a liberal party you can't support as they won't hold traditional values in high regard!
oh and I would add.. If your assumption is that Progressive and Individualists who tend to reject being bound by traditional value have an agenda they wish to impose upon you in an authoritarian way that isn't really it. They are generally happy with supporting the right of other people including you to live the way they desire (consider the flack they take for not condemning Muslim culture) as long as you do not try to impose your values on others.
You can't have big government and Conservative or right. Conservatives understand that government has no legitimate right to control our health care.
Cap and Trade is based on the lies about Global Warming. This, just like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs is just a power grab by politicians who lust for power. We Conservatives opposed all unconstitutional usurpation of power.
How can the Free Market operate under a phony ploy like Global Warming/Cap & Trade, Carbon Credits & c?
Why can't we have a free market operate under cap and trade? Carbon emissions simply become another commodity to be traded and purchased by those who need it.
Of course if you don't believe the science you don't believe the free market SHOULD be required to function under cap and trade, but I don't see how that proves it can't.
Because Cap and Trade is based on junk science. The entire Global Warming/Climate Change is about political control and enriching certain interests. Sort of like hiring people to dig holes, and other to fill in the holes. And then offering prizes for people who can design the best shovel.
The entire idea is based on a lie. Global Warming used to be the New Ice Age were were entering thirty years ago. The Free Market doesn't function based on false, politically theories.
you know.. I just don't buy it... Scientists are people who devote their entire lives to finding the truths about the subjects for which they are passionate. Of course some are corrupt, but I find it hard to believe that there exists a massive conspiracy to convince us global warming exists.
Further, we don't have an infinite supply of carbon based fuels anyhow, oil especially could be in trouble soon (read about "peak oil"). Thus, even if they are wrong, reducing carbon fuels could be good.
There are scientists who are for sale, just as in other professions. There are thousands of scientists who say that "Global Warming" is a farce, including the man who created the Weather Channel. The problem is, they don't get the exposure the Global Warming advocates get.
There is a lot of money to be made it you furnish "proof" of a political agenda.
We have been hearing that we are running out of oil for decades. If we ever actually ran out, a new technology would be developed.
Note that in the United States oil already peaked in the 1970's and has been declining ever since. Year after year we produce less oil.
The problem is that when oil does peak world wide, need for oil will continue to grow exponentially while that produced will fall off rapidly. Each year we will have a bigger and bigger shortage. If we wait until that point it will be extremely difficult at best to find alternatives!
If the world ever were to run out of oil, the Free Market would come up with a substitute. The problem arises when government steps in and messes things up.
The Free Market is the cheapest, most efficient method of addressing a need. Technology will find a way, as long as the profit motive is there. Government involvement in the market causes shortages, gluts, dislocations and fraud.
Every year, new oil deposits are found, Big oil companies use government to keep the price up.
The problem is that the solution to dealing without oil involves oil.. For instance, one could build new nuclear plans, put up solar panels, expand the train system, etc. etc. ALL of these require oil. If we wait until supplies start to dwindle, we won't have enough oil to do what needs to be done. This includes the growing and distribution of food.
Ignoring this problem is like waiting until a hurricane hits to board up windows and evacuate people. That doesn't work so well!
The problem is not that we are ignoring the problem of exploiting alternate energy sources, our politicians have stopped them, for the benefit of the big oil companies.
They stopped strip mining, they stopped shale oil production, they stopped nuclear plants, they stopped hydro-electric, they have worked against coal usage (air pollution). They have also stopped the exploitation of proven oil supplies (off shore drilling).
Our politicians have caused these problems for the benefit of big oil.
Re. Nuclear plants... For the first time in several decades we are building new plants. Obama is pushing to provide loans to help make this happen. Personally I think Nuclear could be an important part of our post carbon future.
You say we stopped mining coal? Really? Is there a shortage?
Also, your list doesn't include other sources of energy such as wind and solar that are being rapidly developed and the technological improvements we are planning to our grid to exploit those sources.
What you are saying illustrates that your perspective is invalid. I say this because traditional Conservatives, which includes me, are opposed to authoritarian governments, since we value our rights. True Conservatives are for small government, and staying out of foreign entanglements.
The NeoCons are NOT Conservatives, despite the name they go by. I think it would be more accurate to call them Neo Nazis. They promote hatred, war, big government and destruction of our liberties.
Now I understand your perspective. I am looking at things politically, while you are looking at them philosophically.
We Conservatives appreciate traditional values because they have developed over the years based on trial and error.
The problem with looking to science and rationalism is that these areas don't recognize a moral code. And while it's true that we don't all share exactly the same moral code, we do have a common culture. And that's why we have different nations.
and we progressives are suspicious of tradition as it seems that things can always be improved in new and different ways in response to the changing world. Why should we use solutions that worked decades or centuries ago when the world was quite different?
Because human nature is universal, and unchanging. Tradition develops over years of human experience. Human nature is the same today as it was thousands of years ago.
Technology changes and we can profit by utilizing it, but without a morality based on tradition, we may find that the technology creates more problems than it solves.
The first thing that pops into mind is the idea of cloning. Look at the potential abuses that could arise without morality based on tradition.
The Patriot Act is something out of the Third Reich. It has taken fifty years of gradualism to undermine our Bill of Rights to the point that many Americans are willing to surrender their freedoms for the promise of security. Shame on them! They are cowards!
Isn't it interesting that the top earners paid little or no taxes, for example, Nelson Rockefeller. The income tax is aimed at the Middle Class.
"Gay Rights" were considered moral turpitude. People went to jail for sodomy.
As a progressive I'm with you on the idea that the Patriot act goes too far. I'm just not so sure that those in 1962 would be so concerned. People were more trusting of government authority. Plus, this was a time period where unconventional political beliefs could get one blacklisted.
re gay rights.. Our medical community has since determined gays are not a danger to themselves or society. Further, we don't see as much of a need to have a forced homogeneity to the culture as we did then.
Thus we now can allow more variance and support gays being more integrated into society.
Regarding taxes.. Many wealthy people and companies minimized their tax payments by founding or contributing to non-profit organizations. For instance, Bell Labs was founded by AT&T and did first rate scientific research on subjects not specifically related to AT&T. The goal wasn't to make money, but to make a contribution to the country. Would they have done that if not for the high tax rates?
It's true that people did trust government more in 1962. We had not seen how evil and deceitful our politicians were in those days. But blacklisting is something experienced by individuals who were working for a foreign power - international Communism. The people who were blacklisted were not innocent, as they pretend to be.
Homosexuals have always existed and should not be persecuted, but legitimizing their acts is detrimental to our culture.
I suspect part of our distrust in government comes from the folks who got elected by telling us government doesn't work,then spent the last 30 years trying to prove it!
Homosexuals..See, that's where progressives and individualists would disagree. We think that there is no need to use government to show preference for a particular culture. Allowing gays doesn't reduce the right that traditional a married couples has, it only removes the distinction and preference shown for traditional couples.
The distrust of government is a result of the actions of people who were elected, took an oath to the Constitution, and then ignored that oath.
It is not government that is the problem, it is criminal politicians who act under color of law. Politicians who act outside the parameters of government. Their illegal acts are not the acts of government, since they are violations of the law. Few Americans appreciate the difference.
Medicare and Social Security are both unconstitutional. The powers of Congress are listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Controlling health care and retirement are NOT found in this area. The Tenth Amendment is very clear that powers not SPECIFICALLY authorized to the federal government were reserved for the people or the states.
You either follow the law, or you make it up as you go along. Every public servant takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
As to homosexuals, we all know what marriage is. It is militant homosexuals who are trying to change the definition of marriage to legitimize their liasons.
Most individualists don't really care what others do, but at the same time, allowing certain practices to become legitimate - homosexuality, marriage between brother and sister, and pederasty have serious social ramifications.
So while individualists aren't that concerned about their individual actions, the fallout can effect us all.
Marriage is a contract between 2 individuals which allows for certain benefits such as the sharing of health insurance and transfer of an estate without an estate tax.
Some choose to become married in a church, temple, synagogue, or Mosque and for those individuals there may be additional religious significance. That significance is not relevant to marriage in the eyes of the state.
No one is suggesting that incest or pederasty should be legal!
Marriage has been around for thousands of years, and it has always involved men and women. The idea that two men or two women can enter into some sort of arrangement and call it a "marriage" is to redefine the word.
There are people who think that incest or pederasty should be legal. But the real question is, why should we change the definition of a term?
Your position is based on the idea that government should be involved in marriage, taxing estates and insurance. I don't.
ok.. no government involved in deciding who can get married... Then who? For instance, if I head on down to my local Unitarian Church I suspect I could find religious officials willing to marry gay people. So, clearly it isn't religion you are citing as they are far from unified.. Who then?
Marriage is a religious institution. It is only in the last century or so, that the state has tried to take it over.
Yes, I suppose you could find some "clergyman" who would perform some ceremony and tell two men, or two women that they were married. But who would care? The problem occurs when the state gets involved and decides that we all are forced to recognize this as a legitimate marriage.
Because a clergyman is supposed to dispense the word of God. When a "clergyman" utilizes his position to advance an agenda that is clearly at odds with what we know of God, he (or she) should not be taken seriously.
"Clergymen" have been hiding behind their collars to swindle people for years, and many people are not smart enough to distinguish between religion, and the charlatan who uses religion for his own enrichment.
Marriage has always been a religious institution. It's only relatively recently that the state has decided to get involved. A couple of centuries ago, there were no birth certificates of marriage licenses.
Atheists can go through a civil ceremony and gain civil recognition of their marriage. This civil recognition is primarily for the purpose of taxes and inheritance.
Why would you think I would want to oppress anyone? I believe in Freedom. That 's why I want the state's power limited.
Marriage has NOT always been a religious institution. Even people without religion can get married, case in point. Not civil ceremonies, marriages. If the church chooses not to marry whomever, that's their decision, but marriage exists outside the bounds of religion. You aren't trying to limit the power of the state, but the freedoms of individual citizens.
Stop and think about what you are saying. If people are not religious (do not recognize the power of the church), the only reason for wishing to marry is for some sort of recognition by the state. Who else is there?
As individuals, they can do as they please. The idea of marriage is based on some sort of recognition of the act. but by whom?
Obviously, not by the general public. We have many cases of cohabitation. The state eventually calls this "common law marriage".
(cont) Marriage used to be for the purposes of passing on assets from one male to another, but its been redefined over and other again and still has little to do with religion in and of itself. If you choose to infuse religion into your own marriage, that's fine for you, but your personal beliefs shouldn't be forced upon others.
I agree with you when you say that my (or your) beliefs should not be forced upon others.
The problem is, you state that marriage is not necessarily a religious institution, you go on to say that you do not wish to empower government by recognizing the putative power of the state, and then say that you do not wish to force your belief on me that you are married!
If the church is not the authority, nor the state, why do you try to force ME to accept what you call a marriage?
No one is forcing you to accept anything. If your neighbors got married, how would that effect you? Marriage is NOT a religious institution, and the reason anyone gets married is to have it recognized by the state. If it were a religious thing, all you'd need is a note from your "clergyman" and you'd be married. But it doesn't work that way. Don't accept whatever you don't want to accept, but you can't stop people from doing it just because you're not comfortable with it.
The only reason the state is involved in marriage is to gain power. Why would the state care if you were married other than for tax or inheritance purposes. By allowing the state to issue marriage licenses and perform marriages, they assume power.
Since you reject the authority of the church, you grant it to the state. I say the state has no authority to regulate, license or perform marriage. I don't care whether or not you are married. Why should the state?
The only reason the state is involved in marriage is because marriage is defined by the state and always has been. The only reason it exists is for the purposes of inheritance, and if there's nothing to legally recognize a marriage, there's no way to know who gets what or who belongs with whom. It's not feasible for marriage to be a religious institution simply because there'd be no way to keep track who was married when and to whom and whether or not they got divorced, etc.
Marriage is not defined by the state. Virtually every state recognizes marriages performed in other nations. As to inheritance, a will determines who gets what.
Marriages were recorded in family Bibles. So obviously marriage, inheritance and the recordings of marriages functioned through the auspices of the church.
If we agree that it is really none of the state's business, and we don't insist that others accept our personal definition of marriage, what is its secular purpose?
Do you know why polygamy was outlawed? The Supreme Court stated that polygamy was a violation of our Christian culture. Can you imagine today's Court saying that?
Since the current Court is decidedly hostile to Christianity, why is polygamy still illegal?
I am not an advocate of polygamy, but I don't find it as offensive as the idea of homosexual "marriage". I really don't care what people do. They are going to do what they want, but marriage has already been defined.
We don't agree that marriage is none of the state's business, because it's the state's recognition of marriage that makes it what it is. Churches don't decide what is and isn't legal, the government and the laws do. If you truly thought marriage was none of the state's business, you wouldn't care if they legalized gay marriage, because as far as most churches are concerned, it would be invalid. The current Court is not hostile towards Christianity, and I'd go so far as to assume that...
I don't care what people do. My problem is with homosexuals using the power of the state to make their liaisons equal to marriage.
When the state usurped the power to regulate marriage, they gave preferential tax treatment to families to enable them to raise children. Two men, or two women trying to take advantage of tax benefits originally intended for families is where I draw the line.
I don't care what they do. But don't try to get me to equate it with marriage.
Clearly you do care what they do. The only objection is a religious one, and since marriage is not religious, that objection is null and void. If you can't come up with another one, your argument is invalid.
You are free to accept or reject my argument. I am not trying to use the power of the state to force you to accept it as valid.
And that is my position toward "gay marriage". I don't care what people do, but I resist their efforts to use the power of the state to force me to recognize it as a legitimate marriage.
It's all about freedom. They can do as they please, and they can't force me to recognize it.
(cont) everyone on the court IS Christian. It's just that Christians have developed a bit of a martyr complex, if you will. I don't really care if polygamy is illegal, I don't see much of a legal justification for it being illegal, the same as there's zero legal justification for gay marriage being illegal. As for marriage already being defined, like I said before, the definition is constantly changing. What people wrote in their Bibles hundreds of years ago is irrelevant to a Buddhist, or...
The idea of everyone in today's Supreme Court being Christian, is a bit of a stretch! When the Mormon anti-polygamy decision was made over a century ago, that was probably true.
The fact is, the US was founded as culturally a Christian nation. This didn't mean that you had to be a Christian to be a good American. It meant that our laws and values come from the Judeo-Christian ethic. Obviously, there were people who do not like that ethic, and have been working to change it.
When I was in Iraq, I was living in a Muslim culture. If I visited Israel, I would be living in a Jewish culture, and in Nepal, a Buddhist culture. That doesn't mean I have to accept those faiths. It means that the culture is based on them, and I will not be a welcome guest if I criticize them, and try to change them.
While I am all for tolerance, I resent it when people who do not like our traditional culture try to undermine it. There is a saying: "When in Rome....".
Unfortunately for you, while most of our founding fathers may have been Christian, and the country may have been started with Christianity in mind for lack of anything else, they also had the presence of mind to build in a separation between church and the state. Therefore, religion does not and should not guide our laws. That would make no sense.
You need to do your homework. There is nothing about a "wall of separation between the church and the state". That's a Supreme Court notion. Read the Founders' statements on this. They say only a moral and religious people will continue to enjoy the blessings of liberty.
If religion does not guide our laws, where does morality come from? According to Washington, religion is the source of morality.
And why can't we have multiple wives? This has been done in the past, and not just by the Mormons. The Oneida Community practiced communal marriage a little over a century in Wallingford, CT.
Multiple marriage in the US is just as unacceptable as abortion is in a Muslim nation. The culture is based on the religious values of the majority.
We need to be tolerant, but that doesn't mean we should surrender our values.
(cont) someone who is not religious. It's just that people who are religious are often unable to think outside of their own experiences and life. Because marriage is religious to them, they want everyone to be bound by the same constrictions. That is wrong. Marriage has never been determined by religion or by Christianity, so it's time you got over it.
It's true that religion is not necessarily determined by Christianity, or MY religious beliefs. But marriage existed long before we had organized government.
I would say that marriage is recognized by whatever authority the participants accept. Now, you may say that they recognize only the authority of the state. My position is, the state has legitimate powers, but it does not have the power to change the definition of marriage, and force me to accept it.
The state isn't changing the definition of marriage, because it's never been clearly defined and its been in a constant state of flux since someone thought it up. And no one is forcing you to accept anything. Don't accept it! Those polygamists are married whether the rest of the country accepts it or not. You can be the same way.
Everyone has always know the definition of marriage. It has always been between men and women. Sometimes, more than two individuals were involved. But two members of the same sex do not constitute a marriage any more than a man and a parakeet.
The question boils down to recognition bestowed by the state - which would be forced on everyone else. Keep the state out of it.
What people do it their business, but when they try to force me to accept it, there are problems.
Everyone has not always known the definition, because the definition has always been changing. You think you know what it is because you think it's defined by your religion and your personal beliefs, but it's not.
As for John Birch himself, I have read in "The People's Almanac #2" that those who knew him have soberly called into question whether he would be willing to lend his name to any extremist organisation, irrespective of whether it was conservative or liberal.
It is a sad thing that people who actually want to follow the Constitution are labeled "Extremists". Why do public servants take an oath to this document when they have no intention of following it?
Why is it extreme to restrain government? Government is power. When it is not controlled, you end up with Nazi German or a Communist state.
But not here, right? Now, Obama says he has the authority to assassinate Americans HE considers a "threat". You had better hope he doesn't include YOU.
During the Depression here in Australia, there was a similar organisation, a secret army in fact (and they were very common in Australia about this period) called the League of National Security who were mostly made up of active as well as retired military officers who were prepared to seize arms from army bases to quell either a Roman Catholic or communist takeover and were lead by Field Marshal Sir (then Major-General) Thomas Blamey when he was Victoria Police's Chief Commissioner.
To get this movement started we need lots of tools and cranks. Very nice!
bman342a 1 week ago
I though at first glance is was the John's Bitch Society.
greghmn 3 weeks ago
@blackfrank32 LOL, the brainless right really believes this.
AntidoteY 1 month ago
Yay, poking fun at Mccarthyism!!!! Great parody.
Justicia625 2 months ago
@blackfrank32
No you didn't, you're fine.
EikC 2 months ago
The Koch (sucker) Brothers ol' man was one of the Founding Member of the John Birch Society
THAT should explain the similarities between the Birchers and Teabaggers ,,,,,
longjohn412 2 months ago
I'm a teabag and I like this song- its hilarious.
MrManboobie 3 months ago
Today, the Teabaggers would consider the Birchers to be liberals.
UncleMikeNJ 3 months ago
@UncleMikeNJ You are probably correct because the Teabaggers would oppose some of the occasional small government virtue that is espoused by the John Birch Society, and it is whacked that a Norman Thomas Socialist like myself would be finally saying something even remotely positive about the John Birch Society. That, however, comes to show everyone how messed up the Tea Party really can be...
PsychoPunk1965 3 months ago
18 people are going straight to hell!!!!!
jstats13 3 months ago
Im takeing down names on everyone on this site your all busted commies!
fbibarbie 4 months ago
VIVA LENIN!
WonderfulDenmark 4 months ago
liberals <3
amgx9 5 months ago
"If mommy is a commie you gotta to turn her in!", fuckin classic.
bluegreen1138 5 months ago
@moonseller On the sale album with this song and Lizzie Borden, the trio does "Green Grow the Lilacs." Their version is not on youtube that I can find. Please post it if you can.
musicmandon1 5 months ago in playlist More videos from moonseller
has rush limboob heard this song? I'm certain he would have some reaction.
mochompy 6 months ago 3
The Teabaggers go back a lot further than this, but this was one of their noisier phases in history until now.
UncleMikeNJ 6 months ago 2
I am a member of The John Birch Society and I get a kick out of this song. jbs.org
halshurtleff 8 months ago
Sadly this is so dated. I was born in 1957 and my mother bought everything the Chad Mitchell Trio ever did. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. Which moved me to see the JBS was.
No one now can appreciate this but it was a superb piece for it's time. Thanks so much for posting and bringing back my youth in hearing this.
By the way..I known who the JBS is and their background. Its just sad that the youth of today can't appreciate it or this parody.
Quasimodo1957 9 months ago 5
@Quasimodo1957 It's ok...we have Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, MIchelle Bachmann et al screaming that anything they don't like is Commie" or "socialist!"
Every generation has its crackpots..ergo theTea Party!
ripcalwill 7 months ago 2
The John Birch Socie-TEA. Proving Charles Darwin may have had a flaw in his theory since 1958.
UncleMikeNJ 10 months ago
Gee, I haven't thought of that weird stand-up comedian Pinkie Lee (between Rosemary Clooney and Red Skelton in the song). I know people raising money for them thar Fur'rn Chilluns were clearly KGB dupes, but why pick on . . . oh, GOT it: "Pinkie"
.
fdu925 10 months ago
Without Conservatives our society would be so more: advanced technologically, socially, more intelligent, peaceful, equal etc... Just better...WAY better...
F$ck you conservatives, I hate you
boblasouris 10 months ago
@boblasouris I like your change it is so much better now. DA
NcicHit2 7 months ago
@boblasouris Great, we'd be like Russia or China or North Korea or Cuba. So much better, so much more advanced. Is this the direction the progressives are trying to get to? WAY better?
Lindy8018 6 months ago
@Lindy8018 Explain anarchism and postmodernism.
ALL.
AnarchoPinkoEuroBr 1 month ago
Conservatism: opposition to change and innovation (Wow... opposition to innovation, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard)
Conservative: a person who is reluctant to change or consider new ideas (Wow... So a conservative is a close minded person that doesn't listen to others except those who preached the traditional values... EVEN IF THEY WERE PROVED TO BE WRONG! Like creationism...)
boblasouris 10 months ago 2
Oh no! They found out that I am a Communist! And my mommie's a Commie but I ain't gonna turn her in!
Gook987 10 months ago
anybody find it hilarious when they said when we meet in the John? Or is it just my filthy mind?
thebloodyscone 10 months ago 26
That nearly came true when the RePugnican Senator from Idaho got busted in Minneapolis Airport. He was confused by the words "Glory Hole" on the cubicle wall,
fdu925 10 months ago
@thebloodyscone your filthy mind...
pjezierski 10 months ago
@thebloodyscone no it's fine lol that's the joke.
Mikeofdundee1987 9 months ago
@thebloodyscone Ignorance must be very blissful to all of you, you haven't got a clue!
Kensai0322 8 months ago
@thebloodyscone Just poetic license. But then there is Larry Craig!!!
ripcalwill 7 months ago
@thebloodyscone I find it hillarious too....and if so I got just a filthy mind if not filthier ;-)
jstats13 3 months ago
this is an example of poe's law (read the wiki article). to someone on the right, it may not be received as sarcasm but something they may totally agree with.
cpt1chris 11 months ago
Sounds like Glenn Beck
schueaj 11 months ago
Hey, all you right wing wackos: You're right. This song is indeed making fun of you ! ( However true and richly deserved it was then, it is much more deserved now because there are more of you crackpots today !)
Blueboyo1 11 months ago
Doesn't anyone understand satire anymore? This song is funny as hell, as it was meant to be when it was first performed. Don't get so uptight over a bit of humor.
knorthup4 11 months ago
Hmmm...why is it that I can picture Glenn Beck saying on his show that Norman Vincent Peale keeps on preaching brotherhood but WE KNOW WHAT HE MEANS? Beck's techniques are oddly similar to the illogical accusations the actual JBS made back then. Perhaps as an update, the group would be called the John BIRTHERS Society?
joeljersey 11 months ago 26
Sounds good to me music and the moral. I think everyone should do their part to watch our government we all know they are watching us
craprslpr 11 months ago
stupid, thats all to say here
GibIslamkeineChance 11 months ago
14 people think communists and nazis are the same thing.
HisEmptyHouse 1 year ago 3
Thank god for the voices of dissent. May they never be silenced.
531jorel 1 year ago
Check out The Weavers. They were blacklisted during the 50s for this same type of commentary.
bongo3742 1 year ago
"There's no one left
but thee and we,
and we're no sure
of thee!
Classic, love the trio.
baileyboy119 1 year ago
Wow! It's only a song, people. Lighten up. This isn't supposed to be a politcal venom forum. I don't see any comments on the song itself so let me add an observation or two. This longer version has a few verses I never heard before on the cut version of the 45 in my collection. These guys were the best at political satire. I miss that great folk music era of social commentary. Everything's so superficial these days with bimbo celebs grabbing all the headlines. Bring back the '60s!
deanslist101 1 year ago 3
Communism, a tool of the New World Order Conspiracy, is much like the Federal Reserve, also a tool of the Conspiracy.
rainbowschild 1 year ago
hey I'm not worried, racistteabaggers AKA you and Sarapalinak has threatened my life.All same person.
I've taken time to absolve that threat, even atempted murder charges.
Law knows by State Law I have a right to kill every one of you, since you all threatened my life.
SO BACK OFF.
capt777737 1 year ago 2
Won not one
capt777737 1 year ago
The commies got tea bagged on Nov 2nd.
Ding Dong the Bitch is Dead (that hag Pelosi)
JBS and Tea Parties, Beck, and Sara Palin, the babe. One this for the next 100 years.
capt777737 1 year ago
this song really did suck
yetaca 1 year ago
@yetaca
I don't know. Sure beats listening to Justin Beiber.
TrollControlService 1 year ago 2
Typical pinko, commie, fags. unfortunatley now the commies are in the whitehouse,senate,and the house of reps. National socialists, gross me out!
derpdeder 1 year ago
@derpdeder
Reagan is burning in hell.
EikC 1 year ago
If mommy is a commie then u've got to turn her in!
Macaframa1 1 year ago
The USA was less than 600 Billion in Debt when this song debuted! Now its official - mathemactically its impossibe to pay off the US Debt (so says Dr. Ron Paul)! Remember when the JBS issued TRIM (Tax Reform IMMediatedly)?
RemnantMan 1 year ago
@RemnantMan
When you mentioned Ron Paul, you painted yourself a nut.
EikC 1 year ago
@RemnantMan
Ron Paul is gonna be head of the House Finance Committee. We're going after the Federal Reserve.
capt777737 1 year ago
@capt777737 Ron Paul isn't going to be head of a damn thing, keep dreaming son cause the Tea Party will be Ross Perot 2.0 for the Republicans in 2012, learn some history son, oh wait you are a "conservative" you have no interest in history....lmfao!
greentexian 1 year ago
@greentexian You got tea bagged, and we won.
Accept that fact.
We do expect you guys are gonna commit violence once the new House takes over Jan. 4th.
But you will get violence back if you try.
capt777737 1 year ago
@capt777737 Oh I know you get all wet dreaming about your chance to do violence you pathetic coward, thats why you chicken little types have been hording ammo since the day Obama was elected, you are a simpleton Capt. it is almost too easy to make fun of you, PLEASE run Sarah palin, the more that idiot opens her mouth the more you people will be known for what you really are. Nothing but plutocratic sycophants & bootlicking zealots who bit their pillow for two terms of republican traitors.
greentexian 1 year ago
@capt777737 We'll commit violence? Talk about projection.
BigusGeekus 1 year ago
We sure don't have cleverly written songs like this today.
bloodandwinearered 1 year ago
tea bagger society/ john birch society
elleJify 1 year ago
@elleJify
And you got teabagged Nov 2nd for the next 100 years.
We're taking this country back.
capt777737 1 year ago
I don't know what's worse - that this song's back in the mix, or that Glenn Beck and is ilk have probably adopted this as their fight song...
Sidragrosm 1 year ago
@Sidragrosm You must be commie.
ambulancemanEMT 1 year ago
@ambulancemanEMT Better that than a Tea Bagger!
Sidragrosm 1 year ago
@Sidragrosm
Remember Sen. Byrd, Bill Clinton were both KKK, and Drunken Teddy Keddy Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne and didn't even try and help her.
Now he paid for it with his life. What he dished out came around.
capt777737 1 year ago
@capt777737 Holy fuck look who it is its capt77737 aka Phil Realing from the redneck state of Wyoming. How are you doing felon? Do you want me to tell everyone here why your on YouTube? Everyone, Phil Realing here raped his 9 yr old niece and sodomized the little girl, he served 12 years and now the town he is from, is freaked out. Phil, get back in prison and suck on Bubba's cock some more bitch!
SarahPaIinAK 1 year ago
@SarahPaIinAK You are a proven and convicted chld molester, who rapes 2 year old kids. Now go kill yourself.
capt777737 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@capt777737 You fat mother fucker you still in Wyoming or have they run your child molesting fat ass out yet? You should have gotten life for molesting your niece, not 12 years. Phil you are a gay mother fucker, so shut the fuck up before I tell everyone your dead mother is under your bed.
SarahPaIinAK 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@capt777737 Faggot
zjb2OOO 1 year ago
@capt777737 Everyone be careful dealing with this fat skin head. He hates black people because he was beaten on a daily bases by blacks in prison. Phil Realing married his cousin and had a butt fucken ugly incest baby. Phil is a redneck backwoods uneducated hillbilly. I am not making this shit up, He lives in Wyoming and holds militia rallies on Sat nights in his neck of the woods. Phil tell everyone here you are scum, do it. It is rumered that his dead mother is stuffed under his bed too.
SarahPaIinAK 1 year ago
@capt777737 Phil Realing you suck, dude I own your trashy racist bigot ass boy. I will let everyone know all about your fat stinky lowlife style!
SarahPaIinAK 1 year ago
Glenn Beck's spiel is vintage JBS (emphasis on the BS).
thabearz 1 year ago 4
@thabearz
Yea, it's real hard for some people to hear the truth...
layman2003 1 year ago
@layman2003
Yeah, like how Eisenhower was a conscious agent of the communist conspiracy, or how the "complaining" as the JBS called what the rest of us have come to call "the civil rights act" was actually another part of the communist conspiracy, with the aim of creating a "Negro Soviet republic". As the JBS said back then - The Negro was on equal terms with the whites.
EikC 1 year ago
funny how history repeats itself over and over and over...
moonfrombama 1 year ago
One of my favorite songs. I used to have the album.
ladmcski 1 year ago
"The CIA's subversive, and so's the FCC..."
Funny thing is, they were right - about everything.
MichelleLovesHayat 1 year ago
@MichelleLovesHayat
Warning! Ronbot! Warning! Ronbot!
EikC 1 year ago
Liked the humor.
MRSketch09 1 year ago
thiz suckz azz
polkb2 1 year ago
They're meeting in the John, ha! Like a toilet! Intelligent Humor!
Morrison812 1 year ago
To all conservatives who support the John Birch Society, William F Buckley would be ashamed of all you loons.
unapimper 2 years ago 5
William F. Buckley was no Conservative. Buckley worked for the globalists. He was their controlled opposition. He was given air time on national television for losing gracefully in the name of Conservatism.
Buckely's goal was to destroy the John Birch Society, and while he has gone on to his reward, we're still here.
abukamoon 2 years ago
Glenn Beck supports the John Birch Society?
Vitacore 2 years ago
I was worried this was going to be unironic. Glad to see my fears were misplaced. Love it!
theominousthey 2 years ago 10
The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.
They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust. Karl Marx.
insanityofnormality 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's a funny song, but consider how people in 1962 would view the US in 2009.
The Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Terrorism, the bail outs, the takeover of the auto industry, the attempt to control health care, the further assault on the Second Amendment.
Endless undeclared wars around to globe based on lies (the Tonkin Gulf Incident, and Weapons of Mass Destruction).
The attack on traditional marriage and "Gay" rights. Do you really think they were wrong?
abukamoon 2 years ago
How would people of 1962 view today? The Patriot act... Given we were just past the era of Mccarthyism and only 20 years after WWII I doubt they would have a problem with it nor with the wars.
They would probably be shocked at how low taxes are, in 1962 the top tax rate was 92%! They would probably view many of the tax cuts of the last reckless given the size of the deficit.
Gay marriage and rights might be viewed in a negative way by them, though. Though, that's not an economic issue.
scotths 2 years ago
(The above was in response to abukamoon). I think the change in view points follows from our current alliance of Progressives with Individualists rather than the alliance of Progressive and Neoconservatives we saw in WWII and after. This puts those who desire imperialistic wars on opposite sides from those desiring progressive reforms but also has the progressives with the individualists supporting such issues as gay rights.
Paleocons.. sorry for you it will get worse before it gets better!
scotths 2 years ago
I have always thought that Progressives were aligned with Communists, since Communists sometimes call themselves Progressives.
The NeoCons are really descended from the Trotskyites. They have little in common with traditional Conservatives who favor small government, personal liberties and staying clear of foreign entanglements. The wars are not imperialistic, they are globalist. The NeoCons want to rule the world.
"Gay Rights" is not about liberty, it is about license.
abukamoon 2 years ago
A political chart I've seen divides these up nicely. Up/down access being simple (top) vs. precise (bottom) rules and the left right being trust in authority (right) and suspicion of authority (left). The old conservatives (paleocons) are in the top right, neocons in the bottom right, progressives in the bottom left and individualists (left wing libertarians) in the top left.
scotths 2 years ago
In WW2 it was the bottom 2 the united to make up the left and the opposition was the paleocons in the top right. In this crisis what I think we are seeing is the 2 on the left side (the progressive and the left wing libertarians) uniting, and ultimately the neoconservatives will become the base of conservatism. Authoritarian governments are really the in the bottom right, which is no longer aligned with the progressives.
scotths 2 years ago
Essentially I think what we will see emerge is a big government conservative right and a small government liberal left. Instead of FDR style big government programs we'll see programs that set guidelines and allow individuals freedom to work within those guidelines.
For instance, instead of single payer health care we are likely to have a free market insurance exchange. Instead of a carbon tax we'll likely to see a free market exchange under cap and trade.
scotths 2 years ago
Allowing individuals and groups to develop in their own way independently will become a virtue in and of itself. Those who value tradition may find this very frustrating. You'll find a conservative party you can't support as they prefer big government programs and a liberal party you can't support as they won't hold traditional values in high regard!
scotths 2 years ago
oh and I would add.. If your assumption is that Progressive and Individualists who tend to reject being bound by traditional value have an agenda they wish to impose upon you in an authoritarian way that isn't really it. They are generally happy with supporting the right of other people including you to live the way they desire (consider the flack they take for not condemning Muslim culture) as long as you do not try to impose your values on others.
scotths 2 years ago
You can't have big government and Conservative or right. Conservatives understand that government has no legitimate right to control our health care.
Cap and Trade is based on the lies about Global Warming. This, just like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs is just a power grab by politicians who lust for power. We Conservatives opposed all unconstitutional usurpation of power.
How can the Free Market operate under a phony ploy like Global Warming/Cap & Trade, Carbon Credits & c?
abukamoon 2 years ago
Why can't we have a free market operate under cap and trade? Carbon emissions simply become another commodity to be traded and purchased by those who need it.
Of course if you don't believe the science you don't believe the free market SHOULD be required to function under cap and trade, but I don't see how that proves it can't.
scotths 2 years ago
Because Cap and Trade is based on junk science. The entire Global Warming/Climate Change is about political control and enriching certain interests. Sort of like hiring people to dig holes, and other to fill in the holes. And then offering prizes for people who can design the best shovel.
The entire idea is based on a lie. Global Warming used to be the New Ice Age were were entering thirty years ago. The Free Market doesn't function based on false, politically theories.
abukamoon 2 years ago
you know.. I just don't buy it... Scientists are people who devote their entire lives to finding the truths about the subjects for which they are passionate. Of course some are corrupt, but I find it hard to believe that there exists a massive conspiracy to convince us global warming exists.
Further, we don't have an infinite supply of carbon based fuels anyhow, oil especially could be in trouble soon (read about "peak oil"). Thus, even if they are wrong, reducing carbon fuels could be good.
scotths 2 years ago
There are scientists who are for sale, just as in other professions. There are thousands of scientists who say that "Global Warming" is a farce, including the man who created the Weather Channel. The problem is, they don't get the exposure the Global Warming advocates get.
There is a lot of money to be made it you furnish "proof" of a political agenda.
We have been hearing that we are running out of oil for decades. If we ever actually ran out, a new technology would be developed.
abukamoon 2 years ago
Read about peak oil..
Note that in the United States oil already peaked in the 1970's and has been declining ever since. Year after year we produce less oil.
The problem is that when oil does peak world wide, need for oil will continue to grow exponentially while that produced will fall off rapidly. Each year we will have a bigger and bigger shortage. If we wait until that point it will be extremely difficult at best to find alternatives!
scotths 2 years ago
If the world ever were to run out of oil, the Free Market would come up with a substitute. The problem arises when government steps in and messes things up.
The Free Market is the cheapest, most efficient method of addressing a need. Technology will find a way, as long as the profit motive is there. Government involvement in the market causes shortages, gluts, dislocations and fraud.
Every year, new oil deposits are found, Big oil companies use government to keep the price up.
abukamoon 2 years ago
The problem is that the solution to dealing without oil involves oil.. For instance, one could build new nuclear plans, put up solar panels, expand the train system, etc. etc. ALL of these require oil. If we wait until supplies start to dwindle, we won't have enough oil to do what needs to be done. This includes the growing and distribution of food.
Ignoring this problem is like waiting until a hurricane hits to board up windows and evacuate people. That doesn't work so well!
scotths 2 years ago
The problem is not that we are ignoring the problem of exploiting alternate energy sources, our politicians have stopped them, for the benefit of the big oil companies.
They stopped strip mining, they stopped shale oil production, they stopped nuclear plants, they stopped hydro-electric, they have worked against coal usage (air pollution). They have also stopped the exploitation of proven oil supplies (off shore drilling).
Our politicians have caused these problems for the benefit of big oil.
abukamoon 2 years ago
Re. Nuclear plants... For the first time in several decades we are building new plants. Obama is pushing to provide loans to help make this happen. Personally I think Nuclear could be an important part of our post carbon future.
You say we stopped mining coal? Really? Is there a shortage?
Also, your list doesn't include other sources of energy such as wind and solar that are being rapidly developed and the technological improvements we are planning to our grid to exploit those sources.
scotths 2 years ago
What you are saying illustrates that your perspective is invalid. I say this because traditional Conservatives, which includes me, are opposed to authoritarian governments, since we value our rights. True Conservatives are for small government, and staying out of foreign entanglements.
The NeoCons are NOT Conservatives, despite the name they go by. I think it would be more accurate to call them Neo Nazis. They promote hatred, war, big government and destruction of our liberties.
abukamoon 2 years ago
I think if you tone down the description of neoconservatism your assessment is generally accurate.
You share with the neoconservatives a high value on traditional values (ie oppose gay marriage, abortion).
Progressives reject traditional structures and turn to science and rational argument in the use of government to improve society.
Small government liberals (ie individualists) agree with you on size of government, but not on respect for traditional institutions.
scotths 2 years ago
Now I understand your perspective. I am looking at things politically, while you are looking at them philosophically.
We Conservatives appreciate traditional values because they have developed over the years based on trial and error.
The problem with looking to science and rationalism is that these areas don't recognize a moral code. And while it's true that we don't all share exactly the same moral code, we do have a common culture. And that's why we have different nations.
abukamoon 2 years ago
and we progressives are suspicious of tradition as it seems that things can always be improved in new and different ways in response to the changing world. Why should we use solutions that worked decades or centuries ago when the world was quite different?
scotths 2 years ago
Because human nature is universal, and unchanging. Tradition develops over years of human experience. Human nature is the same today as it was thousands of years ago.
Technology changes and we can profit by utilizing it, but without a morality based on tradition, we may find that the technology creates more problems than it solves.
The first thing that pops into mind is the idea of cloning. Look at the potential abuses that could arise without morality based on tradition.
abukamoon 2 years ago
The Patriot Act is something out of the Third Reich. It has taken fifty years of gradualism to undermine our Bill of Rights to the point that many Americans are willing to surrender their freedoms for the promise of security. Shame on them! They are cowards!
Isn't it interesting that the top earners paid little or no taxes, for example, Nelson Rockefeller. The income tax is aimed at the Middle Class.
"Gay Rights" were considered moral turpitude. People went to jail for sodomy.
abukamoon 2 years ago
As a progressive I'm with you on the idea that the Patriot act goes too far. I'm just not so sure that those in 1962 would be so concerned. People were more trusting of government authority. Plus, this was a time period where unconventional political beliefs could get one blacklisted.
re gay rights.. Our medical community has since determined gays are not a danger to themselves or society. Further, we don't see as much of a need to have a forced homogeneity to the culture as we did then.
scotths 2 years ago
Thus we now can allow more variance and support gays being more integrated into society.
Regarding taxes.. Many wealthy people and companies minimized their tax payments by founding or contributing to non-profit organizations. For instance, Bell Labs was founded by AT&T and did first rate scientific research on subjects not specifically related to AT&T. The goal wasn't to make money, but to make a contribution to the country. Would they have done that if not for the high tax rates?
scotths 2 years ago
It's true that people did trust government more in 1962. We had not seen how evil and deceitful our politicians were in those days. But blacklisting is something experienced by individuals who were working for a foreign power - international Communism. The people who were blacklisted were not innocent, as they pretend to be.
Homosexuals have always existed and should not be persecuted, but legitimizing their acts is detrimental to our culture.
abukamoon 2 years ago
I suspect part of our distrust in government comes from the folks who got elected by telling us government doesn't work,then spent the last 30 years trying to prove it!
Homosexuals..See, that's where progressives and individualists would disagree. We think that there is no need to use government to show preference for a particular culture. Allowing gays doesn't reduce the right that traditional a married couples has, it only removes the distinction and preference shown for traditional couples.
scotths 2 years ago
The distrust of government is a result of the actions of people who were elected, took an oath to the Constitution, and then ignored that oath.
It is not government that is the problem, it is criminal politicians who act under color of law. Politicians who act outside the parameters of government. Their illegal acts are not the acts of government, since they are violations of the law. Few Americans appreciate the difference.
abukamoon 2 years ago
Are you of the position that acts like Medicare and SS are of this category or simply acts like the Patriot act?
scotths 2 years ago
Medicare and Social Security are both unconstitutional. The powers of Congress are listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Controlling health care and retirement are NOT found in this area. The Tenth Amendment is very clear that powers not SPECIFICALLY authorized to the federal government were reserved for the people or the states.
You either follow the law, or you make it up as you go along. Every public servant takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
abukamoon 2 years ago
As to homosexuals, we all know what marriage is. It is militant homosexuals who are trying to change the definition of marriage to legitimize their liasons.
Most individualists don't really care what others do, but at the same time, allowing certain practices to become legitimate - homosexuality, marriage between brother and sister, and pederasty have serious social ramifications.
So while individualists aren't that concerned about their individual actions, the fallout can effect us all.
abukamoon 2 years ago
Marriage is a contract between 2 individuals which allows for certain benefits such as the sharing of health insurance and transfer of an estate without an estate tax.
Some choose to become married in a church, temple, synagogue, or Mosque and for those individuals there may be additional religious significance. That significance is not relevant to marriage in the eyes of the state.
No one is suggesting that incest or pederasty should be legal!
scotths 2 years ago
Marriage has been around for thousands of years, and it has always involved men and women. The idea that two men or two women can enter into some sort of arrangement and call it a "marriage" is to redefine the word.
There are people who think that incest or pederasty should be legal. But the real question is, why should we change the definition of a term?
Your position is based on the idea that government should be involved in marriage, taxing estates and insurance. I don't.
abukamoon 2 years ago
ok.. no government involved in deciding who can get married... Then who? For instance, if I head on down to my local Unitarian Church I suspect I could find religious officials willing to marry gay people. So, clearly it isn't religion you are citing as they are far from unified.. Who then?
scotths 2 years ago
Marriage is a religious institution. It is only in the last century or so, that the state has tried to take it over.
Yes, I suppose you could find some "clergyman" who would perform some ceremony and tell two men, or two women that they were married. But who would care? The problem occurs when the state gets involved and decides that we all are forced to recognize this as a legitimate marriage.
Keep the state out of it, and nobody would care.
abukamoon 2 years ago
Why would you demean someone else's clergyman by putting the word in quotes because they believe something else than what you believe?
scotths 2 years ago
Because a clergyman is supposed to dispense the word of God. When a "clergyman" utilizes his position to advance an agenda that is clearly at odds with what we know of God, he (or she) should not be taken seriously.
"Clergymen" have been hiding behind their collars to swindle people for years, and many people are not smart enough to distinguish between religion, and the charlatan who uses religion for his own enrichment.
abukamoon 2 years ago
If marriage is a religious institution, how can atheists get married? Although I'm sure they're next on your list of people to oppress.
Focher 2 years ago
Marriage has always been a religious institution. It's only relatively recently that the state has decided to get involved. A couple of centuries ago, there were no birth certificates of marriage licenses.
Atheists can go through a civil ceremony and gain civil recognition of their marriage. This civil recognition is primarily for the purpose of taxes and inheritance.
Why would you think I would want to oppress anyone? I believe in Freedom. That 's why I want the state's power limited.
abukamoon 2 years ago
Marriage has NOT always been a religious institution. Even people without religion can get married, case in point. Not civil ceremonies, marriages. If the church chooses not to marry whomever, that's their decision, but marriage exists outside the bounds of religion. You aren't trying to limit the power of the state, but the freedoms of individual citizens.
Focher 2 years ago
Stop and think about what you are saying. If people are not religious (do not recognize the power of the church), the only reason for wishing to marry is for some sort of recognition by the state. Who else is there?
As individuals, they can do as they please. The idea of marriage is based on some sort of recognition of the act. but by whom?
Obviously, not by the general public. We have many cases of cohabitation. The state eventually calls this "common law marriage".
abukamoon 2 years ago
(cont) Marriage used to be for the purposes of passing on assets from one male to another, but its been redefined over and other again and still has little to do with religion in and of itself. If you choose to infuse religion into your own marriage, that's fine for you, but your personal beliefs shouldn't be forced upon others.
Focher 2 years ago
I agree with you when you say that my (or your) beliefs should not be forced upon others.
The problem is, you state that marriage is not necessarily a religious institution, you go on to say that you do not wish to empower government by recognizing the putative power of the state, and then say that you do not wish to force your belief on me that you are married!
If the church is not the authority, nor the state, why do you try to force ME to accept what you call a marriage?
abukamoon 2 years ago
No one is forcing you to accept anything. If your neighbors got married, how would that effect you? Marriage is NOT a religious institution, and the reason anyone gets married is to have it recognized by the state. If it were a religious thing, all you'd need is a note from your "clergyman" and you'd be married. But it doesn't work that way. Don't accept whatever you don't want to accept, but you can't stop people from doing it just because you're not comfortable with it.
Focher 2 years ago
You are missing my point.
The only reason the state is involved in marriage is to gain power. Why would the state care if you were married other than for tax or inheritance purposes. By allowing the state to issue marriage licenses and perform marriages, they assume power.
Since you reject the authority of the church, you grant it to the state. I say the state has no authority to regulate, license or perform marriage. I don't care whether or not you are married. Why should the state?
abukamoon 2 years ago
The only reason the state is involved in marriage is because marriage is defined by the state and always has been. The only reason it exists is for the purposes of inheritance, and if there's nothing to legally recognize a marriage, there's no way to know who gets what or who belongs with whom. It's not feasible for marriage to be a religious institution simply because there'd be no way to keep track who was married when and to whom and whether or not they got divorced, etc.
Focher 2 years ago
Marriage is not defined by the state. Virtually every state recognizes marriages performed in other nations. As to inheritance, a will determines who gets what.
Marriages were recorded in family Bibles. So obviously marriage, inheritance and the recordings of marriages functioned through the auspices of the church.
If we agree that it is really none of the state's business, and we don't insist that others accept our personal definition of marriage, what is its secular purpose?
abukamoon 2 years ago
Your version of marriage just can't exist in this country. Outside of polygamist Mormon communities, that is.
Focher 2 years ago
Do you know why polygamy was outlawed? The Supreme Court stated that polygamy was a violation of our Christian culture. Can you imagine today's Court saying that?
Since the current Court is decidedly hostile to Christianity, why is polygamy still illegal?
I am not an advocate of polygamy, but I don't find it as offensive as the idea of homosexual "marriage". I really don't care what people do. They are going to do what they want, but marriage has already been defined.
abukamoon 2 years ago
We don't agree that marriage is none of the state's business, because it's the state's recognition of marriage that makes it what it is. Churches don't decide what is and isn't legal, the government and the laws do. If you truly thought marriage was none of the state's business, you wouldn't care if they legalized gay marriage, because as far as most churches are concerned, it would be invalid. The current Court is not hostile towards Christianity, and I'd go so far as to assume that...
Focher 2 years ago
I don't care what people do. My problem is with homosexuals using the power of the state to make their liaisons equal to marriage.
When the state usurped the power to regulate marriage, they gave preferential tax treatment to families to enable them to raise children. Two men, or two women trying to take advantage of tax benefits originally intended for families is where I draw the line.
I don't care what they do. But don't try to get me to equate it with marriage.
abukamoon 2 years ago
Clearly you do care what they do. The only objection is a religious one, and since marriage is not religious, that objection is null and void. If you can't come up with another one, your argument is invalid.
Focher 2 years ago
You are free to accept or reject my argument. I am not trying to use the power of the state to force you to accept it as valid.
And that is my position toward "gay marriage". I don't care what people do, but I resist their efforts to use the power of the state to force me to recognize it as a legitimate marriage.
It's all about freedom. They can do as they please, and they can't force me to recognize it.
abukamoon 2 years ago
(cont) everyone on the court IS Christian. It's just that Christians have developed a bit of a martyr complex, if you will. I don't really care if polygamy is illegal, I don't see much of a legal justification for it being illegal, the same as there's zero legal justification for gay marriage being illegal. As for marriage already being defined, like I said before, the definition is constantly changing. What people wrote in their Bibles hundreds of years ago is irrelevant to a Buddhist, or...
Focher 2 years ago
The idea of everyone in today's Supreme Court being Christian, is a bit of a stretch! When the Mormon anti-polygamy decision was made over a century ago, that was probably true.
The fact is, the US was founded as culturally a Christian nation. This didn't mean that you had to be a Christian to be a good American. It meant that our laws and values come from the Judeo-Christian ethic. Obviously, there were people who do not like that ethic, and have been working to change it.
abukamoon 2 years ago
When I was in Iraq, I was living in a Muslim culture. If I visited Israel, I would be living in a Jewish culture, and in Nepal, a Buddhist culture. That doesn't mean I have to accept those faiths. It means that the culture is based on them, and I will not be a welcome guest if I criticize them, and try to change them.
While I am all for tolerance, I resent it when people who do not like our traditional culture try to undermine it. There is a saying: "When in Rome....".
abukamoon 2 years ago
Unfortunately for you, while most of our founding fathers may have been Christian, and the country may have been started with Christianity in mind for lack of anything else, they also had the presence of mind to build in a separation between church and the state. Therefore, religion does not and should not guide our laws. That would make no sense.
Focher 2 years ago
You need to do your homework. There is nothing about a "wall of separation between the church and the state". That's a Supreme Court notion. Read the Founders' statements on this. They say only a moral and religious people will continue to enjoy the blessings of liberty.
If religion does not guide our laws, where does morality come from? According to Washington, religion is the source of morality.
abukamoon 2 years ago
And why can't we have multiple wives? This has been done in the past, and not just by the Mormons. The Oneida Community practiced communal marriage a little over a century in Wallingford, CT.
Multiple marriage in the US is just as unacceptable as abortion is in a Muslim nation. The culture is based on the religious values of the majority.
We need to be tolerant, but that doesn't mean we should surrender our values.
abukamoon 2 years ago
(cont) someone who is not religious. It's just that people who are religious are often unable to think outside of their own experiences and life. Because marriage is religious to them, they want everyone to be bound by the same constrictions. That is wrong. Marriage has never been determined by religion or by Christianity, so it's time you got over it.
Focher 2 years ago
It's true that religion is not necessarily determined by Christianity, or MY religious beliefs. But marriage existed long before we had organized government.
I would say that marriage is recognized by whatever authority the participants accept. Now, you may say that they recognize only the authority of the state. My position is, the state has legitimate powers, but it does not have the power to change the definition of marriage, and force me to accept it.
abukamoon 2 years ago
The state isn't changing the definition of marriage, because it's never been clearly defined and its been in a constant state of flux since someone thought it up. And no one is forcing you to accept anything. Don't accept it! Those polygamists are married whether the rest of the country accepts it or not. You can be the same way.
Focher 2 years ago
Everyone has always know the definition of marriage. It has always been between men and women. Sometimes, more than two individuals were involved. But two members of the same sex do not constitute a marriage any more than a man and a parakeet.
The question boils down to recognition bestowed by the state - which would be forced on everyone else. Keep the state out of it.
What people do it their business, but when they try to force me to accept it, there are problems.
abukamoon 2 years ago
Everyone has not always known the definition, because the definition has always been changing. You think you know what it is because you think it's defined by your religion and your personal beliefs, but it's not.
Focher 2 years ago
Religion does not govern our laws, which is why working on the sabbath and using the lord's name in vain are not illegal.
Focher 2 years ago
This album was one of the first I remember listening to (The Chad Mitchell Trio - At the Bitter End). It's a great collection of songs.
ejhonda 2 years ago
Just used to love this song. !
wendydale1 2 years ago
As for John Birch himself, I have read in "The People's Almanac #2" that those who knew him have soberly called into question whether he would be willing to lend his name to any extremist organisation, irrespective of whether it was conservative or liberal.
LoverswithCassie 2 years ago 7
It is a sad thing that people who actually want to follow the Constitution are labeled "Extremists". Why do public servants take an oath to this document when they have no intention of following it?
Why is it extreme to restrain government? Government is power. When it is not controlled, you end up with Nazi German or a Communist state.
But not here, right? Now, Obama says he has the authority to assassinate Americans HE considers a "threat". You had better hope he doesn't include YOU.
abukamoon 2 years ago
During the Depression here in Australia, there was a similar organisation, a secret army in fact (and they were very common in Australia about this period) called the League of National Security who were mostly made up of active as well as retired military officers who were prepared to seize arms from army bases to quell either a Roman Catholic or communist takeover and were lead by Field Marshal Sir (then Major-General) Thomas Blamey when he was Victoria Police's Chief Commissioner.
LoverswithCassie 2 years ago
Brainless idiot or should i say useful idiot!
1Weltschmerz 2 years ago
I've been looking for this song for years. Glad to finally find a copy to show to people.
eileenbety 2 years ago 2