Since Obdicut does not specify what evidence he is using to establish that the JBS used “racist imagery”, “racist arguments” and “exploited racist tension”, I cannot respond appropriately.

However, what I am arguing is the general principle which Obdicut does not accept —- that honorable, decent, moral individuals may vigorously oppose legislation which is proposed to address recognized social problems — but their opposition does not arise from any animosity or bigotry toward anybody.

Obdicut uses a straw man argument when he dismisses the idea that “the JBS was the equivalent of the KKK”. That is not the issue. The issue is this: what are the acceptable boundaries for opposition to legislative proposals?

As I previously mentioned, historically even Barry Goldwater was denounced as a racist. The persons making that argument used criteria which they thought justifies such a horrific accusation.

I think we should address specifics of whatever is proposed — and stop poisonous vituperation about the alleged motives of critics or opponents.

The one exception I make is when there is considerable high-quality verifiable factual evidence to establish that a person or organization uniformly opposes everything which seeks to empower a racial or religious minority or they philosophically oppose all measures designed to address government coercion/oppression/discrimination.

As I stated previously, one has to understand WHY people like Goldwater opposed the CRA. It was NOT because of any animus toward minorities. Goldwater explicitly recognized the problems which African-Americans faced in our southern communities. He did not endorse or defend segregationist logic. He supported civil rights legislation which was enacted during the Eisenhower years.

The JBS is more complex to discuss because there were prominent JBS members and officials who WERE pro-segregation. And, regretably, the JBS did not seem to understand the real-world consequences of their hostility toward our civil rights leaders and organizations. But their hostility was not based upon racial factors. It was because the JBS genuinely thought that most of our civil rights leaders and organizations had been compromised and subverted by individuals whose primary loyalty was to the Communist Party USA. Furthermore, the JBS thought those individuals wanted to use our civil rights movement to produce more and more violent incidents, and, ultimately, exploit those incidents to produce a revolution to overthrow our government.

This may seem absurd to you (and me) — but the average JBS member was steeped in “documentation” which came, in many instances, from FBI informants inside the CPUSA — who later surfaced and became JBS members or endorsers.

Here is a December 2009 comment by a JBS official which should be considered:

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.

Using the SAME principle regarding Constitutional limits, the JBS opposed our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Should we now, therefore, describe the JBS as pro-Taliban or pro-Al Qaeda?

You didn’t get this far on Obdicut’s last post. Do you have a respose to this?: