Talk:William F. Buckley, Jr.

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this it for William F. Buckley?


This page should be moved to William F. Buckley, Jr., properly. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 19:57, 18 February 2017 (EST)

Done. Conservative (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2017 (EST)


Why the deletions of the links to other entries? Some them are particularly interesting.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

TheAmericanRedoubt was a very disruptive editor who sought to use Conservapedia as a link spam farm. His excessive cross-linking lowered Conservapedia's google rankings and did not really help readers. He would spend the day copy and pasting the same set of links into a large number of articles without thinking about each article separately. Thanks, JDano (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

Buckley and Robert Welch -- A Smear?


It is difficult to understand this article's description of Buckley as being the author or leader of the "liberal smear" of the John Birch Society when you consider that the most potent critics of Robert Welch and the JBS have always originated from the right-side of the political spectrum.

JBS critics have included such prominent conservative Americans such as:

Sen. Barry Goldwater, Cong. Walter Judd, Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer, Russell Kirk, Eugene Lyons, Willmoore Kendall, James Burnham, Robert Bork, J. Edgar Hoover, former FBI informant Herbert Philbrick, Frank S. Meyer, Cong. Gordon H. Scherer, William F. Buckley Jr., Patrick Buchanan, Fred Schwarz, Lee Edwards, the editors of the conservative newspaper Human Events, George Sokolsky, Roy Cohn, Anthony Bouscaren.

Many Birchers (including some of their most prominent writers and speakers and lifetime members) left the Society and published caustic criticisms of the JBS -- such as: Alan Stang, Gary Allen, Dr. Charles Provan, Milorad Draskovich, John Rees, and William Norman Grigg. Even Mrs. Robert Welch (the widow of JBS founder Robert Welch) withdrew her support from the JBS after her husband died.

Furthermore, the Birch Society has the "distinction" of being the only national conservative "educational" organization to have lost an historic precedent-setting defamation lawsuit after the JBS described Chicago lawyer Elmer Gertz in an article it published in its monthly magazine as “a Communist fronter” and a “Leninist” who was engaged in a “conspiracy” against the Chicago police.

After 14 years of litigation, including two different jury trials, numerous appeals, and review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the JBS paid Gertz $100,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages for malice. Because the JBS appealed the initial decision, the final payment (including accrued interest) was almost $500,000 (which is about $1.5 million in 2017 dollars). Punitive damages are only allowed in libel actions when “malice” can be shown. Malice, in legalese, refers to “reckless disregard for truth” arising from evil intent and a desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering.

As one Appeals Court observed about the JBS article on Gertz:

“There was more than enough evidence for the jury to conclude that this article was published with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz.” [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 81-2483, Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 6/16/82, page 20].

In addition: former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and senior officials of the FBI concluded that the Birch Society was a "right-wing extremist" organization that did NOT deal in facts. In fact, the FBI (during Hoover's tenure) falsified every major tenet of JBS dogma.

In summary: It is NOT historically accurate to claim that William Buckley "led" any "liberal smear". In fact, Buckley and Robert Welch were friends and Welch not only made two significant financial contributions to Buckley's magazine (in 1955 and 1957), Welch also recommended and sold Buckley's books in the JBS bookstores and Welch placed all the books by the National Review contributing editors on the Birch Society's recommended reading list. Even AFTER Buckley criticized Welch's views, Buckley defended the Birch Society when he believed it was being unfairly criticized -- such as during the "Birchers as policemen" controversy.

Lastly, there is one more point which any serious discussion of the Buckley vs Welch feud should recognize: Buckley's positions on most public policy issues were identical to those of Robert Welch and the JBS. The JBS created what it described as a "Conservative Index" (now known as "Freedom Index") to score the voting behavior of all members of Congress. If someone would go back and list all the policies or issues which the JBS scored and then compare Buckley's position on those policies or issues to what the Birch Society preferred, Buckley would almost certainly have gotten a score of 85 or higher most of the time. In other words, when someone agrees with you 85% or more of the time they are your ALLY, not your enemy. Ernie1241 (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2019 (EDT)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

Some of Trump's strongest critics "originate from the right-side of the political spectrum" -- they include "prominent conservative Americans such as:"
  • The Koch Brothers, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, Jeff Flake, and John Kasich.
Thank you for reminding us of the existence of one-world, open borders globalists who claim to be "staunch conservatives." I'm unconvinced your list is even accurate, as The New American regularly publishes Pat Buchanan's op-eds.
JBS is a consistently conservative organization, significantly more consistent than others on issues such as immigration, trade, limited government, executive power, and the con-con. J. Edgar Hoover (a notorious deep-stater) is not going to be the arbiter of how we treat JBS. Also, the defamation case you mentioned by decided (in 1974) by the same judges that legalized abortion (and the case was 5-4). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2019 (EDT)
Not sure why you refer to the Koch brothers in a critical way -- especially since Robert Welch asked Charles Koch to become a JBS National Council member. With respect to your critical comments re: J. Edgar Hoover, it is noteworthy that Robert Welch and every senior officer of the JBS totally disagreed with your personal opinions.
In fact, in 1965, Dr. James D. Bales, a professor at Harding College in Searcy, Arkansas contacted the FBI to inquire into whether or not J. Edgar Hoover would object to Bales' compiling statements made by Hoover about Communism and publishing them in book form. J. Edgar Hoover rejected the idea. Then, in June of 1967, the idea was resurrected by representatives of the John Birch Society. Douglas C. Morse, Managing Editor of the JBS publishing arm, Western Island Publishers, contacted the Boston FBI office to again propose the idea.
FBI Assistant-Special-Agent-In Charge Troy Coleman met with Mr. Morse and JBS founder Robert Welch at JBS offices to discuss the matter. Hoover's public statements were to be compiled by Dr. Bales and published by the Birch Society under the title "J. Edgar Hoover On Communism."
A Bureau memo summarizes the encounter with Robert Welch:
"Mr. Welch advised he had the greatest admiration for the Director and that the captioned book was intended as an instrument against communism. He said he felt the statements on the subject from Mr. Hoover would be taken as statements from the world's greatest authority on the matter of communism..."

However, J. Edgar Hoover flatly rejected the JBS proposal--just as was previously the case when Dr. Bales contacted the FBI. Subsequently, Robert Welch inquired if Hoover would withdraw his opposition to publication of the book if it contained an explicit disclaimer pointing out that the book was not endorsed by Hoover. Hoover instructed the Boston Field Office to reject that idea too.
Here are just a few examples of comments made by senior JBS officials regarding Hoover:
JBS Bulletin, July 1961, p 11
But we have been equally emphatic at all times in expressing our confidence in J. Edgar Hoover and in the FBI under his direction.”
Robert Welch 11/20/64 letter to J. Edgar Hoover after seeing Boston newspaper article regarding Hoover’s criticisms of Welch at an 11/18/64 press conference:
I can only hope that in time I may still earn your respect, simply by continuing to put all that I am and that I have into the same fight as your own. With all good wishes to you in the meantime, for your continued great service to our country, I am, Sincerely, Robert Welch” [FBI HQ file 62-104401, serial #2381, 11/20/64 letter by Welch]
Hattiesburg MS American, 5/5/65, p4 “John Birch Society Representative Discusses Talk He Will Make Tonight” re Reed Benson (the National PR Director of the JBS):
Benson praised the dedication of J. Edgar Hoover who he said is the foremost authority on Communism. ‘I fear and tremble at thought of the day when he will be out of the FBI’ Benson said.”

Thomas J. Davis, JBS Eastern Regional Director (White Plains NY) wrote to Hoover on 10/26/65:

I continue to look upon the Bureau and its work with tremendous pride and admiration. Its efforts, under your direction, have so obviously been instrumental in preserving the security of the United States of America. God bless you and keep you strong.” [FBI NYC file 100-144497, #223; Davis sent another letter of praise to Hoover on 3/4/66.]

ALSO see October 1966 issue of JBS magazine, American Opinion, for article entitled, "The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover".
Interesting, but I'm sure not what your point is. The smear by Buckley of JBS is well-documented, and even obvious from a YouTube linked to in the entry. J. Edgar Hoover was praised by many for helping stem the infiltration of communists into the Deep state. To which of this, if any, you object?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
@Ernie1241: You said this in your comment above: "Not sure why you refer to the Koch brothers in a critical way -- especially since Robert Welch asked Charles Koch to become a JBS National Council member" -- have you read CP's Koch brothers article? The Koch Brothers are not conservatives in the slightest (even they admit they're not conservatives). They strongly oppose conservative/pro-American policies on many issues such as trade, immigration, abortion, homosexuality, and crime. They have recently and explicitly vowed to support liberal Democrats over conservative Republicans who don't hold to their globalist/social liberal views. That Charles Koch once was a JBS member before his liberal/libertarian shift is irrelevant. Just because someone once accepted conservative values doesn't mean they are forever immune to criticism if they abandon those values. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2019 (EDT)

REPLY TO Andy Schlafly AND "Sguy"

(1) ANDY....Your "reply" is irrelevant to what I presented. My quotations did NOT mention Buckley. However, since you raise this matter, here is what you apparently do not know.

Robert Welch was a major financial contributor to Buckley's National Review magazine. Welch made two $1,000 contributions to National Review, one in 1955 and another one in 1957. That is equivalent to about $9000 for each contribution in 2017 dollars. Do you think Welch was in the habit of making major financial contributions to NON-conservative authors and publishers?

In addition: Both Welch and the JBS recommended National Review magazine to JBS members. Furthermore, the books authored by National Review contributing editors were recommended and sold by JBS bookstores! See, for example, the last 10 pages of the July 4, 1961 issue of the JBS Bulletin for its section captioned “Initial List of Approved Books” along with its list of recommended magazines.

In January 1960, Robert Welch replied to a dinner invitation to honor Alfred Kohlberg (a JBS National Council member) which Kohlberg's Secretary had sent to Welch. Welch accepted the invitation and he then recommended the names of other people whom Welch described as his "good friends in New York City who are also friends of Mr. Kohlberg (who) would be glad to honor him..."

Among the persons whom Welch specified as his "good friends" who should also be invited included: William F. Buckley Jr., along with other conservative authors whose articles appeared in National Review magazine. [1/6/60 Robert Welch letter to Miss Anna E. Murray, Secretary to Alfred Kohlberg].

Even after Buckley made critical comments about Welch, Buckley continued to defend the Birch Society. Furthermore, Buckley's positions on public policy issues were mostly the same as those favored by the Birch Society.

The first ad hoc committee which the Birch Society created was CASE (Committee Against Summit Entanglements). Among the first persons whom Welch contacted for support was none other than William Buckley Jr. -- who then enthusiastically supported Welch's new enterprise. In addition, other National Review writers also became endorsers of CASE.

Buckley and Welch maintained a friendly relationship -- even after Buckley criticized Welch. For example: see Buckley's defense of the JBS during the Birchers-as-policemen controversy which erupted in 1965-1966.

(2) J. EDGAR HOOVER and the FBI

You can't have it both ways.

You cannot pretend (on the one hand) that Robert Welch and senior JBS officials never effusively praised Hoover and the FBI --OR-- that the JBS and its senior officers didn't explicitly acknowledge that Hoover and the FBI were indisputably knowledgeable and authoritative about the Communist movement in our country (btw--also see pro-Hoover comments by former FBI Special Agents W. Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot---both of whom were endorsers of the JBS and paid speakers for the JBS along with pro-Hoover comments made by former FBI informants inside the CPUSA who later became JBS members and paid speakers such as Julia Brown and Lola Belle Holmes) but, simultaneously, (on the other hand) pretend that the statements, assertions and conclusions made by the JBS were NOT predominantly falsehoods according to statements made by Hoover and the FBI!


Regardless of your personal opinions regarding the Koch family, it is nevertheless INDISPUTABLE that Robert Welch believed that Fred and Charles Koch were entirely patriotic conservative Americans -- which is why Welch asked Charles to become a JBS National Council member. Fred Koch was an original Council member starting in 1960. However, Charles Koch has always been more oriented toward libertarian ideas -- so he chose to dissociate himself from the JBS and focus, instead, on Robert LeFevre's Freedom School, Inc. in Colorado. Charles served on LeFevre's Board of Trustees and he was a major financial contributor to the Freedom School. BTW--a list of Freedom School students reads like a "who's who directory" of John Birch Society members and endorsers!

The National Board of Fellows of Freedom School, Inc. included the following persons – most of whom subsequently had links to JBS as either JBS members or endorsers:

Aldrich Blake (Laguna Beach CA), Mrs. Mary D. Cain (Summit MS), Taylor Caldwell (Eggertsville NY), Frank Chodorov (Berkeley Heights NJ), Ralph E. Davis (Los Angeles CA), James L. Doenges (Anderson, IN), Robert B. Dresser (Providence RI), Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers (WDC), J.H. Gipson Sr. (Caldwell ID), Corinne Griffith (Beverly Hills CA), Merwin K. Hart (NYC, NY), Harry H. Hoiles (Colorado Springs CO), Thurman L. McCormick (Kansas City MO), Martel McNeely (New Orleans LA), Roger Milliken (New York NY), R. Roy Pursell (Plymouth MI), E. Merrill Root (Richmond IN), Dr. V. Orval Watts (Altadena CA), E.L. Wiegand (Pittsburgh PA), and Glenn O. Young (Sapulpa OK).

In 1965 the Academic Advisory Board of the Freedom School included the following prominent conservative Americans -- most of whom were ALSO praised and recommended by Welch and the JBS (and their publications were sold in JBS bookstores):

F.A. Harper (Stanford University), F.A. von Hayek (University of Freiburg). Arthur Kemp (Claremont College), James J. Martin (Deep Springs College, CA), Ludwig von Mises (New York University), Sylvester Petro (New York University), Murray N. Rothbard (NYC), Hans F. Sennholz (Grove City College—Grove City PA), V. Orval Watts (Northwood Institute, Midland MI)

It is, therefore, intellectually dishonest for you to pretend that there is some massive ideological or moral chasm between these folks and genuine conservatives OR that they "abandoned" their conservatism---just because YOU think they might disagree with the JBS on 10% or 15% of issues.

If someone AGREES with you 85% or more of the time, they are your ALLY -- not your enemy. Even Robert Welch acknowledged that!


ALL highly ideological organizations (like the JBS) are pre-disposed to massive internal schisms because they believe that they are already in possession of some Ultimate Final Truth (UFT). Most pragmatic people realize that politics is a process of addition and multiplication----i.e. finding allies and building coalitions to accomplish some desired goal. However, highly ideological groups (like the JBS) see politics as a process of subtraction and division -- i.e. eliminating supposedly imperfect allies who have "abandoned" or criticized the UFT which (in your scheme of things) should never be challenged or disputed. THAT is why the Birch Society self-imploded after Welch died. There were numerous internal disputes which ultimately resulted in JBS membership declining from its high point of about 80,000 members down to approximately 14,000 active members in the 1990's.

Interestingly, you (and the JBS) constantly berate Buckley. Nevertheless, the circulation of National Review has ALWAYS been considerably higher than the circulation of all the JBS magazines combined.

For example:

In 1963, the paid circulation of the JBS magazine (American Opinion) was 33,289. In 1963, National Review's paid circulation was 86,279. In 1965, the paid circulation of American Opinion was 35,400 versus National Review's 86,300.

And what about TODAY?

The current JBS magazine (The New American) has a paid circulation of about 13,354 versus 142,667 for National Review

The conservative movement in the United States has NEVER accepted the Birch Society as representative of American conservatism. The JBS is a fringe group which was correctly described by J. Edgar Hoover and his senior subordinates as a "right wing extremist" organization that is "irresponsible", "irrational", and composed of a "lunatic fringe" and "fanatics".

Even Mrs. Robert Welch withdrew her support from the JBS after the death of her husband. One of the reasons (she said) was because the JBS was using the pages of The New American to savage President Ronald Reagan. An "educational" organization which cannot recognize the contributions made by the most conservative President in modern American history has no future in our country and never will have a future. Ernie1241 (talk)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk)

TNA has fewer subscribers than NR -- so what? Is truth decided by popularity? No.
Also, JBS HAS been accepted as part of the conservative movement -- it co-sponsored CPAC in 2010. Additionally, the views it promotes are, without a doubt, solidly conservative and don't deviate. Even if other conservatives don't cooperate with them, they're ideologically within the "mainstream" (whatever that term means) conservative movement. They're similar to conservatives such as Daniel Horowitz (Conservative Review) who aren't afraid to criticize other conservatives when they commit policy failings rather than constantly giving uncritical praise. Terms like "right-wing extremist" and "far-right" are meaningless attack terms used by open borders/socially liberal/globalist center-right people to distract from their own diversion from conservatism.
Once again, it makes absolutely no difference that Charles Koch once embraced conservative positions. What matters is that he doesn't anymore -- he's done a 180. Telling us to still treat him as a conservative is like asking us to continue treating Reagan as a left-wing Hollywood Democrat. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2019 (EDT)
Well, if the circulation statistics for JBS magazines and National Review were reversed--are you telling me that the JBS would NOT use that statistical information as "proof" of the status of the JBS within the conservative movement? Be honest! It is ONLY because virtually nobody subscribes to (or reads) JBS publications, that you suddenly have no interest in circulation stats. Incidentally, even the now defunct The Weekly Standard (TWS) had a huge circulation compared to JBS magazines. TWS was first published in September 1995 (ten years AFTER the Birch Society’s magazine, The New American came into existence in September 1985), Nevertheless, TWS circulation was over 100,000 copies per week! Not surprisingly, it was reported that several dozen copies of TWS were purchased and distributed within the White House every week. By contrast, nobody has ever reported comparable information concerning any JBS magazine. National Review and TWS attracted (and published) the most prominent conservative intellectuals of the 20th and 21st centuries whereas most authors featured in JBS magazines are totally unknown except perhaps among fringe groups.
One wonders how YOU describe or define "mainstream conservative"? Yes, the JBS co-sponsored CPAC in 2010 (so what?) but every major conservative organization and publication has rejected the JBS. In fact, at one point, the conservative newspaper, Human Events, refused to accept advertising for a JBS-published book and conservative publishers (like William Loeb of the New Hampshire Union-Leader) warned conservatives about accepting what the JBS presented. I would argue that circulation figures are a good methodology to determine which publications (and organizations) actually ARE "mainstream conservative".
Incidentally, perhaps another method for ascertaining "conservative mainstream" can be determined by reviewing the JBS “Freedom Index” scores as of January 2019
Senate average score = 22 House average score = 32. Consequently, according to the JBS, our entire Congress (including the entire Republican caucus) is a miserable failure AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN!
All of the current leadership of the Republican Party gets a score which is equivalent to "D" or "F" in school (i.e. less than 70%).
McConnell gets 60
Steve Scalise gets 60
Cory Gardner gets 64
Kevin McCarthy gets 61
John Cornyn gets 66
Lindsay Graham gets 44
Ted Cruz gets 58
How about the Freedom Caucus??
Mark Meadows (the Caucus Chairman) gets only 69!
Jim Jordan (the Vice Chairman) gets 82 -- but that may not be high enough for the JBS to consider him a reliable conservative!
BTW---I let this go initially but it is significant that you think "truth" is NOT found in our courtrooms because all of our judges are biased and our juries are NOT reliable arbiters of fact. Apparently, YOUR argument is quite simple and breathtaking: TRUTH is EXCLUSIVELY whatever YOU say it is! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ernie1241 (talk)
Once again, circulation numbers are irrelevant to determining who/what is really conservative (though I still note that The Weekly Standard doesn't exist anymore, the result of conservatives realizing they were more liberal/neocon than conservative). Germany's CDU is the largest party in the country and often referred by the mainstream media as "conservative" -- but if you look at its actual agenda, statements, policies, it's liberal and completely in line with the Biden wing of the Democrat Party. Bottom line -- what makes someone "conservative" is not about how popular they are, but by the ideas they promote. Are their ideas in line with the philosophy of Locke and the founding fathers (limited government, natural law, federalism, and nationalism), or scornful of them or of other national traditions if from another country?
Your mention of Human Events is amusing because the magazine now literally promotes the same paleocon agenda as JBS. So do conservatives such as Daniel Horowitz, Tucker Carlson, Breitbart, and LifeSite.
Your mention of establishment Republicans like McConnell, Gardner, and Graham as solidly "conservative" is utterly laughable -- and it's not just me, read essentially every other conservative (Daniel Horowitz, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Ann Coulter, Virginia Thomas, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart, LifeSite, etc.). They all reject (with very good reason) the notion of GOP leadership being fully committed behind solid conservative values. Most conservatives, who have no relation to JBS, would agree with JBS's Freedom Index. In fact, JBS is lenient toward the GOP establishment -- look at Mark Levin's Conservative Review scorecard: [1]
  • McConnell gets 34 (F)
  • Steve Scalise gets 30 (F)
  • Cory Gardner gets 47 (F)
  • Kevin McCarthy gets 32 (F)
  • John Cornyn gets 33 (F)
  • Lindsay Graham gets 31 (F)
  • Ted Cruz gets 80 (B)
  • Mark Meadows gets 90 (A)
  • Jim Jordan gets 92 (A)
Lastly, you seriously think "truth" is found in courtrooms? Do you seriously think the Supreme Court was right in decisions like Roe v. Wade, Chevron, Dred Scott, Obergefell v. Hodges, and many others? Courts, even the Supreme Court, often misinterpret both the U.S. Constitution and statutory law, as Clarence Thomas admits: [2] So no, just because a court says something doesn't mean it's right, and this is a mainstream position among conservatives ([3][4][5][6]). Truth is found first in the Bible and second in the Constitution as originally understood by the founding fathers.
And yes, the JBS's positions are commonly held by conservatives who have no connection to the organization, meaning it's ideological "mainstream" in conservatism (see the Conservative article for conservative principles--do you disagree with any of them?). --1990'sguy (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2019 (EDT)
Well, first of all, I DID NOT describe everyone I listed as "solidly conservative". That is your fabrication. Instead, I was using a range of people within Congress whom most Americans consider to be representative of our contemporary conservative movement and I wanted to focus upon leadership within the Republican Party.
Apparently, YOU believe that there is a VERY narrow legitimate definition of what constitutes a legitimate conservative and ONLY people whom YOU agree with fall within that narrow definition or description.
Using YOUR criteria, ANYBODY (no matter how malicious or how radical or how fringe or how exclusionary could claim to be the "real" conservative or the real "pro-American" or the real "pro-Constitutionalist". For example: see literature by neo-nazis or white supremacy and white nationalist organizations. This is really quite similar to fanatic religious sects who exclude 99.7% of their own denomination because those folks are NOT considered genuine "true adherents" of God's teachings!
In YOUR scheme of things, there is absolutely no connection between things like organizational membership stats or circulation figures of publications with understanding whether or not a person, organization, publication, political party (or movement) represents the predominant views and values and policy objectives of conservatism (or any other political perspective). All that is necessary (again, in your scheme of things) is to find ANY author or any organization with a small group of followers who has a website and who publishes some kind of scorecard AND then claim that ONE person or organization is the SOLE legitimate arbiter of, and representative of, what constitutes genuine ---- whatever.
Why don't you review the VoteSmart website? Let's use Steve Scalise (whom you claim Mark Levine scores as "F" with a score of "30") as our example.
If you check VoteSmart, you will see the scores given by every conservative and liberal educational and political action group in our country. Thus, we do not have to rely upon just ONE individual's personal political views nor do we rely upon evaluation of someone's position about just ONE public policy issue or controversy when we try to arrive at a fair overall evaluation about someone who is in a major leadership position within the Republican Party.
It becomes self-evident from the scores shown below that Mark Levin's personal opinions are NOT representative of the conservative movement. Whatever methodology he is using to arrive at his "30" score for Scalise, is highly idiosyncratic and it is NOT a reliable method for making an impartial judgment regarding Scalise.


The bulleted items (at the beginning) reflect scores by LIBERAL groups

    • AARP (lifetime score) = 5
    • Alliance for Retired Americans (lifetime score) = 5
    • American Civil Liberties Union = 6
    • American Federation of Teachers = 0
    • Americans for Democratic Action = 15
    • Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence = 0
    • Common Cause = 0
    • Communication Workers of America = 0
    • Human Rights Campaign = 0
    • League of Conservation Voters = 0
    • NAACP = 9
    • National Education Assn = 0
    • Planned Parenthood (lifetime score) = 0
American Conservative Union (lifetime) = 95
American Family Association = 100
American Security Council Foundation = 100
Americans for Prosperity (lifetime score) = 96
Campaign for Working Families = 100
Center for Security Policy = 100
Club for Growth (lifetime score) = 82
Concerned Women for America = 100
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste = 100
Eagle Forum = 100 (Phyllis Schlafly's group!)
Family Research Council = 100
Federation for Immigration Reform = 100
Freedom Works = 81
John Birch Society = 60
NARAL (pro-choice) = 0
National Association of Manufacturers = 95
National Association of Police Organizations = 81
National Journal (conservative composite score) = 96
National Journal (conservative economic policies) = 91
National Journal (liberal composite score) = 4
National Journal (liberal economic policies) = 8
National Journal (liberal foreign policy) = 0
National Retail Federation = 100
National Rifle Association = 100
National Right-to-Life Committee = 100
National Tax Limitation Committee = 88
Republican Liberty Caucus = 100
BTW---if the Birch Society currently gives Scalise a score of 60 AND, more importantly, his current "Cumulative Score" by the JBS is 68 AND when I checked previous issues of the JBS Freedom Index, Scalise consistently gets a JBS score from 62-85 since 2008, THEN doesn't THAT raise a huge red flag in your mind regarding Levin's methodology?
The Birch Society has determined that Scalise is an "average" to "good" conservative ("C" and "B" grades in school parlance) but Levin says Scalise is a total failure. How could that be possible in ANY rational methodology? Obviously, I do not agree with how the JBS scores people but in what universe could someone be a reliable "C" or "B" score for their conservative pro-Constitution voting behavior by an extreme right group like the JBS but, simultaneously, be scored as "F" by somebody else (like Levin) who also claims to represent conservatism?
With respect to "truth in courtrooms": Apparently, YOUR position is that truth is not knowable, i.e. human beings have no ability to separate fact from fiction because we have no ability to create institutions and procedures which allow us to do our best to arrive at accurate, truthful, and factual judgments.
I understand this point of view because I have debated literally scores of people (like yourself) who subscribe to this idea. It is VERY common among political extremists (left or right) because when your personal political preferences are routinely rejected, especially over long periods of time, THEN it becomes a natural human tendency to want to "explain" that development by claiming that the institutions and processes by which human beings make decisions are gravely deficient and unreliable. That allows you to make ANY statement or assertion or conclusion and pretend that your personal beliefs are (or should be) just as valid (or more valid) as any other position or belief. However, as I previously mentioned, I subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the John Birch Society on its website when it stated that:
"What is fact? What is fiction? How can you know? Conspiracy theories abound on the Internet. While some may be fairly accurate, others are not. Much of what is out there goes beyond the facts into wild conjecturing, and even outright fabrication of information. This has had an effect something like Gresham's Law (‘bad money drives out good money’), in which bad information drives out good information."
I believe that the dynamics extant within a courtroom (with all its long-established rules and procedures) give us our best possibility of discovering fact and arriving at truth because our judicial system operates under rules which minimize or eliminate bias, prejudice, rumor, hearsay, and outright lies. Obviously, human beings are fallible and it is possible (in some circumstances) for corruption or mistakes to occur but as I attempted to demonstrate above by showing that we cannot use Mark Levin's personal opinions as a fair or accurate method for making reasoned judgments with respect to scoring a politician's beliefs and values, the same processes exist within our court system. You can always attempt to convince a jury that YOUR personal opinions should be adopted but when contradictory factual evidence is presented, better decisions are made. Ernie1241 (talk)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk)