Much to the delight of conservative activists and snark-fueled blogs everywhere, the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is kicking off this Thursday. And while many people will likely be distracted by the fair-tax hip hop and Stephen Baldwin, let's not forget that this year's CPAC is boasting as one of its sponsors the John Birch Society -- an organization that was founded on the principle that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist, and whose rank conspiracy mongering earned little respect among establishment conservatives until Glenn Beck's feverish paranoia infected the movement.

And so with CPAC right around the corner, I ambled over to the Bircher website to see what they've been up to in the past few days and came across CEO Art Thompson's thoughts on Sarah Palin's speech at the National Tea Party Convention. Now, before we get into Thompson's opinion of Palin, let's remember that the conservative movement does not tolerate criticism of the one-time Alaska governor. When they come from within their own ranks, harsh words aimed at Palin carry with them the label of apostate -- just ask Andrew Sullivan and Kathleen Parker.

So let's see what Art Thompson had to say about Sarah Barracuda (emphasis added):

Sarah Palin is an engaging personality. I do not normally listen to people in politics but in her case I made the exception.

In the case of Palin, since she is relatively new on the national political scene and was addressing a portion of the Tea Party movement, I decided to watch her speech.

Sarah Palin said a number of things with which any conservative could heartily agree - but these were for the most part glittering generalities without specifics.

Downsizing government was mentioned without examples of how or what to downsize. She talked about getting government to live within its means but there was no talk about eliminating the bureaucracy needed to lower taxes, such as the Department of Energy, Education or Homeland Security.

Homeland Security you ask? Should we really get rid of that agency? Yes, for if the American people really understood what was happening due to the war on terror, this would be a bigger issue than healthcare.

And here is where Palin entered unconstitutional waters, constantly invoking support for our troops as the excuse.

Support for our troops is a must. But support for our men has to come within constitutional parameters. Support for our troops also means only sending them into harm's way by a declaration of war.

[...]

And, Sarah Palin, knowingly or not, is supporting this policy. It is internationalist rather than constitutionalist.

In light of the fact that we appear to be preparing to go to war with yet another country, Iran, the war on terror is becoming a prolonged problem. Iran is a surrogate state of Russia, armed and supplied with nuclear capability from Russia and China. Its government is Islamic-Leninism. If we invade Iran while shaking hands with Putin, what will the next country be, and the next?

The real question is whether or not Sarah Palin really represents grassroots conservative America or if she is a creature of the “establishment.” On this point, certain questions present themselves. For one, why would a Council on Foreign Relations-run McCain campaign pick Palin to begin with? Surely they understood that she would become a conservative icon regardless of the outcome of the 2009 election. And Alaska does not exactly have many electoral votes to have helped win the election. And why would Palin, if she is anti-establishment, run on McCain's establishment ticket?

Oh my... Sarah Palin is an “internationalist rather than a constitutionalist,” and her “support for our troops” shows how she “entered unconstitutional waters.” The irony here is that the John Birch Society is wondering whether Palin bears the “establishment” stain while they get ready to sponsor the year's gala event for the conservative establishment. Of course, the Birchers were able to get their foot in the establishment's door despite believing in the “North American Union” and the secret Rockefeller-Illuminati conspiracy to form a global New World Order. So if anti-Palinism gets them booted back to the fringe, then at least we'll have a better sense of where the conservative movement's priorities lie.