Pixiq

This is more evidence that The Establishment is losing its grip on power when populists on the Left and Right realize how much more than have in common than they do differences.
Lawrence J. Smith´s last blog ..Repudiate the National Debt | LewRockwell.com

Congrats amigo
Workingindust´s last blog ..After Ride Party

Oh man! When I was a kid the JBS was the EXTREME right wing of politics in this country. My guess is they’ve mellowed out a bit over the years. This is SO good to see. No matter where you reside on the political spectrum you should be able to support the civil rights of the American people.

Kudos to you Carlos. You do amazing work.

You are a hero!

Its not about the left or the right, its about wall st vs main street. Unless you’re at the top, you’re nothing but a wage slave. The difference is only how long you can survive without a paycheck.
Guy Freeman´s last blog ..Photo stash: Road Tax Scofflaw

Would that be raging *classical* liberal?

FBI FILES ON BIRCH SOCIETY:
This report explains why J. Edgar Hoover and senior FBI officials within the Bureau’s Domestic Intelligence Division concluded in FBI memos that the JBS was “extremist”, “irrational” and “irresponsible”

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1

CONSERVATIVE CRITICS OF ROBERT WELCH and BIRCH SOCIETY:
Contrary to claims made by the Birch Society, the most potent criticisms of the JBS have always originated from the right-side of the political spectrum. This report presents a representative sample of such comments.

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-4

PERSONS DESCRIBED BY BIRCH SOCIETY AS “EXPERTS” ON COMMUNISM:
Two former FBI Special Agents who endorsed the Birch Society after they retired from the FBI are often cited by Birch Society members and supporters as knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative sources of information on the communist movement.

However, their FBI personnel files reveal that senior FBI officials did not have a very high regard for their post-FBI endeavors.

In the case of Dan Smoot, just prior to his retirement from the FBI he was censured, placed on probation, and transferred to a small, insignificant field office as a disciplinary measure.

Both reports include detailed critiques of statements and assertions made by these former FBI Special Agents.

Dan Smoot: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/smoot

W. Cleon Skousen: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/skousen

Anybody who believes ANYTHING from the FBI under the tutelage of J. Edgar Hoover needs to have his/her head examined.

Every time I see something written about the Birch Society I see comments from Mr. Ernie trying to denigrate their efforts to educate the public about the Constitution and the threats to our freedom, yet he never explains the origin of his hatred for the group. I wonder if he was kicked out for racism or lack of character or something? What do you do for a living Mr. Ernie that you have time to scour the internet for anything and everything related to the group?? As far as I can tell, they have done a great deal of good for America and indeed the world, and I would have to agree with the commenter above that anybody who would consider Hoover’s “cointelpro” FBI a reliable source of information on anything related to groups trying to counter corruption in government should have their head examined (:
If you don’t know about the cointelpro under Hoover, I suggest checking out Wikipedia’s entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
Great work Carlos! Keep doing what you do and keeping cops honest. We need more like you!!
Amadeus8888´s last blog ..Must America’s Fate Be Tied to NATO and Georgia?

That truly is a good article, which I find mind-boggling considering the positions taken and statements made over the years by JBS. Absolutely impossible to tell from this that it’s always been a crackpot extremist organization filled with bigots of the worst kind. Maybe American culture has moved so far right that they’re not as extreme as they used to be? Depressing thought.

In reply to Rusty:

The “anybody” you refer to is the entire conservative and anti-communist movements in our country—including, of course, Robert Welch and the JBS.

See, for example:

Robert Welch 3/4/57 to J. Edgar Hoover
“Dear Mr. Hoover: As implausible as it seems that anybody could give you any new glimpse of the Communist conspiracy, I am still bold enough to think that this issue of my little magazine might. So I hope you will be able to find some time to read it. With great gratitude and admiration for your part in the effort to save our country and our civilization, and with all good wishes, I am, Sincerely, Robert H.W. Welch Jr.” [FBI HQ file 62-104401- #x1 – captioned “Memo From The Desk Of Robert H. W. Welch Jr.” ]

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:
“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.”

Tom Davis, JBS Public Relations Regional Manager, 10/26/65 letter to J. Edgar Hoover. Davis was formerly a JBS Major Coordinator in New York:
“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.”

Albuquerque NM Journal, 3/22/66, p1, “John Birch Lecturer” re Julia Brown (former FBI informant within CPUSA):
“We must demand full support for the great American, J. Edgar Hoover.”

JBS magazine, American Opinion, October 1966: “The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover”:
Hoover is described as “the government’s top authority on Communism. His patriotism, integrity, devotion to duty, and consistent efficiency are well known…Had we been wise enough to heed his clear words of warning over the years, we would not now be faced with such a monstrous conspiracy…God bless J. Edgar Hoover!”

Robert Welch letter to Hoover asking for permission to publish book with Hoover comments on communism:
“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.” [FBI HQ file 62-104401, #3148; 6/28/67 airtel from SAC Boston to J. Edgar Hoover concerning contact made by Douglas C. Morse, Managing Editor of Birch Society's Western Islands Publishers.]

Review of the News, 6/27/78, pp 31-44
John Rees: “J Edgar Hoover Was Right: A Review of FBI Documents Under the Freedom of Information Act” and
Review of the News, 9/5/79, pp 31-44:
John Rees: “They’re Out To Destroy The FBI”

John Birch Society Website 8/19/93: Robert W. Lee: “Assassinating J. Edgar Hoover”
“If it is true that a person’s character can be judged as precisely by the enemies he earns as by the friends he makes, the character of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover must be rated high indeed…J. Edgar Hoover had, and obviously still has, the right enemies. They continue to stand, in their own peculiar way, as a special tribute to his character, his patriotism, and those ‘social values of home’ which he espoused.”

In reply to Amadeus:

I do not “hate” the JBS and in fact I have defended the JBS for more than 40 years from some very ignorant and malicious critics.

Apparently, you think nobody should ever question or dispute ANYTHING which the JBS presents EVEN WHEN using the very sources which the JBS recommends as knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative.

Furthermore, you apparently are not aware of all the mutually exclusive and contradictory statements and accusations made by Robert Welch and/or the JBS over the years.

In short, your cult-like devotion to the JBS means that you will blindly accept everything they disseminate without doing any independent research of your own.

Postscript for Amadeus:

There were 12 “COINTELPRO” programs initiated by the FBI (listed below).

Obviously, the JBS does not appear on the list so not sure what your point is.

In fact. the only connection between the JBS and the FBI Cointelpro operations is the fact that a subsequent JBS member and speaker who was an FBI informant within the Communist Party (Julia Brown) participated in a Cointelpro operation.

If your larger point is that you give no credence whatsoever to any data which the FBI’s thousands of investigators discovered — then I guess I should throw away all the books and articles I have in my collection by JBS members and endorsers which rely upon data which originated from FBI sources?

That includes, for example, almost all of the hearings and reports produced by the House Committee on Un-American Activities and Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

Presumably, what makes them even more “suspect” in your eyes is that the staffs of those committees (as well as many state un-American activities committees) were populated by former FBI employees or current employees on loan to the committees!

I guess I also have to discard everything produced by the American Legion’s Americanism Commission because it too was led by a former FBI Special Agent — Lee R. Pennington??

Furthermore, I guess I can also discard all of the publications by JBS members and endorsers such as

* former FBI Special Agents Dan Smoot and W. Cleon Skousen
* former FBI informants such as Matt Cvetic, Julia Brown, Lola Belle Holmes, Leonard Patterson, Gerald Kirk, Rev. Delmar Dennis, Manning Johnson

—-because ALL of them are “tainted” by their association with the FBI or the Justice Department and their explicit praise and recommendation of Hoover and the FBI as an entirely reliable and authoritative source of factual information —- right?

FBI COINTELPRO PROGRAMS
1. Black Extremist Hate Groups
2. Cointelpro-Espionage Programs
3. CPUSA
4. Cuban Matters (Pro Castro)
5. Disruption of White Hate Groups
6. Hoodwink
7. Mexican CP Matter
8. New Left
9. Puerto Rican Independence
10. Socialist Workers Party
11. Special Operations (Nationalities Intelligence)
12. Yugoslav (Violence Prone Yugoslav Emigres in U. S. )

The JBS members I know are staunchly anti-immigration, anti-immigrant. They are isolationist and nationalists. They’ll say they’re for “personal freedom” and “limited government,” but only as it applies to them.

Ernie:

Never seen one of your defenses of JBS but that’s nice to hear that you have defended them. Regarding your comments, Why have the attacks come from the right? Was the JBS not sufficiently supportive of illegal wars or torture or the war on drugs or the war on terror?? Or was it the conspiracy “theories” which are now pretty much fact?
I did not say everything produced by anybody who has ever worked for the FBI should be discarded, I said that I do not think it would be wise to trust blindly the conclusion’s of Hoover’s FBI, which should in itself show you, according to your comments about Welch’s regard for Hoover, that I do not necessarily follow blindly, let alone “cult-like” devotion, everything said by anyone. I am actually not even a member of the JBS, but I have yet to find any reason why I should not trust or support the society. I also never said nothing from the JBS should ever be questioned, you said i did, but you didnt question anything, you just said they had critics on the right and that Hoover’s FBI “domestic intelligence” concluded some things about the JBS which I do not agree with and that basically what the FBI says should be taken with a grain of salt at the very least. That said, I question information disseminated by everyone, but so far, I think the JBS’s trackrecord is superior to any major newspapers, etc today. What is your interest in the JBS since you seem to have studied its history quite intensely?

Amadeus: Apparently, you have never read any of my reports because your questions and comments are answered in great detail in them.

With respect to “trust blindly the conclusion’s of Hoover’s FBI”:

1. I get this comment all the time but I sincerely do not understand it because I am not “trusting” the FBI. I am using factual data contained in FBI files and from many other independent sources.

2. Let me give you an example.

One chapter of my report on the JBS discusses Gary Allen’s article in the JBS magazine, American Opinion, about the 1965 Watts Riots which Allen claimed was organized and led by Communists — and he further claimed that he had a source within the Los Angeles Police Department Intelligence section.

In my report, I quote extensively from transcripts of secret, closed meetings of the Southern California District of the Communist Party as well as from numerous FBI informants within the CP. In fact, about 40% of all African American CP members in Los Angeles were FBI informants! This factual evidence falsifies the claims made by Gary Allen and the JBS.

I also quote statements made by the head of the Los Angeles Police Department Intelligence Unit which explicitly refute what Allen claimed.

So the REAL question, Amadeus, is WHY does anyone “trust” Gary Allen?

So you think the JBS track record is superior? Based upon what standard? How about the historic and precedent-setting libel lawsuit which they lost which, after 14 years of litigation, including two jury trials, numerous appeals, and review by the U.S. Supreme Court — the JBS paid $100,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. Punitive damages are only permitted when “malice” can be shown which in legalese means “reckless disregard for truth”. Even the Birch Society’s own lawyer (a JBS National Council member) admitted in answer to a question from a Supreme Court Justice, that there were “falsehoods” in their article and, under Illinois law, the article could be regarded as “libelous”.

I suggest that you read chapter 2 of my report which pertains to Harry Overstreet. I recommend this because you will see an example of how BOTH the Birch Society and the Communist Party attacked and defamed Overstreet. THEN talk to me about the JBS “track record”.

See:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-2

With respect to your final question — why have I studied the JBS “so intensely”? I guess you are saying that there is something suspect about careful, thorough examination of whatever the JBS presents? Maybe you are acknowledging that any sort of “intense” study will reveal grave deficiencies in JBS statements and assertions—and THAT is what bothers you!

Postscript for Amadeus:

It seems to me from your comments that you need to explain what methodology YOU employ to separate fact from fiction in JBS assertions and conclusions.

On the one hand, you claim that you are willing to accept some data that appears in FBI files — but you don’t tell us HOW you determine which data is accurate and credible.

On the other hand, you have numerous explicit and unconditional statements by Robert Welch and by senior FBI officials, and by JBS writers and speakers over the years which effusively praise Hoover and the FBI as our nation’s most knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source of data about both the communist movement and about what constitutes legitimate and effective anti-communist activities.

Does this mean EVERYTHING in FBI files should be believed? Of course not!

But it does plainly mean that Welch and the JBS (as well as the entire conservative and anti-communist movements in our country) thought that, overall, the FBI was a credible, reliable, authoritative source.

Furthermore, and this is critical, much of the data in FBI files comes from SCORES of outside independent sources so if you reject the FBI you necessarily are also rejecting, for example:

* military intelligence (G-2, ONI, OSI)
* city, county, state, federal law enforcement entities (such as police chiefs, county sheriffs, state police, state attorneys general, U.S. Marshals, U.S. Secret Service, and the internal security units within all our federal agencies)
* state and national legislative committees (such as numerous state un-American activities committees, the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities, U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee)
* Subversive Activities Control Board, Loyalty Review Board
* and thousands of informants within legitimate and subversive organizations whose reports and sworn testimony often became the basis of subsequent legal actions

You CLAIM that you do not blindly accept whatever the JBS presents.

So give us a few examples of conclusions which the JBS disseminates that you think have been erroneous. And perhaps you could explain WHY you think they arrived at their defective conclusion?

Incidentally, Amadeus, are you familiar with the Birch Society’s 4-volume series of books entitled “Biographical Dictionary of the Left” which was produced by their Research Director, Francis X. Gannon?

This 4-volume series presents what the Birch Society proposes we accept as FACTUAL data about almost 1200 persons and organizations.

If you look at Volume 4, page xi, there is a “Note to the Reader” which states that all phrases in their 4-volumes which are contained in quotation marks refer to comments…

“…from Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications, prepared and released by the Committee on Un-American Activities of the U.S. House of Representatives, December 1, 1961. Most of the reports in that publication are in turn verbatim quotations from reports of Federal government and Congressional authorities, namely, the committee itself (HCUA), the Senate Judiciary Committee and its Internal Security Subcommittee, and the Subversive Activities Control Board; and from letters to the Loyalty Review Board from U.S. Attorneys General Francis Biddle, Tom Clark, and J. Howard McGrath; and also from reports of State or (then) territorial investigating committees (California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio).”

What is not mentioned in that “Note” is that ALL those specific sources listed RELIED UPON the data from investigations conducted by the FBI!

In addition, many of the employees of those sources were current or former FBI Agents!

So—if you want to believe that the JBS presents factual and credible data about the 1200 persons and organizations discussed in their 4-volumes, then you are REQUIRED to believe that the FBI is an entirely credible and reliable source!

You can’t have it both ways i.e.

“I do not think it would be wise to trust blindly the conclusion’s of Hoover’s FBI…”

while simultaneously claiming that the JBS is a credible source.

The problem I have with Birchers is that they immediately want to reject and distance themselves from any conclusions or statements in FBI documents which contradict JBS dogma while, simultaneously, they want to give the JBS an aura of authority by playing up the associations and credentials of people from the FBI whom later became writers and speakers for the JBS — such as former FBI Special Agents Dan Smoot, W. Cleon Skousen, and former FBI informants such as Matt Cvetic, Julia Brown, Delmar Dennis, Lola Belle Holmes.

In other words, according to the JBS we should consider these folks are “experts” because of their association with the FBI — but if someone presents factual evidence from FBI files which contradicts and refutes what these “experts” say and write — THEN, SUDDENLY, it is the FBI data which should be suspect — and NOT the JBS “expert”. Very convenient don’t you think?

It’s very interesting stuff you present which I did not know and I always appreciate new knowledge so thanks. However you misunderstand my intentions when I ask why you have taken so much time to study the JBS. I was just curious and I would like to know your motives since it might give me more insight into your conclusions and research.
I have a very high regard for the JBS and I think they have done and continue to do great work for America.

I cannot think of any legitimate reason to inquire into my “motives” — because they are totally irrelevant and have no bearing whatsoever upon my “conclusions and research”.

ALL that matters is this:

Do I accurately and truthfully present verifiable factual evidence to support whatever statements I make?

If you have a “high regard” for the JBS — then nothing I could write would make any difference to you because you are employing non-empirical standards. I suggest you review the statements made about the JBS by giants within the conservative and anti-c0mmunist movements which I compiled in this report:
http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-4

and THEN tell me about your “high regard” for the JBS.

You say your motives are irrelevant, but I disagree entirely. Have you compiled a similar document of subjective statements from conservative and anti-communist figures praising the JBS? If not, then your motivation clearly played an important role in the information you gathered, and is therefore relevant to the discussion as well as suspect until proven otherwise. Also, it’s ironic that you should mention “empirical” standards. You have cited opinions of various people, including a man who was fired from the society (whom I also hold in high regards, by the way, but his opinion about the JBS is no doubt tainted by the fact that he was fired). How is that more “empirical” than my own experience, or the statements of countless others who have heaped praise upon the work of the society?

Amadeus:

Sorry, motivations are not relevant. Truth can come from any source. Have you ever asked the JBS what THEIR motives are — particularly in light of the historic libel lawsuit which they lost where they FALSELY defamed someone as a “Communist fronter” and associated him with Marxism? For that matter, during its 50+ years of existence, the JBS has attacked and defamed virtually our entire national political leadership–so did you ask the JBS about their motives for that?

With respect to me compiling statements praising the JBS by conservatives….that is such a silly proposal. If 90% of prominent conservatives denounce the JBS and 10% endorse the JBS — what is the point of citing the extreme exceptions — most of whom nobody would even recognize because they are not significant figures in conservative movement history. So, for example, if I mention that Wint Smith endorsed the JBS, how does that compare to Sen. Barry Goldwater and J. Edgar Hoover denouncing the JBS?

Furthermore, your statement that “motives are suspect until proven otherwise” reveals how poisonous your mind is. Motives are entirely subjective i.e. someone might interpret my motives in negative fashion whereas other people might interpret them positively. Significantly, you do not seem to understand (or even accept) the notion that FACTS matter more than motives. For example: if I describe Bill Clinton as a serial adulterer and perjurer — does it matter what my “motives” are? The point is that I presented FACTUAL information.

With respect to your comment about me citing the opinion of someone who was fired from the JBS — you neglect to mention that he is a devout adherent (even today) of JBS dogma and he was not fired for anything he did as a JBS employee. Furthermore, even if you disregard his comments, you still are left with the huge number of other very prominent and highly respected persons who have explicitly rejected the JBS as inept, ignorant and harmful to legitimate conservativism and anti-communism — including giants such as Russell Kirk, James Burnham, Sen. Barry Goldwater. Not to mention that even Mrs. Robert Welch resigned!

praising the JBS? If not, then your motivation clearly played an important role in the information you gathered, and is therefore relevant to the discussion as well as suspect until proven otherwise. Also, it’s ironic that you should mention “empirical” standards. You have cited opinions of various people, including a man who was fired from the society (whom I also hold in high regards, by the way, but his opinion about the JBS is no doubt tainted by the fact that he was fired). How is that more “empirical” than my own experience, or the statements of countless others who have heaped praise upon the work of the society?

If you take a look at Marx’ 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto and realize the degree to which they have already been implemented in America (ie. high progressive income tax, strong central bank with control of credit, government schools, etc, etc, etc …) I would say the JBS has been pretty accurate in its assessments. That’s only if you accept Marx’ definitions and if you accept FACTUAL information, of course, not the opinions of a few people you seem fond of referring to as “giants.”
If you were an unbiased scholar of the JBS, you simply would have said so, rather than personally attacking a person who simply asked what your motives were out of curiosity and an attempt to place your comments in context. However that is obviously not the case. I suppose it is fact that some people denounced the society, just like many people denounced Goldwater and Hoover, but the denouncements represent the personal opinion of the person making the statement for the most part.
As for the motives of the JBS, no, you are correct in assuming that I have never asked them, but they seem transparent enough – protecting the Constitution, peoples Constitutional rights, defeating collectivism and preserving the American way of life. You can plainly see that from the fruits of their work….

Amadeus:

First, the idea of a progressive income tax preceded Marx so it hardly belongs on a list of Marxist ideas. Second, just because an idea originates with someone you do not like does not discredit the idea. Each proposal must be analyzed and weighed upon its own merits.

Third — with respect to motives.

Why are the motives of the JBS “transparent”? Because you agree with their perspective?

Motives are irrelevant unless there is a consistent pattern of false statements or mis-characterizations. The Birch Society has the distinction of losing an historic and precedent-setting libel lawsuit which clearly established its “motives”. They paid Elmer Gertz $300,000 in punitive damages. Punitive damages are only permitted when “malice” can be shown — which in legal terms means “reckless disregard for truth”.

With respect to your comment about how everyone who denounced the JBS was merely offering their personal opinion:

In other words, you are asserting lowest-common-denominator status for everyone’s judgments as if it makes no difference whatsoever to you if giants within the conservative movement who were responsible for the postwar rebirth of conservatism reject and denounce a person or organization because their judgments have the same exact standing with someone who played no role whatsoever in building that movement.

Furthermore, you are suggesting that the judgments of people who have extensive personal experience with respect to the communist movement — are no better informed than retired candy company executives!

Lastly, you claim that the JBS has worked to protect the Constitution and people’s rights and preserve the American way of life.

You cannot possibly be serious!

During the 1960′s, for example, the JBS had an opportunity to demonstrate how it planned to apply all of its noble-sounding words about our Constitution and our freedoms. It chose to oppose the entire civil rights movement, all civil rights legislation, all civil rights organizations, and all national civil rights leaders and it allied itself with segregationists who believed in the inferiority of African-Americans.

First, let’s set the stage by quoting comments made by two prominent JBS members and speakers.

The following quote comes from the prominent African-American intellectual and author George S. Schuyler — whom, by the way, lectured across the country under the auspices of the Birch Society’s Speakers Bureau!

Schuyler wrote:

“The White Citizens Council which has branches or cells everywhere, controls by terror such states as Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and to a lesser extent, Virginia…It has defied and disrupted the operation of the laws of the land. It has used threats and vicious economic reprisals…It has become a legal arm of Mississippi’s Government.” [4/22/61 Schuyler column in Pittsburgh PA Courier]

Furthermore, let’s also consider a comment made by Rev. Delmar Dennis, a JBS member and FBI informant within the most violent Klan in our country – the White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi:

“The Klan in Mississippi has completely infiltrated every phase of the legal, political, social and economic system in Mississippi. The membership in the Klan ranges from common laborers and criminals, to judges, lawyers, doctors and political leaders. While they may not be active members, they are secret members who use their influence to further Klan efforts and aid Klan activities, for example, it is generally known in Klan circles that supervisors who pick juries use their influence to get Klan members on the jury panel.”

So what did the JBS recommend to address the grave situation described above by Birchers George Schuyler and Rev. Dennis? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

The JBS totally ignored, de-valued, trivialized, or facilitated the daily injustices and crimes often committed (or condoned) by the very people in southern communities whom had the responsibility for translating abstract principles into reality. These were the folks who made “state’s rights” and the words “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” into a cruel joke.

Like the entire white supremacist movement — the Birch Society

(1) supported and praised racist politicians—such as Gov. George Wallace (AL) and Gov. Ross Barnett (MS) and Senator James Eastland (MS) and

(2) opposed all civil rights legislation and pro-integration efforts and

(3) described the civil rights movement as “Communist-created” and “Communist controlled” and “serving only Communist purposes” while simultaneously denouncing all civil rights leaders and organizations and

(4) welcomed into the JBS as members and as senior officials — well-known racists and segregationists.

In addition, even Rev. Delmar Dennis told his FBI contact that the KKK viewed the JBS as a fertile recruiting ground. In fact, at least one JBS chapter in Mississippi had to be disbanded because it refused to terminate the membership of a known KKK member.

In an 11/7/64 report to his FBI contact, Dennis stated that:

“I have learned that the Klan uses meetings of the John Birch Society, Masons, and Americans For The Preservation of the White Race to solicit members for the Klan. The Auxiliary Police in Neshoba County is a front for Klan membership in Neshoba County.”

Aside from being a JBS member, Rev. Dennis was a segregationist, a KKK member, and a member of Americans for the Preservation of the White Race even before he became an FBI informant. He also founded a whites-only church in his community.

As the FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Jackson MS field office wrote in a summary memo about Dennis:

“Informant is widely known in rural Mississippi as an ardent segregationist…He founded the First Southern Methodist Church in Mississippi, which church was founded for the sole intent of maintaining racial segregation.”

Rev. Dennis did not oppose KKK racism. He opposed KKK violence!

That is why the JBS…

***employed racists and segregationists as speakers under the auspices of its Speakers Bureau (such as Selma AL Sheriff Jim Clark and Rev. Delmar Dennis)

***supported Klan-favored life-long racist politicians such as Gov. Ross Barnett (MS), Gov. George Wallace (AL) and Sen. James O. Eastland (MS)

***welcomed white supremacists into its ranks as members, writers, and speakers (such as White Citizens Councils officials Medford Evans, Louis Hollis, W. J. Simmons)

***was largely responsible for the American Independent Party candidacy of Governor George Wallace of AL

***adopted and circulated the arguments of white supremacist organizations (such as claiming that the civil rights movement was created, controlled and dominated by communists, and referring to Highlander Folk School as a “Communist training school”)

***welcomed segregationists as JBS National Council members (such as T. Coleman Andrews (VA), Tom Anderson (TN), and A.G. Heinsohn Jr. (TN)

Kent Courtney, a prominent JBS leader in Louisiana, was the featured speaker at a 6/5/65 “Conservative Rally” in Natchez MS sponsored by Americans For The Preservation of the White Race, Inc.

Another prominent Bircher, Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, wrote in 1965:

“I’ll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action.”

William J. Story, a JBS member who was a candidate for Governor of Virginia refused to join the other major party candidates in condemning the KKK.

And the list goes on and on and on…

It is ludicrous to suggest that the JBS worked to protect the Constitution and peoples Constitutional rights.

As abhorrent as racism is, it is ludicrous to claim that the Constitution does not protect peoples’ right to hold ridiculous and even hateful views. It is equally absurd to claim that deviating from the Constitution is an acceptable way of remedying social ills such as were found in the South. If it becomes acceptable for the feds to violate the constitution to achieve a noble aim like eliminating racism and segregation, it becomes possible for the federal government to violate the contract with the people at will in pursuit of any goal it decides may be worthy, and so a terrible precedent is set which leads to unlimited power which was never intended by the framers or the states which agreed to the constitution.
The problem with the civil rights movement is that it attempted to achieve its aims through unconstitutional federal legislation. If the federal government was seen as the only possible way to accomplish those ends, the proper course should have been to promote and adopt a constitutional amendment allowing such powers to be exercised. The fact that a JBS chapter was disbanded for refusing to kick out a member of the KKK should tell you about their position in regards to racism. Trying to associate racism with the JBS is a transparent red-herring, as evidenced by your pathetic attempts to do so. “A JBS volunteer leader once gave a speech at a racist organization!” Very sad that claiming to be an expert on the society, you regurgitate such tired propaganda. The JBS is opposed to all collectivism, racism being one of the worse examples of the philosophy. Therefore, the society would never condone racism. With that said, it was not founded to be the thought-police in regards to racism, it was founded to preserve the Constitution. Why deviate from its main focus when there is clearly so much work to be done.
Opposing unconstitutional federal actions, regardless of the purported noble aims, is essential if Americans hope to restore the principles of limited government.
It’s obvious that your attacks become increasingly hysterical, weak and deceptive as the comment thread proceeds. Also noteworthy is that you didn’t deny that communist aims have been achieved to a frightening degree in the US, you only attempted to distract from the point by claiming the progressive income tax was not originally Marx’ idea. Does that matter?

Amadeus: You totally missed the point of my summary.

The point is that ANYONE can CLAIM to support our Constitution and they can CLAIM to protect our freedoms. But there is a difference between WORDS and DEEDS. When given the opportunity to DEMONSTRATE how they intended to APPLY their WORDS — the Birch Society elected to associate itself with racists and segregationists.

If we adopted the JBS viewpoint — we STILL would be living in a segregated society and millions of our citizens would have their freedoms left to the tender mercies of the racists and segregationists who controlled southern politics — as Birchers George Schuyler and Rev. Delmar Dennis corrected described the situation.

Incidentally, you cannot learn everything you need to know about the JBS position on racism until you carefully examine their entire record — not just their rejection of the KKK. Or perhaps it is your position that one cannot be a racist or insensitive to racism if one opposes the KKK?

Here is the bottom line.

A nation of 300+ million people will always face controversial, difficult and complex issues.

Should we follow YOUR advice and NEVER do anything because somebody within our society thinks that government has no legitimate role to play? Or they are afraid that “too much power” is being placed in the hands of government?

In other words, when grave social injustices are being perpetuated BY GOVERNMENT (such as existed in our southern states), you think there are no acceptable or permissible corrective measures by society because it might violate some ideological precept you believe in?

You may not realize it — but you have just declared your desire for violent revolution as the ONLY method to accomplish justice. I suggest you read our Declaration of Independence because you obviously are not familiar with its intrinsic values concerning what is acceptable behavior when a “long train of abuses” are inflicted upon people.

If you really believe that “communist aims have been achieved to a frightening degree in the U.S” — then WHY do you live here?

Every rational being on this planet knows that Communism/Marxism has failed wherever it was tried but according to you — our society’s extraordinary prosperity and freedom as they developed during the 20th century have been because WE ADOPTED Communist and Marxist ideas!!! Shame on you!

Your insidious claim that one cannot reject federal civil rights rulings and legislation without supporting racism and segregation is either ignorant or malicious. Either way it is totally wrong.
You also make several incorrect assumptions and various logical fallacies. First of all, blurring the line between government and society is just plain stupid. I never gave the advice that society should not do anything about problems, or even that government should not, for that matter. What I said (I suspect you understood perfectly well but, running out of arguments, you were forced to distort my words to argue against a straw man) was that if society believes the government should take action to remedy some social ill like businesses refusing to serve members of certain races, and the contract allowing the government does not permit such an action, the contract should be modified after careful consideration through the established amendment process. Your attempt to distort my words reveals ignorance and a lack of valid arguments, again.
Claiming that I inadvertently advocated revolution is also a straw man, since I did not such thing or anything even remotely close to it. Your last point is, incidentally, also a total misrepresentation of what I said, again revealing that you have no way or arguing against my words other than distorting them. How very childish. I never said our prosperity was the result of communist and marxist ideas, our success as a nation relative to the rest of the world is simply because those policies and related tyrannical ideas have not been implemented in America to the degree which they have been forced on other peoples. Our economic success was in spite of those policies, not because of it, obviously. I suspect you know that, and I also suspect you understood very well what I wrote, and for lack of a real argument, had to argue against a straw man.
The Birch society, at least in my experience, allies itself with those whom it has common cause with. Until recently it was supporting socialist Senator Bernie Sanders in his efforts to pass “audit the Fed” legislation in the Senate. Does that make the JBS socialist? I think you would agree that the suggestion is preposterous. Or how about covering the work of Mr. Miller, a self-proclaimed raging liberal. Is the JBS now composed of raging liberals? I think not. So please, if you want to debate, avoid logical fallacies and the distortion of other peoples words. It makes you look silly and it makes debating rather boring.

Amadeus: I did NOT claim that one could not oppose federal civil rights proposals/legislation without supporting racism. Why do you have to DELIBERATELY LIE about my position in order to make your best case?

For example: Sen. Barry Goldwater opposed the the 1964 civil rights bill from a PRINCIPLED position regarding states’ rights and his concerns about the proper role of the federal government.

What I previously wrote and which you deliberately misrepresented, is that UNLIKE Goldwater, the Birch Society consciously associated itself with racists and segregationists.
1. It welcomed them as members and officials
2. It employed them as speakers.
3. It praised them in their publications.
4. It included them on its National Council.
5. It recommended and even reprinted their writings and speeches.
6. It invited them to participate in its functions
7. It adopted and circulated their themes and arguments

That is entirely DIFFERENT from principled opposition. Instead, they FACILITATED racism.

Lastly, I did not misrepresent or “distort” your previous thoughts. It is not just a question of your literal words. It is a question of the logical progression of your thoughts and their underlying premises.

Obviously, if you believe that we have adopted Marxist ideas — then what has developed during the 20th century is attributable to us implementing those ideas. What point is there in adopting an idea if you simultaneously claim those ideas had no material effect?

You cannot propose that our success was “in spite of” our accepting and implementing a “lesser” degree of Marxist ideas. Economic policies are sorta like getting pregnant — you either ARE or ARE NOT.

Again you missed the point of my post Ernie. But first, to counter your deception, as I’m sure you are aware, the JBS maintains a policy of expelling openly described racists from the society. As you yourself noted, it even shut down a chapter because it refused to expel a member of the KKK.
Again, the JBS was recently praising socialist Bernie Sanders and publicizing his comments,etc, for his planned introduction of an audit the fed amendment in the Senate. If he had not chickened out, it might have conceivably even invited him to speak at an event. Does that mean JBS is facilitating socialism? Obviously not. They happen to agree with him on one issue, but by “associating themselves” with him, they can hardly be called guilty of promoting his socialist ideology which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions.
When people distort the truth, it becomes clear that their argument cannot be supported honestly. When we started this conversation I thought you might actually be interested in the truth, and now I see that is obviously not the case.

You wrote:
“Obviously, if you believe that we have adopted Marxist ideas — then what has developed during the 20th century is attributable to us implementing those ideas. What point is there in adopting an idea if you simultaneously claim those ideas had no material effect?”

Obviously, you are not very good at identifying logical fallacies. I’ll break it down for you so you can understand: If something (marxist ideas) was adopted at time A, “what has developed during the 20th century is attributable to us implementing those ideas.” One does not logically follow the other, this is defined as a logical fallacy (similar to your claim that if the a group was “associated” with racists or socialists, it facilitated racism or socialism).
I also did not claim that the ideas had “no material effect”, because they did, they slowed the growth of the American economy, limited freedom, hurt families and Americans standard of living, and caused many other bad effects. What I said was that the reason our economy did comparatively better than others was due to the fact that these ideas were not adopted with as much force and severity as against other populations. Why do you have to DELIBERATELY LIE to make your fraudulent case?

And now for a breakdown of your final logical fallacy:

“You cannot propose that our success was “in spite of” our accepting and implementing a “lesser” degree of Marxist ideas. Economic policies are sorta like getting pregnant — you either ARE or ARE NOT.”

As one simple example, a progressive income tax, a central tenet of Marx’s 10 planks, can be held at 95% confiscation for top earners or 01% for top earners and 0 percent for lesser incomes. Obviously these are varying degrees of the same concept, progressive income taxes, but one will result in a drastic slowdown of the economy, while the other will have only a minor effect. See how easy that was?

Again, please refrain from logical fallacies and distortions of the truth if you want to have a debate. Thank you (:

Amadeus: I did not miss your point. Yes, the Birch Society expels blatant racists as I originally acknowledged with respect to that one case involving an entire chapter and the KKK.

But you continue to miss my point probably because you are not familiar with JBS history.

And, just FYI, the Birch Society itself does not give the kind of “pass” you propose as definitive evidence to left-wing organizations which expelled Communists from their ranks!

In the context of what we are discussing, it is important to note that the JBS had no problem whatsoever accepting and welcoming life-long racists and segregationists into its ranks as members, officials, and speakers as well as adopting their arguments and evidence. For example: as you probably know, the JBS was responsible for widespread distribution of a postcard and for billboards and for publications which show Martin Luther King attending what they described as a “communist training school” which is a reference to Highlander Folk School in TN — but they never reveal the ultimate source for that description. The picture was taken by Edwin H. Friend who was “an investigator” for the Georgia Commission of Education. The GCE was explicitly created by life-long racists to prevent integration in Georgia schools because its principals believed white supremacist ideas. Mr. Friend was the official photographer for the KKK in the state of Georgia.

Your Bernie Sanders analogy is ludicrous. That is a one-time ANOMALY as can be seen from the abysmal score which they give to Sanders’ voting behavior in Congress. By contrast, they gave a life-long racist and white supremacist like Sen. James Eastland a score of 96!!! In other words, according to the JBS, Eastland understood the values and principles of our Constitution and voted correctly 96% of the time! It did not matter to the JBS that Eastland sought and received KKK support for his election campaigns or that he was instrumental in thwarting prosecution of KKK members who murdered civil rights workers in Mississippi or that he was a key player in the situation which Bircher George Schuyler described as the “terror” in control of the Mississippi government!

So, yes, the JBS could “sanitize” its adoption of racist themes, evidence and arguments but it relied upon them. Similarly, as I previously pointed out, the JBS accepted Rev. Delmar Dennis into its ranks even though he was a well-known segregationist. Ditto for numerous officials of the White Citizens Councils movement such as Medford Evans, W.J. Simmons, and Louis Hollis.

If we were discussing a liberal organization (such as, for example ACLU or NAACP) the JBS would have a field day with them accepting “Communists” into their ranks or adopting “Communist” ideas and proposals — right?

With respect to your comments regarding Marxist ideas being adopted, I choose to ignore your ad hominem comments.

Perhaps you would like to identify which decade of our history you think we reached critical mass in terms of accepting or implementing most of what you claim are Marxist ideas? In other words, when specifically are you alleging that “Marx’s 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto…have already been implemented in America (ie. high progressive income tax, strong central bank with control of credit, government schools, etc, etc” ???

Was it the 1930′s, the 1940′s, the 1950′s — or when?

“For example: as you probably know, the JBS was responsible for widespread distribution of a postcard and for billboards and for publications which show Martin Luther King attending what they described as a “communist training school” which is a reference to Highlander Folk School in TN — but they never reveal the ultimate source for that description. The picture was taken by Edwin H. Friend who was “an investigator” for the Georgia Commission of Education. The GCE was explicitly created by life-long racists to prevent integration in Georgia schools because its principals believed white supremacist ideas. Mr. Friend was the official photographer for the KKK in the state of Georgia.”

Do you suppose that if a communist took a picture of a Republican member of Congress at a communist meeting, that the JBS would be supporting communism by spreading the photo? Don’t be silly (:

“Your Bernie Sanders analogy is ludicrous. That is a one-time ANOMALY as can be seen from the abysmal score which they give to Sanders’ voting behavior in Congress. By contrast, they gave a life-long racist and white supremacist like Sen. James Eastland a score of 96!!! In other words, according to the JBS, Eastland understood the values and principles of our Constitution and voted correctly 96% of the time!”

Again you distort the facts to attempt to score points in vain. The congressional scores are based on an objective set of criteria – votes on certain key issues. If Bernie Sanders voted correctly on 96 percent of the votes before Congress that were being examined, he too could receive a score of 96 despite his otherwise socialist views. A person’s character and views do not factor into the score because the score is based solely upon a set of specific votes. If you think the JBS should deduct points from peoples scores because of their views on other issues, you should send them a note, but it would make the rating much more difficult since policing the opinions of 535 legislators would be extremely difficult.

“Perhaps you would like to identify which decade of our history you think we reached critical mass in terms of accepting or implementing most of what you claim are Marxist ideas? In other words, when specifically are you alleging that “Marx’s 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto…have already been implemented in America (ie. high progressive income tax, strong central bank with control of credit, government schools, etc, etc” ???

Was it the 1930’s, the 1940’s, the 1950’s — or when?”

I never said we had reached a “critical mass”, but the process has been a long one which began over 100 years ago. Probably the most significant single year was 1913 with the adoption of the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax, but the process has been ongoing and continues to this day, going faster under some administrations then others, but generally progressing in that direction.

With respect to Highlander Folk School, once again you missed my point and instead, you present a ridiculous straw man argument.

Edwin Friend testified before a Tennessee legislative hearing concerning what he “learned” during his “investigation” of Highlander. The excerpt appearing below, reveals his underlying motivation and his basis for describing HFS as “Communist” — which the Birch Society then sanitized and spread across the country:

“Q: Mr. Friend, was that a subversive meeting there at that time?
A: It was subversive, sir, to the way that I have been taught to live in America.
Q: Explain that to the committee.
A: I have been taught by southern tradition to keep the races separate. I was taught to go to Sunday school and Church. I was taught to respect the other fellow’s habitat, and that is what I have always tried to do. Up here it seems like all of those things weren’t even considered. It is the primary motive of this group to tear down the forces that were trying to keep the races separate in the South.”
[Joint Legislative Investigating Committee, State of Tennessee: Investigation of Highlander Folk School, Grundy County Tennessee, 3/4/59, p447.]

Friend was asked another question which produced a revealing answer:
Q. Do you believe that anyone that espouses the things that you have just said to promote integration for that kind of motive, could possibly be a good Tennessean, a good Southerner, or a good American?”
A. I can guarantee you he is not what I would call a good American, Sir.” [Ibid, p451]

Friend also testified about one of his photos which revealed another matter at Highlander that greatly disturbed him: square dancing!

“This is a square dance held at night in one of the buildings on this estate of Mr. Horton…The approach to this square dance seemed to be very harmless, in that you get a person in the square dance and the caller can call it in such a way that the Negro boy will wind up dancing with the white girl…This was called and invariably he always wound up with one of the Negro boys dancing with one of the white girls in order to get them familiar, and these doctrines were teached in this school, and in order to break down the resistance to integration in that you had to do it anyway that a person really wouldn’t be conscious of it…” [Ibid, page 443.]

Aside from the candid description of his bias cited above, Friend is also on record in a deposition submitted in November 1959 for Tennessee court proceedings. Friend said that his assignment as a Georgia “undercover agent” was “to go to Monteagle, Tennessee to the Highlander Folk School and find out whether that malignancy of the NAACP and Communism was leaking out over Georgia.”

The FBI investigative file on HFS concluded:

“Due to the interracial character of the School, it has been the subject of numerous allegations that it represented the headquarters of communism in east Tennessee. An extensive investigation was conducted in 1941 and 1942 as a result of the allegations. These allegations have never been substantiated and much of the information of a subversive derogatory nature concerning this School was later repudiated by the individuals who previously furnished the information…This organization has continuously been involved in the integration movement and as a result charges are being continuously made that it is ‘communist’. These charges are based mainly on the opinion of the individuals making the charges that being pro-integration is being pro-communist.”

So your hypothetical question re a “communist took a picture of a Republican member of Congress at a communist meeting, that the JBS would be supporting communism by spreading the photo?” is totally absurd. The “Communist” in your hypothetical was not a believer in the Republican Party and the JBS was not a believer in Communist dogma — whereas Friend was a Klan photographer and a white supremacist who fabricated his description of HFS from his own explicit racial prejudice and the Birch Society adopted and parroted his fabrications. MORE IMPORTANTLY, the Birch Society had a long and extensive history of associating itself with and promoting the ideas and beliefs of life-long racists and segregationists — a point which you continually (and understandably) ignore.

With respect to your comments about my Sanders example: I did not “distort any facts”. Again you deliberately lie to make your case. You COULD argue that my interpretation of the facts is open to question — and then present your case but I did NOT present any data which is not factual. With respect to your secondary point, yes the JBS (just like all other groups left and right) chooses which issues to “score” in what they now call their Freedom Index (previously entitled Conservative Index). The point is this: According to the JBS, Sen. James Eastland was a model “conservative” who believed in and correctly voted on a “proper” understanding of “conservative” and “constitutionalist” principles.

So, in other words, our country should have had MORE Eastlands. His values and his voting behavior were celebrated by the Society as exemplary. According to your false analogy, it would be perfectly acceptable to give a ne0-nazi a high score if the issues selected just happened to coincide with his voting behavior. Bernie Sanders could NEVER score 96 or anything remotely approaching “acceptable” according to the JBS scheme of things. So according to the JBS, we have more to fear from a Bernie Sanders than a KKK-supported racist whom, incidentally, FBI files reveal actively sought to thwart prosecution of the bigots responsible for the murders of civil rights workers in 1964!!!

Lastly, with respect to my inquiry concerning the Communist Manifesto. I will concede that I read between the lines — because I have confronted your position many times in the past. Most of the people who presented your assertions told me that 9 of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto had been adopted/implemented in our country — and that assertion was made to me 40 years ago!!!!!

Consequently, the inescapable conclusion is that our prosperity has been the result of our adoption of “Marxist” principles.

And, yes, all of my antagonists cited (as you do) the primacy of the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax amendment. So the natural conclusion from the logical progression of your point of view, is that our prosperity as a society (since 1917) has been materially connected to those measures.

I totally understand why you want to escape from any analysis of the logical progression of your beliefs but it doesn’t change the fact that, in essence, you believe that our nation has elected and re-elected all the wrong people and adopted all the wrong ideas and public policy proposals for more than 8 decades.

Or to quote Robert Welch from his comments to the first meeting of the JBS National Council:

“From a careful and realistic study of the mountainous pile of evidence that is there for all to see, certain terrifying conclusions are objectively inescapable. Among them are:
(1) The Communists are winning their large victories, as they always have, through the cumulative effect of small gains;
(2) They make these gains chiefly through the conniving assistance of many of the very diplomats and officials who are supposed to be opposing them;
(3) Communist influences are now in almost complete working control of our government;
(4) And hence, the United States Government is today, as it has been for many years, the most important and powerful single force promoting the world-wide Communist advance.”
[A Confidential Report To Members Of The Council of The John Birch Society – minutes of 1/9/60 meeting held at Union League Club in Chicago IL, page 1-2; minutes signed by Robert Welch.]

Furthermore, according to Robert Welch:

“Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists.” [Ibid, page 2]

“In our two states with the largest population, New York and California…already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists…Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons.” [Ibid, page 7]
[Note: the reference to Governors refers to Edmund G. Brown of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York.]

“In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference…” [Ibid, page 8]

“Our Supreme Court, dominated by Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, is so visibly pro-Communist that no argument is even needed…And our federal courts below that level…are in many cases just as bad.” [Ibid, page 8]

“Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front.” … [Ibid, page 8]

“It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists. Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world…Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department.” [Ibid, page 8]

As to your first point, I have addressed it several times and you keep ignoring it (understandably).
Using the same argument as somebody else does not evidence a similarity in values and/or outlook any more than arguing for a national government high-way transport system makes its promoter a follower of National Socialism simply because Hitler made the same argument. To claim otherwise is misleading and absurd, and proves that for lack of truth supporting your position, you must resort to falsehoods.
“His values and his voting behavior were celebrated by the Society as exemplary.” See, again you distort the facts to make your case: the ranking system does not rate values, as you yourself acknowledged, it ranks members based on their votes on certain constitutional issues during that ranking period. If there had been a vote to enact federal segregation legislation, any legislator who supported such a position would undoubtedly receive a negative mark. Racists are expelled from the society! A point you continually overlook in your attempts to disparage the patriotic work of the JBS. Your continual distortion of the facts, again, reveals either ignorance or malice, and since you seem knowledgeable on these issues, I suspect it is for lack of an honest argument to promote your deranged hatred of the JBS that you continue to twist (or ignore) the truth.
“So according to the JBS, we have more to fear from a Bernie Sanders than a KKK-supported racist whom, incidentally, FBI files reveal actively sought to thwart prosecution of the bigots responsible for the murders of civil rights workers in 1964!!!”
More lies, but in fact, incidentally, I think there is more to fear from the socialist ideology of Sanders than from racist idiots. Racism is and was a terrible scourge of humanity and undoubtedly resulted in horrors including murder, but socialism has been responsible for hundreds of millions of brutal and agonizing deaths, so if they must be compared, socialism is probably more dangerous than racism… but that’s beside the point anyway.
“And, yes, all of my antagonists cited (as you do) the primacy of the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax amendment. So the natural conclusion from the logical progression of your point of view, is that our prosperity as a society (since 1917) has been materially connected to those measures.
I totally understand why you want to escape from any analysis of the logical progression of your beliefs but it doesn’t change the fact that, in essence, you believe that our nation has elected and re-elected all the wrong people and adopted all the wrong ideas and public policy proposals for more than 8 decades.”
The logical progression you make is absurd. And again you are attempting to distort my beliefs without any basis in fact or my statements. I never said our nation elected and re-elected “all the wrong people” and adopted “all the wrong ideas and public policy proposals.” Why do you continually have to lie to make your point? I’ve also already explained multiple times in a LOGICAL manner that adopting some degree of bad policies cannot LOGICALLY be referred to as the cause of all future happenings and developments. As I pointed out to you, this is a logical fallacy on your part.
While it is hard to verify the accuracy of Welch’s estimates, if you understand the definition of a communist sympathizer in the way he and his followers did, his figures would probably be relatively accurate. Support for a strong central bank, a progressive income tax, government schools, etc etc is very widespread, and today you would probably find very few people in government who would not support such principles to one degree or another. Does it mean America is doomed? No, but it isn’t a good sign. Hopefully the JBS can continue to educate Americans about the dangers of communist/statist ideals and the benefits and constitutional basis for freedom, and the nation can once again be free and more prosperous than ever. What have you done for liberty lately, or do you prefer to simply bash those who promote it whenever and wherever you can, based on tired recycled propaganda about “oh, well, one time, they used a picture taken by a racist” or “well one time, the invited a racist to speak somewhere” or “they gave a high score to the votes of a Senator who happened to harbor (non-vote-related) racist tendencies?”
Out of curiosity, do you support Marx and/or his 10 planks?

Amadeus — I would like to believe that you are intellectually honest — even if you disagree with me on various matters.

But for you to claim that there is no connection between racism and the JBS is not credible.

I am the first person to acknowledge that having a factual discussion about this matter is VERY difficult because, for openers, the JBS does not permit outside independent researchers to have access to its archives for historical research to access to its membership to conduct surveys of their beliefs.

However, I ask you to consider this:

Suppose we are talking about a left-wing organization and I bring up repeated instances where that organization has allowed persons with extreme left associations and beliefs to become members, officials, speakers, and authors for the group. Would you be willing to state that such associations and beliefs are irrelevant with respect to what the ORGANIZATION believes?

This is NOT a hypothetical question Amadeus. I suggest you review the JBS position about the NAACP. It recommended and promoted Sen. James Eastland’s lengthy summary of the “Communist” affiliations and associations of numerous NAACP officials.

Or to use another example: the famous African-American labor leader and civil rights activist A. Philip Randolph. Check out Volume 1 of the Birch Society’s 4-volume “Biographical Dictionary of the Left” for their summary on Randolph. After devoting 3 columns of text to describing his alleged “affiliations” with “Communist” organizations, the JBS closed its summary with this malicious innuendo:

“Randolph learned his lessons well as he rubbed elbows with Communists over the past three decades.”

Now WHAT do YOU take from that innuendo?

Now consider this:

(1) A JBS member (and paid speaker) and former FBI informant (Lola Belle Holmes) testified under oath before the House Committee on Un-American Activities that Randolph was ANTI-COMMUNIST! Keep in mind that she was quite familiar with Randolph because she served with him as an officer in several organizations he founded or was a principal in.

(2) In my JBS report, chapter 6, I devote considerable space to verbatim quotations from FBI investigative files which report the comments made by senior CPUSA officials about Randolph. I also quote sworn testimony before HCUA by ex-Communists who were instructed by the Party to attack Randolph. In fact they described him as “a traitor”.

So for you to take offense at me associating the JBS with racism because it mindlessly accepted, quoted, and published data which ORIGINATED EXCLUSIVELY WITH RACISTS — is so intellectually dishonest as to rule out completely the possibility that you have made any sort of fact-based investigation.

Furthermore, I have even more damning factual evidence — which concerns the close association of JBS members and officials with White Citizens Councils and other white supremacist organizations.

Finally, on this matter, I note for the record that AGAIN, you DELIBERATELY LIE about my position when you state:

“Using the same argument as somebody else does not evidence a similarity in values and/or outlook…”

It is NOT just the “same argument” — it is WHERE that “argument” originated in the first place.

For example: if the ONLY source for a statement or assertion is from a RACIST BIGOT — then using that “same argument” or the “evidence” produced by that racist bigot — contaminates YOU as well.

If you think I am mistaken — then I suggest you review American libel law. You are NOT protected if you choose to circulate a LIBEL which originally was authored by someone else.

RACISTS “EXPELLED” FROM JBS: You falsely assert that I “continually overlook” this.

If what you are saying is true, then WHY did the Birch Society employ Sheriff Jim Clark (Selma AL) as a paid speaker for the Society? Why did they hire Rev. Delmar Dennis even though he joined the KKK prior to becoming an FBI informant and he organized a whites-only church in his community? Why did they make Medford Evans a Coordinator for the State of Mississippi?

Perhaps you should tell me PRECISELY how YOU determine what constitutes “racism” or insensitivity to racists? Again, I ask you to switch the subject to COMMUNISTS. Tell everyone reading this thread if the Birch Society accepted the idea that the civil rights movement in our country was NOT “communist dominated” and not “created” by “Communists” and “served ONLY Communist purposes”. YES OR NO Amadeus — don’t bullshit. Then compare the JBS position to that of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI.

EASTLAND “SCORE”:

I suggest you READ the introduction by the JBS to its Conservative Index and then come back and tell me that (as you claim) the Index “does not rate values”.

I choose to ignore your final question except to bring your attention to one fact.

When the Birch Society used YOUR type of malicious innuendo in its article about Elmer Gertz, they wound up having to pay Gertz $400,000 for defamation.

The 1982 Appeals Court decision made the following comment:

“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].

There is also a footnote appended to this paragraph in which the Appeals Court observed that:

“Furthermore, Stang’s conduct in investigating and researching the article also is evidence of actual malice.”…

On 6/25/74, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell delivered the U.S. Supreme Court decision [docket number 72-617] which pertained to the appeal of the first Gertz trial verdict.

Justice Powell stated that this case “involves a libel action by a reputable attorney against a magazine that falsely libeled him ‘a Leninist’ and a ‘Communist-fronter’.”

You obviously have learned NOTHING about libeling someone through false and sinister innuendos.

For further clarification, I wish to repeat an excerpt from a previous message by me. In the example, below substitute “Communist” for “racist” or “segregationist” — and THEN tell me what YOUR conclusion would be about an organization that met the following 7 criteria:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What I previously wrote and which you deliberately misrepresented, is that UNLIKE Goldwater, the Birch Society consciously associated itself with racists and segregationists.

1. It welcomed them as members and officials
2. It employed them as speakers.
3. It praised them in their publications.
4. It included them on its National Council.
5. It recommended and even reprinted their writings and speeches.
6. It invited them to participate in its functions
7. It adopted and circulated their themes and arguments
That is entirely DIFFERENT from principled opposition. Instead, they FACILITATED racism.

Ernie — I would like to believe that you are intellectually honest — even if you disagree with me on various matters. But now I’m not so sure.

For you to claim that there is a “connection” between racism and the JBS is grasping at straws at best, and downright libel at worst.

Your consistent (and misleading) use of sinister innuendo to suggest that the JBS is somehow racist borders on the delusional. You consistently ignore the facts. For example, in many states, not just the south, in 1950s and even 60s, it was considered perfectly normal to have separate restroom facilities for different races. Does it make it acceptable? No. But it does illustrate something about the “status quo” during the early days of the JBS in America. By your logic, every business, organization, and group that had anybody among its people who supported or was indifferent to the “status quo” is somehow to be considered racist as a whole, even today. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it poisons the debate and disingenuously (if inadvertently) reduces the guilt of actual racist organizations (like the KKK) and trivializes the suffering of those who endured the wrath of such groups. To compare groups of people who had some members who were indifferent or perhaps even supported the status quo to groups being infiltrated by subversive leftists and communist aiming to destroy the US and the freedom it represents is simply wrong – it is immoral and irresponsible.
Also, you consistently overlook the JBS’s total opposition to collectivism since its inception, racism being one of its many forms. The JBS never promoted racist views, it never lobbied or endorsed racist legislation, it kicked out members who displayed racist tendencies and was therefore way ahead of the curve in terms of the contemporary world view back then. The fact that you do not even acknowledge these most obvious of facts reveals not just errors in an otherwise honest pursuit borne of intellectual curiosity, but malice and contempt in willing to overlook history and the facts in pursuit of an agenda which cannot be legitimized without such distortions.

You wrote:

“So for you to take offense at me associating the JBS with racism because it mindlessly accepted, quoted, and published data which ORIGINATED EXCLUSIVELY WITH RACISTS — is so intellectually dishonest as to rule out completely the possibility that you have made any sort of fact-based investigation….

It is NOT just the “same argument” — it is WHERE that “argument” originated in the first place.

For example: if the ONLY source for a statement or assertion is from a RACIST BIGOT — then using that “same argument” or the “evidence” produced by that racist bigot — contaminates YOU as well.”

These statements are so preposterous on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin, but I shall do my best. First of all, if arguments that ORIGINATED EXCLUSIVELY WITH RACISTS (which in the case you use, is tenuous at best), then using your logic, anyone who promotes the theory of evolution is therefore a racist. Read Origin of Species by Darwin and you will see that he considered non-whites to be sub-human. Does that mean that, by extension, everyone who subscribes to his theories is a racist? After all, the arguments ORIGINATED EXCLUSIVELY WITH RACISTS! In the case of the JBS, it was not even ever promoting racist arguments, just arguments that you claim may have originated with somebody who may have supported the status quo. Your sinister innuendo is misleading, wrong and malicious. You should retract your bogus argument forthwith.

You wrote:

“Tell everyone reading this thread if the Birch Society accepted the idea that the civil rights movement in our country was NOT “communist dominated” and not “created” by “Communists” and “served ONLY Communist purposes”. YES OR NO Amadeus — don’t bullshit.”

The civil rights movement, whether wittingly or not, served communist purposes and was likely dominated by people who were at least sympathetic to their goals (as discussed, federal intrusion beyond that permitted by the Constitution, government-enforced “equality,” (not equality under the law, which should obviously have been guaranteed and already was at the federal level), progressive income taxes and wealth redistribution, government schools for everyone, etc etc etc). So the answer to your question, taking out your hysteria and attempt to paint the issue in a false light, is essentially yes, and for the most part, was correct.

“I suggest you READ the introduction by the JBS to its Conservative Index and then come back and tell me that (as you claim) the Index “does not rate values”.”

Would you please be so kind as to provide it here? I do not have access to it. I have pasted the introductions to the Freedom Index here, since it is all that I have available:

The Index “shows how every representative and senator voted on key issues,”

and “The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution” rates congressmen based on their adherence
to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. To learn how any representative or senator voted on the key measures described herein, look him or her up in the vote charts. The scores are derived by dividing a congressman’s constitutional votes (pluses) by the total number he cast (pluses and minuses) and multiplying by 100.”

As to your veiled threats to use the court system in regards to an honest question (which you did not answer) that I honestly wish to know the answer to (and I think anyone who may be reading this thread might as well), I choose to ignore your pathetic insinuations and your attempt to chill the debate (perhaps when logic and reason and facts all fail, use threats to stop the debate?), I will simply remind you that:

1) Misuse of the courts can be considered a crime punishable by more than a decade in prison in some states.
2) Filing frivolous lawsuits can result in sanctions, fines and other court action.
3) Making improper threats can result in civil and/or criminal action.

Your lame threats over an honest question reveal a very dark side to your character, and an even darker agenda in your “research” about the JBS (and faulty reasoning, since asking a question is very different from what you cite above, and is not “innuendo.”) Very sad that after your arguments are all proven preposterous, you resort to childish threats. However, rather than discourage me, your remark has furthered my resolve to expose your backwards logic and sinister innuendo.

As to your last comment, see above. You are abusing logic and the facts to pathetically grasp at straws, if not maliciously defame the valiant efforts of patriots with minds infinitely superior to yours.

Amadeus:

If you are the VICTIM of racism — (or any other form of prejudice) you know what it is.

I have carefully read and then re-read your comments above. I have concluded that you are not aware of actual JBS history. Instead, you accept, mindlessly, every self-serving statement which the JBS presents about itself.

Let me, however, clarify one point which may be a genuine misunderstanding.

I am NOT claiming that the JBS is a racist organization. It does not officially endorse or promote the idea that entire categories of human beings are inferior just because of the color of their skin. It does not use the n-word. And as we both agree, it normally expels persons who are publicly identified as racists.

What I am claiming, however, (and perhaps you still do not understand this) — is that in its formative years, the Birch Society adopted and promoted and circulated ideas, themes, and arguments that originated EXCLUSIVELY with racists and I mentioned the Highlander Folk School story as an example. The original source for all assertions made about HFS as “a Communist training school” was a pamphlet produced by the Georgia Commission on Education. That pamphlet was produced based upon what their “investigator”, Edwin H. Friend “discovered” during his “investigation” of HFS when he attended a Labor Day weekend event at Highlander. The photos he took were then reproduced in the GCE pamphlet with the headline “Highlander Folk School: Communist Training School – Monteagle, Tenn.”

The Birch Society took that photo, and that description of Highlander, and plastered it all over the country on postcards, billboards, and brochures which were distributed at speeches they sponsored under the auspices of their front-group Truth About Civil Turmoil.

The ORIGINAL argument about HFS originated exclusively with racists and segregationists — just as the FBI investigative file on HFS confirms.

That is FACT — not a “tenuous” assumption or “grasping at straws” or a “libel”.

If you want more explicit details about this matter, then see my lengthy report about this matter here:
http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/hfs-1

You concede that the KKK is an actual racist group. So one wonders then — by what standard do you exempt a person or organization from associating with and promoting racism if they adopt KKK arguments or parrot KKK themes or associate with KKK supporters, speak at KKK functions, etc?

Again, I ask you to consider this question by substituting the word “Communist” for KKK. The Birch Society NEVER in its history allowed a liberal to credibly claim no connection to communism simply because that liberal was not an actual member of the CPUSA or a CP front-group. Instead, the JBS explicitly stated that there were 10 times as many “state of mind” Communist sympathizers and fellow-travellers.

I remind you, for example, that there were JBS members who spoke at KKK and White Citizens Councils functions, members who were employees of white supremacist organizations, and members who joined segregationist groups.

Let’s say we are discussing ACLU.

If Communists are speakers at ACLU functions, and Communists work for the ACLU, and Communists join the ACLU and are welcomed as members, and Communists serve as officials within the ACLU, and Communists write articles for ACLU publications, and Communists endorse ACLU activities and Communists recommend ACLU as a worthwhile enterprise — then is it so terribly wrong to consider some sort of connection between the ACLU and communism?

Everything I just described is precisely what occurred with respect to the JBS and White Citizens Councils and, for that matter, the Presidential candidacy of George Wallace which was largely a creation of JBS members.

Lastly, I have not “threatened” you. I merely pointed out factual history about an historic and precedent setting defamation lawsuit which the JBS lost. Unlike yourself, I have an actual copy of one of the two trial transcripts – so I am in a position to backup my statements. Incidentally, the Birch Society’s own lawyer acknowledged at the Supreme Court hearing that its article contained “falsehoods” and could be considered “libelous” if the JBS was not allowed to be protected by the so-called “New York Times” standard then in effect — so direct your venom to the JBS lawyer, Clyde Watts!

I will keep your comments in mind when I eventually write the chapter on the JBS and racism and anti-semitism. I know you have already made up your mind so I will not be able to reach you with factual evidence — but I will do my best to document as clearly as possible what I mean when I draw connections between the JBS and racist or anti-semitic incidents, as well as examples of racist arguments and themes which they have used.

This conversation has re-invigorated my support for the Society and, after reading through your “reports”, I have decided to renew my membership. If this is the best the society’s enemies can come up with, they must be doing something right. I think anybody reading this thread will likely come to a similar conclusion.

I shall be the bigger man and allow you to have the last word, since most of what you are doing is copying and pasting the same thing over and over again, and I have more important matters to deal with than your petty vendetta against a group of patriotic Americans.

I will return to see your final post(s), but unless it attacks me, I will most likely not be replying. Also, I will probably inform the society of my reason for re-joining, so you may be getting a thank you letter from them sometime soon. God bless.

I will close my comments by offering you this brief summary (as an introduction) to the group you think is “doing something right”.

CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

JBS position:
“Our task must be simply to make clear that the movement known as ‘civil rights’ is Communist-plotted, Communist-controlled, and in fact…serves only Communist purposes.” [Robert Welch, 7/65, JBS Bulletin]

FBI position:
“Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists–because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all.” [J. Edgar Hoover speech, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; "not" and "never" in bold type in original document]

CLERGY AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
JBS position:
“…the largest single group supporting the Communist apparatus in the United States is composed of members of the Protestant clergy” [Robert Welch, 4/60 JBS Bulletin)
and
"...there are, as the leading students of the subject all agree -- more than seven thousand Protestant clergymen actively helping the Communists to make dangerous propaganda and pressure weapons out of the National Council of Churches and some other church organizations. Now is the time to bring this whole issue into the open, in every way possible; and to start a determined drive to eliminate Communist influences from control over Christian churches." [JBS Bulletin, April 1960, pages 18-19]
and
with respect to Protestant ministers,
“the estimates I have seen which appeared most trustworthy indicate that about 7000 of them could fairly be called Comsymps…A Comsymp is a man who is either a Communist or a sympathizer with Communist purposes. So the number of Comsymps in the whole Protestant ministry would thus come out as about three percent.” [Robert Welch, Through All The Days To Be, reprinted in The New Americanism And Other Speeches and Essays by Robert Welch, Western Islands Publishers, 1966, page 79.]

FBI position:

“To recapitulate, it can be stated factually and without equivocation that any allegation is false which holds that there has been and is, on a national scale, an extensive or substantial communist infiltration of the American clergy, in particular the Protestant clergy [FBI Assistant Director William C. Sullivan, Communism and Religion in The United States, Highland Park Methodist Church, Dallas Texas, October 19, 1961, page 18]

and

“There can be no doubt, of course, that the communists’ aim is to penetrate and control all mass-type organizations of our society, including our churches. Their efforts in this regard have been thwarted by our internal security program…Regrettably, numerous charges have been made concerning the extent and success of communist influence among our Nation’s religious leaders and institutions. Actually, the Communist Party USA has had no appreciable success in influencing, controlling, or dominating America’s clergymen or religious organizations. These facts, based on our investigative results in the internal security field, have been the basis of the FBI’s stand on this subject when it arises.” [J. Edgar Hoover reply to inquiry; HQ 100-403529-432, July 19, 1963.]

INTERNAL SECURITY STATUS OF UNITED STATES

JBS POSITION 1961:
“…we believe that there are not more than 300,000 to 500,000 Communists in our country [JBS Bulletin, July 1961, page 14]

FBI POSITION:
5600 CP members around the time Welch made his statement – but the zenith of CPUSA membership in the U.S. was in 1944 when it had 80,000 members.

JBS POSITION 1960:
“Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists.”. [A Confidential Report To Members Of The Council of The John Birch Society – minutes of 1/9/60 meeting held at Union League Club in Chicago IL, page 2; minutes signed by Robert Welch.]

AND

JBS POSITION 1963:
U.S. “50-70% under Communist influence and control” [American Opinion Scoreboard issue, July/August 1963]

FBI position

“The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society, but its continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance. Too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified factual data regarding the inner workings of the conspiracy, have engaged in rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against persons whose views differ from their own. This is dangerous business. It is divisive and unintelligent, and makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator.” [Hoover statement in February 5, 1962 letter HQ 94-1-369, #1676 to Mrs. W.R. Brown of Bountiful Utah; also published as letter-to-editor in Tri-Cities Daily newspaper of Sheffield, Alabama on Sunday March 31, 1963.]

HARRY OVERSTREET 1958 book, “What We Must Know About Communism”

JBS POSITION

“visibly designed to get your confidence with the first three quarters of its contents, and then in the last quarter to sell you the exact current Communist line.” [Robert Welch: What Is The John Birch Society?, 1970, page 18].

AND

“Another generation–if we are still free–may well remember the Overstreets’ ‘What We Know About Communism, as a stupendous attempt that was designed to soften us at the very hour of our crisis…because the book attempts to make palatable certain notions which would, if accepted by large numbers of Americans, render us helpless in the face of the onslaught of World Communism.” [Edward Janisch, "What We Must Know About Overstreet", American Opinion, October 1959, pg 44].

FBI POSITION:
“I do hope that your fine book ‘What We Must Know About Communism’ will enjoy excellent sales and wide reading throughout 1959. We need more and more people like yourselves who will devote their nationally recognized academic talents to the exposure and ultimate defeat of the menace of world communism.” [J. Edgar Hoover letter to Overstreet, 1/21/59; HQ 100-114575-95].

ON HARRY OVERSTREET:

JBS POSITION:
Robert Welch observed that the JBS article on Overstreet in October 1959 issue of JBS magazine American Opinion
“showed the blatant falsehoods to which Harry Overstreet has resorted in connection with his earlier and continuing close affiliations with Communists and support of Communist purposes.” [Robert Welch: What Is The John Birch Society?, 1970, page 18].

FBI POSITION

“I have seen the interesting article about Mrs. Overstreet and you which appeared in the December 3, 1958 issue of the ‘Northern Virginia Sun’. It is always a pleasure to read about good friends because it serves as a reminder of happy associations. It is good to see your fine work recognized in this fitting manner, and your many friends in the FBI join me in sending our best wishes.” [J. Edgar Hoover letter to Overstreet 12/5/58; HQ 100-114575-93]

and

“I was deeply saddened to learn of Dr. Overstreet’s passing and want you to know you have my deepest sympathy. Words certainly are inadequate at a time like this but I hope you will derive some measure of comfort from knowing that others share your sorrow…You can be justifiably proud of the many contributions which he made to his country and the high esteem in which he is held.” [J. Edgar Hoover telegram to Bonaro Overstreet; HQ 100-114575-195, August 19, 1970, ]

COMMUNISTS IN DEPT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, WELFARE

JBS POSITION:
“It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists.” [Robert Welch to JBS National Council, 1/8/60]

FBI POSITION:
“Through a review of the Bureau Security Index cards, it was determined that no employees of the DHEW are included in the Security Index.” [HQ 62-104401-unrecorded, February 1, 1961, F.J. Baumgardner to Alan H. Belmont]

HIGHLANDER FOLK SCHOOL

JBS POSITION: “Communist Training School” [as reported in Alan Stang: It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights; Western Islands Publishers, 1965, page 114)

FBI POSITION:
"Due to the interracial character of the School, it has been the subject of numerous allegations that it represented the headquarters of communism in east Tennessee. An extensive investigation was conducted in 1941 and 1942 as a result of the allegations. These allegations have never been substantiated and much of the information of a subversive derogatory nature concerning this School was later repudiated by the individuals who previously furnished the information...This organization has continuously been involved in the integration movement and as a result charges are being continuously made that it is 'communist'. These charges are based mainly on the opinion of the individuals making the charges that being pro-integration is being pro-communist." [64-7511-286, July 26, 1963, F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan].

AUTHORS RECOMMENDED BY JBS AS KNOWLEGABLE AND RELIABLE

FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT DAN SMOOT:

FBI POSITION:
“He is a professional ‘anticommunist’ who is strictly out for money.” … [HQ 62-102576, #125; 11/8/62 memo from D.C. Morrell to Mr. DeLoach]

and

“Howard D. Smoot was employed with the Bureau as an Agent from March 23, 1942 to June 15, 1951. Shortly before Smoot’s resignation, he was censured, placed on probation, and transferred due to several unfounded charges against his SAC [Special Agent in Charge of a Field Office]. His attitude before and after resignation was extremely antagonistic, and he was not recommended for re-instatement.”
[HQ 62-102576, unrecorded, 8/30/61 memo from N.P. Callahan to The Director”; also see HQ 62-102576-#1, 9/13/55]

FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT W. CLEON SKOUSEN
“The activities of Skousen are well known to the Bureau…In recent years he has been aligned closely with the extreme right-wing such as the John Birch Society and has been characterized as an ‘unprincipled racketeer in anticommunism’ who is ‘money-mad’ and who is doing everything and anything to exploit the subject of anticommunism. Bureau files reveal Skousen has always been a strong supporter of the Bureau and the Director; however, he has not hesitated to trade on his former association with the Bureau in order to achieve stature as a writer and lecturer on anticommunism. In view of this, it is not felt we should acknowledge his favorable comments about Mr. Hoover.” [HQ 62-104401-2280, 10/8/64 memo from M.A. Jones to C. DeLoach.]

and

“As you know, we frequently receive inquiries from the public regarding Skousen’s qualifications to speak with authority on the subject of communism. In view of his obvious efforts to capitalize on his former Bureau association, I feel that it would be well for us to take positive measures to clarify the Bureau’s position in regard to Skousen whenever we receive public inquiries concerning him. I feel, for example, that in addition to stating that his views are his own, that we should also add in correspondence concerning him that he was not regarded as any authority on communism while employed with the FBI. That is certainly a true statement and it might serve in some measure to prevent Skousen from using the FBI’s name for his own personal gain.” [HQ 67-69602, #338; 1/2/63 memo from W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont.]

and

“He has been making numerous speeches around the country in which he describes himself as a former ‘top aide’ to the Director. He did not hold such a position and it is felt we should set the record straight to those inquiring that he was not a ‘top aide’ “ [HQ 94-47468, #88; 8/22/68 memo from G.E. Malmfeldt to Mr. Bishop, captioned "Former Special Agent Now Representing Himself As Former ‘Top Aide’ to the Director".]