FBI REPORT ON BIRCH SOCIETY

FBI Files on JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY 04-11-04 | More info available from: Ernie1241@aol.com

The FBI HQ main file on the John Birch Society is 62-104401 and it consists of about 12,000 pages. In addition, almost every FBI Field Office opened a main file on the Birch Society and those field files often were hundreds or thousands of pages.

The primary FBI Field Office file is Boston 100-32899. Another major file is the Los Angeles field file (100-59001) which totals approximately 1800 pages.

It is almost impossible to specify the total number of pages of FBI documents pertaining to the JBS because there are so many separate JBS-related files or documents totaling many thousands of pages on such topics as:

* JBS-front groups like Truth About Civil Turmoil and Support Your Local Police and MOTOREDE

* files on JBS publications (American Opinion magazine, JBS Bulletin, and Birch-promoted publications such as John Stormer's, None Dare Call It Treason and Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy, and Alan Stang's, It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights or JBS-promoted filmstrips such as Communism on the Map and Operation Abolition.

FBI files also contain the unpublished version of Robert Welch's "private letter" entitled The Politician which caused so much grief to Welch in later years because of his description of President Eisenhower as a "conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy" and, Welch's description of Ike's brother, Milton, as Ike's "superior" within the Communist apparatus.

* files on numerous individuals associated with the Society such as Spruille Braden, Julia Brown, Taylor Caldwell, Kent & Phoebe Courtney, Delmar Dennis, Robert Donner, Robert Dresser, Medford Evans, Billy James Hargis, Merwin K. Hart, Manning Johnson, Verne P. Kaub, D.B. Lewis, J.B. Matthews, Larry McDonald, Dan Smoot, Harold L. Varney, Gen. Edwin A. Walker...plus files on many others that either resigned or were expelled from the JBS, such as Richard Cotten, Slobodan M. Draskovich, William P. Gale, David E. Gumaer, Ben Klassen, Robert J. Mathews, Gordon Mohr, Revilo P. Oliver, William Pierce, and John H. Rousselot.

* files or documents on numerous controversies where JBS members often were the leading participants.

Birch publications and letters-to-the-editor from Birch Society members often triggered bitter local disputes over such matters as purported Communist infiltration of, and influence/control within:

+ our clergy and religious institutions (National Council of Churches and discussions about Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, Harry Ward, and others)

+ prominent organizations such as American Civil Liberties Union, Americans For Democratic Action, United Nations, UNICEF, UNESCO, National Education Association, League of Women Voters, United World Federalists, the Council on Foreign Relations, The Bilderbergers, and Trilateral Commission as agents for a New World Order or World Government.

Many local disputes involving Birch activists sometimes resulted in libel lawsuits. FBI files or documents on persons involved in these controversies often are quite revealing---for example:

(d) Elmer Gertz (Chicago lawyer who won his historic landmark libel lawsuit against the JBS after 14 years of litigation and appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Eventually, the JBS paid Gertz $400,000 and during the trial, the JBS admitted that "falsehoods" were contained in their article which defamed Gertz.

See following link for oral arguments before U.S. Supreme Court in Gertz vs. Robert Welch Inc. plus general details of the Supreme Court decision:

What follows is Part One of my summary of FBI file content on the Birch Society. I hope to complete Part Two sometime in the next several months.

6. FBI vs. JBS on civil rights movement (Alan Stang's 1965 book "It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights" published by the Birch Society; and Highlander Folk School described by the JBS as a "Communist Training School")

A major portion of Part One is devoted to the Birch Society's attack on Dr. Harry Overstreet because it reveals how the JBS did damage to our country by impugning the integrity and loyalty of Americans who did not share their warped viewpoints.

The Overstreet story also reveals why top officials of the FBI described the Birch Society as "irrational", "extremist", "irresponsible" and "lunatic fringe".

In March and April 1961, news reports circulated among top Bureau officials concerning the growth and activities of the JBS around the country. Two memos in particular reveal the attitude of top Bureau officials. In the first memo, Assistant Director C.D. DeLoach is informed about two letters that the Bureau received from persons expressing concern about charges made by JBS members in their communities.

"The Bureau has, of course, been cognizant over a period of time of the many fanatical right-wing anti-Communist organizations which are presently spreading widely throughout the country and of their utterly absurd viewpoints. For your information, I am attaching copies of letters dated March 6 and 8, 1961 from (names deleted for privacy) which typify the absolute confusion and lack of confidence in American institutions and one's fellow man being caused by representatives of such organizations."

The letters attached to the memo concern two Birch Society officials. (1) General William L. Lee, the Birch Coordinator in Amarillo Texas, and (2) Fred Koch, a JBS National Council member from Wichita KS.

Both Lee and Koch had made what the FBI considered inflammatory comments about Communist infiltration of our society. General Lee, in particular, was a prominent exponent of the notion that our nation's clergy and religious institutions had been extensively infiltrated by Communists and Communist sympathizers. [62-104401-789, March 15, 1961, D.C. Morrell to C.D. DeLoach].

In the second memo, Chief Inspector W.C. Sullivan informs Alan H. Belmont (Assistant to the Director, in charge of the Bureau's Domestic Intelligence Division) about a Time magazine article entitled "The Americanists" which discusses the Birch Society.

Sullivan characterized the article as a "succinct picture of a lunatic-fringe type of organization that is doing more harm than good with a professional anticommunist attack on everything and everyone opposing its own dictatorial policies."

"The supporters of this organization and those influenced by the vicious propaganda it has been putting out are typical of the fanatics who have been attempting lately to disparage and discredit Bureau speakers who have been giving audiences a true, factual picture concerning the nature of the threat which communist activities in this country represent." [62-104401-791, March 9, 1961, W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont].

The problem which Sullivan mentioned (attacks upon FBI speakers) reached a peak in the Fall of 1961. J. Edgar Hoover approved Sullivan's proposal that he make several speeches around the country to address extreme right charges that our clergy and religious institutions (especially the Methodist Church) were significantly influenced or controlled by subversives.

A comprehensive discussion concerning this matter will appear in Part Two of my Report. For now, a preliminary look at the shape of the controversy is discussed below in Section 3 of this Report.

Birch Society representatives in various parts of the country often made requests for large quantities of FBI publications that they could distribute to the public. At first, the Bureau readily provided bulk quantities, but as the Bureau became more familiar with the ideology espoused by the JBS, it underwent a dramatic change of mind.

In March 1961, Assistant Director C.D. DeLoach prepared a memo concerning one particular JBS request made to the Los Angeles Field Office headed by Special Agent Alexander. The request was for 10,000 copies of a Bureau poster entitled "What You Can Do To Fight Communism".

DeLoach noted that "Alexander was advised that in view of the extremist position taken by this group that we should not, of course, have anything to do with them..."

"In view of this irresponsible organization's attempt to capitalize on the Bureau's prestige, it is recommended that an SAC Letter be prepared instructing the field that no Bureau publications of any kind are to be made available to this group or any of its representatives." [62-104401-851, March 14, 1961, C.D. DeLoach to C. Mohr].

In a handwritten comment on the memo, J. Edgar Hoover wrote "YES" on the recommendation and, subsequently, the SAC Letter was sent to all FBI Field Offices (SAC Letter 61-14, dated 3/21/61).

In April 1962, Congressman Claude Pepper of Florida ran an advertisement in the Miami News captioned "Birchites Are Behind The Smear Against Claude Pepper". The Bureau received an inquiry asking whether or not Hoover had approved use of his name in the advertisement as one of several prominent persons who had spoken out against "smear tactics".

At the bottom of a Bureau memo discussing the matter, Hoover handwrote: "I would no more give a boost to Pepper than I would to the Birchites. They are two extremes and equally bad." [62-104401-unrecorded, April 27, 1962, D.C. Morrell to C.D. DeLoach].

The Bureau received thousands of inquiries about the Birch Society and the numerous allegations that it made in its literature or in speeches/interviews by its officials and members. The Bureau developed several standard replies to answer people who wanted to know Director Hoover's evaluation about the John Birch Society and its founder, Robert Welch.

"Personally, I have little respect for the head of the John Birch Society since he linked the names of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the late John Foster Dulles, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles with communism." [100-114578-152, October 22, 1965, J. Edgar Hoover to name deleted for privacy. Also see 62-104401-3865, March 24, 1972].

Also see Hoover's testimony (copied below) before the Warren Commission (Volume V, page 101) when he was asked about an article on JFK's assassination that was published in the JBS magazine, American Opinion:

"Mr. Hoover: I have read that piece. My comment on it is this in general: I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies.

Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man."

During the 1960's and subsequently, the essence of John Birch Society thought was that a vast conspiracy of Communists, Communist sympathizers, and Communist dupes made substantial inroads into all areas of U.S. society.

In 1964 for example, a Birch Society pamphlet entitled "The Time Has Come" declared:

"Washington has been taken over! By which we mean that Communist influences are now in full working control of our Federal Government."

The annual Birch Society "Scoreboard" issue of American Opinion magazine, reported in three consecutive years that the extent of such Communist influence and control had reached a staggering 50-70% level of success and in 1964 reached 60-80%. [American Opinion Scoreboard issues, July-August 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964].

At about this time, Congressman Carl Elliott of Alabama wrote to Hoover to request a statement concerning the status of our internal security. Hoover's response to Elliott was published as a letter-to-the-Editor in the Tri-Cities Daily of Sheffield, Alabama on Sunday March 31, 1963:

"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."

[Also see identical or comparable Hoover statements in February 5, 1962 letter 94-1-369-1676 to Mrs. W.R. Brown of Bountiful Utah as well as July 29, 1964 letter 62-109421-44 and August 6, 1964 letter 62-100942-156.].

In his letter to Mrs. Brown, Hoover expanded upon the comments he subsequently wrote to Congressman Elliott:

"All this has been accomplished in orderly constitutional fashion and is something of which every American should be proud. We must continue to be alert to these infiltration efforts. I wish to emphasize most strongly that communism is a grave threat to the continued existence of the United States. Because of this, it is doubly imperative that we be calm, rational, and thoroughly accurate in what we say and do in opposing communism. This is no time for rumors, unfounded suspicions, gossip and the hurling of false accusations."

As mentioned earlier, numerous controversies erupted around the country on this topic. One of the first triggers was the January 4, 1960 release of the “Air Reserve Training Manual” which was issued by the Continental Air Command at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. It was designed to be used in courses for Air Force Reserve noncommissioned officers assigned to the Continental Air Command. Approximately 3300 copies were distributed.

On February 17, 1960, Mr. James A. Wine, Associate General Secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, released a statement to the press protesting that section of the manual which discussed Communist infiltration of churches because of its derogatory references to the NCCC.

The manual’s section entitled “Communism in Religion” was written by Homer H. Hyde. Mr. Hyde subsequently acknowledged that he used information supplied to him by Billy James Hargis (Christian Crusade), and Myers Lowman (Circuit Riders, Inc) as the basis for his comments. The themes and conclusions that Hyde used were identical to those contained in literature published by Church League of America (Edgar C. Bundy), American Mercury magazine (J.B. Matthews), the John Birch Society, and the aforementioned Billy James Hargis and Myers Lowman.

The manual stated, among other things, that Communists had successfully infiltrated our churches, and that 30 of the 95 scholars associated with the Revised Standard Version of the Bible were affiliated with Communist fronts and activities

"...the largest single group supporting the Communist apparatus in the United States is composed of members of the Protestant clergy" --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." [John Birch Society Bulletin, April 1960, pages 18-19].

Mr. Welch repeated these remarks numerous times during a speaking tour which began April 11, 1961 in Los Angeles. [4/13/61, Santa Barbara CA; 4/14/61 Phoenix AZ; 4/15/61 Amarillo TX; 4/18/61 Houston TX; 10/11/61 Oakland PA, 10/12/61 in Indianapolis IN]

Another trigger in this controversy was the publication of several articles authored by Louis Cassels, a Senior Editor and Religion columnist for United Press International.

In April 1961, Mr. Cassels wrote an article for his weekly newspaper column, Religion in America, which provoked an enormous outcry from the extreme right. The Cassels column summarized speeches made around the country during the Spring of 1961 by FBI Chief Inspector William C. Sullivan.

In those speeches, Sullivan denied that there had been significant Communist penetration of U.S. clergy or churches. Subsequently, Mr. Cassels expanded his comments in two magazine articles (“What About Communism In Our Churches, The Episcopalian, July 1961 –and—“The Rightist Crisis In Our Churches”, Look magazine, April 24, 1962.]

Mr. Cassels sent a copy of his April 28, 1961 column to J. Edgar Hoover and Hoover replied:

“It was a pleasure to cooperate with you in connection with your article…While the endeavors of private citizens with regard to combating the menace of communism must be given our most earnest encouragement, I have always cautioned against confusing communism with legitimate dissent on controversial issues. In addition, this opposition to communism must be careful, constructive and positive. Your excellent presentation of this subject particularly as it relates to unfounded charges against America’s clergymen, is a fine example of public spirit, and I do want to thank you for your support on this vital issue.” [100-403529-183, J/ Edgar Hoover to Louis Cassels].

As newspapers across the country published the Cassels column, the Bureau was inundated with angry letters, phone calls, and telegrams from persons and organizations that were stunned by the remarks attributed to FBI Chief Inspector William Sullivan.

There were incredulous letters from ordinary citizens and furious objections by organizations such as Church League of America (Edgar C. Bundy) and Circuit Riders, Inc (Myers G. Lowman)---all of whom demanded that J. Edgar Hoover set the record straight.

Circuit Riders was an organization that specialized in publishing “compilations” of alleged subversive affiliations of various groups of clergymen under such titles as: “A Compilation of Public Records on 2109 Methodist Ministers” and “658 Clergymen and Laymen Connected With The National Council of Churches” and “42% of the Unitarian Clergy and 450 Rabbis.”

In March 1961 the Bureau received a phone call from a representative of Circuit Riders, who demanded to know if Hoover had approved Sullivan’s remarks. A Bureau memo summarizes the encounter:

“Per DeLoach to Mohr memo dated 3-3-61, (name deleted) of Circuit Riders called SOG (Seat of Government-FBI HQ) on that day and made an emotional objection to a speech previously given by Inspector William C. Sullivan. (Name deleted) was informed that Mr. Sullivan was speaking with the full experience and background of facts concerning matters known to the Bureau and Mr. Sullivan was in no manner incorrect in any statements made.” [62-104401-1231, 3/3/61]

Another major player in this controversy was the American Council of Christian Laymen (ACCL), founded and headed by Verne P. Kaub. Kaub authored one of the most widely distributed and long-lived pamphlets used by the extreme right to “document” their statements about the alleged “Communist affiliations” of many prominent clergymen.

The first edition in October 1949 was entitled, “How Red is the Federal Council of Churches?” but the title was later revised to reflect the subsequent merger and name-change of the FCC to: “How Red Is The National Council of Churches?” Many thousands of these pamphlets were sold to organizations all across the country and critics of the National Council frequently would cite this pamphlet as their source of information.

The preface of “How Red…” describes its content as “These are just a few of the hundreds of present and past officers, leaders and prominent members of the Federal/National Council who have aided and abetted God-hating, un-American organizations.”

One of the prominent religious leaders listed was Ralph W. Sockman. In 1952 Kaub wrote to J. Edgar Hoover to inquire whether or not Hoover had praised Sockman during a radio interview. One Bureau memo on the matter states that:

“On 3-11-52, the Director advised Kaub that Ralph Sockman had spoken before the FBI National Academy and he would not have invited him to make such an address unless he thought Sockman to be a loyal citizen.” [62-100432-17, 9/11/53].

A 1953 FBI memo refers to the… “running feud between the ACCL headed by Kaub and the Federal Council of Churches. The Bureau has received numerous inquiries from individuals who have read ‘How Red Is the Federal Council of Churches?’ which brochure was issued by the ACCL. This brochure concerns itself solely with attacking the Federal Council of Churches…In this regard, the Bureau has not investigated the Federal Council of Churches and contact with informants and sources in New York fail to reveal that this council is in any way subversive.” [62-100432-1, 9/11/53].

For some context about Kaub's beliefs, see his October 19, 1958 letter to Patrick F. Scanlan, Managing Editor of The Brooklyn Tablet. Kaub sent Scanlan his evaluation of J. Edgar Hoover’s 1958 book, Masters of Deceit. According to Kaub, Hoover’s book…

“exemplifies one of the best subversive tricks, namely present a great mass of anti-subversive material to convince the reader that the book is 100% American but insert one section or chapter of poison. In this case, the poison, or deceit, is the complete whitewashing of the vicious Zionist organizations including American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith and its subsidiary smear bund, Anti-Defamation League. You, of course, know that these organizations support all sorts of Communist devised subversion by way of developing and leading to their own master-plot for world domination and destruction of Christian civilization.”

Incidentally, in 1959 Kaub contacted both Billy James Hargis and Robert Welch to propose that the ACCL be “taken over” and operated by one of them.

To give the reader a sense of the tremendous impact of the Sullivan speeches, below is an excerpt from one letter sent to J. Edgar Hoover. This Birch Society member asserted that Sullivan made it seem that…

“anyone who alleged that many communists have infiltrated the clergy, was uninformed and very much an alarmist. You and I, I hope, know this is not true…All America owes you a debt we can never repay – but I trust that you will not hesitate to support the patriots who are dedicated and conscientiously trying to roll back the Socialistic Communistic tide which threatens to engulf this nation. Regardless of the risk, you must not break faith, but if the anti-communist John Birch Society goes the way that McCarthyism has gone I will always feel that yours was the key testimony which dealt us our most destructive blow.” [62-104401-1281, 4/30/61, emphasis in the original document].

“The communists have tried to infiltrate every part of our society, and I agree with you wholeheartedly that patriotic Americans must continue to take a firm stand against communism…But this opposition to communism must be careful, constructive and positive, and it must always be kept within the due process of law. In reference to Mr. Cassels’ article, Chief Inspector William C. Sullivan in his discussion of communism dealt with this subject with all possible objectivity, candor and accuracy.” [Ibid].

In the Fall of 1961, Chief Inspector Sullivan prepared a comprehensive overview of the subject of Communist infiltration of religion which he proposed to give as a speech at Highland Park Methodist Church in Dallas Texas---reportedly the largest Methodist Church in the world.

By cover memo dated October 5, 1961, Sullivan circulated the proposed text of his speech to top Bureau officials, including J. Edgar Hoover, seeking authorization to give the speech on October 19th. Hoover initialed the memo and wrote “OK”.

Here, then, are some major excerpts from Sullivan’s remarks plus supplementary material. Notice how carefully Sullivan crafted his comments to specifically address assertions in extreme right literature and speeches. (The numbers in parentheses refer to footnotes in the printed version of the speech).

“Protestants in particular have been singled out by critics, mainly within their own ranks, as being especially susceptible to communist appeals and tactics. It has been charged that the most sizable single body giving support to the American communist movement is comprised of Protestant clergymen (3). Additionally, it has been said that, of all the Protestant denominations, Methodists have been the most extensively infiltrated by communists. (4)”

Footnote #3 refers to a July 1953 article by J.B. Matthews in American Mercury magazine which was the basis for Robert Welch’s subsequent numerical claim of “more than 7000 Protestant clergymen”.

According to Matthews, the 7000 figure he used in the year 1953 reflected the total number of clergymen “during the last 17 years” whom he believed were involved as fellow-travelers, unwitting dupes, party-line adherents, and outright Party members and espionage agents. Matthews did not attempt to establish how many individuals belonged in each of the 5 categories that he specified nor did he estimate the number of clergymen from his aggregate 7000 total that remained active in 1953.

As will shortly become apparent, the 17-year time frame suggested by Matthews refers to the apogee of Communist activity within the U.S. – and, consequently, had no significance for events or circumstances in later decades.

“In arrangement, handling of names, selection of facts, and in its implications, the article is not at all fair to the Protestant clergy of this country” and it characterized Matthews charges as “more in the nature of sensational journalism than serious reporting of the facts.” [100-5821-22, 7/29/53]

By way of illustrating the imprecision of this “numbers game”, ex-Communist (and FBI informant) Joseph Zack Kornfeder testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in July 1953, that only “600” Communists had infiltrated the clergy in America. [Tax Fax #31 – “Communist Infiltration of Religion”, published by Kent Courtney, Free Men Speak Inc.].

As noted above, seven years after the Matthews article, Robert Welch resurrected the 7000 figure and used it as a contemporary number (i.e. present-tense…”There are…more than 7000 Protestant clergymen actively helping the communists…”).

It is revealing that, in 1960, Welch said the number had increased to “more than 7000”. Apparently, in the Welch scheme of things, no clergymen in 24 years had died, retired, or were otherwise no longer interested or able to assist the “communists”!

During his anti-Communist career, Welch and the JBS frequently made bold assertions containing numerical statements or percentages about Communist “influence and control” within agencies, organizations, or the U.S. as a whole – but he routinely inflated the numbers provided by his original sources of information –OR— the numbers were just abstract inventions with no coherent meaning other than to illustrate his grim view of our internal security status.

The next 17 pages of Sullivan’s speech discuss specific details about communist attempts to infiltrate religion. He made a distinction that seems lost on the adherents of the extreme right:

“Over the years, some well-meaning, intelligent, and patriotic Americans of distinction---including clergymen—have been induced to give their names, their prestige, and often their talents to communist fronts or causes without apparently being aware of their true nature or purpose.

These men and women were mostly motivated by a genuine and idealistic desire to further what they thought or had been led to believe were worthwhile and laudable social objectives and programs.

These individuals were frequently too busy or too unsuspecting, or both, to investigate the nature and backing of the organization with which they had identified themselves. Even though in some cases they have known or suspected that communists were involved, they were too unfamiliar with communist practices to realize that communists were not interested in the cause itself, but only in the way it could be twisted and used to advance communist aims and goals.”

[William C. Sullivan, Communism and Religion in The United States, Highland Park Methodist Church, Dallas Texas, October 19, 1961, pages, 3, 11, and 12.]

In a section of his speech entitled “Extent of Communist Infiltration of Clergy” Sullivan comes to grips with the core allegations made by the extreme right:

“We have seen why and how communists have made continuous and persistent efforts over the years to penetrate American churches and to exploit American clergymen. But to stop here would result in conveying a totally erroneous impression as to the extent of communist infiltration of the clergy.

To give an objective appraisal, it is essential to point out that the apogee of communist activity, penetration, and influence among clergymen and churches in the United States coincides with the zenith of the numerical strength, activity, and influence of the American communist movement generally. This peak was reached in the late 1930’s and during and just after World War II. It was in 1944 that the Communist Party USA boasted of a top membership of 80,000 plus an extensive communist front apparatus.”

“Since the late 1940’s, communist influence within the churches and among the clergy has waned along with the diminution of the Party’s membership, activity, and influence on the American scene. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Communist Party USA has achieved any substantial success in exerting domination, control, or influence over America’s clergymen or religious bodies and institutions on a national scale. The fact of the matter is that no substantial number of clergymen have been closely identified with the Communist Party over the years.”

“According to estimates, there are 300,000 ordained clergymen in the United States, the great majority of whom are Protestant.

When this large figure is compared with the total number of clergymen who have had communist affiliations, joined communist fronts, engaged in communist activities, supported communist causes, signed communist documents, or otherwise---wittingly or unwittingly—aided and abetted the communist movement during the past four decades, the proportion is actually exceedingly small.

Moreover, many of the most active, most vocal, and most publicized of these clergymen who have worked so diligently on behalf of communism do not have or never have had their own churches or congregations. Of those who did have, many were removed when their procommunist backgrounds and connections became known.”

“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. This statement applied with equal force to the Methodists as it does to other religious denominations.” [Ibid, pages 18-19].

Note: In January 1961, William Sullivan wrote a review of a recent book entitled "Communism and the Churches" by Ralph Lord Roy. In his review, Sullivan inserted a footnote which reveals the FBI’s evaluation of the extent of Communist penetration of clergy and religious institutions. The footnote is as follows:

“Note: In a study prepared by the Bureau in March 1960, 15 clergymen and 18 church workers were listed on the Security Index.” [100-3-82-320, 1/9/61; also see 100-403539-112].

Since the FBI’s “Security Index” was designed to keep track of those persons it considered dangerous to U.S. security, the total of 33 people listed (not 7000) should put this matter into proper perspective.

“A complete review of our SI shows that 13 ministers names are included in our SI. Six of these men are active in church work while seven are retired or inactive. In addition, the names of 21 church workers are included in our SI. These 21 people are, for the most part, engaged in clerical work for various church groups. None of these individuals appear to wield any substantial influence on the national policies of the church groups of which they are affiliated.” [100-3-106-306, 2/24/60, Mr. Parsons to Alan Belmont, page 3].

The FBI was not the only agency to receive numerous heated inquiries about the Sullivan speeches.

Francis E. Walter, Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, replied to critics of Sullivan—including Edgar C. Bundy of Church League of America.

In his 3/21/61 letter to Bundy, Walter observed that Sullivan was “probably the most knowledgeable of any agent in the Bureau on the subject of Communism”, and in a subsequent August 7, 1961 letter to another Sullivan critic, Walter wrote: “I do not find that our Committee is in disagreement in any way with the statements contained in Sullivan’s speech.” [FBI HQ file 94-4-4644, serial #66].

With respect to extreme right assertions regarding the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA (NCCC), one must understand something about FBI requirements for commencing an official investigation. Here, then, is the FBI explanation:

“Under our policy we initiate investigation regarding communist infiltration of any church group if the communists have infiltrated the group in sufficient numbers to substantially influence or control the affairs of the group. However, such an investigation may be started by the field only with prior Bureau authority. We have only one such investigation. It involves the First Unitarian Church in Los Angeles, Califormia.” [100-3-106-306, 2/24/60, Mr. Parsons to Alan Belmont, page 2].

With that policy in mind, the Bureau never conducted an official investigation of the NCC. Quoted below is the FBI characterization of NCCC:

"The Bureau has never conducted an investigation of the NCCC; however, we have in the past checked with informants and did not develop any indication that communists influence the policies of this organization.” [100-3-106-306, 2/24/60, Mr. Parsons to Alan Belmont, page 6-7]

However, the Bureau did discover Communist-front affiliations of some NCCC officials:

“With respect to the NCCC, it seems obvious from the information in our files that the Communist Party USA is not controlling the policies of this body. However, we do have information that (names deleted) of this group, and four of its national officers have been affiliated with communist-front organizations. We have not conducted investigation on any of these individuals and they have not been converted to membership in the Communist Party USA. Neither has the Communist Party USA been able to place a communist on the staff of the NCCC.” [100-3-106-306, 2/24/60, Mr. Parsons to Alan Belmont, page 16]

What, primarily, was the Communist Party USA able to accomplish with respect to infiltrating and influencing our clergy?

“One of the most successful approached used by communists in the religious field is its ability to obtain the names of clergymen and prominent church people on various types of petitions aimed at furthering some communist program. The Party carries out this program very subtly and most of the clergymen who sign such petitions are not aware that they are affixing their name to a communist-sponsored paper.” [100-3-106-306, 2/24/60, Mr. Parsons to Alan Belmont, page 9]

“…The Party’s greatest success in influencing American clergymen in any way has been its ability to persuade them to sign petitions. This is not so startling considering the fact the petitions are not usually presented as Communist Party petitions.

The clergymen are approached on the basis they will be lending their names to a worthy cause such as peace, civil rights or amnesty for some individual serving an alleged unjust jail sentence. While this does not mean that the Communist Party USA is able to control the policies of the church groups, it does reveal they were able, although it may have been through subterfuge, to influence the thinking of a number of clergymen with respect to the communist propaganda involved in the petitions signed.” [100-3-106-306, 2/24/60, Mr. Parsons to Alan Belmont, page 16]

"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." [100-403529-432, July 19, 1963 Hoover letter in response to an inquiry on the subject]

An example of the problem that Hoover described regarding "self-styled experts...without valid credentials" is contained in Bureau memoranda of February 1961 which pertain to a speech and article by JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver. Oliver's statements concerned alleged Communist infiltration into the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

(1) between 70% and 80% of the responsible officers in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) were "members or accomplices" of the Communist conspiracy,

SPEECH: In his March 1959 speech to Illinois DAR, Oliver stated that "fully one-third of the top echelon of Communist conspirators in this country" could be found in DHEW and he cited former FBI Security Informant, Herbert A. Philbrick (of "I Led 3 Lives" fame) as his source of information.

[62-104401-709, enclosure = "All America Must Know How Reds Work In Government", Oliver speech before annual Illinois State Convention of the Daughters of the American Revolution.]

ROBERT WELCH USE OF OLIVER INFO: At the first meeting of the JBS National Council which was held January 1, 1960 in Chicago at the Union League Club, Robert Welch told National Council members:

"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."

It seems clear that Welch did NOT rely upon "many reliable sources" but, relied instead, just upon Revilo Oliver (whom Welch once described as perhaps the "world's greatest living scholar").

According to Welch, the percentage increased to a possible 90% and he characterized all the suspect personnel as "Communists" whereas Oliver was more ambiguous and used the descriptive phrase "members or accomplices of the communist conspiracy" amounting to perhaps as much as 80% of responsible DHEW personnel.

The FBI received numerous inquiries about this matter and HQ instructed its Boston Field Office to contact Herbert Philbrick to discover what he allegedly told Revilo Oliver.

"Herbert Philbrick, a former informant of the Boston Office, has been contacted regarding Oliver's statements and has advised he has never given Oliver any information concerning communist infiltration of the DHEW, that he knows no one in this Department, and has had no information concerning Communist activity in the United States Government since at least 1944."

"Philbrick considers Oliver to be an extremist in anticommunist feelings and violently anti-Semitic. The Boston Office has advised there is no record of any statement regarding the DHEW in its files emanating from Philbrick. Through a review of the Bureau Security Index cards, it was determined that no employees of the DHEW are included in the Security Index." [62-104401-unrecorded, February 1, 1961, F.J. Baumgardner to Alan H. Belmont]

The reference to "no employees of the DHEW are included in the Security Index" is particularly noteworthy since the SI was designed to be the FBI's method of identifying persons it considered actually or potentially dangerous to U.S. security and that included (a) members of the Communist Party, (b) individuals with Communist sympathies, (c) persons who were leaders within Communist front groups, (d) or persons with "anarchist or revolutionary beliefs".

In short: Nobody that the FBI considered subversive or dangerous to U.S. security was employed within the DHEW!

According to the FBI Security Index, there were 19 Communists working in the entire U.S. government as of 1959 (the year Oliver first made his charges about DHEW). [HQ file 100-358086-2697].

At the conclusion of the Bureau memo concerning Oliver's DHEW charges, Hoover handwrote: "I think we should take a closer look at the John Birch Society. If it publishes such a publication it is suspect."

Subsequently, Senator Milton R. Young contacted Hoover to inquire into Revilo Oliver's statement about extensive Communist infiltration into DHEW. Hoover responded:

"This is, of course, a completely ridiculous assertion and when a report of this matter was brought to my attention recently it was promptly and emphatically denied as a fabrication." [62-104401-751, March 10, 1961, J. Edgar Hoover to Sen. Milton R. Young]

It is precisely the wild statements made by Welch and Oliver about DHEW that exemplified why the Bureau became suspicious of anyone connected to the Birch Society and why Hoover frequently made statements about the dangers inherent in "self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials" engaging in "rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations..."

During its entire existence, the Birch Society has claimed that it is an "educational" organization, "whose only weapon is the truth".

According to founder Robert Welch in the Foreword to the Blue Book of the John Birch Society:

"For our enemy is the Communists, and we do not intend to lose sight of that fact for a minute. We are fighting the Communists -- nobody else."

In 1970, the JBS published a pamphlet by its founder, Robert Welch, entitled "What Is The John Birch Society?". In it, Mr. Welch sought to summarize what he considered to be the accomplishments of the JBS during its first 11 years of existence. He singled out his 1959 campaign against Dr. Harry A. Overstreet, author of the 1958 book, "What We Must Know About Communism".

Mr. Welch stated that an article appearing in the October 1959 issue of the JBS magazine, American Opinion (Edward Janisch, "What We Must Know About Overstreet", pages 35-46), "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."

Welch further described the Overstreet book as "pro-Communist doubletalk" and he observed that it was "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." [What Is The John Birch Society?, 1970, page 18].

In his American Opinion article, Edward Janisch states that the Overstreet 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." [American Opinion, 10/59, page 44].

Who was Edward Janisch and what are his credentials for evaluating internal security matters?

A search of all usual databases and references discloses that Mr. Janisch had no paper trail, i.e. no master's or doctoral dissertation listings, no articles listed in Reader's Guide To Periodical Literature, no books or other publications in major university and college library catalogs or in the Library of Congress, no index listings in the New York Times, no biographical sketch either in American Opinion or Current Biography or Who's Who in America, or The Directory of American Scholars.

In addition, there is no record that Janisch ever contacted or interviewed Harry Overstreet nor anyone associated with Harry, particularly those persons who had expertise in internal security matters.

I can report, however, that after considerable research I was able to discover that Janisch was an Assistant Professor of Government at a very small college in Pennsylvania. (Slippery Rock College now known as Slippery Rock University in Slippery Rock, PA)

In his American Opinion article, Janisch characterizes the philosophy underlying the adult-education career of Dr. Overstreet as follows:

"If, on the other hand, you are one of those 'backward souls' who believes in God, love of country, free enterprise, investigations of Communism...then you are 'immature'; and quite possibly, according to Professor Overstreet, you are on the road to mental illness." [American Opinion, 10/59, p. 35].

The reference to investigations of Communism will be, as the reader will shortly discover, a particularly vapid and dishonest criticism by Janisch. (See excerpts below from Harry's 1953 testimony, "Subversive Influences in the Educational Process")

Janisch repeatedly uses sarcastic comments and sinister innuendo about the loyalty or patriotism of Dr. Overstreet. For example, he describes "all of the books" by Dr. Overstreet thusly:

"His writings are one of the little webs, along with many other webs the Communists weave together to make up the Big Lie of their total web of deception. He does his work with half-truth, glittering generality, misplaced emphasis, significant omission, and other tricks that mark the prolific popularizer and propaganda hack." [Ibid, pg 35-36].

In case Janisch's nasty insinuations aren't transparent enough, he then offers what he believes is the Communist evaluation of Dr. Overstreet's book on Communism:

"And the ghost of Stalin must be whispering to Khrushchev, 'for this, there should be dancing on our side of the street'." [Ibid, page 35].

"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." [Ibid, pg 44].

In what will shortly become apparent as a particularly egregious comment, Janisch criticizes Dr. Overstreet because: "Here is a book on Communism in which not one of J. Edgar Hoover's somber warnings is mentioned..." [Ibid, pg 44].

In a July 17, 1961 memo to all members of the JBS National Council, Robert Welch discussed suggestion #6 in the JBS Blue Book which was to expose "largely through American Opinion...the real sympathies (as disclosed by their actions) of those who are assiduously helping the Communists without their true purposes of the significance of their actions being realized."

In particular Welch referred to the Janisch article mentioned above as one example of the type of article he had in mind:

"And our article on Overstreet served well a more specific purpose. It enabled our members in many parts of the country to block completely, or offset the effect of, speaking engagements by this octogenarian phoney, and thus materially to reduce the amount of poison he was pouring into the minds of good Americans from his position of previously unchallenged prestige."

Here, then, is a summary of information contained in key FBI documents about Dr. Harry Overstreet and his wife Bonaro:

A November 1954 memo summarizes the Bureau relationship with Dr. and Mrs. Overstreet:

"Years ago, Dr. Overstreet got mixed up with some leftwing groups and the Overstreets came to Washington approximately three years ago...to straighten out the record."

They were advised by the FBI to submit affidavits to the House Committee on Un-American Activities concerning their past front associations and contributions and they did so. On July 20, 1953, Harry Overstreet submitted a 15-page single-spaced summary concerning his past affiliations to HUAC Chairman Harold Velde. Harry then offered to testify, under oath, to answer any outstanding questions or concerns. Velde informed Harry that his affidavit was sufficient and his testimony would not be required.

"In addition, the Overstreets went to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and Bob Morris used them on a couple of occasions as witnesses. They were very effective in testifying against the Communist aims in education."

In his 1953 testimony, Harry was asked by SISS Chief Counsel Robert Morris if being an active Communist Party member is compatible with being a teacher. Harry's reply was:

"I'm perfectly convinced, Mr. Morris, that it is quite incompatible with being a teacher in an educational system such as our democracy calls for...The Communist way of life is not a free thinking way of life. It is a conspiratorial way of life. It is people organizing themselves to do something to get rid of a type of society that they hate and therefore it comes under the category of conspiratorial activity rather than thinking activity."

When Robert Morris asked Harry if a teacher should be judged solely on their competence in their subject area, Harry replied, no, "because teaching is a matter of one's total personality and...the Communist attitude calls for fixity of belief, finality of belief, and intolerance of evidence that goes counter to that belief, a hatred of the going order of society, methods of subterfuge, of deviousness. I would say all of these go counter to what is required in democratic educational processes..."

Morris then asked Harry whether or not colleges and universities should undertake the responsibility of determining if there are Communists on their faculties. Harry replied: "Yes" because the "primary interest of a college or university" is determining "how much Communist adherence there is among the teachers because a college wants the best possible teachers." Harry then cited the University of Washington investigative experience as a "model":

"They did a wonderful job there...First of all, they set out to examine the situation with a complete thoroughness. They took months and months to do that thing. Each hearing went over many days."

[See Overstreet 5/28/53 testimony "Subversive Influence in the Educational Process" pages 1017-1029 of "Hearings Before Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of The Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary."]

"There is no question in my mind but that if any one was ever duped through naivety, it is the Overstreets and I think they are doing their utmost in trying to redeem themselves." [100-114575-28, November 22, 1954, Louis B. Nichols to Clyde Tolson].

In a September 1955 memo, Assistant Director Nichols again discussed the Overstreets:

"We helped them 3 years ago in explaining away contributions to front groups and the like. They have been very grateful and I have gotten them very much interested in bringing about better understanding in academic circles toward the Bureau."

In October 1955, J. Edgar Hoover dictated a letter of congratulations to Harry on the occasion of his 80th birthday, with the letter to be delivered personally. In early 1956, Hoover sent Overstreet a thank-you note in recognition of a pro-FBI letter that Harry had published in the Washington Post.

After the retirement of Louis Nichols, the Overstreets continued their relationship with the Bureau through Chief Inspector William C. Sullivan. In September 1958, a Sullivan memo mentions that he encouraged the Overstreets to write a book "against communism directed toward liberals and progressives, et cetera, who would not normally read a book condemning communism."

Sullivan then observed that he provided considerable assistance to the Overstreets during the preparation of their book entitled "What We Must Know About Communism". The assistance consisted of loaning public source material from FBI files and spending "approximately one night each week (7:00pm to about 11:00pm) during the winter months...devoted to reading and analyzing the materials the Overstreets were preparing." [100-114575-90, September 19, 1958, and 100-114575-88, October 1, 1958, William C. Sullivan to Alan H. Belmont].

In another memo, Sullivan states that "while working with the Overstreets on this book I purposely had them direct 95% of their thinking to the world communist movement believing this would best supplement the Director's book which was directed almost 100% to the communist movement in the United States." [100-114575-92, November 25, 1958, Sullivan to Belmont].

A formal review of the Overstreet book was prepared at the Bureau in October 1958 after Harry sent a copy to Hoover inscribed from both him and his wife as follows:

"To J. Edgar Hoover -- With personal gratitude for what you have superbly done for all of us."

The review concluded that "this new book represents cogent advice to the thinking public. It reflects ideas common to the thinking which has gone on in the Bureau for many years."

It was described as a "welcome new aid" in combating Communism. [100-114575-91, October 1, 1958, W.C. Sullivan to Alan H. Belmont].

In December 1958, Hoover wrote to Harry after reading a newspaper article about him:

"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" [100-114575-93, December 5, 1958, J. Edgar Hoover to Harry Overstreet]

In early 1959, J. Edgar Hoover declined a dinner invitation by Harry Overstreet but replied to him as follows:

"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." [100-114575-95, January 21, 1959, J. Edgar Hoover to Harry Overstreet].

In January 1959, Director Hoover was contacted by Attorney General Brownell to solicit his evaluation of the Overstreet book. The AG wanted to know if Hoover agreed with a favorable review written by columnist Roscoe Drummond which appeared in the Washington Post of 1-26-59. Hoover replied that he did agree with the Drummond column and Hoover suggested that all Justice Department employees should be encouraged to read the book.

Assistant Director C.D. DeLoach requested and received Hoover's permission to contact the Director of the Americanism Commission of the American Legion to request that they add the Overstreet book to their recommended reading list.

Per DeLoach's letter, "We agree that it is a good one and would you please put it on your approved list?" [100-114575-100, February 2, 1959, W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont, and, 94-1-17998-139 attachment, February 2, 1959, C.D. DeLoach to American Legion].

The controversy over Overstreet and his book continued for years often due to the JBS smear campaign against him and his wife which took the form of attempting to get Harry's speaking engagements cancelled due to his alleged pro-Communist sympathies and/or by planting hostile questioners in his audiences.

In February 1961, J. Edgar Hoover responded to an inquiry about the Overstreet book. The Bureau file copy has the following notation:

"We have had cordial relations with Dr. and Mrs. Harry Allen Overstreet and have furnished them considerable assistance in connection with their books." [100-114575-115, February 17, 1961, Hoover to name deleted for privacy].

In early 1964 Overstreet was sent material to assist him in refuting charges made by extreme right individuals and groups including Edgar Bundy (Church League of America) and Dan Smoot (former FBI Special Agent).

Bundy, whom the FBI described as "a professional anticommunist with whom we have absolutely no dealings" had misrepresented Director Hoover's statements from a 1949 article on Communist influence in religion, and, Dan Smoot was in the habit, from the Bureau's perspective, of making "unfactual and inaccurate statements...concerning national and international problems" and was wrongly capitalizing on his former association with the Bureau to inflate his credibility.

Harry Overstreet furnished advance excerpts to the Bureau of his forthcoming book on the extreme right in the summer of 1964. The Bureau's favorable review concluded that:

"The material has been reviewed and checked previously by the Domestic Intelligence Division. From our point of view, there does not appear to be anything objectionable."

Assistant Director C.D. DeLoach handwrote an observation on the memo about the Overstreet chapter on Dan Smoot:

"I'm glad they're doing this. It's about time someone called his hand." [100-114575-139, July 23, 1964, M.A. Jones to C.D. DeLoach].

In October 1965, J. Edgar Hoover wrote 90th birthday greetings to Harry "on Director's note paper used for special congratulatory purpose" which was delivered personally and read to Harry by Assistant Director William Sullivan:

"By utilizing your unique experience and abilities in the field of education and psychology in your analyses of communism and its threat to freedom, you have contributed significantly to the intelligent and, therefore, more effective opposition to communism." [100-114575-153, October 25, 1965, J. Edgar Hoover to Harry Overstreet].

In 1969, W.W. Norton Company published "The FBI In Our Open Society" by Harry and Bonaro Overstreet.

Director Hoover was so impressed with the book that he notified all Special Agents in Charge of Field Offices via SAC Letter 69-14, dated 2/25/69: "This is an excellent book and portrays the FBI in a most favorable way."

Hoover announced that the Bureau had made arrangements with the publisher for a special discount price and he instructed SAC's to "survey your personnel and advise the Bureau promptly of the number of books to be sent to your office."

The Bureau added the new Overstreet book to its "Autograph Card Form 8-2" which contained those publications which the FBI distributed at no charge with "best wishes" from Hoover himself.

Hoover also instructed Special Agent J. Sizoo to prepare a synopsis of each chapter so that Bureau personnel could use the summary as a "ready reference...in rebutting numerous unfounded claims against the Bureau..." [66-04-3648, SAC Letter 69-14, February 25, 1969 and 100-114575-184, June 4, 1969, A.W. Gray to W.C. Sullivan].

"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." [100-114575-195, August 19, 1970, J. Edgar Hoover to Bonaro Overstreet].

In its 1959 Report, the California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities portrayed Dr. Overstreet as an expert on communism of the caliber of Eugene Lyons, Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker Chambers. Louis Budenz and others. The Report mentions that Overstreet was invited by the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee to participate in hearings concerning the internal menace of communism. The California Subcommittee describes Overstreet as follows:

"Mr. Overstreet is an example of a non-Communist liberal who was attracted to a few of these front organizations, found out what they were all about, and had the courage to do something about the problem instead of shrinking away from the experience and remaining silent. Many people who have had similar experiences--in fact the overwhelming majority of them--are content to remain silent..." [1959 Report, pages 169 and 183].

Harry's wife, Bonaro, sent a letter to the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities to thank them for recognizing that liberals "not previously alert" to Communist influence "could become aware...of the Communist menace" and "not be forever branded as pro-Communist." [1965 Report, page 176]

Robert Morris, the former Chief Counsel of the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, had a close personal relationship with the Overstreets. Morris wrote to me in March 1989 about the Overstreets. Here is an excerpt:

"I did know Harry and Bonaro Overstreet in the late 1950's and 1960's. They were introduced to me by Louis Nichols when he was Assistant Director of the FBI. They were most helpful to me in my capacity of Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee...They became my friends and I am still grateful for their friendship."

Morris invited the Overstreets to testify as expert witnesses before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee:

[See Harry and Bonaro Overstreet testimony: "Reaching Through To Young Minds" in Education For Survival in The Struggle Against World Communism: A Symposium - SISS, 4/12/62 Committee Print, pages 88-93]

Former FBI Security Informant Herbert A. Philbrick of "I Led 3 Lives" fame wrote to Senator William Proxmire in 1961 concerning his sources of information regarding Communist infiltration into the U.S. Government.

"During my lectures across the country, however, I do refer frequently to scholars and others who have extensive knowledge in this area."

Among the persons he cited as experts were: Harry and Bonaro Overstreet, Robert Morris, and James Burnham. [Boston FBI file 66-1020-575, February 11, 1961, Herbert A. Philbrick to Sen. William Proxmire].

Ironically, the Birch Society attacks on Overstreet and his book What We Must Know About Communism were echoed by Communist Party officials such as William Z. Foster who described the book as "an extensive collection of prejudices, distortions and so-called arguments". He went on to say that the Overstreets "make the usual bourgeois idealization of capitalist society...a sort of God-given system beyond the reach of criticism."

Foster stated that the Overstreets maliciously attacked the USSR when they denied it was either democratic or peace loving. [William Z. Foster, The Overstreets' Kampf, Mainstream, May 1959, pp 39-44].

A reviewer for the World Marxist Review also attacked the book and the Overstreets and claimed that they did not understand capitalism plus distorted facts and falsely described Communism as conspiratorial. [E. Arab-Ogly, Executors of John F. Dulles' Will, World Marxist Review, 10/60, pp. 83-86].

Harry probably deserves a spot in the Guinness Book of Records because he must be the only supposed Communist sympathizer who ever wrote a highly favorable review of J. Edgar Hoover's book, Masters of Deceit! [June 1958 National Parent-Teacher, pg 32] (national PTA magazine).

6. FBI vs. JBS on civil rights movement (Alan Stang's It's Very Simple book -and- Highlander Folk School)

Control and domination of the civil rights movement by subversive elements is a constant theme in JBS literature during the 1960's. In the June 1965 JBS Bulletin, Mr. Welch observed:

"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."

In the November 1965 JBS Bulletin, Mr. Welch strongly recommends Alan Stang's book entitled It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights because, in Welch's words,

"It gives the whole picture of the 'civil rights' development, as a part of Communist strategy, more completely and convincingly than anything else available."

"This book, because of its thoroughness, its comprehensive coverage of the whole 'civil rights' story, and its meticulous documentation, is the best single searchlight we have for exposing the 'civil rights' fraud."

In May 1965, the Special Agent in Charge of the Boston FBI Field Office forwarded proof sheets of the Stang book to FBI Headquarters, two months before scheduled publication. An evaluation of the book was prepared for Assistant Director W.C. Sullivan by F.J. Baumgardner:

"It's Very Simple is an attempt to rationalize today's civil rights movement in this country as primarily a communist operation...Practically all his documentation is to public source material and there is no significant information in the book which appears to be new and previously unknown to the Bureau. Stang makes frequent use of literary license and importantly fails to include documentation for key passages (examples appear on pages 101 and 185). An entire chapter (14) is devoted to an attack on civil rights legislation and the book, in general, is critical of all Administration and other efforts aimed at improving the lot of the Negro." [100-106670-1412, May 28, 1965, and 100-106670-1525, June 24, 1965, both F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan].

"The details of the book do not support the strong conclusions reached by the author. We have had available to us all the material which Stang has plus considerable additional data from our investigations and we could not arrive at such conclusions. The impression is received that Stang may have well started with his conclusions and then developed the information and manner of presentation which he hoped would prove his point. This work must be viewed in the light of the author's apparent close connections with Robert Welch and the John Birch Society." [Ibid]

NOTE: At this point I think it appropriate to introduce some context about Alan Stang's research habits to supplement the FBI's evaluation:

Alan Stang authored the article that resulted in the historic libel lawsuit by Elmer Gertz against Robert Welch, Inc. which is mentioned at the beginning of this Report. The trial court judge in that case (Robert A. Sprecher) described Alan Stang as:

"a writer with a known and unreasonable propensity to label persons or organizations as Communist...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." [Elmer Gertz: Gertz vs. Robert Welch, Inc.: The Story of a Landmark Libel Case Southern Illinois University Press, 1992, page 206]

In 1965, J. Edgar Hoover described the civil rights movement as "a great and too long neglected cause of human rights" in our country. [FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Introduction, April 1965].

After warning about radicals that had no genuine interest in advancing civil rights, Hoover observed in a December 1964 speech, that:

"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, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - Hoover speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; emphasis in original].

The Birch Society and its front-organization TACT (Truth About Civil Turmoil) were responsible for widespread distribution of a postcard showing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "attending a Communist training school." The school was identified as Highlander Folk School (HFS) in Monteagle, TN.

Alan Stang discusses HFS and the photograph in his book and he describes Highlander as "this Communist school". [It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights; Western Islands Publishers, 1965, page 114)

The famous photograph of Dr. King at Highlander was taken by Ed Friend. Mr. Friend described himself as "an undercover agent" for the Georgia Commission on Education (GCE).

Ed Friend was hired by the Chairman of the GCE, Governor Marvin Griffin of Georgia. Mr. Griffin was a life-long segregationist and co-founder of the States Rights Council of GA, an organization, like the GCE itself that was devoted to preventing integration in Georgia. Toward that end, Governor Griffin was a welcomed speaker at White Citizens Councils and States Rights Council functions.

Mr. Friend attended a 1957 Labor Day weekend seminar at HFS and took a picture of a group of individuals seated in an auditorium, one of whom was Dr. King.

When the GCE published its pamphlet on Highlander, it described the HFS seminar as being "held to discuss methods and tactics for precipitating racial strife and disturbances."

Subsequently, Ed Friend testified before a Tennessee legislative hearing concerning what he "learned" during his "investigation" of Highlander. The excerpt appearing below, reveals his underlying motivation:

A: It was subversive, sir, to the way that I have been taught to live in America.

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...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."

"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].

In 1963, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett testified before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee against a proposed public accommodations bill. Governor Barnett raised the issue of Dr. King's attendance at HFS.

"FBI files concerning the HFS show that this school was the subject of a security investigation which was closed in 1943...No information was developed that the school offered courses of instruction on communism nor that the Communist Party ever succeeded in gaining control of the school. Due to its interracial character, however, the HFS has been the subject of numerous past allegations that it represents the headquarters for communism in eastern Tennessee." [July 13, 1963 FBI memo from J.F. Bland to W.C. Sullivan].

Tax Relief--just read your private message to me.

I obtained the entire trial transcript and was able to read the testimony of Alan Stang (author of libelous article) and Scott Stanley Jr. (editor of American Opinion at the time).

During the trial, Stanley and Stang were asked to explain how they went about "fact-checking" to establish that Gertz was, as the article claimed, a "Leninist" engaged in a "conspiracy" to destroy confidence in local police.

When the trial ended with a jury decision against Robert Welch Inc., the trial judge described Alan Stang as follows:

"...a writer with a known and unreasonable propensity to label persons or organizations as Communist...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."

During questioning, Stang and Stanley made it clear that they started with a conclusion about Gertz and then carefully selected only that material which they thought would discredit him.

If they came across something positive about Gertz, or something which was inconvenient to their pre-conceived conclusion, they discarded it.

During the trial, the JBS acknowledged that "falsehoods" were contained in the article....but they never owned up to how it was possible for those falsehoods to be used in their purportedly "carefully researched" article.

Of course, ultimately, they did pay Gertz $400,000 for their little "mistake".

In addition, I now have the FBI file on Elmer Gertz (who died in April 2000). It is clear that the JBS was gravely mistaken in its attack on Gertz.

Actually, the whole episode reminds me of the JBS attack on Harry Overstreet. I only wish Harry had decided to sue the JBS as well. He could then have brought in FBI officials to testify about the close personal relationship he had with the FBI at the exact same time that Birchers described him as a Communist sympathizer!

Sorry, Eastbound, I prefer to remain "on-topic" , i.e. let's talk about:

(1) whether or not the JBS disseminates accurate and reliable information, and,

(2) whether material in FBI files supports or refutes the assertions made by the JBS during its most prolific period (1960's-1970's).

One thing I have noticed about JBS partisans. When the evidence presented for JBS error gets tough to refute, they prefer to change the subject so they don't have to say "gee, you might be right about that particular subject".

For the Birch Society, nothing could be worse than for conditions to IMPROVE, if the improvement requires discarding mistaken Birch dogma and acknowledging error.

In other words, for Birchers, believing the worst about our country and our national leadership, is a result of internal needs, not external reality.

Consequently, there is no possibility whatsoever of a Bircher ever acknowledging error---not even hypothetically, because to do so (from their perspective) would threaten to unravel an elaborate conspiratorial explanation which they use to "make sense" out of their failure to prevail in public policy debates or elections, despite 45 years of effort.

It is important to understand the basic purpose of conspiratorial thought: it provides order and clarity to events and situations which otherwise would be disorderly and ambiguous. A conspiracy theory acts as a psychological tonic---and allows adherents to think that they have a unique, special insight into events which has escaped the rest of humanity.

However, like a broken clock, the JBS has been correct about some matters, although the tone of their argumentation and the underlying quality of mind it betokens, still presents a problem for anyone genuinely concerned about amicable debate in our country.

Ernie

This reply is probably the closest you have come thus far (in this thread or my "John Birch 'Experts'" thread) to presenting a thoughtful analysis with pertinent questions and comments. Congratulations! And keep it up!

You are correct. The FBI has recently screwed-up big-time but I don't think anyone (even you?) is accusing them of deliberate misbehavior--i.e. consciously lying or misleading in the current controversy--or perhaps I am wrong about your position?). Even in past controversies (Waco, Ruby Ridge, COINTELPRO, etc.) there are HUGE differences between FBI and JBS.

May I take a moment to share them with you?

1. Eastbound knows about FBI screw-ups because they have been widely publicized in excruciating detail -- thousands upon thousands of pages of Congressional testimony, numerous reports, hundreds upon hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles, and thousands upon thousands of Internet postings.

2. IN ADDITION, numerous scholars (such as our country's foremost expert on the FBI--Dr. Athan Theoharis of Temple University) have written unsparing and detailed historical accounts of FBI misbehavior, and their illegal or questionable activities.

NOW HOW HAS ALL THIS BEEN POSSIBLE?

(a) Because FBI records have been obtained by scholars, the media, Congress, and other interested parties through FOIA requests, committee hearings, investigative reporting, etc.

(b) because Congress can demand that senior FBI officials (or low-level staffers) come before investigating committees and testify, under oath

(c) because media scrutiny is relentless and probing

BY CONTRAST:

(a) The JBS routinely (and ROUTINELY is the operative word) rebuffs requests from scholars who want to review JBS records, including Welch correspondence and memos

(b) Requests for information or interviews are declined because, the JBS says candidly, they don't want to cooperate in any venture which MIGHT result in unfavorable information about the JBS (in other words the JBS subscribes to the SOVIET method of history-telling). The only exceptions are occasional publicity-type interviews to promote their public speakers.

(c) The JBS NEVER (and I mean NEVER) acknowledges substantive error by retracting adverse statements about a person or organization that they subsequently acknowledge to be false or misleading.

(d) The JBS does not even keep it members apprised of developments that suggest re-thinking of conclusions might be appropriate---such as the Gertz trial verdict, or, information about Julia Brown's contradictory statements, or information that reflects poorly on persons that the JBS has previously described as reliable, knowledgeable, and authoritative. And this is a self-professed "educational organization"? Some education!

MORE CONTRASTS:

The organizations you mention DO permit independent scholarly review of archives and documents plus they routinely agree to answer written questions or submit to extensive interviews---EVEN IF they cannot control the end product.

There have been critical portraits written about ACLU, ADA, the UN, and others, which are based upon the types of material I have just mentioned. In fact, critical histories are often produced by virtue of research done for masters theses and doctoral dissertations which are then turned into books.

None of this, however, applies to the JBS -- because the JBS FORBIDS outsiders from seeing their historical records. (And they don't even produce their own in-house histories...with ONE exception that comes to mind---McManus's book on Bill Buckley.)

FYI (and just to illustrate, again, how absurd this situation has become), a few years ago FOR THE FIRST TIME, specific documentary evidence became available for analysis concerning the number of JBS members and their geographical locations. And how did this come about? Did the JBS authorize an internal study? Or did the JBS agree to assist a researcher (even a friendly one?) to produce a report? Or what?

Nope---here's what happened.

The JBS was discarding huge amounts of material as they prepared to move HQ from Belmont MA to Appleton WI and they apparently threw a large amount of confidential stuff into a trash dumpster and someone found it and brought it to the attention of a Massachusetts group which monitors right-wing organizations.

In answer to the hypothetical situation your message proposes, I could NOT write a paper for the FBI about the JBS today. The reason is because insufficient data is available. Public source materials (newspaper and magazine articles) don't provide any detailed "inside" information whatsoever.

I might be able to quote a few FORMER Birchers who quit because they were dissatisfied but, if the FBI asked me to write something, I would decline---cause the project would be hopelessly futile.

(3) I don't believe you really mean what you wrote in section #2 of your message i.e. "Assertions against who? You gave us Gertz v Welch."

I suggest that you re-read the post you are currently submitting messages on...It consists of 22-pages of details on people like Harry Overstreet, on topics such as Birch hallucinations about the Dept of Health, Education, Welfare; Communist infiltration of clergy and religious organizations; Communist influence and control of the civil rights movement; the general JBS conclusion about the overall status of U.S. internal security vs. FBI evaluation; etc. etc. In the other thread (JBS "Experts"), we started to discuss Julia Brown, Matt Cvetic, Dan Smoot, and a number of other topics but, now it appears, Birchers don't want to continue.

Finally, Eastbound, FYI -- I have acquired FBI files or documents on over 250 persons and 175 organizations...so if you REALLY want particulars, we've got about 410 more FBI-vs-JBS comparisons remaining for our debate.

Readers of the original posting here can only conclude one of several things from your original posting. Either you have a predisposed notion toward protecting subversive organizations, or possess downright ignorance (having not read much of what Robert Welch wrote [the substance of which is undeniabile among honest, objective Americans]), or you are just plain nuts or you are a fellow-traveler with the likes of whom Welch tried to expose. However, ignorance usually doesnt result in the effort you have made in this posting; so one of the other options would peg you.

That for which the JBS stands is exactly the same as to which the Framers and colonies instituted in 1789 [U.S. Constitution], and fought for in the decade prior. If you are against the ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration, then readers should recognize you for what you are.

Like you, I was once a great thorn in the JBS' "flesh". But being raised in a christian home and chiding my dad for then contributing to the JBS, he then asked me a question posed to the heretics by Jesus during his earthly works, "Have you not read?" Although I had read articles regarding attacks on the JBS, I had not read much of the JBS' own material.

Subsequently after reading much of it including most of Robert Welch's works and then seeking out bibliography evidence of his charges, I began to realize how honest and knowledgeable Robert Welch was during his life.

As to your doubts of religous organizations' leaders and their involvements in Marxist-Leninist actions, you either are counting on the ignorance of your readers' exposure to, for example here, let's pick -- large parades of domestic revolutionary groups -- OR demontrating your own ignorance. I have attended such parades such as in Austin, TX. And if anything, Robert Welch's estimates of these religious leaders involvements is probabaly under what it should have been. Many, and I mean many, just in this Austin parade were decked out in their religious garb and I am sure there were many others that were in "civilian" clothes shall we say.

I am a christian. The "political" philosophies that the Bible mandates Jesus' followers defend, and that should not be a full-time business for christians (the actual gospel in its entirety is), is stikingly different from what these radical priests, clerics, etc. are espousing.

I have no problem about the poison you espouse as long as it is challenged and HONEST readers have the opportunity to examine both sides.

Readers, if you have any doubts as to -- let's pick one person about whom Robert Welch made accusations -- Dwight David Eisenhower; then I invite you to purchase and READ (including the huge bibliography) Mr. Welch's expose entitled: The Politician. You can purchase it from the website: www.jbs.org Then you can judge for yourself. I was once a great fan and admirer of Eisenhower. Now, I know that unless he repented and became a true christian before his death, that Eisenhower's eternal fate is sealed in a place I do not want to be.

Our modern-day problem in political affairs is not that the truth is not available, for certainly it is. Our national problems lie from the lack of real righteous conviction -- even within the ranks of the FBI and CIA. And I am a fan of both agencies in its purest form. For a record of what happened there, locate on line a copy of the VHS or DVD of "The Subversion Factor" which uses much of the "legitimate" mass media's own stories. However, instead of being fracturerd, they are threaded together in one masterful documentary.

But again, go to www.jbs.org if you are an honest patriot looking for truth. If you invest an equivalent amount of time researching the JBS' publications juxtaposed to the espousments of those seeking to destroy it, and you are an honest patriot, as just mentioned; I have no doubt where your conclusions will lead.

God bless this great nation and those patriots who sought, and continue to seek, is defense.

Your vitriolic reply to my posting is quite remarkable for two reasons:

(1) First, you don't seem to understand that your argument is with J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI -- not with me!

I am merely reporting what the FBI concluded about the Birch Society and its arguments. Which is why I provided bibliographic citations so you could VERIFY for yourself that my summary is accurate. Which only goes to prove how dishonest your criticisms are.

Your paragraph #5 comments are entirely irrelevant because, I did not offer MY beliefs about religious leaders involved in "Marxist-Leninist actions". Instead, I summarized THE FBI'S POSITION.

I specifically included a statement by Hoover to a Bircher's inquiry on the matter which explicitly repudiates the JBS position. So YOUR ARGUMENT is with Hoover and the FBI --- even though Robert Welch and the JBS stated that Hoover was our nation's most knowledgeable, reliable, authoritative source of info on Communism and a man of indisputable character, integrity, and patriotism!

(2) Second, with respect to your first paragraph, most rational people ASK QUESTIONS before arriving at conclusions---especially if the conclusions contain perjorative comments. However, as is typical of many Birchers, you START with a conclusion and then proceed to ad hominem attacks without asking a single question about my background, the extent of my research, or what documentation I have to support my statements.

J. Edgar Hoover joined numerous prominent conservative intellectuals, politicians, and activists in denouncing the JBS--including: Sen. Barry Goldwater, Sen. John Tower, Cong. Walter Judd, Russell Kirk, Eugene Lyons, Frank Meyer, James Burnham, John Chamberlain, William F. Buckley Jr., Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, Roy Cohn, and many others. Even conservative columnists that initially supported Welch and the JBS subsequently wrote columns about JBS irrationality and the damage the JBS caused to legitimate anti-Communist efforts. (Example: George Sokolsky)

Even many of Welch's closest personal friends (as well as the MAJORITY of his original National Council members!) dissociated themselves from The Politician. Many friends of Welch urged him to "burn" the "private letter" because of the damage they thought it would do to the conservative and anti-Communist movement. John Rousselot (National PR Director for the JBS) stated in 1961 that if The Politician ever became official JBS doctrine, he would resign from the JBS! (Which he ultimately did!)

As J. Edgar Hoover told a Congressional committee in 1966:

"Extremist organizations parade under the guise of patriotism, anti-communism and concern for the destiny of the country...While pretending to formulate their own particular theories for improving our Government in solving complicated social, political and economic problems, the extremists merely offer emotionally charged solutions to the gullible and unthinking person who craves for the simple answer. They call for improved government, yet continually defame those in high office."

The single most significant point about your mean-spirited reply is the total absence of any factual rebuttal to anything contained in my message!

I have acquired a very large amount of private correspondence between Welch and several members of his National Council. I also have confidential private minutes of JBS National Council meetings.

I have the entire FBI HQ main file on the JBS (about 12,000 pages) along with most field office files (including Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles).

In addition, I have FBI files and documents on

(a) about 60 key persons associated with the JBS (such as most National Council members and JBS supporters, authors, speakers, endorsers) --and--

(b) about 150 persons and organizations that the JBS described as "Communist", "pro-Communist" or "Communist sympathizer" or "agent".

Altogether, I have about 200,000 pages of material...plus I have read all JBS Bulletins during the 1960's and 1970's plus many issues of American Opinion and Review of the News magazines not to mention about 3 dozen books recommended by the JBS.

So perhaps you would like to explain, again, why you think YOU are more knowledgeable than I am with respect to the JBS and its positions?

Finally, FYI, I have recently completed another (revised and expanded) edition of my Birch Report. I copy below some additional information you might like to ponder the next time you wish to defend the JBS as a believer in "the ideals of our Constitution":

................................................

I urge readers to listen to the Oral Arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of "Elmer Gertz vs. Robert Welch, Inc." Here is the link:

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/136/audioresources

This was an historic, precedent-setting libel case which actually was heard on two different occasions by two different juries. After 14 years of litigation, Gertz prevailed and the JBS paid him $400,000 for their libel.

The second jury thought JBS malice and a reckless disregard for the truth should be punished, so they awarded Gertz $300,000 in punitive damages (in addition to $100,000 compensatory damages).

The original article in American Opinion magazine described Chicago lawyer Elmer Gertz as a "Leninist" and a "Communist-fronter" who was engaged in "a conspiracy against the Chicago Police". All of these charges were found by two juries to be false and libelous. [Incidentally, after his death, I also obtained the FBI file on Gertz. It does NOT support JBS accusations against him.]

During the Oral Arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court (total time 58 minutes, 25 seconds) the lawyer representing the Birch Society [Clyde Watts] was asked by a Justice whether or not the Birch Society ADMITTED during its trial that "falsehoods" were contained in their American Opinion magazine article about Elmer Gertz.

Please pay particular attention to the follow discussions:

At 35:07 = Watts confirms what the JBS admitted at the original trial. His comment:

"It was conceded that some of the remarks in the article were false."

At 36:15 = Watts ADMITS that:

"Under Illinois law, the inference and impact of the article, absent the New York Times standard, would be libelous. I think the Court is accurate in that observation."

Our "educational" organization which describes itself as "an army fighting with facts"... "whose only weapon is the truth" never bothered to share the Gertz verdict with its members or apologize and explain how they managed to publish such false and defamatory accusations against Gertz.

Jonestown:

Please get some basic facts straight.

I am not "bashing Birchers". I am reporting on what FBI files and documents reveal about the Birch Society. Consequently, if you had written that "the FBI under Hoover bashed Birchers" you would be at least in the general ballpark of accuracy in your comments!

The reasons why my research is particularly noteworthy is two-fold:

(1) First, the Birch Society has always told us that the FBI under Hoover was authoritative, reliable, and expert on internal security matters. In other words, revealing what the FBI and Hoover thought about the JBS would be citing a source WHICH EVEN THE JBS acknowledged as expert. Consequently, there should be less dispute than if, for example, one relied upon sources which the JBS describes as "biased".

(2) Second, in many instances, I am the first person to request and receive FBI documents on the subject matter discussed in my Report. Consequently, this provides a unique opportunity to advance our knowledge, AND, for Birchers to engage in a "reality check" to determine how closely their views match one of their heroes--J. Edgar Hoover--whose views were previously unknown.

The FBI and OKC is irrelevant to this discussion. Why?

(a) Because I have not done any research into "the FBI's handling of OKC" other than what all of us saw in newspaper and magazine articles or on TV.

(b) I have no first-time released documents on OKC to share.

(c) My Report is devoted to the FBI's evaluations ABOUT THE JBS. Consequently, changing the subject doesn't move the discussion forward, does it?

I suppose you think you were cleverly excerpting something I wrote to Eastbound to throw back in my face. But you seem unable to recognize that I didn't "change the subject" -- Eastbound did. This is a common tactic with Birchers. When the evidence is too difficult to confront---they want to talk about something else.

During the past 10 years or so, I have shared my FBI material with about 150 Birchers. NOT ONE PERSON has challenged the accuracy of ANYTHING I have presented. Yes--they express shock and outrage. Yes, they ATTACK ME and raise thinly disguised questions about my loyalty or character (see Del Rio's 1/1/05 message for example and my reply) --- but they never have the decency to

(a) DO ANY RESEARCH INTO FBI FILES THEMSELVES
(b) ASK ME QUESTIONS
(c) ASK FOR FURTHER DOCUMENTATION

Mind you, the JBS claims to be an "educational" organization which "fights with facts" and "whose only weapon is the truth"!!!

A relative of mine (a police officer) subscribed to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

One day I was reading J. Edgar Hoover's "Introductory Message" and I noticed a comment he made that explicitly refuted what a local Bircher had just written in a letter-to-the-editor published in my local newspaper. So, I responded to her letter and I quoted Hoover plus the California Senate Subcommittee on UnAmerican Activities.

After my reply was published, two things happened:

(1) I received anonymous phone calls from persons who said things like "we're watching you", and

(2) a Bircher sent a poem into my local newspaper (which was published) and its concluding paragraph was:

"Is it just coincidence that Ernie's words so arty, sound just like the Communist Party?"

I never understood (then, or even now) how my quoting Hoover and the California UnAmerican Activities Committee could associate me with the CPUSA!

Thus began my life-long interest in the JBS (and similar groups).

Subsequently, I frequently visited American Opinion bookstores. During my chats with JBS members they chastised me (correctly) for not reading more of their literature. Usually, our conversations ended with some words to the effect that: "Nobody has ever found any errors in our publications".

So, I decided to take them up on their challenge.

Ironically, even though I always try to use sources which for many years Birchers have told me were knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative (such as J. Edgar Hoover, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, and the California Senate Subcommittee on UnAmerican Activities), nevertheless, Birchers just dismiss EVERYTHING I present as a "smear" or an "attack" upon them.

It is extremely rare for Birchers to refute my evidence---instead, they almost always prefer to engage in ad hominem attacks on my character or integrity---even though they don't know anything whatsoever about me---and they never ask questions about my evidence.

Keep in mind that the JBS describes itself as an "educational" organization "whose only weapon is the truth" and they claim to be "an army fighting with facts".

Most "educational" organizations are engaged in a SEARCH for truth and, consequently, they welcome new data and debate or discussion of new evidence.

By contrast, the JBS believes it already possesses an Ultimate Final Truth---and, consequently, they have utterly no interest whatsoever in ANY DATA that contradicts what they currently believe or their fundamental premises or conclusions.

Which is why Birchers are so umremittingly hostile to my JBS Report and so singularly non-curious about any other data I might have. Some education!

After I finished the last edition of my JBS Report, I receive more documents pertaining to the internal security status of our country. I excerpt a portion of my revised Report here for your further reference:

Number of “Communists” and “Communist Sympathizers” Within United States

During his anti-Communist career, Robert Welch and the JBS frequently made bold assertions containing numerical statements or percentages about Communist “influence and control” within agencies, organizations, or the U.S. as a whole – but Welch routinely inflated the numbers provided by his original sources of information OR, more commonly, the numbers he used were just abstract inventions with no coherent meaning other than to illustrate his grim view of our internal security status.

It is often difficult to take comments made by Robert Welch and/or the JBS seriously because of the frequent manifest internal illogic revealed in their thought processes. For example:

The first American Opinion (AO) magazine “Scoreboard” issue (1958) is self-described as “a tabulation…undertaken to estimate the present degree of Communist influence or control over the economic and political affairs of almost all of the nations of the world…The total extent of Communist control or influence over any country, however, is due to the impact of all Communist pressures, direct and indirect, visible and undercover, working together.”

AO claimed that it used “conservative” appraisals as of June 1, 1958. The United States’ score at that time was only 20-40%. But in 1958, according to Robert Welch, “a dedicated conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy” was in the Presidency, and he "was knowingly accepting and abiding by Communist orders, and consciously serving the Communist conspiracy, for all his adult life."

Furthermore, Communist “tools” or “dupes” headed major government Departments such as Allen Dulles (CIA), Neil McElroy (Defense Department) and John Foster Dulles (State Department) and Earl Warren (U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice).

Sixteen months later in Chicago (January 1, 1960) Robert Welch made the following private comments at the first JBS National Council meeting:

“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."

"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."

[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..."

"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."

"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."

The AO “Scoreboard” issue for 1960 reflected a U.S. “score” of 40-60%. If one uses the mid-way 50% score, then presumably Communists were successful only half the time in exerting their “influence or control over the economic and political affairs” of the U.S. despite Welch’s claims of pervasive Communist penetration into all areas of our government---as described above to his National Council in January 1960.

More amazingly, in April 1961, Welch said that President John F. Kennedy was “less a captive of Communist influences” than former President Eisenhower, but nevertheless the 1961 AO Scoreboard issue score increased to 50-70%! [Washington DC Evening Star, 4/14/61, pA14]

Then there is the matter of how Welch defined and applied the terms he used to characterize internal security matters. According to Welch: “…we believe that there are not more than 300,000 to 500,000 Communists in our country (or about ¼ of 1% of our population) and not more than a million allies, dupes, and sympathizers whom they can count on for any conscious support…” [JBS Bulletin, July 1961, page 14]

Thus, in total, Welch thought there were about 1.3 to 1.5 million Communists, Communist dupes, Communist sympathizers and Communist allies in the United States as of July 1961.

By contrast, see FBI HQ file 62-85557, serial #1703 (2/11/60, M.A. Jones to DeLoach) which contains a notation correcting an erroneous statement appearing in an Air Force pamphlet that estimated the number of CP members in the U.S. According to the notation, the actual number of CP members in the Unted States as of February 1960 was 5600 (i.e. nothing remotely close to Welch’s perception of 300,000-500,000!)

More significantly, the FBI’s Security Index was designed to track all persons considered actually or potentially dangerous to U.S. internal security. It included known and suspected Communist Party members plus Communist sympathizers and anyone whose loyalty the Bureau considered suspect.

At the time Welch made his statement in July 1961, the FBI’s July 1961 Security Index report listed a total of 11,833 persons of which 9899 were in the “Communist” category. Thus, while Welch perceived more than a million Communist operatives or sympathizers, the FBI concluded that only 9899 Americans were a potential security concern. Of that number, only 26 worked for the U.S. Government in any capacity. [HQ 100-358086, #2939].

Jonestown, I am more than willing to engage in conversation with you but you need to present EVIDENCE -- not just attack me.

If you really want to dwell on the Eastbound matter, PLEASE PRECISELY SPECIFY how his question is related to my original posting.

J. Edgar Hoover was dead for 20+ years when OKC occurred. There is no relationship between OKC and Hoover or the Birch Society. I have no FBI documents on OKC. I have no private papers of persons involved with OKC. Therefore, WHAT QUESTIONS COULD I ANSWER? How would those questions be relevant to the main topic under discussion, which is: "What do FBI files and documents tell us about Robert Welch and the JBS?"

If you are willing to be SPECIFIC, I am more than willing to respond.

Please also take a second to explain, carefully, how I attempted to "smear" Eastbound.

Did Eastbound ever explain how OKC related to the subject of my posting? No. Instead, out-of-the-blue he raised a TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC.

I know why he did it. So do you, probably. A lot of folks today have a visceral dislike of the FBI and its behavior during the past 15-20 years --- so I suppose tactically Birchers want to take focus off my Report and instead discuss the contemporary behavior of the FBI. That's fine----for another posting---but it is NOT the subject of my Report. [Related example: suppose we begin discussing the accomplishments of American auto companies during the 1960's and then someone wants to change the subject to discuss the Enron scandal 40 years later. What's the connection?]

Finally, with respect to your "clones" comment, if you can present ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to disprove my observation, I will gladly acknowledge it. Like yourself, I can only make judgments based upon ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.

Example: please read the message submitted before yours by "Del Rio". Notice that he OPENS by attacking me. He never asked me anything! He could have started out by saying something like this: "Ernie, I think your Report is inaccurate because I saw several specific things that are incorrect." He then could have listed the FBI documents OR my quotations from JBS publications or whatever he thought was incorrect. And we could have proceeded amicably to discuss whatever issues he raised.

Instead, incredibly, he STARTS by suggesting that I might be "predisposed toward protecting subversive organizations". Now what is that suggestion based upon? What "subversive" organizations is he referring to? Does he mean that J. Edgar Hoover and his top officials were TRAITORS and I'm trying to protect them? He then ASSUMES WITHOUT ASKING A SINGLE QUESTION OF ME that I haven't read much of what Robert Welch wrote. [See my answer to that in my reply to him.]

Sorry, Jonestown, it may disturb you --- but THIS IS TYPICAL BEHAVIOR by JBS members and supporters. They are ANGRY WITH ME because almost none of them have ever confronted this information previously. It is shocking to everything they believe about Hoover and his FBI. I've even had a Bircher claim that Hoover "approved of and supported the JBS" which is a total fabrication and demonstrably false with minimum research.

So sell your phony arguments to someone who hasn't done his research.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.