The John Birch Society v. We the People Part I (2020)

When it comes to its talking points, The John Birch Society (JBS) is thick with assertions and thin with evidence and history. For instance, the JBS regards the US Constitution as perfection on earth. This isn’t an exaggeration.1 The JBS simply disregards the Framers’ perception of their work.

Right out of the chute in 1788, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 85 encouraged the remaining states outside the Union to ratify the Constitution and join their fellows in Article V to provide amendments that better secured some basic rights. The Constitution, he wrote, was not “absolute perfection,” but upon the whole, it was good plan, “the best that the present views and circumstances of the country will permit.” He went on:

The convention delegates from diverse societies did their best, yet didn’t expect their work to remain frozen in time. While the JBS finds perfection in our governing form today, it curiously doesn’t address the Constitution’s previous versions. Was it perfect in 1787? Was it imperfect after each successive amendment until it finally reached fulfillment with passage of the last amendment in 1992? The JBS doesn’t say.

Since the Constitution is without defects, the JBS certainly doesn’t think the unwashed people have any business fooling around with it. Forget that Declaration of Independence thing about the right of the people to alter their government. But some people are fooling around with the Constitution. Somehow the JBS neglects the unconstitutional and established habit of the Supreme Court to rewrite congressional laws and the US and State Constitutions. All law is the plaything of Scotus airheads who amend at-will. It is fair to say that thanks to our collective reluctance to exercise the gift of Article V, We the People do not only not exercise sovereignty, we’ve assigned it to Scotus.2

So, the question isn’t whether the Constitution will be amended; the question is, “by whom?” Through its silence, the JBS is quite comfortable with Scotus usurpations.

Unlike Scotus decisions, should the people ratify an amendment they later come to regret, they can repeal it. The 18th Amendment prohibition of alcohol was perhaps noble, but was ultimately unworkable and lasted only fourteen years until the 21st Amendment. We the People are powerless to rescind outrageous court decisions, court decisions so repulsive and egregious that even democrat congresses with concurrent democrat presidents didn’t dare attempt to ensconce into statutory law.

Despite the horrific consequences of an unaccountable judiciary, the JBS denies the applicability of Article V, asserting that, “Article V has specific purposes. It was never designed to rein in federal power but rather to correct errors in the Constitution.” This is a silly hair-splitting distinction.

In Federalist 43, we see through Madison that the Framers didn’t regard themselves as gods capable of crafting a perfect Constitution. Instead, “That useful alterations will be suggested by experience could not but be foreseen.” He noted that the Article V process was balanced; neither was it too easy nor too difficult which “might perpetuate its discovered faults . . . as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side (Congress), or on the other (States).

On June 11th 1787, Virginia’s George Mason said the plan “to be formed will certainly be defective,” and urged an amending provision that didn’t rely solely on Congress. On September 15th, an alarmed Mason repeated his earlier warning and said, “no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.” So, if Madison’s and Mason’s comments are a guide, the use of Article V wasn’t limited to correcting defects, but also to deal with oppression, such as the exercise of sovereignty by Scotus.

JBS disregards the importance of governmental structure. To paraphrase James Madison, if men were angels, . . . a single legislative house of government, without a president or judiciary, would suffice. If all that mattered were the people comprising government, then the Articles of Confederation should have been a resounding success. After all, the greatest republican statesmen in history attended the Confederation Congress. What happened? Why was the confederation a disappointment? After all, the confederation had powers similar to those in the Constitution especially in the matter of obedience to Congressional resolutions. From Article XIII, “Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled . . . ,“ yet the states often ignored congressional determinations.

In Federalist 38, Madison put a fine point on the matter of the composition, the particular form of government, “All the dangers from a defective construction of the supreme government of the Union seem to be realized.” The appointment or election of virtuous men to the confederation government was inadequate to secure liberty.

The JBS doesn’t consider man’s inherent shortcomings and that only the Framers’ structure of government, including a Senate of the States, provides the necessary inherent checks through self-interest. Popularly elected senators, like their House colleagues, must cozy up to the democratic element, the passions of the people. The 17th Amendment was purposely designed to render the senate simpatico and congruent with the House of Representatives. It worked.

On the other hand, pre-17th presidents didn’t nominate radical progressive lawyers to the federal bench. Why bother? Senators in the employ of state legislators covetous of federalism could hardly be expected to consent. This problem, of answering to popular passions, just wasn’t a problem when senators answered to state legislators. Just as ratification conventions reversed the 18th Amendment, We the People can do the same to the 17th.

As for the JBS’ perceived unfitness of We the People to correct our governing form and to participate in self-government at all, who is the JBS to look down their noses and judge when the sovereign people may exercise their God-given right, as they see fit, to frame their government? I say the months leading to a Convention of States after a (probably court-ordered) congressional call may be the necessary spark that further awakens the public, the same public that dumped the Establishment in 2016, and reinvigorates appreciation for first principles.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, the JBS, for some reason, was cool, and at times even hostile to the Reagan movement, which alienated it form many grass-roots conservatives. Also, for some reason, they were hostile to Rush Limbaugh, and the New American, their house organ, ran a couple of articles denouncing Rush. They also feuded with conservative publisher and polemicist William F. Buckley in a rhubarb that dated back to the early sixties.

Their main beef with Reagan was his ardent support for international "free trade" (with some noted deviations), "Tax Reform Act of 1986", some of his appointments, Nancy, and his priorities. Also, they would have liked him to maintain an even more anti-communist tone consistently.

William F. Buckley went out of his way to marginalize JBS from the beginning, fearing that what he viewed as the crazies would doom conservatism from being a winning movement, and especially disagreeing on tariffs and intervention not related to stopping Communism.

There is a range of opinions held by members and leadership of JBS, just as there are in NR and the Republican Party.

The JBS has not been “right” by any known rules of evidence and logic.

Robert Welch and every senior official of the JBS effusively praised former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. According to Welch and the JBS, Hoover was our nation’s most knowledgeable expert re: the Communist movement in the U.S. See for example, JBS article entitled “The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover” published in the 10/66 issue of the JBS magazine (American Opinion) and also available as a reprint. Significantly, Hoover’s FBI falsified EVERY major predicate of JBS ideology AND Hoover stated that the JBS was a “right wing extremist” movement that did not deal in fact or reality.
For details see:
https://archive.org/details/john-birch-society-report-october-2020-614pp/mode/2up

For a massive critique of the JBS position concerning our civil rights movement, see:
https://archive.org/details/0906-combined-pdf-racism-and-the-john-birch-society-283-pages

There is no evidence in the public domain to support your contention that “There is a range of opinions held by members and leadership of JBS, just as there are in NR and the Republican Party.”

The core ideological belief of the JBS since its inception in 1958 has been that almost all of our national leaders in the 20th century were “Communist traitors” or “agents” of a vast criminal conspiracy. The JBS concluded that the U.S. was 60 to 80% under “Communist influence and control” — and they always predicted our imminent demise as a free country. In fact, numerous senior officials of the JBS claimed that our last free election would be in 1964, then 1970, then 1972, then 1976.

Robert Welch was one of the most intelligent and well informed individuals I have ever run across. His thesis was quite simple and quite correct. There is a cabal existent whose purpose is to end American sovereignty and replace it with a one-world technocratic government run by and for themselves.

Welch called them "Insiders" and thought their membership transcended race, religion, and other such factors. The Communist movement was but one dimension in their efforts, but not the whole of it. That was the more criminal aspect of the conspiracy, as it also included such groups as the elitist Council on Foreign Relations, the Bildebergs, the Tri-Lateral Commission, and other such organizations whose purpose it was to undermine Americanism and promote internationalism over nationalism.

Anyone who can look at how far we have come down this road since the end of WWII is simply not paying attention.

Apparently, Dr Sivana, you are not aware that the Birch Society (and its surrogates) have lost defamation lawsuits because their publications presented maliciously false information.

In July 1961, Robert Welch wrote in that month’s JBS Bulletin that there were 300,000 to 500,000 Communist Party members in the United States. The actual number (according to the FBI) was 5262! Obviously, Welch had no clue regarding the correct number because he had no way to determine that information. He did not have access to CPUSA dues payment info (as the FBI did) and he had no informants inside the CPUSA (the FBI had over 400 human informants inside the Party).

So, you can rely upon the FALSE information in JBS publications OR you can prefer verifiable FACTUAL information but you cannot rely upon the JBS for “reasoned” information. OPINIONS (by definition) do not necessarily reflect reality or truth. They are just personal observations or preferences -— such as stating that strawberry is the best flavor of ice cream. FACTS are different because they represent reality and truth.

Furthermore, the JBS has a very long history of associating itself with racial and religious bigots and praising or recommending such people (politicians and authors).

In December 2019, the former Research Director of the JBS (Tom Eddlem) resigned his lifetime JBS membership because of what HE described as “nazi racial propaganda” published in the JBS magazine (The New American). You can see Eddlem’s resignation letter here:
http://teddlem.blogspot.com/2019/12/resignation-letter-to-john-birch-society.html

For over 100 pages of details regarding JBS links to racial and religious bigots, see:
https://archive.org/details/jbs-chronology-january-2022

Buckley was “never conservative”? Then why did Robert Welch contribute $1000 twice to National Review? Why did Welch ask Buckley to support and endorse his original enterprises (and Buckley did so)?

Why did Welch describe Buckley as his “friend” and then suggest that Buckley be invited to a dinner honoring Alfred Kohlberg?

Why did Welch and Buckley have cordial correspondence for many years?

Why did Buckley’s positions on many public policy issues agree with Welch’s?

Why did the Birch Society recommend and sell Buckley’s books?

Why did Buckley’s magazine (National Review) feature the most important and accomplished conservative thinkers of the 20th century — whereas Welch was NOT able to attract authors of the same caliber for his magazines?

The JBS had a long history of accepting and praising racial and religious bigots into the JBS as members, as officials, and as paid employees.

The JBS never “opposed Judeophobia” — which is why it was never able to attract any significant number of Jews into its ranks — as even Welch admitted in private correspondence.

Furthermore, the official JBS position on Israel was extremely hostile AND it also attacked and defamed Jewish fraternal organizations like ADL and American Jewish Committee.

Robert Welch and the JBS recommended and sold publications by UK conspiracy author Nesta Webster. She was an official in the first UK fascist organization and in 1926 she gave a speech entitled “The Need For Fascism in Great Britain”. For details re: how the JBS promoted her writings see:
https://archive.org/details/webster-nesta-the-need-for-fascism-in-great-britain-1926-12pp

The John Birch Society did expel several prominent members for anti-Semitic remarks, such as Revilo Oliver, an original founder of the group, and John Schmitz, who was the 1972 Presidential nominee of the American Party, Georgia Wallace's 1968 Presidential vehicle. However, John McManus, an executive with the JBS, espoused hostile remarks toward Jews at a few traditionalist Catholic conferences.

Conspiracy theories are by nature hard to substantiate. There was an anti-Bircher who wrote a monograph, The Belmont Brotherhood, that asserted that the JBS was indeed part of the Great Conspiracy. The author used the same techniques of guilt by association that the Birchers themselves used. As an example, one of the JBS founders was on the board of directors of a Federal Reserve Bank; another was a high ranking Mason; still another was a member of an affiliate of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Speaking of ADL, check out their definition of “systemic racism”.

https://www.adl.org/racism

They have decided to declare war on white people.

Look who the racists are now....

That should concern you a whole lot more than your litany of historical complaints against JBS.

They are coming for you—not the Commies, not the JBS.

Nope—the ADL.

The actual number (according to the FBI) was 5262!

Few of us at FR would trust FBI statistics these days. When they started fabricating info, and how much? Who knows. If you count front groups, the JBS number was probably closer to the truth. Heck Reagan was even a member of one before he figured it out.

I did a quick scan through the 100 pages of documentation. L:ong on accusations, short on actual quotations. One of the first quotations I saw is not "bigoted" at all, and reflects the thinking of many Freepers, namely that "democracy is a deceptive phrase, a weapon of demogoguery" (page 8).

“Our Liberal critics would have you believe that this statement, for an American, is practically heresy. This is because these same Liberals have been working so long and so hard to convert our republic into a democracy, and to make the American people believe that it is supposed to be a democracy, nothing could be further from the truth than that insidiously planted premise. Our founding fathers knew a great deal about history and government, and they had very nearly a clean slate on which to write the blueprint for our own. They gave us a republic because they considered it the best of all forms of government. They visibly spurned a democracy as probably the worst of all forms of government. But our past history and our present danger indicate that they were right in both particulars.”

Here's the comment by the critic: Political extremists [begging the question] such as the Birch Society claim that our Founding Fathers distrusted and detested democracy but Thomas Jefferson and James Madison named the political party they founded the "Democratic-Republican Party".
Anyone who is a student of history would know this to be true. Jefferson is but one Founding Father, and even he was not an absolute Democrat. Madison was certainly no Democrat in the classic sense.

My own instruction took place at a New England prep school and University of Chicago before transferring. These were hardly bastions of political extremism.

Now, apparently this Lucille Miller wrote anti-Jew material (I avoid "anti-semitic" as that includes Arabs and Abyssinians). So did Welch publish her books? Print articles written by her? Echo her anti-semitic statements? No. In a passing statement in a full-length book he described her as an incautious patriot. That is a thin connection to excuse the 100 page presentation to use almost an entire page on her writings for non JBS-operations.

As far as the pro-segregationalist material from the '50s, etc., you would have to write out a whole lot of organizations on both sides of the aisle, going clear nack to Abraham Lincoln, if that disqualifies association with them today.

I didn't have time to read the whole piece, but it seems like a mere hit piece, and is indiscriminate in its accusations. Indeed, many Freepers, and not just the ones who speak of the Amish, would be way beyond the pale for this writer, as well as everyone who freely associated himself with FR, including you.

The JBS never “opposed Judeophobia” — which is why it was never able to attract any significant number of Jews into its ranks — as even Welch admitted in private correspondence.
Yes, the JBS does oppose Judeophobia. Anyone who expresses hatred for Jews is kicked out. As for attracting any significant number of Jews into their ranks, no conservative groups have been able to do that.

Furthermore, the official JBS position on Israel was extremely hostile AND it also attacked and defamed Jewish fraternal organizations like ADL and American Jewish Committee.
I don't know if they have an official position on Israel. I have never read anything in their publications attacking the country, but I did read an article in their magazine The Review of the News praising Israel for defeating their Soviet-backed enemies in the Six Day War. More recently, their publication The New American supported President Trump's decision to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

As to the "Jewish fraternal organizations," the ADL and the American Jewish Committee seem more like lobby groups. I doubt that the far-left, cultural Marxist ADL has a whole lot of friends anywhere in the American conservative movement.

Robert Welch and the JBS recommended and sold publications by UK conspiracy author Nesta Webster. She was an official in the first UK fascist organization and in 1926 she gave a speech entitled “The Need For Fascism in Great Britain”.
You scored on that point. Some American Opinion bookstores, which were run by the JBS, were selling Nesta Webster's books, and I complained after reading one. But I think they liked her for her conspiracy-mongering rather than her Judeophobia.

For a more accurate understanding of Robert Welch, see the new biography about Welch (published this month) that was authored by a PhD historian...Your understanding about Welch is deeply flawed. He made massive errors in analysis and judgment despite his “intelligence”. THAT is why almost the entire conservative movement in the U.S. denounced and rejected his views.

Gosh, searching123, do you mean there is a publication out there which is critical of Mr Welch and the JBS? How unusual. Note, however, this one is written by some guy with a PhD which means, of course, it must be true.

Wake up, sir. One of the goals of the Elitists has been, is, and shall continue to be an attempt to tear down and marginalize any person or group which offers serious opposition to their goals. Mr Welch and the JBS awoke any number of people to the Insiders' elitist program to undermine our Constitutional form of government, end nationalism, and merge our country into a New World Order of international government. And that is all to the good.

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.