Posted on 04/12/2004 6:35:00 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
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:
But what have you concluded about all this?
There seems to be some question these days about whether or not the FBI disseminates accurate and reliable information as well ... an organization which you use to prove your point.
For that matter, the question can be asked about innumerable socialist/liberal/demo/UN NGO groups and agencies more intent on converting our Republic than the JBS, if, indeed, that is what you presume to be their ultimate sin.
Interested in knowing what your assessment of the JBS would be if you were required to write a paper for the FBI -- based on what the organization perports to be today?
" . . . (2) whether material in FBI files supports or refutes the assertions made by the JBS during its most prolific period (1960's-1970's)."
Assertions against who? You gave us Gertz vs Welch. Should there have been more on the list who wanted to send "Wish You Were Here" cards to Welch from the Bahamas?
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.
(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"!!!
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!
BTW I am not a JBS partisan. I just see groups like them as invaluable watchdogs on the excesses of government in the USA.
Please get some basic facts straight. I am not "bashing Birchers".
Could have fooled me.
I suppose you think you were cleverly excerpting something I wrote to Eastbound to throw back in my face.
Please, get your facts straight. -- I did indeed, and it worked.
But you seem unable to recognize that I didn't "change the subject" -- Eastbound did. This is a common tactic with Birchers.
It is? I see it differently. I see your 'common tactic' remark as an overly clever attempt to smear Eastbound with what to you is a pejorative; --- "Birchers".
When the evidence is too difficult to confront---they want to talk about something else.
"They"? Are all Birchers some group of clones? -- You need rest.
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.
Phony arguments?
I've made none, and as we all see from your last few posts, you really do need rest. Try to calm yourself.
I accept your admission that you have no factual information to share on this topic.
But thanks for your comments.
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.