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FBI files also contain the unpublished version of Robert Welch's "private letter" entitled The Politician which caused so much grief to Welch in later years because of his description of President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].

No "vitriolic" attacks were made. I gave several options that I felt you fit into as to motivation.

You know, your statements about FBI are interesting. Robert Welch actually went to the FBI and numerous other internal security organizations trying, or inviting, them to investigate the JBS. Time and again, Welch was told that there was no authority or real reason to investigate the JBS.

Finally, after all myria of invitations, a committee in the Senate of the State of California undertook such an invitation, of which a Mr. Brown sat on the head of the team -- a very liberal Mr. Brown.

After an exhaustive investigation, this committee issued (and I have a printed copy) a 55,000 word document completely exonerating the JBS of all libelous charges.

Furthermore, these committees of the JBS mentioned in your earlier posting (whether of the FBI as you purport or of yourself), such as TACT, TRAIN, and other such as TRIM are not SECRET organizations. The fact is that they are as open as can be. All honest individual patriots are invited to become a member of them. And one doesn't have to be a JBS member to join one of the committees. They are openly set up as ad hoc committees taking on specific tasks or tactics without disturbing the overall strategy of the JBS. Not only are they not secret, there is nothing nefarious or anti-American about them. Many large businesses engage this practice all of the time. There is nothing inherently evil or wrong with it.

What I have come to conclude over the years is that the problem largely lies with the attitude of those who attack great organizations like the JBS (whether it be indivuals or otother organizations). These attacks are very often done out of ignorance but sometimes they are done with malice aforethought by those who mean to destroy the JBS. To not recognize this latter malevolance is to not understand human nature by those who are not God-fearing.

My goodness look what the radical segment of the Jews did to Jesus when he was preaching and performing miracles while here on Earth. They sought to kill him in any way they could.

What it boils down to is honest people taking the time to examine the facts - of the JBS' detractors AND THE JBS' OWN MATERIALS. If the examiners are honest, God-fearing Americans, neither the JBS nor I have any fear of anything they will turn up. What was Jesus' response to his detractors? Besides call them vipers or sons of the devil which we have yet to do, he asked the rhetorical question (in the sense that he knew of their disingenuiousness) "have you not read"? So reading and studying is part of the rockbottom test. Then ask to attend one or a number of the meetings of the JBS or adhoc committees. See if you can find anything anti-American or violent prone. If you stay in the organization UNTIL you find such a thing, you likely will be attending meetings in perpetuity.

JBS perfect? Of course not; nothing man-made is. But it is the finest body of patriotic men and women I have ever had the opportunity to come into contact with and I have had contact with many groups. Now this organization like anything else that is man-made can be infiltrated and taken off course. But up until now, I have seen nothing that lends itself to that.

So ladies and gentleman, I invite you to read all of Ernie's vitriolic comments (even though he says none of them are his, personally). Well it's obvious he is no champion of the JBS. And then contact the JBS for the California Senate Fact Finding Committee's report and read it for yourself. If their copies are sold out, ask them to forward your inquiry to me and I will be glad to make copies.

I was on the staff of the JBS and I have a very high standard for any organization that I become a member of; much more work for -- for 12 years. All of the aforementioned FBI "quotes" stand in stark contrast to what the FBI told Robert Welch and the JBS leadership in the 60s. Of course there are numerous leviathans in the Central Goverment within the same bureau, agency or department where one hand does not always know what another is doing.

But nothing works like personal testing. Order information from www.jbs.org and judge for yourself. It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

In His service,
DelRioWildcat2

There are several falsehoods or misleading statements in your message. I will discuss a few of them.

WHAT IS A VITRIOLIC ATTACK?

First, you need to consult a dictionary because you may not understand the meaning of the term. To give you a clue, here is a list of equivalent words taken from a thesaurus:

acrimonious, antagonistic, belligerent, biting, bitter, caustic, envenomed, harsh, hateful, hostile, malicious, malignant, rancorous, repugnant, scathing, severe, sharp, sore, stabbing, strident, venomous, virulent

Let's review some basic facts about your original remarks before I answer your current message.

Fact #1 -- We do not know one another.

Fact #2 -- We have never previously exchanged messages.

Fact #3 -- Everything in the first paragraph of your 1/1/05 message concerns my character, integrity, patriotism, and motivation.

Fact #4 -- Every potential explanation you present about me presumes the absolute worst possible motives on my part. And you arrived at this conclusion without asking me a single question.

Fact #5 -- You list several progressively more harsh descriptions of me as possible explanations but you then discard the least defamatory option (i.e. "ignorance") and you state, "so one of the other options would peg you.". You arrive at your conclusion without having the decency to ask a single question to discover anything about me or my character.

Fact #6 -- Apparently, in your scheme of things, attacking and defaming a total stranger, and assuming the worst possible motivation for his conduct or beliefs, is perfectly normal, acceptable behavior. That is what I define as "vitriolic". This becomes even more relevant as we discuss your current message because the California Report on the JBS that you mention has something to say about people like you. Read on....

Now, with respect to your current message:

In California, an "investigation" into the JBS was undertaken by the Office of the then-Attorney General Stanley Mosk. It was very superficial and was based almost entirely upon news reports and amounted to little more than personal opinion.

Subsequently, in March 1961, Robert Welch contacted California Governor Edmund G. Brown and the California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on UnAmerican Activities (hereafter "CSFS") to request an investigation. The CSFS Report was issued in 1963. [Incidentally, contrary to your statement, Brown was not a member of the Subcommittee much less "head of the team" as you claim. Furthermore, according to Robert Welch, California Governor Brown was a Communist, not "a liberal".]

There are several problems with accepting everything at face value that is contained in the CSFS Report. The Subcommittee's Chief Counsel, Richard Combs, was a Birch Society supporter---so he was hardly an impartial, unbiased investigator! [I have a letter written by JBS National Council member Paul Talbert to another Council member which reports on Combs' pro-JBS sentiments!]

As a consequence, there are several matters discussed in the Report that basically just parrot the JBS party-line rather than being the result of truly independent investigation.

More significantly, it doesn't appear that Combs was very rigorous in his investigation or reporting of what JBS members believed and the premises and conclusions revealed in JBS publications. As will shortly become apparent, the CSFS suggested that JBS members did not agree with the more extreme themes, evidence, arguments, and conclusions contained in Robert Welch's statements and writings. They thought Welch risked "alienating" his membership if he continued to make such "irresponsible" accusations. They discovered they were wrong!

Contrary to your claim, the CSFS Report DID NOT completely exonerate "the JBS of all libelous charges." [Note: see end of this message for comments by the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Sen. Hugh Burns.]

So, at this point, IF I WERE MEAN-SPIRITED AND VITRIOLIC LIKE YOU, I would present several possible options to explain your misrepresentation of the Report. The options would be framed in the same belligerent and unkind assumptions that you used about me. Instead, however, I will calmly and factually explain your error and not resort to YOUR preferred method of debate which is ad hominem attack. I will then welcome your comments and I will be entirely willing to engage in an amicable discussion without suggesting that you an immoral or subversive person.

The CSFS Report acknowledged that Robert Welch had made "irresponsible" and "indefensible" charges against various persons. The Report devotes considerable space to discussing Welch's comments about President Eisenhower and officials of his Administration, as well as Welch's campaign against Earl Warren and his comments about Boris Pasternak. The CSFS chose to give the JBS the benefit of all possible doubt. It concluded that:

"It is evident to us that since few members agree with Mr. Welch on a variety of matters, if he continues to make sensational and insupportable charges he will alienate rank and file loyalty. There is no doubt that such statements have rendered the society vulnerable to much legitimate criticism."

May I digress for one moment here to point out that JBS members NEVER acknowledged that there was EVER any "legitimate criticism" made about either Welch or the JBS.

Since you think the Report absolved the JBS of all derogatory charges---perhaps you would care to explain what YOU THINK the CSFS was referring to as the reasons for "much legitimate criticism" of the JBS?

The CSFS never really explained how it determined that "few members agree with Mr. Welch on a variety of matters." They interviewed or received comments from a very small number of self-identified JBS members--so it isn't clear how they came to such a definitive conclusion. However, subsequent developments made it clear that most JBS members DID AGREE with Welch's "irresponsible" comments and the CSFS began to recognize their error of judgment in their subsequent 1965 Report.

[Important note: The FBI, in contrast to the CSFS, received THOUSANDS of inquiries and complaints about the JBS from all over the country--including inquiries from local and State law enforcement officials, Mayors, Congressmen, newspaper reporters, etc. Hence, it had a much more accurate understanding of the impact that the JBS was having around the country as well as understanding the controversies which JBS members triggered by their behavior and accusations. As early as March 1961, the FBI had already come to the conclusion that the JBS was an "extremist" organization with "irresponsible" and "irrational" beliefs. See my original posting for specifics.]

The 1963 CSFS Report makes an important characterization of the JBS on page 53. It describes the JBS as being "sustained on a high degree of emotionalism" and the Report predicted that as the Society increased in numbers...

"there is an increasing probability that among the new members will be a fringe of unstable, chauvinist people who are prone to accept as accurate the most irresponsible charges of Communist activity. This is the sort of person who is quick to accuse an innocent liberal of being a Communist, and of forever damning anyone who was trapped into joining a Communist front group. Some of these members have been making accusations that are impossible to sustain, and as a result have found themselves facing legal actions for libel or slander."

In the 1965 update, the CSFS confirmed what it predicted about the JBS in 1963:

"It has, as we predicted, been beset by an influx of emotionally unstable people, some of whom have been prosecuted in the courts for their hoodlum tactics in disrupting meetings and heckling speakers with whom they disagree...We are more critical of the Society now than we were [in the 1963 Report] for the reason that it has, in our opinion, merited such criticism by reason of its activities as exemplified by the irresponsible articles by a member of its National Council, the re-publication of The Politician, the inexcusable actions of its minority of irresponsible members, and dangerous increase of anti-Semitism among a minority of the membership."

The 1965 Report re-visited its previous discussion on Welch's so-called "private letter" entitled ,The Politician, which was published in 1963. The 1965 Report summarized the controversy: "In this extraordinary document Welch made the accusations that described President Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles, and other high members of our government as either Communists or Communist dupes. We characterized these and similar assertions contained in this 1954 Welch letter as not only ridiculous, but entirely unsupported by proof..."

The CSFS was very critical of Welch's decision to publish The Politician in 1963. They thought the private circulation by Welch of his "letter" prior to that time, was one thing, "But its re-publication late in 1963...is something else again, and in our opinion merits the most serious criticism.".

Then the CSFS discussed two articles on John F. Kennedy's assassination which were written by JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver and published in the Society's magazine, American Opinion. The CSFS report observes (pg 172):

"The two-part article in the American Opinion was in such bad taste, and so crammed with undocumented statements, inferences, conclusions, and accusations of disloyalty on the part of the dead President, that it filled its readers with revulsion."

On page 174, the CSFS observes:

"According to reliable sources, we would estimate that the Society has grown so rapidly that it has attracted a lunatic fringe that is now assuming serious proportions. We find very little anti-Negro sentiment among the members, but we do find a growing incidence of anti-Semitism, although the Society as a whole is far from anti-Semitic."

In January 1965 the Chairman of the CSFS (Senator Hugh Burns) responded to inquiries from a Sacramento CA newspaper. Senator Burns was asked if the 1963 CSFS Report should be characterized as giving "a clean bill of health" to the Birch Society, as Birch supporters claimed. Burns replied as follows:

"As I have stated before, the report is highly critical of Robert Welch, making mention of his historical ignorance, his belonging to an organization started by Fabian socialists, his organizing the Society along Communist lines, and his extreme statements against distinguished Americans. Since the Report was first prepared, other information has been brought to our attention, which material (until further investigated and reported) makes highly undesirable and improper any use of the Subcommittee's name for seeming exoneration of the John Birch Society." He then said the JBS "is an extremist group, and, like extremist groups from time immemorial, plagues our country. Extremists from the Know-Nothings on, have served no useful purpose."

In view of this additional information concerning the conclusions reached by the CSFS, we can now give proper consideration to the following comment in your current message:

"What I have come to conclude over the years is that the problem largely lies with the attitude of those who attack great organizations like the JBS (whether it be individuals or other organizations). These attacks are very often done out of ignorance but sometimes they are done with malice aforethought by those who mean to destroy the JBS."

Please re-read the 1963 CSFS prediction above in red. It addresses the ACTUAL reason why the JBS has been "attacked".

With respect to your use of the word "malice" --- I urge you to re-read my previous message which summarized the historic libel case, Gertz vs. Robert Welch, Inc. The second jury in that case found the JBS guilty of malice! and a "reckless disregard for the truth" which is why they were permitted to award $300,000 in punitive damages!

< Finally, may I make a friendly suggestion? Your argument would be much more compelling if you ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT I REPORTED IN MY ORIGINAL POSTING ---instead of just offering your personal unsubstantiated opinion.

As merely one example: you could discuss the Gertz trial. You could attempt to explain why the JBS published a false and defamatory article. You could research how the JBS went about "fact-checking" before the article was published. You might also ask yourself how YOU WOULD FEEL if someone FALSELY ACCUSED you or your family of being disloyal or subversive or pro-Communist. How does that factor into your unqualified support of the JBS?

One final point:

Should you choose to respond to my message, might I ask you to amplify on this portion of your remarks?

All of the aforementioned FBI "quotes" stand in stark contrast to what the FBI told Robert Welch and the JBS leadership in the 60s

I presume you are referring to the numerous quotes by FBI officials that I presented in my Report. Aside from Hoover, I frequently quoted Assistant Directors in Charge of FBI Divisions as well as Section Chiefs within the Bureau's Domestic Intelligence Division--its primary internal security unit.

Your comment seems to suggest that you have seen documents that contradict the substance of what I have quoted. In particular, you seem to be suggesting that you have seen FBI letters addressed to Robert Welch which contradict what I have written. Is that what you intended to say?

If so, then please share more details. Since I have every letter written by J. Edgar Hoover to Robert Welch and every letter written by Robert Welch to Hoover, I am curious, to say the least, about what your comments mean.

In closing, I wonder if you would like to comment on why Mrs. Welch withdrew her support from the Birch Society after her husband died. Also, why so many prominent JBS members (including National Council members, lifetime members, Coordinators, and authors such as Gary Allen, Alan Stang, John Rees, and even Editor Scott Stanley Jr.,) all left in droves? Is it true that Cong. Larry McDonald announced plans for a thorough housecleaning at JBS HQ just before his death?

If you prefer to send me an email to discuss this further, please do so: Ernie1241@aol.com

P.S.:

(1) Incidentally, the California Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities went out of business about 30 years ago, so anyone wanting a copy of their Reports should submit an Inter-Library loan request via their local library (if not already in their library's holdings). Aside from the 1963 and 1965 Reports, I encourage interested parties to request the 1959 Report in order to see their discussion of Dr. Harry Overstreet--who was the subject of an incredibly dishonest Birch Society hatchet job.

(2) Anyone interested in reading the most recent edition of my JBS Report (now 35 pages in length) may contact me for a copy. I've expanded it to add new material. The next edition, which should be finished in 5-7 months, will add new Chapters to discuss data never previously available including

(a) Robert Welch's use (despite his early denials) of his "private letter" The Politician as a recruitment tool for the JBS in 1959 and 1960, and,

(b) A history of critical commentary on the JBS long before the so-called "mother article" appeared in a Communist newspaper in February 1961. The JBS has always claimed that this so-called "mother article" precipitated all the attacks on the JBS--i.e. our news media was just following Communist instructions! This is only believed by people who had neither the time or inclination to do research---which probably means 99.9% of Birchers.

(c) A much-expanded Chapter on "Birch Society Experts" which will reveal, for the first time, information concerning Dan Smoot's FBI service and post-FBI anti-Communist career plus new information on Julia Brown, Delmar Dennis, and Lola Belle Holmes--all of whom gave speeches under the auspices of the Birch Society's front groups.

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.