Posted on 04/12/2004 6:35:00 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
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
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?
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.
Again, to all readers. Please spend an equivalent amount of time reading the JBS' own printed materials, books, etc. as you do those of its detractors. Then those who are honest and objective can judge for themselves which side is telling the truth. I have no doubt there are many who are honest on this website; and many who are not.
I spent 12 years on the JBS staff and I am here to tell you that while no one - not even those who are members and staff personnel of the JBS -- are perfect [much less its detractors]; but the two aforementioned are doing all that they can to preserve liberty and the republic in conjunction with the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Thank God, Jehovah will be the ultimate Judge as to intent and actions. He, Who can read the heart will see through the dishonest and they will be judged accordingly.
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.