Birch Society "Experts"

Ernie1241@aol.com | 04-11-04 | Enrie1241

[Jim Robinson]

LOL. Well, looks like it could use some editing and cleaning up.

[Tailgunner Joe]

http://watch.pair.com/belmont.html

You should clarify whether or not you subscribe to this "alternative conspiratorial theory." It sounds very much like the testimony you provided in Post 21. Don't you think that the idea that the JBS is a communist espionage apparatus is an even kookier theory than the ones JBS members subscribe to?

Yes I fully appreciate the irony and humor of your appealing to the testimony of Birchers in your attempts to discredit the claims of Birchers.

[Ernie.cal]

Bill:

I was VERY SHOCKED! at your #86 message. During our current (and previous) exchanges on this site you have impressed me as a thoughtful and honorable person.

Up to this point I never even considered the possibility that you are an amoral person, i.e. that you would say "I DON'T CARE" that good and decent Americans are defamed by a reckless disregard for the truth "as long as the mainstream media do exactly the same."

Sorry, Bill, this is where you and I must part company. Honorable men and women do not make such reckless, insensitive statements. Lying is not an acceptable "tactic" just because you don't like someone's political views.

I sincerely regret that you have taken the position you enunciated.

In conclusion, at least your #86 "I DON'T CARE" response should make it abundantly clear why the JBS has been considered "extremist", "irresponsible", etc.

[Eastbound]

"FYI: I happen to agree with many of the ideas contained in your message"

Which one's do you specifically disagree with?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Whose character did I attack?

Mark Cvetic for one. So he was a violent drunk. So what? Some people say Hoover wore women's clothing. Who cares?

[Eastbound]

:)

[Tailgunner Joe]

If you read JBS literature, they ROUTINELY employ the very tactic you describe as "ad hominem".

Are you using the "everybody else does it" defense?

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "How can the American family talk to one another if . . . ."

When it comes to our military strength and sovereignty, our inalienable rights there ain't no discussin'.

Yes, they have inalienable rights to try to impose their will and we have inalienable rights to resist. I think it's called war. If necessary. It's that important.

I expect to see national leadership emerge to lead the groups. I DO NOT want our two (or more) groups going after one another on their own. I have long posted the opinion that this "inner" war is part of the larger war against our external enemies. I am not coming from the JBS. Frankly, I was surprised to see that they were still around. It's just common sense IMO. A country this divided cannot stand. Hey, I think I'll copyright that! Makes sense.

Too extreme? Okay. You all out there who work to turnover more and more to the UN, etc. stop it and come on back to America! Peace in our time. No?

[Tribune7]

It certainly is a strange thread.

[Ernie.cal]

Geez guys! So much to respond to! This message combines replies to

92 - Kidd
94 - Tribune7
100- Badray
102- Tailgunner Joe
105- Tailgunner Joe
108- WilliamofCarmichael

92--KIDD:
Why is "my motivation" pertinent to this debate? Have you ever sent an inquiry to the JBS to ask them "what is your motivation?" for defaming virtually every prominent political leader in our country during the past 80 years?

94--TRIBUNE7:
You state that you "imagine the JBS has been grievosuly wrong about a lot of things". Please be specific. Give us TWO examples.

100--BADRAY
Sorry you didn't appreciate my previous answer to your questions. I tried to put YOU in the position of having to cope with unfair or untrue attacks on yourself or your family so that you could easily understand the issues involved in this debate.

What, exactly, is the "strawman" that I supposedly created?

It appears from your statements in paragraph 5 of your current message that you consider official determinations of "subversive" groups to be unnecessary. I guess, in your scheme of things, everyone is free to label as "subversive" any person or group that they don't like.

What amazes me is that you apparently think understanding every nuance of our Constitution is simple, easy, and self-evident. In other words, there are no dilemmas or puzzles to figure out and it is perfectly clear what is, and is NOT, "Constitutional" and, consequently, what is and is not "subversive" of that Constitution!

102--TAILGUNNER JOE
Joe:

It really doesn't matter if I subscribe to the Belmont Brotherhood theory. The point I tried to make is that all kinds of conspiratorial stuff is out there---much of it BY BIRCHERS AGAINST OTHER BIRCHERS!

So what methodology do you guys use to establish what is true and what is false?

Please review message #21 to Eastbound. I copied statements about Robert Welch made by Al Canwell.

During the 1960's your JBS counterparts asked us all to believe that Canwell was an expert on internal security matters.

So how do contemporary Birchers deal with the statements made by Canwell during his interview? ONCE AGAIN: HOW DO BIRCHERS GO ABOUT ESTABLISHING WHAT IS, AND IS NOT, TRUE?

Whether it is Canwell, or Julia Brown, or the Belmont Brotherhood document --- these are BIRCH MEMBERS and SUPPORTERS providing the documentation and making the claims!

By comparison, dealing with me should be a PIECE OF CAKE!!

105---TAILGUNNER JOE
Let me ask you something Joe....and PLEASE give this some reflection before you answer, OK?

Suppose some liberal organization published a tirade against the JBS.

Suppose, further, that when you did a little checking into the background of the author of the tirade you discovered the information appearing below.

Are YOU asking me to believe that the items listed below

(a) would be IRRELEVANT to you? and ...

(b) you would not even consider it necessary to discuss them in the context of determining whether or not the author was a honest, reliable source of information?? and

(c) consequently, in your response to the tirade, there would be NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of these items?

* FBI memos describing author as "neurotic personality"
"definitely unreliable" and perhaps "dishonest"
and "erratic"
* life-long history of addicition to alcohol and depression
* 4 electric shock treatments didn't work
* Court decision which refers to author
testimony as "evasive" and "conflicting"
* author profusely apologizing for making false and
defamatory statements about a colleague
* author with history of demanding ever-increasing
amounts of money for his court testimony

[Tribune7]

You state that you "imagine the JBS has been grievosuly wrong about a lot of things". Please be specific. Give us TWO examples.

I asked you some questions in 94.You seem to be more upset with JBS than the organizations I listed. Why is that?

Remember Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy and Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

[Ernie.cal]

I'll be happy to answer your questions as soon as you demonstrate that you TRULY believe the first statement in your message (i.e. Birchers have made "grievous errors").

Your answer will help me understand what you consider a "grievous error" so I can then address your subsequent remarks.

[jammer]

Oh, so you DO know the meaning of ad hominem! Well, then you know that your post was replete with it.

However, from the Bureau's perspective, Smoot's post-FBI endeavors wrongly sought to capitalize on his relatively brief FBI career. The Bureau thought Smoot was in the habit of making "unfactual" statements about national and international affairs. According to Bureau memos, shortly before his retirement Smoot was the subject of disciplinary action. One Bureau memo refers to Smoot's "antagonistic attitude and unsavory Bureau record" which made him undesirable for re-instatement.

The charges are facts? No. Tell us what made him "undesirable", other than disagreeing with the idjits in the FBI. That is ad hominem number 1.

... attempted suicide and claimed he was a target for assassination by Communists.

Does this address Prussion's argument? No. It casts aspersions, real or not, on his mental stability. That's called an ad hominem, since you looked it up in the dictionary.

an alcoholic who was dropped by the Bureau for various indiscretions...divorced 3 times...etc.

Actually, I was being nice. This paper is a load of crap, and you know it. I'm open to arguments, but the number of times divorced has nothing to do with the positions of these people. BTW, your definition of ad hominem is mine also--which proves my case.

[Eastbound]

Bump!

[Tribune7]

Remember. Make the enemy live up to his own book of rules. Why do the Birchers upset you more than the NEA?

[NMC EXP]

So what precisely is your reason for wanting to discredit the John Birch Society?

Are you ideologically opposed to a group which despises communism?

Regards

J.R.

[Ernie.cal]

Jammer:

I'll try to respond to each of your points:

DAN SMOOT:
I cannot provide all the specific details you want because I am still awaiting release of Dan's personnel file. The Bureau has told me it is now in their "fast track" for processing which normally means 2-4 months.

However, recently I obtained a 35-page document which Dan Smoot wrote in 1994 after he received an inquiry from me about the cirumstances of his resignation. He never sent me this document in 1994 but an acquaintance of mine recently found it in Smoot's papers at Texas A&M University and he gave me a copy.

According to Smoot's recollection, there were two incidents
which could have produced unfavorable Bureau reviews of his performance.

The first concerned a "bad mistake I had made in 1943 while in the Dallas FBI office. I was wrong in a quarrel with a police officer. That brought me a letter of censure from Hoover and, probably, the transfer I received soon thereafter. I deserved both."

The second incident is the one that is the most ambiguous at this time and I will need to receive his personnel file before I can give you any definitive information. But here is the gist of what I know based upon Smoot's write-up.

During an inspection of the Dallas office in 1951, Smoot contacted the Inspector and suggested that he speak with the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the Dallas Office concerning personnel problems within the office. Smoot made this contact (he says) at the behest of several fellow Agents in the Dallas Office.

Here is how Smoot describes the situation: "...but the agents who had persuaded me to do so (for the good of the service) did not back me. Shortly thereafter I was transferred, and shortly after that I resigned."

Smoot says he never received a letter of censure and never knew that he was on probation. This is the part that seems very odd because the initial documents I received from the Bureau tell a different story. But, as I said, when his personnel file is released I expect to be able to find out why:

(1) his SAC was so hostile toward him that he described Smoot as "antagonistic" and
(2) why Bureau documents refer to Smoot's "unsavory" Bureau record

At this point, I will copy into this message an excerpt from a report I updated last year which contained additional FBI info about Smoot.

This section pertains to assistance provided to Harry Overstreet by the FBI for his 1964 book, "The Strange Tactics of Extremism" and the Bureau's evaluation of Overstreet's chapters on Edgar Bundy and Dan Smoot.

---

"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].

---

Might I digress for a moment to add a personal observation?

"Ad hominem", as I have mentioned in other posts, is when NO EVIDENCE other than the personal attack is used to discredit someone. I think if you will carefully review all of my messages you will find evidence of Julia Brown's contradictory and false statements, and evidence of the Bureau's dislike of persons associating themselves with the JBS.

As I have stated from the very beginning of this discussion, I am prepared to provide documentation for everything I have said. Obviously, I cannot export into Free Republic book-length documentation on EVERY subject we have discussed. However, if you would just politely ask for additional information, I will be happy to oblige! My email address in also shown in this thread so anyone interested can pursue matters further.

One final point which you seem to have overlooked. The fundamental premise of my messages is that many persons used by the JBS as "experts" (because of their connection to the FBI) are often described in Bureau memos in a derogatory manner. That is a fact! It is not simply an "ad hominem argument" -- so YOU need to deal with that data. In fact, perhaps YOU would like to offer your explanation for that inconvenient fact.

KARL PRUSSION:
I used the information about Prussion not to address any particular argument he made (although I do have his entire FBI file and can provide you with lots of particulars concerning his errors). I used the info to bring up the matter of "mental stability".

Let me ask you something. Suppose YOU are on trial for some serious crime and you have 3 persons who could potentially be called as friendly witnesses for your case. However, one of them has medical problems (including mental problems).

Do you think that you or your lawyer would choose the "mental case" person to testify? Of course not! You would be afraid (and rightly so) that jurors would be LESS LIKELY to believe whatever that troubled person had to say---right?

MATT CVETIC:
I guess what you are saying is that the FBI and the Dept of Justice were all total idiots because they concluded that Cvetic was a very troubled person.

Furthermore, apparently in your scheme of things, evidence from seriously troubled minds has the same value as evidence from persons who are not carrying the baggage that Cvetic evidenced.

I refer you to my comments in message #110 which respond to Tailgunner Joe's (TJ) message about this same matter. I would be interested in YOUR answer to the question that I posed to TJ!

[Ernie.cal]

Welcome to our discussion.

Unfortunately, I don't understand your question.

The Birch Society claims to be "an educational organization".

It further claims to be "an army fighting with facts".

It further claims to present "factual" material about the status of our internal security.

OK--are YOU "ideologically opposed" to anybody who chooses to research JBS assertions and then provides evidence of JBS error?

Upon reflection, I realize that many people who have joined this current discussion did not participate in the October 2003 debates over several messages I previously posted.

Consequently, I have decided to post an updated and expanded edition of my 22-page report on the Birch Society. (or as much as will fit on Free Republic).

IT WILL APPEAR SHORTLY AS A NEW POST UNDER THE TITLE

"FBI REPORT ON BIRCH SOCIETY"

Enjoy!

[Veracious Poet]

He also headed up a nationwide movement to restore common-law, of which the only gov't. related agency that recognized it was the Texan GOP party, that is until Dubya shut that down...

The movement contained current and former state representatives and a governor, creating a lot of optimism, but the media and gov't. as a whole ignored the common-law grand jury findings, indicting the gov't. on operating outside the Constitution.

http://www.icomm.ca/survival/310.don/factfict.htm

http://www.barefootsworld.net/srwep.html

After witnessing the apathy of the general populace (who usually roll their eyes 15 seconds into an introductory speech) and the "fringe" elements of the patriot-movement self-destructing, I decided to just focus on getting through the charade as best as possible.

God Bless...

[NMC EXP]

OK--are YOU "ideologically opposed" to anybody who chooses to research JBS assertions and then provides evidence of JBS error?

I am suspicious of the motives of anyone opposed to anti-communism.

You avoided my question. You claim to have invested a lot of time and effort in order to discredit the JBS. I'll accept that as true.

What is your motive?

Regards

J.R.