Birch Society "Experts"

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

[Zechariah11]

ErnieFor more than 20 years I have been pursuing documents from FBI, military intelligence (ONI, OSI, and G-2), Dept of Justice, Dept of State, and other agencies on topics discussed by the Birch Society over the years.

What a great use of your time, Ernie!! We were all quite anxious about that group. Are there many cardboard boxes in your study?

Will you be responding or ignoring post #34?

[B4Ranch]

The JB's do have a few things to the credit. Predicting the authorized submergence of socialism (communism) in our elected government.

Why was there an EMERGENCY CLAUSE to make sure subversive organizations could establish themselves in the Arkansas Banana Republik?

I found PART of the answer from the Federal Elections Committee:

Socialist Workers Party gets FEC exemption on revealing donors
Boston Daily News 3 Apr 2003
Sharon Theimer

WASHINGTON (AP) The Socialist Workers Party still faces the danger of harassment and can continue to keep the identity of its donors secret, the Federal Election Commission ruled Thursday.

The commission voted 4-2 to extend the party's long-standing exemption from FEC reporting requirements for political parties, including rules on identifying contributors.

The granting of the six-year extension came despite the opinion of two commissioners that times have changed and the party no longer faces significant harassment from the government.

Commissioner Danny McDonald voted against the extension, saying he saw only evidence of petty harassment of the party in recent years similar to what other political parties have faced. McDonald cited one case in which oranges were thrown at a party activist and another in which activists were cursed by political opponents.

''The true believers, when they send in a check, and they put it in the public record, they know it might be good for business and it might not be,'' McDonald said.

But the majority of the commissioners said that while harassment of the party has diminished, the organization's long history of threats coupled with anecdotal evidence from recent years justified extending the exemption.

Steve Clark, a member of the party's national committee, welcomed the FEC decision, saying that with the war on terrorism increasingly intruding on political activity, his party needed the protection.

''The times change back and forth,'' Clark said. ''Certainly the past year and a half there's been a much more open attempt by the federal government and states and local governments to push back political rights in this country.''

The Socialist Workers Party advocates a Marxist revolution to overthrow the U.S. government. Taking the Russian and Cuban revolutions of the 20th century as models, it wants to replace the country's capitalist system with a government of workers and farmers.

The exemption was first granted by a court in 1979 and last renewed by the commission in 1996.

The party, who counts its members in the hundreds, had candidates on the ballot in congressional and other races around the country last year; none won. It currently is protesting the war in Iraq.


On the Net:

FEC: http://www.fec.gov/


Minnesota - Home of the Socialist Workers Party, Wellstone, Mondale, DNC

This article comes from Focus on Freedom
http://www.gohotsprings.com/focus/

The URL for this story is:
http://www.gohotsprings.com/focus/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=385

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946128/posts?page=11#11

[Ernie.cal]

William:

Nice to hear from you again. Your description of Matt Cvetic's career is only partially accurate. You choose to ignore all derogatory information because, I suppose, you don't want any "dirty linen" brought to public attention.

For those FR readers who are interested in factual information about Matt Cvetic's career, I recommend
"Anti-Communism, the FBI and Matt Cvetic: The Ups and Downs of a Professional Informer" by Daniel J. Leab in the October 1991 issue of The Pennsylvania Magazine of History of Biography. Or, for a more thorough examination, consult Leab's 2000 book entitled "I Was A Communist For The FBI: The Unhappy Life and Times of Matt Cvetic."

Leab, a Professor of History at Seton Hall University, acquired all FBI files on Cvetic and interviewed numerous persons who knew Cvetic.

Here are a few salient points about Matt Cvetic based upon court records and FBI documents:

* 1939 - Cvetic was indicted for aggravated assault and battery upon his sister-in-law which was dismissed after he agreed to pay her $340 doctor's bill arising from a broken wrist. When questioned about his assault in a court proceeding during 1950, Cvetic commented: "A very recognized habit, it is an American custom...I don't know, since when it was a crime to beat up your sister-in-law anyhow."

Also in 1939, Cvetic's first wife sued him for non-support but Cvetic and his wife reconciled later in the year.

* 1955 - According to the deposition of a medical records clerk in United States v. Nelson, Cvetic was confined in St. Francis Hospital, Pittsburgh PA for the periods February 17 to March 5, 1955; March 19 to March 26, 1955, and May 21 to May 28 1955. The diagnosis on the first occasion was "depressive reaction (anxiety)" and "alcohol addiction" and on the other occasions it was "alcohol addiction."

Cvetic's son stated that his father "used liquor heavily for a period of five years" but he joined A.A. and quit drinking altogether until February 1955.

Dr. W.J. Kelly, wrote the following information on a 2/17/55 hospital admission document:

"I have formed my opinion that he is mentally ill from the following facts indicating mental disease. Patient is restless, agitated, has a suspicious attitude, seems afraid, admits drinking heavily of late. Is admitted as a chronic alcoholic."

Cvetic received 4 electric shock treatments and doctors released him with a "good" prognosis. However, Cvetic was re-admitted on March 19th.

Cvetic was asked about his mental condition in a 1951 court case. He admitted that over a period of years going back to 1929, he had been very nervous and suffered from "a nervous stomach and a nervous heart condition". He acknowledged treatment over the years by a psychiatrist and neurologist at St. Francis Hospital.

A newspaper reporter who was friendly to Cvetic reported that he had a "hard time" staying away from "booze and babes". In 1947 the Bureau became aware of Cvetic's pursuit of women, other than his wife.

Monsignor Charles Owen Rice, a prominent priest in Pittsburgh during the 1940's known for his hard-line anti-Communist views, observed that Cvetic "was perceived to be a schmuck by the people dealing with him" and consequently "was treated like one."

Despite being the FBI's highest paid security informant, Cvetic constantly complained about his debts and repeatedly demanded more money. In 1948 he demanded at least $100 weekly and he threatened to quit if he didn't get the raise.

December 1948: The Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Pittsburgh field office recommended to J. Edgar Hoover the "immediate discontinuance" of Cvetic due to his erratic behavior and repeated instances where he revealed his informant status. Hoover's staff agreed but delayed taking action until January 3, 1950 due to court proceedings where they wanted Cvetic to testify.

In 1949, the FBI described Cvetic as "moody...subject to alternating periods of enthusiasm, self-pity, and depression." A Pittsburgh FBI Agent referred to Cvetic's "neurotic personality."

February 1953: J. Edgar Hoover tells subordinates to inform government attorneys that "the use of Cvetic in any government case would be most unfortunate" thus confirming Pittsburgh FBI reports which characterized Cvetic as "definitely unreliable" and capable of "dishonest statements."

June 1955: the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit rendered an opinion that found Cvetic's testimony to be "conflicting", "evasive" and of "no more probative value than...tattlings from a town meeting." Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Justice formally "disapproved use of Cvetic as a witness in Government prosecution."

1956: The FBI severely reprimanded Cvetic arising from Cvetic's jealousy of Herbert Philbrick. Philbrick had developed a more lucrative anti-Communist career than Cvetic. Cvetic was questioned about statements he allegedly made against Philbrick. Charges were made that Philbrick had paid "kickback money" to two FBI agents. Cvetic allegedly also claimed that Philbrick was, in reality, a "leftwinger". Further, Cvetic allegedly had made statements about J. Edgar Hoover's drinking habits.

A Bureau memo states that Cvetic was "forcefully told" that he should "shut up" and that the "Bureau would not tolerate malicious gossip or false statements regarding the Director, the FBI, or Bureau personnel." A contrite Cvetic apologized profusely, but to no avail. Subsequent Cvetic correspondence to the Bureau from Cvetic was never acknowledged.

[Ernie.cal]

B4:

Actually, I have no problem with most of your most recent message...and I especially like this portion:

“The masses live by, and are ruled by, subconscious and emotional thought process. The crowd has never thirsted for the truth. It turns aside from evidence that is not to its taste, preferring to glorify and to follow error, if the way of error appears attractive enough, and seduces them. Whoever can supply the crowd with attractive emotional illusions may easily become their master; and whoever attempts to destroy such firmly entrenched illusions of the crowd is almost sure to be rejected.”

Just attempting to get someone to view a topic without their inbred prejudices is very difficult. They don't want to stand on the other side of the fence and look in at themselves. "Too difficult" is the short phrase I hear every time I suggest it."

NOW---my question to you is this:
Can you cite even ONE instance where the John Birch Society has admitted error to its members---that is, an instance where the JBS retracted an adverse comment or conclusion it made about a person, organization, or publication?

If you cannot cite ONE instance, can we both agree that Gustave LeBon's comments are certainly applicable to the JBS?

[Ernie.cal]

Eastbound:

Don't understand why you think I have mis-characterized your position and you don't explain.

See your posts, as follows:

#15 = you state there is no difference between Communists, socialists, liberals, Democrats.

This contradicts not only the historical record which I mentioned in a previous message (socialists despised the Soviet Union) but also contradicts what J. Edgar Hoover repeatedly said and wrote, and it also contradicts reports by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, HUAC, and numerous conservative scholars and authors.

Making intelligent distinctions is one way we separate rational from irrational thought. You seem to want lowest-common-denominator reasoning --- the same obnoxious logic employed by all enemies of freedom who don't want to make careful distinctions (moral and practical) about human behavior.

#28 = you confirm that Americans have only "a single option" -- which, apparently, is whatever your personal political preferences are.

[Ernie.cal]

Yes, I agree with you that "professional anti-Communist" is a pejorative term.

What you haven't explained, however, is why top officials of the FBI routinely used that term to describe certain individuals on the right.

Many prominent persons associated with the Bureau went on to write books, give speeches, and appear on radio/TV broadcasts but the Bureau never characterized them as "professional anti-Communists". Examples include
security informant Herbert Philbrick and former FBI Special Agent Milton Ellerin ( who was later Research Director for the American Jewish Committee.)

In your opinion, is it possible for someone to engage in anti-Communist activity primarily as a means of earning a living---without being too concerned about accuracy of information disseminated?

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "Hoover's staff agreed but delayed taking action [to fire Cvetic] until January 3, 1950 due to court proceedings where they wanted Cvetic to testify."

Looks like he had some value to America. As you know 1950 was his last year as a FBI informant.

Here is a googled book review of Leab's book. Looks like Mr. Cvetic done pretty good for America IMO. So he had a drinking problem. I noted that. Should all things be removed from our society if they were created by a drunk? by someone who visited a doctor? by someone charged with a misdemeanor?

www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ jah/89.1/br_108.html

"The end of the Cold War has done little to stem the flood of Cold War studies. Indeed, the opening of new archives in the United States and the former Soviet Union has spurred the publication of hundreds of new books. Daniel J. Leab's slender study of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) informer Matt Cvetic, based on declassified bureau records, provides a small but fascinating addition to this literature.

"Cvetic was one of a small army of FBI informers who infiltrated the U.S. Communist party during World War II. From 1943 to 1950, he held a number of mostly low-level party posts in the Pittsburgh area. Quietly terminated by the bureau in early 1950, he nevertheless became a star witness before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, subsequently testifying in dozens of anticommunist trials, deportation hearings, and other quasi-judicial proceedings. His testimony helped crush what little remained of the Communist party in western Pennsylvania. A few party leaders were imprisoned for violating the Smith Act. Other members of the party and affiliated front organizations were fired or suspended, among them a violinist with the Pittsburgh Symphony, a high school English teacher, and a laborer for the city's parks department." [end excerpt]

His argument with Philbrick sounds like what goes on between todays local talk show hosts here in Sacramento. I care about results and he got 'em.

Cvetic never killed anyone while he was drunk.

[Ernie.cal]

FYI:

I responded to Bill's message about Matt Cvetic (see #43) after I ran to my carboard boxes and pulled out some information which you probably have never confronted in your entire lifetime.

But it's SO much easier for you to make sarcastic remarks than do the heavy-lifting of careful research, isn't it?

[Ernie.cal]

Bill---I have no problem with your posting.

However, I urge you to read Professor Leab's book. In many respects it is a sympathetic portrait of Cvetic but it does raise appropriate questions about Cvetic's honesty and integrity---as did J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. In fact, perhaps the more interesting story is how the Bureau overlooked personal defects when it thought it could use a person for information.

You write that you "care about results" and Cvetic produced results. Fair enough.

But there is a darker side to Cvetic and my messages to you are intended merely to point out that the Birch Society (the supposed "educational" organization) never brings inconvenient info to the attention of its members and readers.

As I will reveal in future months, many of the people that the Birch Society relied upon were deeply flawed persons and often they were dishonest -- or they crafted their message in a manner to maximize perception of their personal expertise when, in reality, they did not possess that expertise. I briefly hinted at some of this in my opening message of this thread.

In addition, these persons often inflamed public debate by use of half-truths and outright fabrications.

I'll risk sounding like a broken record: Mistaken ideas have consequences. And the Birch Society (and similar groups) routinely disseminated mistaken ideas.

Ernie

[philetus]

It's funny that someone as against the JBS would call "my" message totally disingenuous, since I took it from the JBS home page.

I don't belong to the JBS, but I think some of their goals are admirable.
Since I never researched the JBS, I don't know who said what in the 50's and 60's.

As far as our state dept. AND Congress being loaded with commie thinking people, I believe it is now and probably had some then.

I believe the politicians want the U.S. under the control of the UN and that they are actively working towards that end.


Since the JBS is not a threat to the country, why don't you turn that energy towards the ones that are?

[Eastbound]

"#28 = you confirm that Americans have only "a single option" -- which, apparently, is whatever your personal political preferences are."

It appears you are admitting that your personal political preferences diverge from mine, which I will state again:

"It took me a long time to conclude that AMERICANS have only a single option, and that option is to protect and preserve their birthright and to pass it on to the next generation un-scathed and un-diluted. Alas, we are failing, it seems."

A radical conclusion to you, I take it from your response.

[B4Ranch]

The question that comes to mind is why are you afraid of the JBS when there is many organizations that are bigger, having more power than the JBS's.

"Can you cite even ONE instance where the "fill in the space" has admitted error to its members---that is, an instance where the "fill in the space" retracted an adverse comment or conclusion it made about a person, organization, or publication?
"fill in the space" with Republican or Democratic Party, with the Jewish, Catholic, Protestant whatever organization, Sierra Club, continue in theme ..........

Ernie, groups and organizations do not apologize to the members, they make changes in future tactics instead of admitting the current plans aren't working. Apologizing would mean "I'm susceptible to making errors the same as you are", therefore you may want to nominate someone else for my position whom you feel is less apt to commit an error. Never happen!

If the leader felt that humble, he or she would offer their resignation papers. Humble is not a characteristic of "leaders".
Gustave LeBon's comments are definitely applicable to the masses of the world who find it easier to follow than lead. That is what the NEA is teaching in public school today. "Follow your leaders, never question your leaders."
Haven't you seen attitude that on forums yet?

[Texasforever]

The only thing you need to make a judgement about the JBS is their view of Ronald Reagan.

[Ernie.cal]

Philetus:

It is significant that you totally ignored the substance of my earlier message and, apparently, you didn't understand my use of the word "disingenuous".

Let me make it as clear as possible.

Your original message presented JBS ideas and objectives in a totally neutral context---i.e. the JBS just works to better America and they have many "admirable" goals.

Now, tell me, how do YOU reconcile that neutral description with the comments made by Robert Welch to his National Council in 1960?

What DO YOU THINK would happen (if Birchers had their way) to all of the persons that Mr. Welch considered guilty of TREASON and whom he described as COMMUNISTS (not mistaken, not wrong-headed, not confused, -- but persons who ARE KNOWINGLY DISLOYAL to our government and our way of life?)

If someone like President Carter is guilty of TREASON, according to Welch, what do you think is going to happen to the millions of Americans who happen to share Carter's views and objectives?

With respect to the UN -- why is it that after 60+ years, the UN hasn't taken over as extreme rightwingers have predicted during all that time?

What we know is that the U.S. (and other nations) dismiss and ignore the UN whenever they think their interests will not be served by using the UN. That has always been the case...so what is your evidence for believing that our politicians "want the U.S. under the control of the UN"?

[Spirited]

One teeny-tiny TODAY posting on this board describes some still-usable FBI characteristics:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115665/posts
"An FBI (news - web sites) fingerprint examiner, Louis Hupp, said under cross examination by defense attorney Barbara Bergman that he mistakenly testified to finding Nichols' prints on a crucial piece of evidence. Hupp attributed the mistake to "an administrative error."

Long term revisionism is what gets future generations to believe the lie. The victor writes the "history" as "truth".

Prophesied eons ago here:

Isaiah 59:14
And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter
Isaiah 59:15
Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey:

Doesn't pay to "depart from evil" and try to tell the truth; you make yourself, "a prey".

It pays more than Clinton to lie and live.

[Eastbound]

After reading # 54 it became clear to me. Practical joke time on Free Republic. LOL! Nice going, Ernie. You had me fooled.

[philetus]

"Your original message presented JBS ideas and objectives in a totally neutral context---i.e. the JBS just works to better America and they have many "admirable" goals."

As I said, I just quoted their start page.

"Now, tell me, how do YOU reconcile that neutral description with the comments made by Robert Welch to his National Council in 1960?"

You're the expert on JBS.
Did his comments represent a concensus of all the members of the JBS, at that time?
Do they still subscribe to the comments made be Welch, in the 60's?
If so, then IF the JBS was in charge, they would execute everyone that disagreed with them.


With respect to the UN -- Whether or not they have taken over in 60+ yrs isn't the isn't the question.
It's whether after 60+ yrs, the citizens and government of the U.S. has become willing to go along.

[Ernie.cal]

Perhaps you don't understand what I'm trying to point out:

YOUR conclusion is that Americans are "failing" to "protect and preserve their birthright and pass it on to the next generation".

You say this, apparently, because YOU have political ideas and objectives that are not currently being adopted or implemented to your satisfaction.

However, other decent, honorable, patriotic Americans may have a different perspective and come to a DIFFERENT conclusion about what constitutes the "birthright" that they wish to pass on to the next generation. In short, other Americans can and do DISAGREE with your assertion that we are "failing" to protect and preserve our birthright. Those Americans probably also disagree with your notion about what is "undiluted" or "unscathed".
Since you speak only in vague generalities it is difficult to be more precise.

HOWEVER, you seem to be disappointed that YOUR agenda is not currently the prevailing point of view -- and you seem to want to dismiss ALL alternatives as unacceptable. In other words, we must agree with YOUR AGENDA (the "single option") or we are "failing".

Am I incorrect? If so, please correct my interpretation.

[Texasforever]

The question that comes to mind is why are you afraid of the JBS when there is many organizations that are bigger, having more power than the JBS's

For the simple reason that the JBS is still equated with the "far right" in this country. I really don't think you have looked very deeply into that organization. I consider myself a very strong conservative and I have been fighting for years to remove the JBS stain from that term. Ronald Reagan himself was savaged by the JBS as being too liberal and yet his short association with them was held against him his entire time in office.

[hedgetrimmer]

"My God, we're flying all these flags around here, and I thought, 'Shouldn't the U.N. flag be flying here, too?' " Farr said recently as he stood in the corridor outside his office in the Longworth House Office Building. "If the U.N. didn't exist, we'd be inventing it right now." "We've got to do everything in our power to make the U.N. the leadership body it was intended to be," Farr said. "This president has no respect for the United Nations." Read the story at:


http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/2013771.html