Birch Society "Experts"

To inflate their credentials as an organization relying upon carefully documented and factual material, the John Birch Society (JBS) often cites as "experts", persons who have had some connection to the FBI --- either as former Special Agents or as Security Informants.

However, the FBI had very negative evaluations about the post-FBI endeavors of former informants or Agents who subsequently attached themselves to the JBS as members, endorsers, speakers, or authors. Examples include: Dan Smoot, W. Cleon Skousen, Julia Brown, David Gumaer, Gerald W. Kirk, Matt Cvetic, and Karl Prussion.

Often these folks were mentally unstable. A person seduced by Communism or extreme anti-Communism may have a pre-disposition to extremist views because of underlying personality problems rather than from any genuine ideological affinity. Consequently, that problem can easily migrate into their anti-Communist "career".

DAN SMOOT, a former FBI Special Agent, is a unique star in the Birch Society stable of "experts".

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.

KARL PRUSSION attempted suicide and claimed he was a target for assassination by Communists. Prussion was terminated as an informant by the FBI because he publicly disclosed his status even though he promised never to do so without prior Bureau approval.

MATT CVETIC was an alcoholic who was dropped by the Bureau for various indiscretions.

DAVID GUMAER became involved with militia-like vigilantes in Arizona as well as illegal arms sales and securities fraud.

JULIA BROWN was divorced 3 times, changed her opinions to conform to Birch dogma so as to derive monetary gain from her Birch-sponsored speaking tours.

The Birch Society routinely inflated the credentials of persons whose views conformed to its own conclusions. JULIA BROWN serves as an interesting case study of a JBS "expert".

The Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the FBI's Cleveland Field Office stated in a memo pertaining to Julia's desire to "go public" about her experiences as an FBI informant that:

(a) she was "financially ambitious" (i.e. prospects for speaking tours, articles for a national publication, or book, etc) and

(b) Julia, with only a 10th grade education, was not intelligent enough to write for publication, as she originally proposed.

In her book "I Testify" (which actually was ghost-written by Carleton Young), Julia gives a fictitious account of her marital history as well as false details concerning joining and leaving the Communist Party.

According to Julia, she married her first husband (Edward Harris) while she was a teenager but he died. Her next mention of marriage is many years later to Curlee Brown of Cleveland.

In reality, however, Julia divorced Ed Harris, then married Jack Latimer and divorced him, then married Fred Brice and divorced him the same year she married him, and then married Curlee Brown but considered divorcing him as well.

Julia's opinions about the civil rights movement, and prominent persons and organizations within it, underwent a stunning reversal after she associated herself with the Birch Society as a paid speaker.

When Carleton Young submitted two chapters of "I Testify" to Julia for review, she initally rejected the material. Julia told the Los Angeles FBI field office that Mr. Young was expressing HIS personal political views rather than her views and she described Young as an adherent of the "lunatic right" which she described as the "Birchers".

In her March 1961 Ebony magazine interview, Julia stated that Communists had "little or no influence" within the NAACP and she concluded that:

"I'm 100 percent with the NAACP and I think they are doing a wonderful job and so does the FBI. They are aware that the NAACP is legal and is working in the American way for first class citizenship for all Americans."

However, AFTER associating with the Birch Society, Julia claimed that the NAACP was "badly infiltrated" by Communists and she routinely denounced the NAACP during her JBS-sponsored speeches.

FBI Headquarters received an advance copy of Julia's Ebony interview which it reviewed for errors. In a January 16, 1961 FBI memo, the Bureau stated that Julia should limit her comments to what she personally observed and experienced in Cleveland because "she is not qualified to assert herself as a spokesman for what is happening in the CP across the country."

There is also a major discrepancy between Julia's public accounts in her book and speeches about how she came to join the Communist Party (CP) versus what she told the FBI when she first contacted them in December 1950.

She told the FBI that she joined the CP in December 1947 because she thought the Party was the answer to racial discrimination. However, in subsequent accounts (including her book) she claims that she did not know she was joining the CP. Instead, she thought she was just joining a civil rights group.

Additional information about this topic may be obtained from me at: Ernie1241@aol.com

B4:

1. I am not "afraid" of the JBS. I merely am interested
in accurate history.

2. Your second paragraph is so bizarre, I don't even
know how to respond. Responsible persons and
organizations routinely admit error. There are
"corrections" sections in most magazines and
newspapers.

3. Any self-described "educational" organization whose
"only weapon is the truth" and which says it "fights
with facts" -- is, by definition, engaged in an
ongoing SEARCH for truth. The JBS, by contrast,
is not searching for anything. Instead, it believes
it has discovered an Ultimate Final Truth and is
merely propagandizing for its point of view. This
explains why they NEVER admit error.

4. I suggest that you read the entire trial transcript
of Gertz vs. Robert Welch Inc. to discover how the
Birch Society went about fact-checking for its
defamatory article about Gertz. The JBS
ultimately paid Gertz $400,000 in an historic
and precedent setting libel case.

5. Your third paragraph is also bizarre. We aren't
discussing tactics or "plans (that) aren't
working." We are discussing FALSE (and often
DEFAMATORY) comments about prominent national
figures.

6. If YOU were libeled or slandered by FALSE
and defamatory statements by an organization,
would you be content with the explanation you
present in your third paragraph? Something
like this:

"Oh, B4, don't worry or be upset. Organizations
do not apologize to their members when grievous
mistakes are made. Anyway, who cares about your
reputation, or, the truth of the matter? All is
fair in politics!"

Josef:

I suppose you think that your posting is clever and helpful to understanding the issues involved in this thread, right?

Since you don't know anything about my beliefs on the Venona (not "Verona" as you mistakenly write) transcripts, it takes real chutzpah on your part to categorically state my position on the matter.

My experience in life has been that irrational people just INVENT information and expect their critics to argue against their fabrications. That appears to be your approach to this entire subject.

FYI: I have written numerous messages on AOL message boards defending Ann Coulter's book entitled "Treason" -- although I also point out a couple of errors that she made.

So now that you know that you deliberately MISREPRESENTED my beliefs are you man enough to apologize? Probably not! Another classic example of the Birch mentality in action!

You say my messages are "vague" but you don't offer any specifics. That seems pretty "vague" to me!

The most revealing passage in your semi-coherent message is this one:

"The discrediting of all the FBI agents who are pro JBS smacks of the same smear campaign Team Toon instituted on those who dared to cross it. Amazing how the FBI managed to hire so many "lunatics" in the first place. Just attack the members personally, as in the arena of ideas, UN drones like Uncle Ernie/Wlat are found wanting. Typical Marxist ploy"

You don't seem able to comprehend that what you characterize as "discrediting of ALL FBI agents who are pro-JBS" was done WITHIN THE TOP ECHELONS OF THE FBI ITSELF (not by me) because THEY believed that the Birch Society was....(at this point I will list the most common terms in FBI memos)

* extremist
* irresponsible
* lunatic fringe

Does it EVER occur to you that maybe -- JUST MAYBE -- the Birch Society has been GRIEVOUSLY WRONG about something? If the JBS WAS GRIEVOUSLY WRONG -- how would YOU discover it?

You're right, Ernie. I have nothing to add, so I will depart. But let me try to redeem the bandwidth here a little before I go. In response to your question if you are correct in your analysis of what my politics are, let me submit this:

Yes, you are mistaken.

Like millions of Americans, I am fed up with our out of control federal government. Therefore, I am helping to roll back decades of liberal/socialist public policy and eliminate the waste, fraud, abuse and corruption pervasive in Washington today.

I am dedicated to helping reverse the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and advocate a complete restoration of our constitutional republic.

I submit:

Basically, I believe that the Founders designed our system of government in the form of a constitutionally limited republic, with maximum freedom intended for the people and minimum government control or interference into our personal lives and business affairs.

The united states of America was intended to be a federation of sovereign states, each with its own constitution and state government. Governments at all levels -- federal, state and local -- were to be controlled by the people. Our Constitution explicitly restricts the power of our federal government; and our Bill of Rights guarantees that NO government may infringe upon our God given unalienable rights. This is to ensure that the real power remains close to home, with the states, the local governments and always in the hands of the people.

We the People have granted our federal government limited powers to oversee certain things, such as national defense, interstate commerce, the postal service, the coining of money, and the operation of a court system. Most other powers now in the hands of the federal government were illegally usurped from the states and from the people.

Somehow, over the years, our guiding principles of law, as set forth in the Constitution, have been eroded to the point that the federal government now has total control -- leaving the states impotent and the people as captive servants to the federal government. This must be reversed if we are to survive as a free Republic and a free people.

I am determined to help return the Constitution to its rightful place as the Supreme Law of the land as the Founders intended.

To wit:

The preservation and complete restoration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights with special emphasis on the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth amendments and, of course, our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness -- free of government intervention.

I call for the repeal of the 17th amendment, which will reverse the independence of the Senate and reestablish the Senate as a representative of the State governments, as intended by the Founding Fathers. This arrangement was intended to be a critical check against illegal federal expansion over the States, and the people residing in the various States, and will act to return the powers not granted to the federal government, as enumerated in the Constitution, to the states.

I call for the repeal of the 16th amendment and to abolish the income tax and the IRS. Revenues to the federal government should come from excise taxes and tariffs.

I call for the repeal of the Emergency and War Powers Acts, an end to all national emergencies and a ban on the unilateral creation of law by Presidential edict. I all call for the repeal all laws created by unconstitutional and extraconstitutional devices, such as Executive Order or Presidential Directive.

I call for the repeal of the war and emergency powers acts and the various states of national emergencies, which will allow the abolishing of all unconstitutional federal law, agencies and departments. This will return us to a Federalist system of government and return many responsibilities to the States and personal rights to the citizens.

I call for the return to a strictly Constitutional form of federal government that will automatically repeal and abolish all unconstitutional federal involvement in states issues such as: crime, health, education, welfare and the environment. The Tenth Amendment will again be in effect, which will bar all federal attempts at legislating social issues. This will also require that social programs such as Social Security, welfare and Medicare be repealed. So too, will most federal subsidies.

I also call for the rescinding of all treaties and/or International Agreements which are not in perfect agreement with the federal government’s Constitutionally mandated task of protecting the rights of the people.

I believe that the United States should disassociate itself from the U.N. and that the U.N. should be forced to leave the United States. Furthermore, I demand that the federal government refrain from meddling in the business and squabbles of foreign nations, unless there is an imminent threat to the people of the United States.

I also call for the strengthening of our military and defenses; the effective control over illegal immigration and smuggling; the paying down the national debt; and strict control over federal agencies like the CIA and the FBI.

I DO NOT condone bigotry or violence and DO NOT advocate an overthrow of the government.

If this sounds a little too radical and restrictive for you, you might want to take it up with the person who composed it.

Badray: Welcome to the discussion.

In every debate I've had with Birchers over the years, someone ultimately posts a message like yours.

1. Why are you "attacking" the JBS?
2. Why spend 20 years of research on "old" stuff?
3. So what if they "got some things wrong"?

etc. etc.

Let me attempt to answer you...but, first, I need you to consider a hypothetical situation--as follows:

Suppose that, tomorrow morning, you discover that some organization (which you have never heard of) has published an article which attacks you and your family.

Furthermore, as you read the article's details, you discover numerous factual errors about your background.
In addition, the article states or insinuates that you are NOT a loyal citizen of our country.

As you do some further research, you discover that this organization has published numerous other articles attacking persons and organizations and it routinely describes them as disloyal and/or subversive.

You decide to find out more information about the organization. You do research in newspaper archives and at libraries. And then you discover comments made by top officials of the FBI which discredit the organization that has defamed you and your family.

Given this hypothetical scenario, would you still ask the same questions you cited in your message?

1. Would you dismiss the defamatory article as
nothing more than "getting some things wrong"?

2. Would you accept someone's description of your
research as being "an obsession" or "fixation"?

3. If a neighbor said nice things about the
organization, would you then think to yourself,
"Gee, they aren't out to destroy my liberty"?

Right now, the Birch Society (thankfully) does not have any power to implement its warped vision of America. So you can ASSUME that "they aren't out to destroy my liberty".

But think about it....When political differences are
routinely characterized in terms such as "treason" or "subversion" or "unAmerican activities" etc. etc. what do YOU think is the likely course of action for folks who believe those ideas IF THEY ACTUALLY DID ACQUIRE POWER?

Finally, please explain why the Birch Society has NEVER admitted any substantive error in its entire history...i.e. some adverse conclusion about a person or organization that they retracted as mistaken.

There is nothing in your message that I consider troubling.

FYI: I happen to agree with many of the ideas contained in your message --- including, but not limited to, inviting the UN to move their operations to another country and adoption of a more isolationist foreign policy.

Eastbound---I hope you remember that this discussion began as a consideration of whether or not the Birch Society is a responsible organization and a reliable source of information. Nothing in your current message deals with that subject.

One can believe every iota of what your message says but still oppose the Birch Society--as MANY prominent conservatives do!

Major figures within the conservative movement (who share many of your views) have, over the years, repudiated the JBS. The list is quite comprehensive: Russell Kirk, Eugene Lyons, Frank Meyer, James Burnham, Bill Buckley, Sen. Barry Goldwater, Sen. John Tower, the editors of Human Events, and so many more.

Others, who were JBS members or endorsers, subsequently left the JBS in disgust (including such luminaries as John Rousselot, Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, and even Mrs. Welch!)

Do you honestly believe that they ALL were stupid fools? Or maybe -- JUST MAYBE -- do you think they discovered that the JBS was grievously wrong about many matters and could not be considered as a rational, responsible organization?

In closing, I will copy below J. Edgar Hoover's comments before the Warren Commission when he was asked for his opinion about an article appearing 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."

"...endeavors wrongly sought to capitalize on his..."
"...so as to derive monetary gain from her..."
"...she was "financially ambitious" (i.e. prospects for speaking tours, articles for a national publication, or book, etc)"

It sounds like whoever wrote this has some kind of problem with capitalism.

Julia claimed that the NAACP was "badly infiltrated" by Communists

This is the only charge made by any of these anti-communists that is addressed. The rest is pure ad hominem.

Bond blasts Bush, anti-terrorism, & "J. Edgar Ashcroft" at NAACP convention (Major barf alert) - - "The FBI tried to disrupt the civil rights movement. They wanted to smear Martin Luther King Jr. They not only wanted him discredited, they wanted him dead, threatening him with the release of damaging information if he did not commit suicide. We thought we had put a stop to Hoover's program of spies and lies in the 1970s after its abuses were exposed. Now under the guise of fighting terrorism, the FBI is going back to spying on abating citizens." - Veteran "civil rights" leader Julian Bond
KING'S “DREAM” BECOMES A NIGHTMARE - Billy Thye of the American Indian Movement said the real terrorist in the world was the U.S. government, while Obi Egbuna of the Pan African Liberation Organization praised black racist Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe and urged the lifting of the economic embargo of communist Cuba. He said, “We must stand behind Mugabe,” whose policies are starving half of his population. On the other hand, he branded U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell “a murderer.”

The NAACP is a commie front. They are friends of Fidel. They get fat off of making sure that blacks in America stay "immiserated."

I remember the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. In the 1960s without the American Opinion bookstores, etc. we'd all been pretty much stuck with the mainstream media's definition that "states rights" were code words for the "N" word, for example. Ditto, "law and order" ("lawn order," liberals mocked).

Why was JBS hated by the left? Because it was effective. Like talk radio beginning fifteen years ago it filled a void.

A void created when the mainstream sucked all opposing views out of their presentations before offering them to the public. Men like the 1950's Whitaker Chambers and Sen. McCarthy were maligned and despised by the "intellectuals" still rushing to defend the likes of Alger Hiss. We knew better. JBS confirmed it. Today history itself confirms it.

I'll never forget the early days of talk radio immediately after the FCC "Fairness Doctrine" was eliminated. Caller after caller told the host, "I never knew anyone else believed as I do!" or "I thought that I was the only one who knew that!" or "You're saying exactly what I've been trying to tell others for years!"

That was the feeling about the JBS. I and my friends experienced it and we discussed what we were learning.

Those were the days of the FCC "Fairness Doctrine" and no Internet. Like today's Limbaughs they made mistakes from time to time -- I DON'T CARE!! -- nobody has ever gotten and A+ in life! Talk radio hosts make mistakes. JBS made mistakes. But on the whole what they report is truth!

If you believe for example that all power belongs in the hands of government employees in Washington then you won't think that JBS tells the truth. Fine.

I'll try to answer everyone's questions and responses to my previous postings:

EASTBOUND:
You ask if you would know me by name or association. The answer is: No.

You also ask if message #69 is autobiographical. Only in a very limited sense. When I was in high school, I had a relative who was a policeman and when I visited his home, I read his copies of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. One day I read J. Edgar Hoover's Introductory Message and I noticed that it contained a comment which refuted statements which, coincidentally, had just been made by a local JBS member in a letter-to-the-editor of our local newspaper...so I wrote a reply to her letter, which was published, and subsequently I received anonymous threatening phone calls plus several Birchers responded to my letter. One reply said: "Is it coincidence that Ernie's words so arty, make him sound just like the Communist Party."

I never understood how my letter-to-the-editor could be used to connect me to the CPUSA since I quoted J. Edgar Hoover and our State UnAmerican Activities Committee---and that episode began my life-long interest in the JBS plus other groups that have a conspiratorial interpretation of our history, or, believe the worst about our country.

TAILGUNNER JOE:
Didn't we have this discussion (about the NAACP) before?

1. You state that the NAACP is a "commie front" but Julia Brown (the JBS "expert" witness) explicitly said it is NOT (see her March 1961 Ebony magazine interview and her book, I Testify (page 124).

2. FBI document 100-403529-167 is a May 1961 Bureau reply to an inquiry about the NAACP. The Bureau file copy contains this footnote: "The NAACP is subject of Bufile 105-18867. No information is disclosed that this group is communist infiltrated or controlled."

3. J. Edgar Hoover praised the NAACP. Top FBI officials had a close working relationship with NAACP officials including Roy Wilkins (Executive Secretary NAACP). In fact, one Bureau memo discusses whom, from the Bureau's perspective, would be a "responsible" and "desirable" person to replace Martin Luther King Jr as head of the civil rights movement. The Bureau suggested two names: Roy Wilkins or Samuel Pierce.

4. The Bureau prepared two comprehensive monographs on the history of "The Communist Party and the Negro". In the October 1956 edition (57 pages), the Bureau makes the following comments about the NAACP:

"Persons identified with the Communist Party and the NAACP have, in the past, acted jointly and frequently engaged in parallel activities. However, it must be kept in mind that the ultimate aims of these two groups are entirely distinct. The CP seeks to foster discord and discontent among the Negro race by agitation and propaganda...whereas the goal of the NAACP is to achieve full racial integration and equality within the present form of government. It is to be noted that the CPUSA, in order to confuse the American people, is attempting to make its policies parallel to those of the NAACP on controversial, racial issues....The NAACP held its 47th annual convention in San Francisco CA from June 26 to July 1, 1956. It re-affirmed its anti-communist position and at the same time extended its policy of non-cooperation with communist-controlled groups to declare communists ineligible for membership in the NAACP."

The report then goes on to discuss several attempts by Communists to infiltrate and use the NAACP through local chapters around the country and how local NAACP leaders repulsed such attempts (Also see Bircher Julia Brown's book (page 126) for confirmation of this point.

Incidentally, in a previous 1953 edition of the FBI monograph (103 pages), the NAACP is discussed at much greater length in a section whose caption is: "The Communist Party and Legitimate Negro Protest and Improvement Organizations." The report discusses Communist Party contempt for NAACP leadership and policies.

WILLIAMOFCARMICHAEL:
Bill---The issue is NOT (as you claim) that the JBS "made some mistakes from time to time". The issue is that the JBS defamed good and decent Americans with a RECKLESS DISREGARD and INDIFFERENCE FOR THE TRUTH.

Again, I recommend that you read the entire trial transcript of Gertz vs. Robert Welch, Inc. During the trial, the JBS admitted "falsehoods" were contained in its article about Gertz but the JBS never acknowledged it publicly to its members. After 14 years of litigation and appeals, the JBS paid $400,000 to Gertz.

It is not the number of "mistakes" which is important. It is the singular contempt for critics (even respected conservatives) that the JBS has exhibited for 45 years which makes it so suspect.

The tone of its argumentation, its desire to de-humanize ALL critics and to characterize ALL opponents as DISLOYAL and TRAITORS and SUBVERSIVE -- is what makes the JBS so noxious.

What is really funny is that many former Birchers (including Chapter Leaders, Section Leaders, Coordinators, and Birch HQ officials) left the JBS and subsequently posted their horror stories on Alan Stang's website. Many of their stories CONFIRM what outside critics have said for years about the structure, operations, and psychology of the Birch worldview. So why not argue with them instead of telling me that the JBS is a fine organization which "reports the truth!"

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.