Birch Society "Experts"

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

[Ernie.cal]

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".

For example:

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

[Ernie.cal]

Jammer:

Facts matter (or should matter) -- don't you agree?

Your snide "summary" of the issues discussed in this thread only reveals your complete inability to engage in serious analysis and discussion.

You also don't understand the term "ad hominem". Ad hominem attacks are those which seek to discredit a person WITHOUT presenting any FACTUAL evidence to disprove their arguments.

In other words, derogatory comments are used INDEPENDENT of evidence and the person engaging in such attacks seeks to divert attention from his/her inability to present factual evidence.

The FBI had no reason to engage in "ad hominem" attacks upon its own former employees or informants.

However, when some of these folks inflamed debate on public issues by twisting or inventing information and when they generally sought to capitalize upon their FBI connection to pretend that they had some special "inside knowledge" about Communism or Communist activities, the Bureau recognized their flaws and defects and recorded those judgments in memos and reports contained in FBI files.

[Ernie.cal]

Frankly em2vn, I think we have exhausted our discussion about "credentials".

The bottom-line is this.

* You have provided no information whatsoever concerning your background. I HAVE provided information about mine.

* I am prepared to thoroughly document every statement I make in my messages --- and you have nothing whatsoever to bring to this discussion.

I don't know what you mean by the phrase "fabricate credibility" since my "credibility" is based upon evidence that I bring to this discussion.

If you think I have "fabricated" evidence, then you should present specific factual documentation for your conclusion. Otherwise, you should apologize for such mean-spirited remarks.

Honorable men and women can disagree about all sorts of matters---but the disagreement can be conducted amicably and without malice toward one's critics or skeptics.

I would enjoy hearing from you again, if you have any germane information which addresses the topic which began this discussion, i.e. "Birch Society 'Experts'" If you don't have anything to contribute, then please at least be honest about it.

[em2vn]

Nor am I seeking to. I have no desire to discuss the JBS. What I question is your credentials for the assertions you make. Self-admitedly you have none. Making assertions based on person bias, or without supporting source material or reliable professional endorsement makes the purpose of your statements open to question.

[Tailgunner Joe]

You state that the NAACP is a "commie front" but Julia Brown (the JBS "expert" witness) explicitly said it is NOT

So now you cite the source you claim to have discredited?

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.

This is simply the difference between Communist agents and their "useful idiot" dupes. The real goal of the NAACP is to "foster discord and discontent among the Negro race by agitation and propaganda" for the purposes of continuing to profit from the animosity between races. If they really solved the problems of race relations, their usefulness would be ended, so they perpetuate them.

Their stated goal is merely a lie to sucker the naive bleeding hearts. Forced racial integration is not in sync with American values of freedom of association and has caused more animosity between the races than any issue since the end of Jim Crow. The ideology of "Diversity", which claims that racial heterogeneity is inherently superior form of racial composition for society, is a racist philosophy.

[Tailgunner Joe]

You also don't understand the term "ad hominem". No you don't.

Your attacks on the character of these sources is irrelevant to the question of whether their arguments are correct, regardless of whether your charges are true or not. Furthermore, they are completely irrelevant to whether or not arguments made by the JBS are correct. This is why few are bothering to refute your claims.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
2. Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
3. Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
4. Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "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."

I DON'T CARE! as long as the mainstream media do exactly the same!

Quickly here are a couple of examples.

Example one, the lie about Dan Quayle and "potatoe." It's just a little joke, you say? Would you like to be falsely accused over and over, border to border of being STUPID!

Fact: "Working from an inaccurate flash card prepared by a teacher, he corrected William Figueroa, 12, when the child spelled "potato" on the blackboard -- making the boy add an unnecessary "e" at the word's end."

I saw the original report on TV. No big deal. I was flabbergasted as the reporting changed to a frenzy featuring the comments of the 12-year-old, it "showed that the rumors about the vice president are true -- that he's an idiot." That's what it's been ever since. IT'S A LIE!

Example two, the 1968 Tet Offensive reporting. LIES! Post war interviews with North Vietnam Communists revealed that reporting by the American press encouraged them to stay in the war. The Viet Cong was virtually destroyed and the only way the North could stay in the war was to commit regulars. They knew they could win through the American press and politics! NV General Giap praised the American press as his best guerilla. The LIES cost tens of thousands of lives!

Let's clean up all the lies, why just JBS?

[Ernie.cal]

I truly wish I understood your position better.

Perhaps use of a different word than "credentials" would satisy you?

I would like to ask a few questions however.

1. How does your concern for appropriate credentials apply to other persons who are participating in this debate? And, specifically, how does it apply to JBS members/supporters who may want to contribute to this debate?

2. Let's start with all the persons who have responded to my posts. Is it your contention that ALL of them are "making assertions based upon personal bias?"

3. OR--are they all commenting without "supporting source material", or "reliable professional endorsement..." ??

How about some definition of your terms.

1. What do you consider "personal bias". Can a person
have a "personal bias" but still accurately report
information? For example, can a liberal or
conservative do research into FBI files or other
primary source materials and report, accurately,
on what was discovered---regardless of their
"personal bias"?

2. What do you consider legitimate "supporting source
material"? Do FBI reports, memos, and other
documents fall into this category?

3. What do you consider to be "reliable professional
endorsement"? Please be specific about what kind
of organizations or institutions you consider to
be "reliable". Could you also indicate if you
think Birch Society officials have "reliable
professional endorsements" of any kind---and, if so,
whom?

[WilliamofCarmichael]

BTW, I firmly believe that people who would lessen our military strength and sovereignty in deference to the UN or other "multi-lateral" organization are TRAITORS!

I firmly believe that people who would substitute government granted "human" rights for inalienable individual rights are TRAITORS.

Maybe that is where the dispute lies. If the "good and decent Americans" you speak of fit into the group of people I describe above then, yes!, I believe that they are traitors. I would agree with JBS.

[Tribune7]

"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front."

Sounds like Ann Coulter ;-)

[Ernie.cal]

Tailgunner:

JULIA BROWN:
Yes, it is perplexing, isn't it? I cited Julia Brown because Birchers claim SHE is an expert witness. So does her testimony have any impact on you? Obviously not!

IRONY and HUMOR:
Do you appreciate the irony and humor of this situation?

When I was younger and was in the habit of visiting American Opinion bookstores, the Birchers I chatted with always encouraged me to "read up" on various issues, become "informed" and "check our facts", etc. They usually ended our discussions by stating something to the effect that... "no one has ever found any errors in our publications."

So NOW that I have done what was suggested and I have done the extensive reading and research, Birchers just dismiss everything I present (and here's the funniest aspect!) Birchers tell me I'm "obsessed" or "fixated" or spend too much time researching their numerous claims and statements.

Go figure! Can't win---no matter what!

[bmwcyle]

Read this book

[kidd]

Consider me neutral on the JBS, primarily because I'm not that familiar with them.

So...

What is your motivation for putting so much effort into debunking the JBS?

[Ernie.cal]

Bill:

Have you considered the prospects for our country if persons who do not share your views referred to YOUR precepts (as you just enumerated in your most recent message) as "treason" from THEIR point of view?

How can the American family talk to one another if every difference of opinion is characterized in the manner which you just outlined?

[Tribune7]

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?

I imagine the JBS has been grievously wrong about a lot of things.

OTOH, I'm certain the NEA -- the antithesis to the JBS and vastly more influential in my education -- were grievously wrong about a lot more things and of greater consequence.

And the same can be said of the ABA, Jimmy Carter, the Kennedy School of Government, various Supreme Court judges (you really think foreign law ought to be considered in resolving Constitutional questions?), PBS, the New York Times, the alphabet broadcast networks, Ted Turner (is Cuba really great or what?) etc. etc.

You seem to be more upset with JBS than the organizations I listed. Why is that?

[Dark Knight]

Is it just me, or does this thread have the sound of a freebie ad at FRs expense?

DK

[american spirit]

I remember meeting Dr. Schroeder @ a Citizens for Legal Reform meeting back in that time frame and it was clear he was brilliant man as well as fine gentleman. As I remember he was from Colorado and involved with the land rights movement pretty heavily as well as very knowledgeable about the bankruptcy in 1933.

[Badray]

Wow. If you are a radical, where do I sign up? ;-)

I loved the rant and was going to ask your permission to 'steal' it, but I'll have to ask JR.

[DoctorMichael]

Thanks for posting your findings!

[Ernie.cal]

Sorry, Tailgunner, you totally lost me in post #85.

1. Whose character did I attack?
2. I AGREE with your "description of ad hominem"
argument....so what is upsetting you?

There is, however, one matter which I presume may be the basis for your statements---which I will discuss momentarily.

If you read JBS literature, they ROUTINELY employ the very tactic you describe as "ad hominem". When person "A" makes a statement, Birchers often use nasty insinuations, or outright derogatory assertions, about the loyalty of that person in the hope of discrediting him before anyone actually gets around to considering his/her arguments.

For a perfect example, consult the trial transcript of Elmer Gertz vs. Robert Welch, Inc.

During the trial, Scott Stanley and Alan Stang were asked to explain how they went about "fact-checking" to establish that Gertz was, as they claimed, a "Leninist" engaged in a "conspiracy" to destroy confidence in local police.

When the trial ended with a jury decision against Robert Welch Inc., the trial judge described Alan Stang (who authored the JBS article) as follows:

"...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."

During questioning, Stang and Scott Stanley made it clear that they started with a conclusion about Gertz and then carefully selected only that material which would discredit him. If they came across something positive about Gertz, or something which was inconvenient to their pre-conceived conclusion, they discarded it. As I mentioned in a previous posting, during the trial, the JBS acknowledged that "falsehoods" were contained in the article....but they never owned up to how it was possible for those falsehoods to be used in their purportedly "carefully researched" article. They did pay Gertz $400,000 for their little "mistake".

Now, back to what I think may underlie your criticism of me.

When one considers whether or not a person is an honest, objective, and reliable source of information (especially when discussing persons who claim to have special, unique knowledge because of association with our nation's primary resource on internal security, subversion and other criminal activities) -- it obviously becomes necessary to review and discuss their background.

Let's use Julia Brown as an example. In your scheme of things, isn't it important to understand why Julia's statements are often so contradictory?

For example, pro-NAACP and anti-NAACP; pro-JBS and anti-JBS.

Isn't it important to consider what the FBI thought about her---including her limitations or weaknesses? Perhaps those kinds of items are what you call "ad hominem attacks"?

Please tell me, as precisely as you can, exactly how YOU would go about establishing what Julia truly believed about the NAACP. Then, perhaps, we can continue our discussion.

[Badray]

Yada, yada, yada.

You didn't answer a single question that I raised.

You set up a strawman and then knock him down, but you still didn't address the issue.

Is the cause of your obsession an accusation about one of your relatives?

A person who does things contrary to the Constitution in an effort to destroy that Constitution, our system of government, and our liberty need not belong to an organized subversive group to be labeled subversive.

It's time that you suck it up and deal with it.