Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birch Society "Experts"
Ernie1241@aol.com | 04-11-04 | Enrie1241

Posted on 04/11/2004 11:30:11 AM PDT by 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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anticommunism; birchsociety; cfw; commiepropaganda; communism; conspiracy; fbi; jbs; johnbirchsociety; morebsfromjbs; thenewamerican; tlc; tna; un; unitednations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-177 next last

1 posted on 04/11/2004 11:30:11 AM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
January 16, 1961
December 1950
December 1947

Are you a historian or just bored?
2 posted on 04/11/2004 11:38:45 AM PDT by B4Ranch (“WE OFTEN GIVE OUR ENEMIES THE MEANS FOR OUR OWN DESTRUCTION.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
Your research is very thorough and FR is a particularly interesting place to post it.
You have my compliments!
3 posted on 04/11/2004 11:44:49 AM PDT by LPM1888 (What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? - Lazarus Long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
Ern, best to stick with your day job which you know more about.
4 posted on 04/11/2004 11:46:58 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
B4Ranch:

Not sure what your point is. The Birch Society today recommends reading literature originally published in the 1950's and later decades.

The JBS still claims its assertions from the 1960's are factual and historically accurate. In fact, the JBS has NEVER acknowledged any substantive error or retracted any derogatory evaluation it made of persons or organizations during the 1960's or later.

Consequently, as NEW information becomes available for the first time and from sources like Hoover's FBI (which the JBS has previously considered authoritative and reliable) that new information concerning the inaccuracy of JBS "experts", would seem to be of special interest to an organization which claims to be "educational" and "fighting with facts".

I will be posting more info over the next few months from never-before-released FBI files as well as other sources including correspondence between Robert Welch and JBS National Council members and other parties. Turns out, for example, that Mr. Welch thought that Zionists controlled the Russian Revolution!

Ernie aka Ernie1241@aol.com
5 posted on 04/11/2004 11:52:40 AM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
Perhaps you would care to tell FR readers just what your credentials are for making judgments about the subject matter I have discussed?

My credentials are as follows:

For 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.

According to the FBI
(1) I, alone, represent 5% of all FOIA requests they receive---their largest requester and
(2) In many instances (probably about 40-50%), I am the FIRST person to receive documents on the subjects I am
pursuing.

In addition, I have acquired photocopies of JBS National Council member private papers---including much correspondence---which reveals, for the first time, some of the internal disputes and controversies within the JBS as well as never-previously-known personal opinions by Mr. Welch and other top JBS officials.

So, Cynicom, what, exactly, are your credentials???
6 posted on 04/11/2004 12:00:38 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
I expect the Birch Society has its share of loonies, just like any other organization. But when we first got involved in politics, in 1972, it was because of the American Party, which stood for constitutional government. When we were licking envelopes for the American Party candidate, one of the people showed us the Bill of Rights, without telling us what it was. Bear in mind that we were products of the public schools.

He asked us what we thought about it, and we said that we thought it was pretty radical. Then he told us what it was.

We subsequently learned that the American Party in Florida at that time was the John Birch Society. We learned a great deal, and as time goes on, I find that the JBS made a lot of sense.

We have not been part of the JBS since that time, but without it, we might never have learned that we have freedoms that are being trampled on.

Carolyn

7 posted on 04/11/2004 12:01:37 PM PDT by CDHart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
My father was a member of the JBS. He never talked about it to me so after he died I decided to see what I could learn about them. I bought books and went to their website. After reading a lot of their literature I came to the conclusion that basically they were anticommunists. You have a problem with that? If so, by the looks of what few responders you are getting, I suggest you post it over on D.U. You will get more input to help your ego. By the way, trashing the persons personally is a great left wing tactic.
8 posted on 04/11/2004 12:06:03 PM PDT by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
Credentials???? Please do not blow smoke with the phony "credentials". You wrote the story and it appears like it should be carried by the National Inquirer. If you cannot abide the opinions of others, I suggest you have the wrong forum.
9 posted on 04/11/2004 12:10:45 PM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CDHart
Carolyn:

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Birchers often chastise me because they seem hypersensitive to any data which contradicts their views or brings the JBS into disrepute.

Many JBS members that I have met over the years have been very fine, honorable, decent, and intelligent people.

However, fine, honorable, decent and intelligent people can nevertheless be misled about important public issues, and/or can write inaccurate and defamatory articles and books.

Ideas have consequences. Mistaken ideas usually have undesirable consequences. My messages are meant to respond to decades of misinformation circulated by the JBS and I attempt to use sources which heretofore even the JBS has considered reliable and authoritative.

Doesn't seem to make much difference though---because even when I cite J. Edgar Hoover, or FBI, or the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, etc. Birchers still engage in ad hominem attacks upon me (and I'm only the messenger!). Perhaps something you should think about when you consider whether or not to support a group that seems to speak for "constitutional government".

Incidentally, I have prepared a detailed 22-page report regarding the FBI evaluation of the JBS. If you're interested in reading it, let me know and I can send you a copy.

Ernie
10 posted on 04/11/2004 12:12:46 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
From your web page:

"What, exactly, did Mr. Welch and the JBS mean when they repeatedly referred to "Communist influence and control"?"

Well, if the question were to be asked today, the answer would be self-evident, unless you in that number who do not recognize that the Democrat party has been the tool for changing our Republic into a liberal, socialistic democracy.

Even back then when the question was asked, it was evident to many. The only difference between then and today is that today the commies in government brag openly of their agenda to socialize the nation -- and one half of the population is more than willing to live the life of a couch potato while allowing government to forcibly make the other half of the population pay for their couches and potatoes.

11 posted on 04/11/2004 12:19:27 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
Fish Hawk:

Not sure I understand your comments. You accuse ME of "trashing" persons. Perhaps you read my posting so quickly that you did not notice that I am not asserting my personal opinions....Instead, I am reporting what is contained in FBI documents. Your argument is with J. Edgar Hoover and top officials of the FBI.

Obviously, from the tone of your remarks, you are NOT interested in ANY data that is unfavorable to the JBS. And I bet you think you have an open mind, right? So tell me something---how do you learn from new information if, simultaneously, you REJECT ALL new info that doesn't conform to your current beliefs?

Ernie
12 posted on 04/11/2004 12:22:26 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
Cynicom:

You are absolutely correct about one matter. You are asserting an "OPINION".

You are NOT challenging anything I have written by using FACTS.

Since you do not explain why my credentials are "phony" -- I cannot respond appropriately. But I notice that you don't specify anything about your own background.

Have you, for example, ever done any research into FBI files?

Or have you ever done research into JBS member private papers archived at various universities?

If, as seems to be the case, you are just angry because you have a favorable opinion of the JBS, I would hope you could simply be honest about that and not engage in ad hominem attacks on me---or anyone else who does the actual research to determine the truth!

Ernie
13 posted on 04/11/2004 12:29:57 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
"I am reporting what is contained in FBI documents."


The FBI, to their credit, does full, carefull, exacting evaluation of anyone whom they are considering for hire. Do you not notice that the men who worked as spies and counter spies for the Bureau can be cast aside as waste when the politics of Washington, D.C. change?

Have you noticed that the growth of the various United Nations ideas sprouted during the mid 1960's? Do you comprehend the intentions of the United Nations? Do you believe they are here to help or hurt the people of the United States.
14 posted on 04/11/2004 12:40:34 PM PDT by B4Ranch (“WE OFTEN GIVE OUR ENEMIES THE MEANS FOR OUR OWN DESTRUCTION.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Eastbound:

Hmmm....you seem to conflate "Communist" with "liberal" and "socialist".

According to J. Edgar Hoover, Communists hated liberals. Do you disagree with his assessment?

Most of the initial reports concerning Soviet repression, murder of opponents, gulags, etc. came from socialists in Europe who despised the Soviet Union. See, for example, the Hoover Institution archives.

Since you seem to think we are being converted into a "liberal socialist democracy", perhaps you could provide some empirical data regarding the percentage of private property ownership in our country today as compared to 1950, 1960, 1970, etc. Has government ownership and control of our corporations and businesses increased during that time?

I would also suggest you consult the annual Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom. The Index compiles numerical scores from 1 (best performance) to 5 (worst) on numerous factors such as property rights, government intervention, monetary policy, wages and prices, regulation, percentage of GDP consumed by government, etc.

According to the Heritage Index, the WORST countries on the planet are: North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Laos, Libya and Belarus.

The BEST "countries" on the planet are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, Estonia, and the UNITED STATES.
15 posted on 04/11/2004 12:46:19 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
"Hmmm....you seem to conflate "Communist" with "liberal" and "socialist"."

Yes, I do. Don't forget to include the democrats. They are all pinkos to me. When did the meaning of 'communist' change? Isn't the plan to destroy America from within?

16 posted on 04/11/2004 1:03:03 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
B4:

I think you are a little confused. The FBI did not "cast aside" any of its informants due to Washington, D.C. politics.

The Bureau became aware of the post-FBI activities of some of its Agents and informants and concluded that those persons had become what the Bureau sarcastically referred to as "professional anti-Communists" -- i.e. persons who derive their income from speaking or writing about Communism and Communist activities.

As many memos make clear, former FBI informants would often speak on matters about which they had no knowledge OR where their knowledge was limited to a specific place or time frame. But organizations such as the JBS never bothered to determine what, exactly, such persons did or did not know -- i.e. the extent of their expertise.

In Julia Brown's case, the Bureau was quite concerned that if she "went public" via magazine articles, books, speeches, etc. she would expose as "Communists" local persons in Cleveland she had met who, unknown to her, in reality were FBI security informants within the Communist Party...and thus, end their usefulness to the Bureau.

As reports came into the Bureau of statements made by Julia (or Dan Smoot, Karl Prussion, and others) about various matters---it became apparent that these folks were presenting PERSONAL opinions which were not supported by data in FBI files or from FBI investigations and thus contradicted conclusions reached by the Bureau.

In many cases, those personal opinions were tailored to appeal to audiences who would then buy books, magazines, attend speeches, seminars, anti-Communist schools, etc. all of which generated income for "professional anti-Communists".

As Bureau memos make clear, the FBI thought many of the persons and groups formerly associated with the FBI were exploiting the GENUINE concerns of ordinary citizens about Communism primarily to generate a living for themselves.

In addition to the persons I mentioned previously, the Bureau also referred to Fred Schwarz and Billy James Hargis as "professional anti-Communists".

Ernie
17 posted on 04/11/2004 1:13:00 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
I look forward to reading your research.

The JBS is a dying organization, since it is, as you say, stuck in the 1960s.

You will likely be attacked, as you already have, but you are defending yourself well.

Mr. Robinson has already weeded the kookier JBSers off this site, but there are still a few around, as you'll see.

18 posted on 04/11/2004 1:15:21 PM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
The fbi has lost alot of credibility since Hoover. I mean, what did they do to alert people to the clinton commie thugs, for one? I bet there'd be some interesting reading! So, who cares?
19 posted on 04/11/2004 1:17:04 PM PDT by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
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".

This doesn't say anything positive about the F.B.I..
As to your credentials, you haven't listed any. Credentials would be degrees, certificates or something indicating a course of study. What you claim as credentials appear to be nothing more than being a full time nuisance.
20 posted on 04/11/2004 1:27:53 PM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
OK Eastbound...I understand now. ANYTHING which differs from your personal political preferences is what you consider "Communist", "socialist" "liberal" or "leftist".

In your scheme of things, Americans have only SINGLE options from which to choose, and those single options just happen to conform to what you currently believe.

Are you familiar with Albert Canwell? He was the first Chairman of the Washington State UnAmerican Activities Committee. He was an ardent supporter of Sen. Joe McCarthy and, in later years, he was a speaker for the Birch Society's American Opinion Speakers Bureau plus wrote articles for American Opinion at the specific request of its editor, Scott Stanley.

I am copying below an excerpt from Canwell's Oral Interview about his career which can be found online at:

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/oralhistory/canwell.pdf

Since you are anti-socialist and anti-Communist and anti-leftist, let's see if you agree with Canwell's assessment of Robert Welch?

Mr. Canwell: The issues were that Robert Welch was not an anti-Communist. He was an opportunist, a world socialist actually, and he was doing a very dishonest job. He would gather some very fine people about him. He was a member of the National Manufacturers Association. So he sold them the idea that he was anti-Communist and that he had this program going and then he got quite a number of them to join his group. But what he was actually doing was getting people who were well identified as anti-Communist and able Americans, he’d get them to go along in his society and then he would smear them, destroy them. And that was what his object was.

Mr. Frederick: Why was he doing that?

Mr. Canwell: Because he was an international socialist. I went to work in looking into his background when I began to have trouble with him. And I found that he had attended the London School of Economics, the top socialist school in the world. It became very obvious to me that he was able to acquire this leadership position by moving into the anti-Communist movement and pretending to be something that he was not. And then some of his own kind of people helped him do that: Drew Pearson, and others, who all of
a sudden were attacking Robert Welch and giving him reams of free publicity. And the so-called Americans or anti-Communists thought, “Well, if Drew Pearson is against him, he must be all right.” Actually Pearson and Welch were hand-in-glove.

Another phase of this that I turned up was that Robert Welch was a long-time member of the American Civil Liberties Union, which would and did surprise a lot of people when I released that information. They denied it and he eventually made the statement that he belonged merely to get their publications, but that wasn’t the case. There was friction on that level....

...They got Westbrook Pegler to write for them for awhile and then they started the damnedest smear on him that you could imagine. I could see the pattern and I became acquainted with some of the national members of his board, Dan Draskovich and others, and Welch did the same thing to all of them. He’d get them to identify with the Birch Society either on the speakers bureau or on their board or on the writing level and then he’d circulate information about them, derogatory information that was damaging to them. You talk about a sophisticated espionage operation, that was it. I would say that ninety percent, ninety-five percent of the Birch Society members were just downright good Americans, nothing wrong with them at all.

Mr. Frederick: Was he a head case?

Mr. Canwell: A head case? I don’t know. I suspected that he was on drugs, and I say that from having observed him in two or three meetings where he was talking and he’d leave the meeting and take some pills. I don’t know what kind or what for but I suspected that might be the case.

Are these international socialists psychopathic or what? You know they just aren’t pro-Americans. They aren’t supportive of our system. This is all news to you, I imagine. You may think I’m psychotic, but on this I’m not. I have correspondence. I told him that because of his activity he couldn’t get his name in the paper any more and that I was going to put him back on the front page. But I just didn’t have time to work on him properly.
21 posted on 04/11/2004 1:29:46 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
"The FBI did not "cast aside" any of its informants due to Washington, D.C. politics."

By "cast aside", I meant that the Directors were/are not foolish men who are willing to put their careers on the line when the party in power actually is promoting socialist dogma. Therefore the reports from the spies and counter spies lost value in the daily reports to the White house.

Just another small question.
Due you believe that you are receiving your full FOIA requests from the Bureau?

The Pentagon still understood the value even when the White House didn't want to see the report.
That is not to say the Bureau didn't continue to use some of these men, they just had to be more careful who saw their reports.

The Bureau may designate myself as a "professional anti-Communist" because I have long understood the goals of communism and believe me it has nothing to do with democracy.

May I repeat these three questions;
Have you noticed that the growth of the various United Nations ideas sprouted during the mid 1960's? Do you comprehend the intentions of the United Nations? Do you believe they are pro or anti democracy.

22 posted on 04/11/2004 1:39:16 PM PDT by B4Ranch (“WE OFTEN GIVE OUR ENEMIES THE MEANS FOR OUR OWN DESTRUCTION.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Sinkspur: Thanks for your favorable comments. However, I would like to go on record as opposing "weeding out" any JBS members or supporters from this site unless they egregiously violate rules of etiquette -- and even then I would be extremely cautious.

Unorthodox opinions deserve to be aired fully. As our founding fathers realized, ideas cannot be suppressed without running the risk of purging good and true (but unorthodox) thoughts.

Also, you have to understand the utter shock produced by evidence I cite in my messages. Most Birchers have never confronted ANY data from sources they heretofore approved, (such as FBI under Hoover).

Even though the JBS describes itself as an "educational" organization, it has been meticuously careful about NOT bringing to members attention any data which contradicts their dogma...including
(1) the fact that the JBS paid $400,000 to Elmer Gertz in a historical libel case that took 14 years of litigation and appeals to resolve.

(2) that Robert Welch's wife, Marian, terminated her relationship with the JBS because of disagreement over the direction the Society was taking under its new leadership

Ernie
23 posted on 04/11/2004 1:42:34 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
However, I would like to go on record as opposing "weeding out" any JBS members or supporters from this site unless they egregiously violate rules of etiquette -- and even then I would be extremely cautious.

Well, as is typical of JBS followers, they had extreme views in other areas that caused our proprietor to look askance at them; such things as "the moon walk in 1969 was staged"; the whole Bilderberger-Illuminati nonsense; and, most especially, the insistence on the existence of razor-wire-enclosed UN internment camps for anyone who disagrees with the "socialist line."

Jim simply didn't want FR to become another whatreallyhappened.com, which is, BTW, run by a former FReeper, Michael Rivero, who has his own special brand of tinfoil.

24 posted on 04/11/2004 1:49:47 PM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
Oh, and the other, primary reason Jim keeps his antennae up about the conspiracy types is that a sizeable number of them are blatantly anti-semitic.
25 posted on 04/11/2004 1:52:16 PM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
The JBS is full of tin-foil hat conspiracy freaks...

I know this to be true because back when I was active in the "Patriot" movement back in the 90s (work closely with Dr. Eugene Schroder) I was in constant contact with JBSers.

People like the JBS folk convinced me it was a waste of time to endeavor to work for the restoration of the Republic when it became apparent that there weren't enough rational, non-compromised citizens left to make a dent. ;-)
26 posted on 04/11/2004 1:52:42 PM PDT by Veracious Poet (Cash cows are sacred in America...GOT MILKED???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
"In your scheme of things, Americans have only SINGLE options from which to choose, and those single options just happen to conform to what you currently believe."

Well, yes. 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.

For the record, I don't know the difference between a Bircher and a Cedarist. I've learned more about the Birchers than I ever knew on this thread. If the Birchers did good, fine. If they believe what I believe, much the better.

Thank you for your diligence and search for truth.

27 posted on 04/11/2004 1:57:35 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
I only know about the JBS by reading about the Kennedy assassination. MG Edwin A. Walker was relieved of command of the 24th ID in April 61 because he was preaching "pro blue" to his troops. Pro Blue, as I've learned, was anti-communist, JBS material. Of course, Walker was the one Oswald supposedly took a shot at, I believe, exactly 41 years ago today while he was doing his taxes in his Dallas home. I've always thought that Walker was somehow connected to the assassination because he hated JFK so much.

Thoughts?
28 posted on 04/11/2004 2:08:48 PM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
It seems that now the JBS is into :

Stopping FTAA

Getting us out of the UN

Providing Americans with non-partisan reports of their Representative's voting records

Preserving the Constitution

Calling for support for local police

Reclaiming the Panama Canal.

The ba$tards. What an agenda. Who could theese people be?

FREEPERS?
29 posted on 04/11/2004 2:10:09 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: em2vn
EM2VN:

Do you actually mean that only persons with degrees, certificates, etc. have "credentials" for speaking on some matter of interest?

If so, what were Robert Welch's "credentials" for speaking about Communism and our nation's internal security? (He was a retired candy manufacturer!)

What are the credentials of the Birch Society National Council members or JBS authors?

And why do YOU dismiss the "credentials" of our nation's primary resource on internal security matters? (the FBI during J. Edgar Hoover's tenure?). Is it your judgment that the Bureau's agents and analysts were ALL, without exception, incompetent?

Recently, a doctoral candidate from Brown University visited me for 2 days to peruse my FBI documents and look at other materials I have accumulated.

I mentioned to him that I have purchased or photocopied dozens of masters theses and doctoral dissertations pertaining to the Birch Society and similar groups.

I've always wondered, however, why it is that no JBS member/supporter has written a masters thesis or doctoral dissertation to prove their point of view about some matter of interest---not even a history or analysis of JBS chapters in their area or some controversy the JBS was involved in.

You have any ideas about that? (I've only come across ONE masters thesis written by someone who had a favorable view of the JBS).

I know this is difficult for you. None of us like to be confronted with information that disputes what we believe, especially long-held beliefs.

I am willing to listen carefully to whatever you have to say and I also am willing to present factual evidence to document the assertions in my messages.

Isn't that fair? Why do insist on attacking me just because I present data you don't like?

Ernie
30 posted on 04/11/2004 2:10:16 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
B4:

Sorry, but I may still not understand what you are trying to say. I'll try to address each of your points and questions. Let me know if I miss anything.

FBI INVESTIGATIONS AND USE OF INFORMANTS:
FBI investigations and analyses existed independent of whatever "socialist dogma" you might imagine to be in operation within the U.S. government.

I'm not sure what you mean by "daily reports" by "spies and counterspies" to the White House. There were no such "daily reports". Keep in mind that reports from informants are like taking a snapshot with a camera. One report by informant "A" is compared to information in other reports by informants "B", "C", "D", etc.

It was not uncommon for informants to contradict each other and the Bureau then had to analyze and evaluate the data to determine whether or not one informant was more reliable than another (based upon whether or not they were in a position to obtain accurate info and then form reliable conclusions.)

Let me give you one quick example: For many months, the Bureau was convinced (because of reports from several informants that were considered reliable) that Gen. Edwin A. Walker in conjunction with the KKK intended to lead an "insurrection" if Goldwater was defeated for President in 1964. There is a very large FBI file devoted to the Walker-KKK "insurrection plot" --- but, eventually, the Bureau determined that the information they received was not accurate or was just hearsay comments.

DEROGATORY INFORMATION IN FBI DOCUMENTS:
When FBI HQ or FBI field offices commenced an investigation of a particular person or group (or just monitored persons or organizations without commencing an official investigation) their summary reports routinely reported derogatory information.

Derogatory information included everything from poor credit ratings, to criminal records, to drug/alcohol problems, to associations with persons or organizations that the Bureau considered noxious.

Bureau reports cite Communist affiliations or associations. But saying that does NOT answer the more important questions concerning

* the person's motivation for their involvement,
* the period of time of such "associations",
* the degree of involvement (for example: financial contributor, leader, petition signer, attending a speech or meeting, etc)
* what other data was available reflecting a person's anti-Communist activities

Thus, for example, Harry Overstreet's file has a lot of material concerning his Communist front "associations" but nevertheless the Bureau had a close personal relationship with Harry and his wife and the Bureau assisted the Overstreets with several of their books--including books which the JBS denounced!

Many FBI summary memos or reports present data which was embarrassing to the then-current Administration (whether Democrat or Republican) but that certainly didn't prevent the Bureau from compiling the info or putting it in reports.

MY FOIA REQUESTS
You ask if I am receiving my full FOIA requests. Documents are sometimes denied or heavily excised for a variety of law-enforcement and privacy-related reasons.

On some subjects I receive the entire file without excisions or denials, but on other subjects I may receive only a few pages that are not excised. However, when I provide proof-of-death on an individual, the documents released are usually with minimal excisions/denials. Every FOIA release is accompanied by a listing of all the reasons for excision or denial.

YOUR UNITED NATIONS QUESTIONS:
Frankly, B4, I don't think those questions are relevant to the topic I originally posted---except as yet another avenue where I can report what is contained in FBI files on such JBS bogey-men as, for example, UNESCO and UNICEF and top UN officials during the 1950's and 1960's.

You won't like the info contained in FBI files because there is no mention whatsoever of any "plot" to convert the U.S. into a one-world socialist state under the guidance of the UN.

Hope that covers everything to your satisfaction.

Now I have one question for YOU!

Please explain, as precisely as you can, how you go about determining whether information presented by the JBS is accurate.

For example, when a book or pamphlet has lots of footnotes, do you go to the library and attempt to verify the accuracy of Birch info in those footnotes? Do you genuinely consider alternative theories or explanations for whatever matter is under discussion?

In fact, how do you establish to your own satisfaction, that the JBS conspiratorial theory is the MOST RELIABLE explanation available? I presume you know that there are LOTS of ALTERNATIVE conspiratorial theories---some of which originated with Birch Society members? For example, see:

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

Can YOU disprove the "Belmont Brotherhood" conspiratorial theory which originated with former JBS members including top officials?

31 posted on 04/11/2004 3:16:18 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
That is exactly what I mean.Credentials are bestowed upon one by others not by oneself.
I was not addressing anyone other than you. I have no interest in the JBS or those who speak for them. You are the one who began this thread, therefore, I am challenging your lack of credentials and your positions, not those who you are speaking of in your post.
32 posted on 04/11/2004 3:30:48 PM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
Well, leadpenny, there are numerous books and articles which report on the motivation and opportunity of "extreme rightists" who might be involved in JFK's assassination.

Some of the reports develop very interesting information but I haven't seen anything to establish that Gen. Walker was connected in any way to JFK's assassination.

Of course, it is accurate, as you state, that Walker hated JFK and his Administration. A local group in Dallas called "Friends of General Walker" consisted of many JBS members. One of them, Cora Fredrickson, was the person who hit UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson with her anti-UN sign during his October 1963 speech in Dallas. Another person, a male, spit on Stevenson. He was an aide to Gen. Walker.

Here's a couple things I bet you did not know.

* At one time, Walker was offered the position of Grand Dragon of the KKK in Texas---which he seriously considered but ultimately declined. He did, however, continue to make speeches before white supremacist organizations.

* Robert Welch confidentially told Birch Society National Council members that Walker was associating with, and taking counsel from, people who were bigots.

33 posted on 04/11/2004 3:36:55 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
Before I start, Ernie.cal, if you feeeeeeeeel you must reply keep it public -- no emails this time please.

Here are some facts on just one of the disparaged Americans, Matt Cvetic.

Matt Cvetic had knowledge of the Slav languages. In the early 1940s when he was contacted by the FBI that was a big plus because that meant he was well qualified to infiltrate the higher echelon of the Soviet apparatus in the U.S.

Mr. Cvetic could not get into the armed services at just 5'4" according to his friend George Putnam. The service he was to perform for his country would be unpaid the FBI told him until he reached the goal of becoming a Communist Party member. His personal sacrifice for America would be as great as most uniformed service members in terms of putting everything behind including his family. He kept his employment at the United States Employment Service in Pittsburgh.

As the 1940s passed Mr. Cvetic paid a heavy price in terms of being under constant watch by CPUSA and becoming despised by Americans for being a CPUSA member. (His family and friends weren't in the self-described "intellectual" class, they were Americans, they didn't "understand" how harmless and good Uncle Joe Stalin was.) Described by some as "a hard-drinking lout" but unlike the fat drunk, pickled-brained Ted Kennedy super rich liberals of America Mr. Cvetic's drinking disqualifies his accomplishments because he is "on the wrong side." That's the spin.

He was never a FBI agent. Over time he provided tons of information on the CPUSA and its members. Thus he is an enemy of America's chattering class and their fringe elements.

His major crime, beyond being anti-communist, was being the inspiration for radio and movie dramas. A no-no, reaches too many people. Bad for the silly twits and self-described "intellectuals."

Americans like Herb Philbrick and Mr. Cvetic, real-life volunteer undercover agents for America's FBI throughout most of the forties, had an inside view of characters straight out of a Monty Python movie swooning over Uncle Joe Stalin. Yes, people love Uncle Joe's quest for a workers' paradise to this day. As silly as they are some of them are dangerous.

34 posted on 04/11/2004 3:38:25 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Benedict Arnold was a hero for both sides in the same war, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Eastbound:

Several scholars have pointed out that the extreme left and extreme right are not polar opposites.

Instead, for many radicals, it is but a short jump across a fevered street.

What all radicals share in common is their peculiar notion that we always have only SINGLE options....i.e. the ones they identify as legitimate, good, decent, honorable, and patriotic.

Now how can they ALWAYS know WHICH proposals or ideas are legitimate, good, decent, honorable, patriotic?

Since they cannot tolerate the underlying values of a pluralistic, free society---namely choice among competing ideas---they eliminate the problem by boldly announcing
that there is only ONE option available---THEIRS!

Genuine choice implies that one's personal favorite options might not be chosen by other people in elections and public policy debates. Consequently---just eliminate the problem by eliminating choice. At first, it's just rhetorical elimination (in debates such as exchanges on FR) but let us all beware...if Eastbound and others who share his/her views prevail, all of us will live by a different definition of what constitutes Americanism.

35 posted on 04/11/2004 3:51:05 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
"Please explain, as precisely as you can, how you go about determining whether information presented by the JBS is accurate."

Ernie, you will have to go a long way to find someone as skeptical as I am about anything printed, televised or broadcast for public consumption.

I have had too many government officials and others flat out lie to my face. Reporters today generally are working for a left leaning editor and therefore that is the angle presented. The same with televise and radio.

The few who do appear to be leaning to the right many times are simply putting out disinformation. I wish I could remember the outfit I came across that was fueling from both sides. It had something to do with gun magazine publishing, in fact owned by an anti-gun conglomerate. They saw the cold cash available and got in line.

My questions regarding the UN are so that I can get a feeling of your regard for them. They are not an organization that broadcasts their intentions to the public unless they are looking for cash/support votes.

Following the money has done me well in my private research.

Ernie, if you are looking for the truth remember what Gustave Le Bon said;
“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.

Keep your mind open to the idea that ex FBI employees can be very dangerous to the Bureau's upper management and that may be why the Bureau took the time and money to publicly defame them. Or perhaps there was some prodding from Congressional memebers.

36 posted on 04/11/2004 4:00:32 PM PDT by B4Ranch (“WE OFTEN GIVE OUR ENEMIES THE MEANS FOR OUR OWN DESTRUCTION.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: philetus
Philetus:

IF, as your message states, the Birchers were only promoting the ideas you mention there would be no problem whatsoever --- and none of us would have anything to complain about. They would simply be offering some alternative ideas about public policy matters.

HOWEVER, your message is totally disingenuous. In 1979, Robert Welch wrote a series of articles in the JBS Bulletin wherein he called for the immediate impeachment of President Carter for "treason".

Now, let's get serious, Philetus. We ALL know the prescribed punishment for "treason".

Any student of the JBS knows that the Birch Society believes MOST of our national leaders since President Wilson's time have been (at best) dupes or tools of a Communist (and later, "Insider") conspiracy to rule the world.

Many Birch Society supporters/endorsers have never confronted the unvarnished version of Robert Welch's beliefs about the extent of treason and disloyalty within the top echelons of American government.

Excerpted below are some of the statements made by Robert Welch at the first JBS National Council meeting held at the Union League Club in Chicago on January 9, 1960.

"Communist influences are now in almost complete working control of our government."

"Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind, that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists."

"In our two states with the largest population, New York and California...already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists...Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic
to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons."

"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter
folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference..."

"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."

"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists."

"Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department."


37 posted on 04/11/2004 4:03:28 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal; Jim Robinson
"Genuine choice implies that one's personal favorite options might not be chosen by other people in elections and public policy debates. Consequently---just eliminate the problem by eliminating choice. At first, it's just rhetorical elimination (in debates such as exchanges on FR) but let us all beware...if Eastbound and others who share his/her views prevail, all of us will live by a different definition of what constitutes Americanism."

I really hate to be mis-characterized. My view of Americanism was clearly stated above. I and others who share that view will be the only ones standing after the final battle against those who would trade our Republic for a bowl of porridge. Count on it.

Thank you for outing yourself. Saves me the trouble.

38 posted on 04/11/2004 4:11:51 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: em2vn
EM2VN:

Perhaps I misunderstand your point. If you make a statement or conclusion, doesn't that statement or conclusion stand or fall based upon its merits i.e. the factual evidence you present and the way you put facts together to form an argument?

If a reader disagrees with you and has compelling factual evidence to demonstrate that your conclusion is incorrect, doesn't that compelling evidence merit your consideration?

Perhaps I mean something different by "credentials" than you? I am asking FR readers to accept certain statements contained in my postings. However, that information is NOT simply wild surmise, idle chatter, or unsupported personal opinion.

The statements I have made are based upon 20 years of research and the acquisition, by me, of over 200,000 pages of documents in FBI files as well as documents from military intelligence and other sources.

You objected to my information. But you still have not provided ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to indicate what research YOU have done on this topic.

If you cannot or will not specify what research you have done into FBI files or in the private papers of prominent JBS members and officials---then everything you have written thus far is kind of silly, isn't it?

Finally, just as an aside, I have been cited in several books and doctoral dissertations as a source of information. In addition, I have sent material to numerous newspaper reporters as well as organizations who have inquired about my research. However, I do NOT expect anyone to accept anything I write simply because of this--because, frankly, I think it's irrelevant.

Ernie






39 posted on 04/11/2004 4:31:47 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
The term "professional anti-Communists" is a pejorative term used to disparage any opponent of Communism. Though I am sure you have "an official FBI document" that states that the term is never used that way.

For example, arguing that the belief that CPUSA was little more than a projection of Soviet policy, especially espionage, was false and "is an extremist position which had been largely debunked" the author (below) refers to the professional anti-Communists who are trying to revive the Cold War anti-Communist suspicion using their Soviet archives research.

Just thought you might want to know what your fellow researchers are going through from your side.

Reference Center for Marxist Studies, http://www.libr.org/rcms/interview.html

There is no doubt that "professional" federal informants cause problems, however. IMO the worst example is what happened to the Weaver family and we taxpayers paid millions as a result. The Weaver family paid with the lives of the mother and a son. The U.S. Marshalls paid with the loss of an agent and of course his family paid also.

BTW, during the Congressional hearings on Ruby Ridge informants identified other informants as members of so-called white supremacist groups. Informants virtually outnumbered real members.

40 posted on 04/11/2004 4:48:06 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Benedict Arnold was a hero for both sides in the same war, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
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?

41 posted on 04/11/2004 4:51:15 PM PDT by Zechariah11 ("so they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal; philetus
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


42 posted on 04/11/2004 5:20:20 PM PDT by B4Ranch (“WE OFTEN GIVE OUR ENEMIES THE MEANS FOR OUR OWN DESTRUCTION.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
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.


43 posted on 04/11/2004 6:12:28 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
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?

44 posted on 04/11/2004 6:41:03 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
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.
45 posted on 04/11/2004 6:57:33 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
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?


46 posted on 04/11/2004 7:09:12 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
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.

47 posted on 04/11/2004 7:13:12 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Benedict Arnold was a hero for both sides in the same war, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Zechariah11
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?
48 posted on 04/11/2004 7:14:50 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
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
49 posted on 04/11/2004 7:34:58 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
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?
50 posted on 04/11/2004 7:44:30 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-177 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson