Rachel Maddow Recycles Falsehoods Against the John Birch Society

U.S. Headlines

| Print |

E-mail

Written by Thomas R. Eddlem

Monday, 21 December 2009 10:30

Maddow JBS MSNBC's Rachel Maddow launched an error-riddled attack against the John Birch Society in her December 18 show, nominally because the John Birch Society has become a sponsor of the upcoming February 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

In addition to falsely claiming the John Birch Society labeled fluoridation of water a “communist mind-control plot” (it never did), Maddow claimed:

And they contended that the secret conspiracy to destroy America encompassed everything from that darned fluoride to the League of Women Voters and the Civil Rights Act. The John Birch Society was in fact so opposed to civil rights that they responded to the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision to desegregate schools with billboards calling for the impeachment of the Supreme Court's Chief Justice.

But just like her erroneous claim that the JBS had opposed fluoridation as a communist mind control plot (it actually opposed fluoridation as a precedent for the socialized medicine Maddow supports and, incidentally, was part of the Soviet communist state), the other claims were false as well.

While the JBS did support the impeachment of Earl Warren for ignoring the limits of the U.S. Constitution by expanding federal powers almost without limit (not for ending discrimination against African-Americans in the South), the JBS did not call the League of Women Voters part of the communist plot.

Ironically, Maddow accused the John Birch Society of widely ruining people's reputations by unfounded accusations while doing the same herself:

I'm sure they've ruined people's lives as being sort of fueling (sic) McCarthyism and I'm sure they've had some really bad impact on American politics. But they are so conspiratorial. I mean, these are the New World Order black helicopter folks, aren't they?

Actually, no, Ms. Maddow. They aren't.

The John Birch Society was always among the responsible conservatives who checked their facts and dispelled all the wild black helicopter rumors. This author played a part in researching a 1994 John Birch Society article (published by its affiliate The New American magazine) written by William F. Jasper that thoroughly debunked the black helicopter rumors.

Maddow said she's “sure” the John Birch Society has “ruined people's lives,” but never bothers to name them. This is, of course, because there are none to name. She simply made the accusation without doing any research.

Responding to Maddow's question about the John Birch Society belonging to the “black helicopter” crowd, Thomas Frank, columnist for the Wall Street Journal and author of The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, Frank noted that the John Birch Society had brought “conspiracy” theory to the conservative movement:

That's exactly right. And that's what their sort of gift is to the mainstream conservative movement. I mean, we always talk about the John Birch Society as the fringe of the fringe, as you were saying earlier. But you have to remember that they also, that they also gave the conservative movement something very important, which is conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory is utterly central to the conservative understanding of the world. I don't know if you have ever heard this phrase before “the liberal elite.”

On this one point, Frank made a valid point. Conspiracies are less a theory than a fact of history. A conspiracy is simply an immoral plan between two or more people that is in whole or in part organized in secret. There have been lesser and greater conspiracies throughout all of human history. Frank's book The Wrecking Crew speaks about this same thing – conspiracy, though he does not call it that – with respect to no-bid contracts under the Bush administration:

“Fantastic misgovernment of the kind we have seen is not an accident, nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society.”

Ironically, Frank accuses virtually every Republican of being part of an ideological and conspiratorial plot in his book, and Maddow gets the view of conspiracies exactly backward:

They [the JBS] had the fantastically conspiratorial view of communism where communism weren't just the Soviet Union, communists were all around us. I mean, like, every other person was a communist and they were all keeping quiet about it was the amazing thing, you know.

Actually, it's the people who think that communism is a popular movement — or neoconservatism, in Frank's mind — who believe that everyone's in on the plot. The John Birch Society was always cautious in accusing people of being part of a conspiracy, because it knew that conspiracies most often involve only a handful at their core. Conspiracies are by their very nature most often secret because they represent unpopular movements, though they often try to co-opt popular movements. Maddow goes on to claim of the Birch Society:

Well, and they also thought that the government of the Soviet Union and the government of the United States were both being run by the same secret people that there was invisible government above them both, that we needed to be ferreting out. Not only in government, but among their neighbors and among every other element of power. And that sort of witch-hunting conspiratorial attitude about the world, What I'm worried about is that the John Birch Society being brought into a group like CPAC means that the right is now once again embracing the conspiracists among them.

Much of MSNBC's recent coverage has been devoted to the congressional action (or lack thereof) on healthcare. The position of MSNBC is that Republicans are conspiring to stop the Democrat's healthcare plan. Maddow has floated conspiracy theories herself in the recent past. Of course, any other leftist but Maddow might lead me to quip that she only believes in Republican conspiracies.

But Maddow has been praised by this writer for her critique of President Obama's announced policy of indefinite preventative detention without trial as being “so good, and so dead-on, that every patriotic American should see it.” And I still say they should. That video segment proved she's not in lock-step with the Democratic leadership, but it also proves that many of the same policies — in this case the Bush policy of indefinite detention without trial — continues from administration to administration despite campaign promises. The John Birch Society brings an awareness of this continuity of bad policy to the conservative movement.

Maddow made numerous factual mistakes in her video segment, but I won't use this occasion for condemnations. Maddow should simply be reminded that if the John Birch Society has occasionally made mistakes that she has done no better than it with her recent segment on the Society. Likewise, she should be reminded that the Society had joined her in criticism of the Bush administration's worst excesses, from the war in Iraq to the indefinite detention without trial to torture to surveillance without warrants.

If she wants the conservative movement to recover from the excesses of the Bush era with its attack on the Bill of Rights, she should welcome the JBS joining the CPAC conference rather than condemning it. Only JBS leadership over the conservative movement would restore the moderation of rule under the limits of the U.S. Constitution.

AUTHOR'S UPDATE (Dec. 23): Rachel Maddow announced December 22 that she'll be rebutting this article on her show tonight. I'll be watching the show, and hoping the segment surpasses the lowered expectations I now have because of her teaser. In last night's teaser, she called the JBS a "brimming kettle of kook-endery" and said I called her a "liar" — though I didn't. I still don't call her a liar. Hopefully, Maddow's segment is a more sober discussion of facts rather than the simple name-calling in the teaser. It will be interesting to see if she engages in the same guilt-by-association tactics that the Left has long condemned when the Right uses such tactics.

My recommendation for a left-right alliance on issues of mutual agreement, which I made in an article on the AntiWar.com website a couple of years ago, may still seem premature, but I still hold out hope. And whatever she says about the JBS tonight, I still believe her segment on Obama's indefinite detention without trial program should be seen by every American.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (86) add comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Thomas Paine said:

	It is what it is. If it is a conspiracy, so be it. Rachel was told by her "handlers" to bash JBS. She is merely following orders.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 21, 2009
Votes: +0

Florida Warren said:

	Rachel Maddow I watched a video of the broadcast and Rachel Maddow has a thoroughly dislikeable personality, she's such an annoying snot-nosed twerp!
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 21, 2009
Votes: +3

Yes, Rachel Got Some Facts Wrong, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Amadeus8888 said:

...
As Mr. Paine pointed out, this is likely just Maddow following the script. If she really cared about things like putting an end to indefinite detention and govt power abuses, she would support JBS at least to some degree, like Mr. Eddlem giving her credit where it was due for pointing out the excesses.
But conspiracies do not exist! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.... Shame on MSNBC (which is hemorrhaging viewers faster than Rachel Maddow can spew lies) and on Maddow. Perhaps conservatives should organize a boycott similar to the one organized by loony-leftists against Beck.... Just saying...

December 21, 2009
Votes: +0

Flu-Bird said:

	What else can you expect What else can we ever get from a bunch of antiamerican left-wing rotten liberal journalists anyway the MSNBC vulture is just as devious as ever
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 21, 2009
Votes: -2

Roberta823 said:

...
We as a people have lost the ability to carry out activites that make us free. In other words, we can no longer debate, argue, or disagree without demonizing the otherside or resorting to name calling. Too bad. Whether liberal or conversative, we all have the same goal, a country that works for all Americans. As Americans, we take different paths to achieve that goal. Walking a different path doesn't make the other person wrong, it makes them different. That difference calls for tolerance, another aspect of American life that if practiced leads to freedom for all Americans.

With such divisiveness in this country, it's no wonder that most of us feel that our country has changed for the worst, and that our basic freedoms have been eroded. We as a people have managed to chip away at one of our basic building blocks underpinning freedom--the right to free speech.

December 21, 2009
Votes: +9

Roberta823 said:

	... Let me add, the right to free speech without being condemned.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 21, 2009
Votes: +3

GEORGE HUDSON said:

	... Birchers would do well to print a copy of this so they have it to refer back to when Conversations come up. Prospects whom we are trying to reach will use this as a see, I told you so attack on us.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 21, 2009
Votes: +6

ES said:

Head Poobah
This is great news for the JBS, actually. People are actually talking about the JBS. As in the 60's, the curiosity generated by the recycled attack claims will bring more people in in the end and give more chance for the JBS to share its message. Moving from largely unheard of to being ridiculed is a step in the right direction from a PR point. Next step will be to build better relationships and trust among news outlets and activists from other groups. This establishes credibility for JBS and will help the whole freedom movement.

December 21, 2009
Votes: +6

John V. Harness/jvh444 said:

none
I am old enough to remmebr the JBS and what they seememd to stand for back inthe 60s. I live in a semi-rural area. The local chapter of the JBS was busted and hundreds of rifles were found burries in drums covered in cosmoline along with many tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition. ALl of this on land adjoining a "Minute man" missile installation.

I also remmebr those billboards and the rantings about "communists under every rock." These things and other outlandish statements might not have been authorized by the central organizations but they were certainly the feelings and statements of the memebership. Without questions they were racists in every sense of the word. In our area the memebrshipof the JBS and KKK were interlocking and overlapping.

I had though the JBS had gone away but aparently it had just gone underground and has now reformed itself and now these types of people who have morphed into the McVey's and Christian COnservatives, Palin Team and Tea Party People. These are the most dangerous elements in AMerican SOciety and the most threatening to the freedom of the American People.

I hope ther are black heleicopters keeping an eye on them for us.

December 21, 2009 | url
Votes: -4

NH said:

	... Maddow is a sick person...... and no one cares what she thinks. Her ratings have sunk like a stone.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 21, 2009
Votes: -3

NH said:

...
@John V. Harness: Since you can't cite one incident of 'dangerousness'... except about a dozen attacks including one killing done by liberals this year, I think you had best shut up.

You make no sense... JBS is for freedom not totalitarianism like the people YOU defend.
You progressives are "the most dangerous elements in American Society and the most threatening to the freedom of the American People."

December 21, 2009
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply to NH
NH: Would it make any difference if John Harness gave you the details you think are missing? For example, are you familiar with JBS member George M. Colitto and why he was arrested and convicted?

The JBS hates my guts because of my research into FBI files and what I have found there. However, I also have DEFENDED the JBS on numerous occasions (as far back as the 1960's!) from malicious criticisms -- including earlier this month! But I have yet to meet a Bircher who candidly acknowledges unfavorable factual data. Instead, they always initiate personal attacks on the character, integrity, motives, and patriotism of their critics. IF and WHEN that changes -- then and only then will Americans give JBS views a fair hearing.

December 22, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

The Warner said:

The Warner
ES is right-on! I joined during the Goldwater election. I think I was one of four engineers voting for Goldwater out of 13,,000 at Ford Research in Dearborn Mich. At that time I was "accused" of being a Bircher. I had never heard of them but to-think WOW an organization that thinks like me and the enemy knew about them and I didn't. One of the enemy dropped a flyer on my desk and said "Here why not join the rest of you nuts". The four of us went to see a film by Robert Welch "A Look At The Score". Unbeknownst to the others we all joined seperately in different cities and became Chapter Leaders and Section Leaders. It was only at lunch some months later that we knew that we had all joined. BRING ON THE ATTACKS. LET OUR IDIOT ENEMY IGNORAMOUSES COMMIT POLITICAL SUICIDE.

Today we are all friends and have breakfast once a month. We are all retired and believe it or not when. as now, there are questions about what is going on they ask me and the person who put the flyer on my desk just said "I shoulda had more flyers". And then "maybe we wouldnt be in this mess".

FOR GOD AND COUNTRY

December 22, 2009
Votes: +1

Mike Sawyer said:

	She will document her facts tomorrow, 12/23/09 I'll look back to observe the response.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 22, 2009
Votes: +1

Dan said:

	Mr. USA While Maddow is certainly a handsome and dashing figure, the real question is, does anyone watch his program?
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 22, 2009
Votes: -2

Melvin said:

	... It's a fact that the John Birch Society suggested that Eisenhower was a Communist and a traitor. I don't care if she got the other stuff wrong. What they said about Ike was crazy and can't be denied.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 22, 2009
Votes: +1

Lal Wynstrom said:

Who is Rachel Maddow?
The same woman who called people who oppose Barack Obama's socialist takeover of our economy, our health care industry, our auto industry, the full-on implementation of world government through climate change accords, et al,- this is the same woman who referenced such people, aka Tea Party protestors and constitutionalists, as racists and "tea baggers"- a vulgar sexual reference meant to demean and defile the intent of such people who cannot abide the destruction of every decent Americanist principle that is now under assault by this in-our-face Big Government administration.

Yes, it is more than likely that she's reading from a script given by her masters or acting on orders from those same masters. This assault (the latest in a long line of Establishment hackjobs) once again shows us that we are having an effect, we are gaining ground, and that the Establishment is losing more and more face everyday.

They're desperate! And this move by Maddow on behalf of her Controllers shows it!

Keep it going, Patriots! We can overcome these people!

And by the way, at the JBS website Stophel sarcastically asked the question: "Who is Rachel Maddow?"

As her ratings attest, and as I will sarcastically answer back,

WHO CARES?!

December 23, 2009
Votes: -1

RichieRich said:

More of the same
Wow! Can you believe it? Maddow got back onto this topic on her show AGAIN tonight (Wed Dec 23). More of the same sensationalistic criticism of JBS. Unbelievable. Doesn't she know when to quit? Doesn't she know that people -- if anyone is still watching her show -- will surely see through her motives and see that she's just a commie-lover trying to boost her ratings? Outrageous!

December 23, 2009
Votes: +0

larry said:

	she is right No they weren't commys that took over it was and is the Mob at least they act lick it.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 23, 2009
Votes: +0

Ashley said:

	Rachel Maddow Finding Truth! Rachel Maddow is an incredibly intelligent political commentator. Look her up! Maybe, instead of being so close-minded and scared, all of you could listen to her, do some research, and possibly enrich your brains! I watched the rebuttal this evening. I can't wait to hear what you have to say, Tommy.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: -1

Ashley said:

	SERIOUSLY! Oh my Gog....communists??? You are all insane. There is no socialist healthcare or some crazy Glenn Beck doomed world looming over our heads. Chill out! The country is going in the right direction, finally!!! Maybe you should go back to watching Hannity and Beck...that's more your level.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: -3

Ashley said:

	... OBAMA!!!!!!!! We need that public option! No public option no deal! Healthcare for every United States' citizen!!
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Ash said:

So, let's rehash, shall we?
1. John Birch Society sponsors CPAC.
2. Rachel Maddow gives brief history of John Birch Society and why it's bad for CPAC to be sponsored by them.
3. John Birch Society labels Ms. Maddow's history of John Birch Society "falsehoods."
4. Rachel Maddow sources everything she said about JBS back to actual JBS material, shocking absolutely none of her regular viewers.
5. JBS posters say Rachel Maddow looks like a man.

December 24, 2009
Votes: +8

Ashley said:

...
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant.

Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.

December 24, 2009
Votes: +2

Marconi said:

	Birchers vs Birthers would be a good draw! And Maddow presented a complete expose on the Bircher today. Would be interesting to see if Pawlenty and Romney show up for that CPAC thingy.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: +1

Marconi said:

	Dan asks a question, that is, oh so witty! Dan said: Mr. USA While Maddow is certainly a handsome and dashing figure, the real question is, does anyone watch his program? == Your husband does. When he is doing the nasty with his boyfriend. Thought you knew that.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Marconi said:

	Flu bird asks a dumber question than Dan! What else can you expect What else can we ever get from a bunch of antiamerican left-wing rotten liberal journalists anyway the MSNBC vulture is just as devious as ever == Beck to open his mouth?
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: -4

Joe Peterson said:

	Dr. Peterson Hello, While I am not supporter of Maddow, I remember the older John Birch society being a bit paranoid holding onto conspiracy often at the highest of levels. If our society is going to move into the mainstream, I believe we should disavow parts of the checkered past as well as correcting wrongs spoken against us. Best Joe
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Pirell said:

	Blatant Lies Maddow quotes her sources correctly. How can you cons be lying like that? Shame on you!
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: +2

DDW said:

	Listen and watch I have been observing the "liberal" left for many years with the utmost fascination. All one need do is listen and watch and one will see that they always trip themselves up because they are stumbling around in complete darkness and have not even a nodding acquaintacne with truth. Left to their own devices they will inevitably destroy themselves.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: -2

ernie said:

RIchie Rich's Anger Is Counterproductive
Richie Rich wrote: "Doesn't she know that people -- if anyone is still watching her show -- will surely see through her motives and see that she's just a commie-lover trying to boost her ratings? Outrageous!"

Richie -- I appreciate that you are angry and you want to lash out but it is your type of malicious commentary which makes JBS critics feel justified in their criticisms of the JBS.

Here is a quick test for you: can you name 1 or 2 individuals who are critics of the JBS and whose viewpoints you disagree with -- but whom, nevertheless, you acknowledge to be decent, moral, honorable, principled opponents?

OR

Alternatively, is it your position that ANY critic of the JBS must be a "commie lover".

For example: when J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI described the JBS as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible" --- were their judgments the result of being sympathetic to communism? Were they "liberals" or "leftists"? And if so --- WHY did Robert Welch and the JBS effusively praise Hoover and the FBI for decades (along with the entire conservative intellectual and activist communities?)

December 24, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

Krzysztof T. Nowak said:

	Section Leader Rachel Maddow continued her attack on the JBS yesterday. Please watch the following youtube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RJsEPMOHzQ
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Bonnie said:

	Rachel Maddow, starring in "Attack of the Quote Miners". This is a must see! Destined to be rated right up there with other blockbusters such as "Capitalism: A Love Story", and "An Inconvenient Truth".
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Bonnie said:

Melvin
"It's a fact that the John Birch Society suggested that Eisenhower was a Communist and a traitor. I don't care if she got the other stuff wrong. What they said about Ike was crazy and can't be denied."

Either you didn't live in the 50's or you don't remember them very well. Hungary, Cuba, Panama, Suez, Lebanon, VOA, Laos, Yugoslavia. Anna Rosenberg, Columbia University, Max Rabb, William Brennan, Ellsworth Bunker, Tito, Nasser.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits." Ike's fruit has a noxious odor.

December 24, 2009
Votes: +1

Bonnie said:

	Joe Peterson "I remember the older John Birch society being a bit paranoid..." What you remember is the media representation of the JBS. Regardless, remember the old adage: "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean you don't have enemies."
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Bonnie said:

Ashley
"The country is going in the right direction, finally!!!"

Endless wars, Wall Street bailouts, takeover of the auto industry, skyrocketing debt, jobs flying off shore, a sinking dollar, Obama maintaining the failed policies of Bush, control of the internet, control of public transportation, control of all water, control of healthcare... not exactly the direction I want to be going.

"Healthcare for every United States' citizen!"
"There is no socialist healthcare..."

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public ownership and administration. By definition, the proposed healthcare IS socialist.

December 24, 2009
Votes: +3

Bonnie said:

	Marconi Why are you attempting to answer rhetorical questions? I take it you were just trying to be clever. The statement from Dan was just nonsense and neither needed nor deserved an answer. The question from Flu-Bird was purely rhetorical (although grammatically mangled).
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: -1

James said:

Isn't it interesting...
...that Thomas Eddlem castigated Maddow for "Recyling Falsehoods" and was anxiously awaiting her "rebuttal", but when she went on air again and backed up every "allegation" with direct quotes and writings by the JBS, nobody, including Eddlem refutes her facts?

You can't rewrite history, no matter how embarrassing it is. JBS has historically been on the wrong side of history. It still is.

December 24, 2009
Votes: +1

Bill Hahn said:

	PR Manager, JBS Sorry to keep you waiting, but we will have several responses to Ms. Maddow's 12/23/09 rebuttal. The first is tentatively scheduled for Saturday with others coming next week. We welcome differing points of view on all our articles. Just keep it clean and avoid name calling, personal attacks, etc. Merry Christmas to all.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 24, 2009
Votes: +1

Ernst said:

	Can't wait to see your response Rachel Maddow just read from your own writings to defend herself. YOUR OWN WRITINGS. Now all you posters, let the insults fly! JBS MAY have made mistakes? Until you own up to the past, you will carry this weight and no one will believe that you have grown past the stance you and your members took. Only the truth can set you free.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 25, 2009
Votes: +0

DDW said:

	To Bonnie No, my statement is not nonsense and you can't answer it simply because it is true and it is correct. The tactics of confusion, lies (lies either by commission or omission) and sophistry favored by the "liberal" left do not work on me, so do yourself a favor and don't waste your time.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 25, 2009
Votes: -1

Bonnie said:

???
DDW wrote:

I have been observing the "liberal" left for many years with the utmost fascination. All one need do is listen and watch and one will see that they always trip themselves up because they are stumbling around in complete darkness and have not even a nodding acquaintacne with truth. Left to their own devices they will inevitably destroy themselves.

Then DDW wrote:

No, my statement is not nonsense and you can't answer it simply because it is true and it is correct. The tactics of confusion, lies (lies either by commission or omission) and sophistry favored by the "liberal" left do not work on me, so do yourself a favor and don't waste your time.

Somewhere I missed where I called the former statement nonsense. The fact is, I support it. My replies were to Melvin, Joe Peterson, Ashley, and Marconi.

December 25, 2009
Votes: +0

Bonnie said:

	James "...nobody, including Eddlem refutes her facts?" I'd stand back out of the way, if I were you. A rebuttal is coming! You will find the Christmas holiday has much more to do with the momentary silence than inability to reply. Merry Christmas!
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 25, 2009
Votes: +0

JJ Suprise said:

No they didn't call Ike a Communist!!
Hey Ernie,

How do you know that George M. Collito was a member of the JBS?

Melvin, "It's a fact that the John Birch Society suggested that Eisenhower was a Communist and a traitor. I don't care if she got the other stuff wrong. What they said about Ike was crazy and can't be denied."

Sorry Sir, but the JBS NEVER said Ike was a Communist, people like Maddow said they said that and it was attributed to the most smeared and then suppressed when it actually was available for people to read, book in the history of American literature, THE POLITICIAN. Which was written as a letter to friends by Robert Welch and then later had to be turned into a book because of the smearing that Mr. Welch took.
Once the book was available it became, in Mr. Welch's words, "A no book!"

Try getting a copy and reading it before making such absurd statements that you have regurgitated from folks like Maddow.

Oh, you won't be able to get the book at Barnes and Noble or any other of the "major bookstores" in America, but you can get a copy from www.shopjbs.org

Bill Hahn, Merry Christmas my friend!

Bonnie, thanks for ALL of your posts and Merry Christmas to you!

Looking forward to the follow up stories.

HooDeeHoo!
JJ Suprise
Sandy, Utah

December 25, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

Blindsided said:

	They Serve A Great Purpose Maddow serves us well. She keeps us posted on the current progressive leftist agenda, lets us know if we are doing any good exposing the 'conspiricy' and reminds us not to be like her. Hey, the JBS is getting national exposure. The GOBs will wonder, "Who is the John Birth Sociey?" and hearers of truth will want to know more about us. It's a win-win.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 25, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

Bonnie said:

	Rachel and the Quote Miners should stand clear This is not THE reply to Rachel's latest tirade. Just a test firing of one of the guns. http://www.jbs.org/blog/rachel...ciety.html After the final salvos have fired, it should be clear that "Rachel and the Quote Miners" have only been lip-syncing to "Liberal Left and the Insiders."
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 25, 2009
Votes: +0

DDW said:

	To Bonnie Please accept my sincere and humble apology, please. I was not paying attention. This happened in another postingg earlier today bacause, once again, I was not paying attention. Please forgive me. You see, my first name is Dan and then I realized that you wouldn't know that as my posting is under DDW. Again, I offer my sincere apology. Please to forgive.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 25, 2009
Votes: +0

Bonnie said:

	To DDW No problem, just a misunderstanding. I expect attacks, but that one just came out of left field and had me scratching my head! There was a "Dan" that posted some nonsense attacking Rachel Maddow personally and having NOTHING to do with her (erroneous) commentary. I DID call that one.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 25, 2009
Votes: +1

ernie said:

Reply to JJ Surprise
Reply to JJ Surprise, part 1 of 3

JJ Surprise wrote:
(1) "Hey Ernie, How do you know that George M. Collito was a member of the JBS?"

JJ: Are you suggesting that I am mistaken? If so, upon what basis?

(2) "Sorry Sir, but the JBS NEVER said Ike was a Communist"

JJ: I know what your argument will be on this matter. However, the themes, evidence, arguments, and conclusions in The Politician differ not one iota from the themes, evidence, arguments, and conclusions presented by the JBS from its inception.

Furthermore, unlike yourself, I have in my possession letters which Robert Welch wrote on American Opinion letterhead in 1959 and 1960 where Mr. Welch sent a copy of his "private letter" (i.e. the unpublished version) to people and he asked them to read and believe the content of The Politician -- and THEN join the JBS to do something about it!

For example, Welch sent a letter on American Opinion letterhead dated 6/29/59 to Dr. Hedwig S. Kuhn of Hammond Indiana in which Welch tells Dr. Kuhn that he is sending her a copy of The Politician in a few days and Welch then solicits her support for both the Birch Society and the JBS-front group, Committee Against Summit Entanglements (CASE). CASE was a JBS project to protest the visit of Soviet leader Khrushchev to the U.S.

December 25, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply to JJ, part 2 of 3
WELCH’S LETTER:
“In another few days we shall be sending you an unpublished manuscript of mine which is quite confidential, and which I believe you will find of considerable interest. It is not out of the category of ’simply more reading matter’ which you mention; but we shall be taking you up on the possibility of ‘doing things for us’ within another few weeks. As my good friend, Louis Ruthenberg, may indicate to you, we have a movement under way of which you undoubtedly have heard nothing–because we are concentrating entirely on building strength and understanding, rather than creating noise — of which he has been an enthusiastic supporter since it started last December and which already has local working chapters in four states. Since it really takes two full days to present properly the background, methods, and purposes of the John Birch Society, I should not attempt any explanation in a letter. But we shall see that you learn all about it as soon as is practicable, and as soon as there is any chance of our following up whatever interest you may have.”

December 25, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply to JJ, part 3
Welch’s letter to Dr. Kuhn describes The Politician as material which would give Kuhn “a better understanding of how serious is the danger we face, and how far advanced (is) the conspiracy threatening us, as we see it. And you will then find that the JBS is a movement…for the purpose of building strength and understanding to combat this conspiracy.”

The reference to "us" by Mr. Welch obviously refers to the John Birch Society!

Furthermore in private letters, Mr. Welch boasted about how The Politician was valuable as a recruitment tool for the JBS.

For example, in a 8/22/62 letter to Ezra Taft Benson in which he offered to send a copy of The Politician to Benson, Mr. Welch wrote:

“For there are quite a number of outstanding Americans who are among our strongest and most unshakable supporters who had been made so by reading this document; and we have never really had any trouble with, or criticism from, those who have actually read the ‘letter’ themselves…”

And, in the JBS Bulletin of September 1963, Mr. Welch wrote that The Politician “has now proved to be by far the most effective single help to our recruiting efforts.”

JJ: Let's be honest ok? If we were discussing a "private letter" written in 1954 by a Communist and that Communist subsequently, in 1958, formed an organization and he used his 1954 "private letter" as a recruitment tool in 1959 and thereafter for his organization -- would you STILL claim that the substantive content of his "private letter" was irrelevant with respect to the organization's beliefs?

December 25, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply to BONNIE
Bonnie wrote: "Rachel and the Quote Miners should stand clear
This is not THE reply to Rachel's latest tirade. Just a test firing of one of the guns. http://www.jbs.org/blog/rachel...ciety.html

After the final salvos have fired, it should be clear that 'Rachel and the Quote Miners' have only been lip-syncing to 'Liberal Left and the Insiders.'

Bonnie -- the article in the link you provided is certainly well-written but I suggest that you perform your own independent research instead of just relying upon anything and everything which the JBS produces. See, for example, my reply to "JJ Surprise" with respect to his assertions about The Politician [TP]. The JBS does not tell its members that Mr. Welch used the unpublished version of TP as a recruitment tool for the JBS in 1959 and 1960 -- because that data would greatly damage their argument that TP had no relationship to the JBS. Similarly, the JBS does not tell its members that former JBS National Council member Revilo Oliver explicitly stated in his memoir that National Council members were requested, and JBS employees were instructed, to present false information about TP in order to diminish the controversy over TP -- and make Mr. Welch's PR-campaign more credible when, in reality, JBS rejoinders about the TP controversy were not factually accurate.

Similarly, the claims made in the article which you recommend need to be carefully examined.

December 25, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Bonnie said:

Reply to ernie
I suggest that you perform your own independent research instead of just relying upon anything and everything which the JBS produces.

I've been doing that for a long, long time, Ernie. That's how I got to where I am. The development of my attitude and opinions PRECEDE involvement with the JBS.

The JBS does not tell its members that Mr. Welch used the unpublished version of TP as a recruitment tool...

Really? That's not what I heard for the JBS representative who explained the origins of the JBS and offered me a copy of TP!

"The reference to "us" by Mr. Welch obviously refers to the John Birch Society!"

Are you that naive, or is that just what you want to believe? The "us" is a collective referring to the nation.

JJ Surprise wrote:
(1) "Hey Ernie, How do you know that George M. Collito was a member of the JBS?"

JJ: Are you suggesting that I am mistaken? If so, upon what basis?

Nice deflection! Now, please answer the question.

...JBS National Council member Revilo Oliver...

Revilo Oliver is an interesting case. He was indeed one of the founding members of JBS. He later wavered, quit, then became a rather rabid anti-Bircher. He also became deeply involved in white nationalism. Having a strong bias against the JBS and Robert Welch, I would not take anything he had to say very seriously.

December 26, 2009
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply to Bonnie
I think you misunderstood my original comment. You were offered the published version of TP -- correct? The one that came out in 1963? I am referring to the unpublished private letter version which Mr. Welch only loaned out temporarily and then asked be returned. This is the version which he claimed had no relationship to the JBS because (a) it was written before the JBS came into existence and (b) most JBS members never knew about it. In reality, however, he used it in 1959 and 1960 as a recruitment tool for the JBS -- but only after the negative publicity commenced in July 1960 did he start recalling all copies in circulation.

The "us" is NOT "the nation" -- He clearly told Dr. Kuhn, for example, that she could join the JBS after she read and believed the content of TP.

Colitto: Was one of 4 people arrested, of whom 2 admitted they were JBS members according to the NY District Attorney's office -- and Colitto was one.

Oliver: I am totally familiar with Oliver and I have copies of his correspondence with Mr. Welch. Just because someone leaves the JBS doesn't mean they always lie about the circumstances of how they joined or what they received. I have correspondence between Welch and other National Council members which confirms Oliver's explanation.

December 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

...
Bonnie, just to clarify. The "us" I am referring to is Welch's comment that:

"...but we shall be taking you up on the possibility of ‘doing things for us’ within another few weeks. As my good friend, Louis Ruthenberg, may indicate to you, we have a movement under way of which you undoubtedly have heard nothing–because we are concentrating entirely on building strength and understanding, rather than creating noise — of which he has been an enthusiastic supporter since it started last December and which already has local working chapters in four states."

December 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

JJ Suprise said:

My reply to Ernie
Dear Mr. Ernie,

My question about Mr. Collito still stands. Just because he said he was a member DOES NOT necessarily mean he was a member. It is hard to know as the JBS does not make that information available.

I tried just this week to find out whether former Congressman George V. Hansen was a member, directly from the JBS and they were unwilling to confirm that for me.

You see, it seems that the only time someone gets "credit" for being a member of the JBS is when they do something wrong. Kind of like the only time you hear about the House of Representatives is when one of its members breaks the law, until then it is always President this, and Senate that, and Supreme Court this...

So whenever someone talks of "convicted" member of the JBS, I have to question whether or not that person was actually a member.

As far as The Politician is concerned I must refer you to a speech by Robert Welch done in the late 60's called, "No Easy Way" of which you can download here: www.usedbrain.org by clicking on the "No Easy Way" speech part 1 and 2 in which he talks extensively about The Politician and its origins and controversies.

The simple fact of the matter and what I was calling you on is that Robert Welch NEVER called Ike, "A Communist". Period.
He named three possibilities to explain his collusion with Communists.

Oh, and by the way, The Politician has stood the test of time of being COMPLETELY FACTUAL and not a word in it has ever been proven to be incorrect!

In Maddow's garbage on MSNBC she states that "Robert Welch called Ike a Communist.." and you made the same accusation, which is false and a perfect example of taking a quote out of context.

December 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply to JJ Surprise -- part 1 of 3
JJ: You could not be more mistaken about The Politician. However, may I ask you this?: do you have the UNPUBLISHED edition of TP that Welch finished in June 1958 -- OR are you referring to one of the published editions, i.e. either 1963 or 2002?

With respect to your claim that Mr. Welch offered "three possibilities" -- that, also, is false.

See page 278 of TP: Welch summarizes what he says are the only two possible interpretations or "theories" from his perspective:

QUOTE: “The role he has played, as described in all the pages above, would fit just as well into one theory as the other; that he is a mere stooge, or that he is Communist assigned the specific job of being a political front man.”

Oxford English Dictionary definition of “stooge”:
“A person whose function is merely to carry out another’s directions; an unquestioningly loyal or obsequious subordinate, a lackey; a person used as an instrument by someone behind the scenes, a cat’s paw.”

December 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Part 2 of reply to JJ Surprise
On page 279, Welch discusses the 3 stages by which Communists came to control the U.S. Presidency.

In stages 1 and 2, FDR and Truman were “used” by Communists. In Truman’s case, according to Welch, he was used “with his knowledge and acquiescence, as the price he consciously paid for their making him President.”

Then, with respect to Ike, “In the third stage the Communists have installed in the Presidency a man who, for whatever reasons, appears intentionally to be carrying forward Communist aims…With regard to this third man, Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.” … [This is from page 279 of the published edition of TP.

However, the original formulation of this comment from the unpublished 1958 edition of TP is as follows:

"In the third stage, in my own firm opinion, the Communists have one of their own actually in the Presidency. For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." [TP, unpublished version, page 268.]

December 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

...
Lastly, for now:

Notice the comment made by Robert Welch in TP, Chapter 16, which discusses Eisenhower “associates and appointments”. (pages 227-228 of the unpublished version and page 214 of the 2002 published edition)

Even Welch acknowledges the cumulative effect of all his statements, innuendos, and insinuations in Chapter 16:

“So we appear to be calling almost everybody a Communist, merely because we have no reason to be mentioning the good men in Washington, in all branches of the government, who have no Communist sympathies whatever.”

As we keep that in mind, let’s also remember that the title of the next chapter clarifies Welch’s intent with respect to the thrust of his argument as contained in the first 16 chapters. Chapter 17 is entitled: “The Word Is Treason”.

Finally, let’s keep in mind Welch’s admission to his National Council in January 1960, that, in his scheme of things, “it makes no practical difference” to distinguish between
(a) “an actual Communist”
(b) “a Communist sympathizer”
(c) “a Communist agent”

December 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Postcript -- part 4 of reply to JJ
With my previous comments as a preface, now let’s consider how Welch describes President Eisenhower.

First, let us quickly dispose of the falsehood that Welch proposed a benign interpretation of Ike’s motives.

There are many other passages in both the published and unpublished versions of TP wherein Welch makes clear that he considered Eisenhower a traitor. Below I quote a few examples.

“In my opinion the chances are very strong that Milton Eisenhower is actually Dwight Eisenhower’s superior and boss within the Communist Party.” [TP, unpublished version, page 210]

“We think that an objective survey of Eisenhower’s associates and appointments shows clever Communist brains, aided by willing Communist hands, always at work to give the Communists more power, and to weaken the anti-Communist resistance.” [TP, unpublished version, page 239]

In discussing Eisenhower’s appointment of Philip C. Jessup, Robert Welch refers to Eisenhower as “he and his fellow Communists” [TP, unpublished version, page 214]

In discussing Eisenhower’s appointment of James B. Conant, Robert Welch refers to “the appointment of Conant…made by a Communist President…” [TP, unpublished version, page 221]

December 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Other comment for JJ
LINK: Thanks for the link to usedbrain.org. It contains something by Welch that I wanted - so that was helpful for me.

COLITTO: Obviously, if you don't accept what Colitto told the NY District Attorney -- then there is no evidence I can present to satisfy you. Just out of curiosity -- what evidence do you accept to confirm or deny JBS membership if self-acknowledgement is not credible? As you know, usually JBS HQ will not provide such data -- although I have seen instances where they clarified the status of some prominent individuals who, contrary to some speculation, were NOT JBS members such as John Wayne and Dan Smoot.

Do you see the self-sealing quality of your argument? There is no conceivable way to falsify your premise because you eliminate, in advance, all possible (and normal) avenues. Media reports are unacceptable. Court documents are unacceptable. Law enforcement statements are unacceptable. And JBS HQ won't normally confirm or deny. So you "win" the argument -- no matter what evidence is produced!

December 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Hal Shurtleff said:

	... Ernie: Since you have read Robert Welch's book, what is your view on Eisenhower. Does his role in Operation Keelhaul bother you. What about Eisenhower's role in betraying the Hungarian Freedom Fighter? You also have read Robert Welch's 1965 essay "The Truth in Time."
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 27, 2009
Votes: +0

Hal Shurtleff said:

...
Ernie:

I find it strange that Rachel Maddow, who winces at the name of J Edgar Hoover, would give any credibility to anything he says. Why didn't you tell Rachel that Hoover called "Martin Luther King "a liar" and with the permission of Robert Kennedy, bugged King. You could have told her that John Kennedy told King to get rid of the commnists in his organization. Why didn't you.

The JBS is one of the few organizations tht has said anything positive about Mr. Hoover. "The New American" even did a feature story refuting the many falsehoods about Hoover. Do you condemn The JBS for this too?

December 27, 2009
Votes: +0

Hal Shurtleff said:

	... Ernie: Like you, I get Google alerts about The John Birch Society. I don't have time to reply to most of the negatives articles. But when I do respond, I almost always see your comments. You obviously spend plenty of time attacking The JBS. Is that all you do? What is your motivation?
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 27, 2009
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply To Hal - part 1 of 2
Hal: Space limitations here preclude me from answering your questions adequately but I’ll try to address your key points.

MY VIEW ON IKE: Doesn’t really matter, does it? The discussion we were having in this forum was simply to establish whether or not Mr. Welch called Ike a Communist. One of the contributors here made a very bold (and false) declaration, i.e. “The simple fact of the matter and what I was calling you on is that Robert Welch NEVER called Ike, ‘A Communist’. Period. “

TRUTH IN TIME: Yes, I have read it.

MADDOW/HOOVER: I’m not sure I understand your comment because Rachel never mentioned Hoover nor did she quote or rely upon anything he said.

Also, Hal, why do you ask me to tell Rachel to rely upon anything which Hoover or the FBI produced when the JBS rejects their conclusions about all sorts of materially important matters? For example: the JBS ad in 1965 (Rachel mistakenly said it was 1960) about purportedly then-current Communist strategy being to create a “Negro Soviet Republic”??

JBS POSITION ON HOOVER: I am completely familiar with the JBS position and I have copies of all of Mr. Welch’s letters to Hoover and Hoover’s replies – along with letters written by many other JBS officials. But, Hal, I think you are missing the point. The JBS claims to recognize Hoover and the FBI as an authoritative and reliable source – but then it circulates data which flatly contradicts what Hoover and the FBI concluded. In fact, the JBS even contradicts its own speakers who were previously FBI informants within the CPUSA (such as Julia Brown and Lola Belle Holmes).

December 27, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply to Hal, part 2
ME “ATTACKING” JBS: Hal you are wrong on two counts.

(1)First, the JBS claims to be an educational organization and “an army fighting with facts”. By definition, an educational organization is searching for truth and it is always interested in reviewing new data which pertains to the matters it considers important.

Historical research does not concern itself with whether or not the interested parties approve or disapprove of what is discovered. Instead, the purpose of research is to discover factual data which (hopefully) will better inform the public discussion and debate and interpretation of whatever matters are under scrutiny.

(2)For many years (going back as far as the 1960’s), I have defended the JBS against malicious or ignorant critics (right and left). If you like, I will be happy to send you some examples if you will give me your email address. But just because I defend the JBS does not mean I must be blind to the falsehoods which the JBS publishes or circulates.

When I first became interested in the JBS, I asked JBS members at my local AO Bookstore whom THEY considered indisputably knowledgeable and reliable sources of information. I have subsequently used those sources – but I am still attacked and smeared by JBS members. Go figure!

December 27, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Postscript for Hal
Hal, one final observation:

All honest researchers start with a neutral question. The question which intrigued me and which triggered my interest in researching FBI files was this:

"What did J. Edgar Hoover and senior FBI officials think about Robert Welch, the John Birch Society, and the assertions which they made?"

In order to answer that question FACTUALLY, ACCURATELY, and TRUTHFULLY obviously a researcher has to acquire the relevant primary source material -- don't you agree with me?

Hal -- can YOU tell me what YOUR answer is to that question based upon your research into the matter?

If, however, you have never done primary source research which enables you to answer my question -- then why are you hostile toward someone who HAS done that research? I mean, why characterize their result as "an attack" -- when the original motive was (and still is) the desire to answer a neutral question which NOBODY else had pursued?

Just FYI: The FBI has often told me that I am the first and only person to request and receive FBI documents/files which I have requested from them -- not just on the JBS but on related persons, organizations, publications such as, for example, Dan Smoot, W. Cleon Skousen, Billy James Hargis, Edgar Bundy/Church League of America; Myers Lowman/Circuit Riders Inc; Fred Schwarz/Christian Anti-Communism Crusade --- and -- on many radical left wing individuals and groups -- including certain CPUSA files.

December 27, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

TimH said:

all debating aside --
I'm not a JBS member, but I subscribe to TNA. If The New American is representative of the JBS, then I'm wondering why anyone could be against them, with their strong Constitutionalist views.

I grew up in the hippie days and I remember that we all ridiculed the "John Birchers" -- just as they ridiculed us long-hairs, and called us commies. Well, some of my generation actually were commies, it seems. But times have changed.

The Democrats have done bad things to our country. The Republicans have done bad things to our country. If the JBS did bad things, as you claim, how is it any worse?

The JBS--if TNA is representative--has changed. Mr. Welch no longer even leads the organization. So read The New American, and tell me what you find that's wrong.

December 27, 2009
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply to Tim H
Tim: If the JBS merely offered alternative public policy proposals and/or critical analyses of the policies or positions advocated by our national leaders -- there would be no problem whatsoever --- no matter how unorthodox or unconventional its views.

When language is routinely used to evoke suspicion, fear, contempt, disgust and revulsion regarding our national leaders and perceived political opponents -- that is VERY dangerous.

Over the past 40+ years I have corresponded with hundreds of JBS members. Many are very fine, decent, intelligent and entirely sincere patriotic individuals. But there has always been an element within the JBS that relentlessly attempts to de-legitimize and demonize its perceived opponents (liberal and conservative).

A free society cannot survive if all differences regarding public policy options are used as litmus tests to claim that someone is not loyal to our country, or decent, or honorable and principled (albeit perhaps mistaken from the JBS point of view).

Many JBS critics are just ignorant about what the JBS actually believes. Others are malicious in the legal sense of that word (i.e. reckless disregard for the truth) -- but, regretably, the JBS itself has contributed to that problem by always questioning the motives, character, and integrity of its opponents. Notice even in this thread some comments along those lines.

December 27, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Further Reply To Tim H
Just to illustrate my point perhaps more concretely: Earlier this week I received the following email from a JBS member in Albany NY:

"Thanks for your extensive research on the JBS. I am a new JBS member and I am attracted to much of what they are currently saying regarding the original intent of the Constitution and the direction of country is headed in. I agree with their conservative leaning libertarian viewpoints on many issues.
I will work my way through your papers and let you know what I think. Again, kudos to you for making this information accessible, it looks like you have quite a few hours invested in it!"

This member sent me a second message as follows:

"I think JBS has much to offer, but the message needs to be a positive one along the lines of Mises.org, Lew Rockwell, or Campaign for Liberty. The focus on conspiracy does close down the dialogue. In the Albany, NY area we all work closely together. I respect the organization because it has been in existence for since 1958. I am sure there are others that have lasted that long, but they aren't active locally that I know of.

There was a good article at Campaign for Liberty the other day calling for focus on Philosophy vs. Conspiracy:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=459 "

If THIS was the typical manner in which JBS members pursued a conversation -- there would be no problem whatsoever. And, incidentally, I told this JBS member that the Campaign For Liberty article was quite good!

December 27, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Hal Shurtleff said:

	... Ernie: I did, indeed, see a reply you wrote defending The JBS against charges of racism. I will write an E-mail Hal
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 28, 2009
Votes: +0

Mitch said:

	JBS are a bunch of paranoid whackos No denying it. You people can't just claim that liberals are in the dark, or that Rachel Maddow was 'under orders'. Do you realize how freaking stupid that sounds? Maybe JBS really is an organization of hateful, spiteful supremacists, who justify their twisted logic with patriarchy and xenophobia. Your own material speaks for itself. Lunacy.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 28, 2009
Votes: -1

JJ Suprise said:

Reply to Ernie
Dear Ernie,
Thanks for your replies.
It has been a long time since I read The Politician.

I based my statement to you on the speech that I referred you to called "No Easy Way".

Robert Welch may have called Ike a Communist and if he did, he was correct and simply calling a spade a spade. I stand corrected.

However, it was not in The Politician that he did it, at least in the published version, he was simply listing the possibilities. And Maddow takes his quote out of context.

Personally, I call Ike a Communist and I make no apologies for it.

So far my research over the last 17 years has shown that Robert Welch has been correct on all counts.

We can see that by simply looking around.

As far as membership in the JBS, I just know that over the years there have been many folks accused of being members who never were and those folks were usually doing something wrong and being used to smear the JBS. And I suppose that if Mr. Collito said in court that he was a member, then I would have to assume that he was. The only ones who could confirm it would be the Society.

I am looking forward to their rebuttals.

December 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

JJ "Stands Corrected" ??? part 1 of 2
JJ: Making the accusation that somebody is “quoting out of context” is very serious because it implies intellectual dishonesty.

Let me be brutally frank with you JJ.

Birchers always resort to the “quoting out of context” argument in defense of Mr. Welch – but nobody ever gets around to explaining, precisely, the supposed missing “context” is!!

Let’s first be clear about what “quoting out of context” actually means. It means taking an excerpt from a larger whole and using it in a manner which CHANGES THE AUTHOR’S INTENDED MEANING.

Therefore, if your accusation was accurate and truthful, -- namely, that Robert Welch was being “quoted out of context” with respect to his conclusion regarding President Eisenhower – you would have to provide specific details to demonstrate that Mr. Welch DID NOT believe that Eisenhower was a Communist.

December 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

JJ Stands Corrected -- part 2
PUBLISHED vs UNPUBLISHED VERSION:

I really don’t understand why you make this distinction because even in the published version Welch makes it quite clear how extremely hostile he was concerning Ike – and how certain he was that Ike was an “enemy” and a “traitor” to our country.

For example: In the published version, page 291, Welch refers to a comment made by Elizabeth Churchill Brown which he claims he is paraphrasing – but which he put in quotations (which normally is not done for a paraphrase).

But let’s let Welch speak for himself. I italicize the portion which he attributes to Brown – and then I bold type the rest which is Welch’s personal comment:

“To paraphrase Elizabeth Churchill Brown, ‘the only enemies the American people have to fear are the enemies in their midst.’ The most conspicuous and injurious of these enemies today, I believe, is named Dwight David Eisenhower. He is either a willing agent, or an integral and important part, of a conspiracy of gangsters determined to rule the world at any cost.”

December 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

JJ "Stands Corrected"?? -- part 3
YOU "STAND CORRECTED"??

Well, JJ, then you falsely accused Maddow (and by extension me) in your former message when you wrote that:

“The simple fact of the matter and what I was calling you on is that Robert Welch NEVER called Ike, "A Communist". Period.“

and

“In Maddow's garbage on MSNBC she states that 'Robert Welch called Ike a Communist..' and you made the same accusation, which is false and a perfect example of taking a quote out of context.”

Let's briefly recap:

1. What you described as “the simple fact of the matter” was NOT "fact"

2. Rachel's comment was not “garbage”; it was factually accurate

3. Welch's conclusion regarding Ike was NOT “taken out of context”! It was his carefully considered judgment after writing 16 chapters to explain his reasons and, consequently, why he titled chapter 17, "The Word Is Treason".

4. Furthermore: In the 1963 published edition (which excises his comments from the unpublished version) there is a footnote on page 278 (footnote 2) and its text appears on pages cxxxviii-cxxxix at the back of the book. That text is as follows:

"At this point in the original manuscript there was one paragraph in which I expressed my own personal belief as to the most likely explanation of the events and actions with this document had tried to bring into focus. In a confidential letter, neither published nor offered for sale, and restricted to friends who were expected to respect the confidence but offer me in exchange their own points of view, this seemed entirely permissible and proper. It does not seem so for an edition of the letter that is now to be published and given, probably, fairly wide distribution. So that paragraph, and two explanatory paragraphs, connected with it, have been omitted here. And the reader is left entirely free to draw his own conclusions."

December 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Final Word
Sorry I had to chop this up into so many parts -- but space limitations require it.

I quoted that footnote in my last message because Welch clearly states that he was expressing "my own personal belief".

Consequently, you have libeled both me and Rachel Maddow by accusing us of being liars when, in reality, you simply were unfamiliar with the history of The Politician and, by your own admission, you relied exclusively upon ONE article written by Welch himself instead of performing due diligence to arrive at the truth of the matter.

This is a classic example of why Birchers have the reputation they do. NOT because you made a mistake. We ALL make mistakes. But because you resorted to ad hominem attacks on the honesty, character, and integrity of your perceived critics!

December 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

JJ Suprise said:

Reply to Ernie
Ok Ernie,

Of all the quotes you have mentioned I still don't see where Robert Welch Called Ike a "Communist" directly in The Politician?

And another thing that I think is interesting about this whole thing. Not one mention by yourself or Maddow about the actual contents of The Politician, where Robert Welch actually documents the treasonous activities of Ike and his helping of Communists at every turn?

Nope, just the classic "attack the messenger" typical of Communists.

I will have to go re-read The Politician and I would certainly be interested in any information you have to send my way to set me straight. Send to riverroach@usedbrain.org

"I really don’t understand why you make this distinction because even in the published version Welch makes it quite clear how extremely hostile he was concerning Ike – and how certain he was that Ike was an “enemy” and a “traitor” to our country."

Where in this quote does Mr. Welch call Ike a Communist?
Or any of the other quotes you have posted?

What we have been talking about and what Maddow was suggesting is that Mr. Welch called Ike a Communist in The Politician of which he did not.

Oh, and I am basing my opinion on the "speech" No Easy Way and my distant reading of the book itself, not an article written by Mr. Welch.

December 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

JJ Suprise said:

I missed one of your quotes
Ernie,

I missed the part above where you said that the whole body of the book says that Mr. Welch called Ike a Communist is a point well taken.
I believe you are correct on that point, in that he would have to say that Ike is NOT a Communist, in order to say that he did not call him a Communist.

Fair enough.

And of course that would never happen because the body of evidence says that he indeed WAS at the very least a supporter of Communists.

Once again, the evidence outlined in The Politician that Ike was a traitor and a supporter of Communists is indisputable.

It would be nice to talk about the actual evidence outlined in The Politician instead of attacking the messenger.

Like I said before, "I will call Ike a Communist, with no apologies" regardless of whether or not Mr. Welch did so.

Just the same way that I would call David Rockefeller a Communist and an admitted traitor.

December 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Brief Reply To JJ
JJ: Since you think the evidence is "indisputable" -- there is no point in further messages. And I might add that several of Mr. Welch's friends and associates sent him letters correcting what they described as factual errors in his book. And of course, J. Edgar Hoover explicitly rejected the contention that Ike was in any way pro-Communist or a Communist agent and, in fact, he characterized anyone who made such an accusation as "mentally unbalanced".

Hoover also commented:
“During his Presidency and afterwards at Gettysburg, I was close with Gen. Eisenhower. He was a great man and a great President.” [01/72 interview of Hoover in Nation’s Business magazine]

Barry Goldwater rejected Welch's "evidence" and told him to "burn" the book. JBS Public Relations Director, John Rousselot stated that if Welch's conclusion ever became official JBS policy he would resign. Cong. Edgar Hiestand and Clarence Manion (both JBS member -- and Manion was Dean of Notre Dame Law School) rejected Welch's "evidence". I could go on -- but for what purpose?

December 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

JJ Suprise said:

	Exactly what did they reject? Ernie, You say that all of these people rejected Mr. Welch's evidence and yet you do not give one single example of what they rejected. Perhaps they rejected Ike's part in operation keelhaul? Perhaps all of the supplies given to the Soviets? Please, what was rejected, what was disputable?
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply to JJ and A Few Questions - part 1
Part 1 of 2 part reply to JJ:

They rejected Welch's conclusion and, in some instances, they indicated that they thought Welch's assertions were not factual and they sent him letters indicating what was not factual.

JJ: I have a few questions for you.

1. Please take a few moments to review all of the footnotes to TP -- which consume about 69 pages. You will notice something quite remarkable.

2. Mr. Welch does not cite the testimony of even one former member of the CPUSA who subsequently left the Party and who then testified under oath in support of the idea that Eisenhower was a Communist, a Communist sympathizer, a Communist agent or, to use one of Welch's phrases in TP, that while in the CP they overheard CP officials describing Ike as "one of their own".

How do you explain that? What explains the TOTAL ABSENCE of supporting testimony for Welch's thesis by persons who actually were in the CPUSA?

December 30, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply to JJ -- part 2
3. Let's pursue this another way. The FBI prepared two semi-annual reports which are extremely pertinent for our discussion:

(a) One summarized "The Communist Party Line" and
(b) One summarized "Communist Party Activities"

Both of these documents utilized confidential reports which the Bureau received from hundreds of FBI informants within the CPUSA -- including several very highly placed moles within CP headquarters in New York City -- and, specifically, within the Party's National Executive Committee. The most famous of which are the Childs brothers -- Morris and Jack.

How do you explain the complete absence of any supporting empirical evidence from those many independent sources even though they often participated in secret, closed CP meetings?

4. I have documents from FBI files on the CPUSA which are transcripts of secret closed CP meetings. How do you explain the fact that senior CP officials expressed extreme personal hostility toward Eisenhower? If as Welch claimed, the Communists put "one of their own" into the Presidency -- how come CPUSA officials were so hostile toward him in their private conversations and in their instructions to Party members?

5. As you know, there are many people who were CP members during the 1950's who became FBI or military intelligence informants -- and they later associated themselves with the JBS as members, speakers, or endorsers. How do you explain the fact that NOT ONE of them ever told their contacts at FBI or military intelligence that Eisenhower might be a Communist, Comsymp or Communist agent or that the CP was favorably disposed toward Ike? NOT ONE!

December 30, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ernie said:

Reply to JJ -- part 3
JJ: About 12 years ago I started requesting the FBI investigative files on all the (deceased) persons whom Welch discusses in highly pejorative terms in his chapter on Eisenhower "associates and appointments".

Most of these individuals were subject to one or more full FBI background investigations -- because, obviously, of their pending appointment to federal government positions.

So question #6:

How do you explain that none of those investigative files (with one exception) contain any derogatory data of a subversive nature?

As merely one example --- since Welch stated that he thought Milton Eisenhower was probably Ike's "superior and boss within the CPUSA" -- how do you explain that the FBI file on Milton contains no derogatory info of any type?

December 30, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

JJ Suprise said:

	Blocked? Doesn't look like you have been blocked to me Ernie?
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 30, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.