Rachel Maddow is too young and too inexperienced to know much about the matters she referenced in her December 2009 burst of political correctness aimed at The John Birch Society. So, she relied on erroneous popular notions and misleading researchers for her faulty ammunition.

Samples of what she offered and especially, what she didn’t offer, follow.

Nelson Mandela No Hero to Lovers of Freedom
MSNBC’s commentator led off her criticism of JBS for its characterization of Nelson Mandela as “a communist terrorist thug.” Evidently, no one ever informed her that at Mandela’s trial for treason in 1964, prosecutors produced a document in his own handwriting containing his claim, “We communist party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history.”

At the trial that led to his conviction and incarceration for plotting destruction of the government of South Africa, prosecutors also provided incriminating evidence gathered during a raid on the joint headquarters of the Mandela-allied African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party. At that time, authorities uncovered a plan for a communist-led uprising in South Africa that would use 48,000 land mines, 210,000 hand grenades, 1,500 time fuses to make bombs, and other military equipment.

As far back as 1944, Mandela had co-authored the manifesto for the Youth League of the ANC. Of the 22 key ANC leaders, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism noted in November 1982 that 11 were communist party members and 13 were members of “Spear of the Nation,” the ANC’s military wing that had been co-founded by Mandela and South African Communist Party leader Joe Slovo (both of whom are in the photo, along with Winnie Mandela).

In 1988, an official U.S. government publication entitled Terrorist Group Profiles listed Mandela’s friends in the ANC as members of a terrorist organization. After intense international pressure forced the South African government to release the self-proclaimed revolutionary in 1990, he proudly proclaimed “I salute the South African Communist Party,” and then announced that “armed struggle” that had already taken the lives of thousands of Black South Africans would “continue.”

No one, of course, will find any of these facts about Mandela in the film Invictus currently being offered in theaters throughout our nation. Maddow and many like her will learn their skewed history about Mandela and what really transpired in South Africa, not from facts supplied by official Senate reports that were publicized by The John Birch Society, but by Hollywood leftists who hardly ever depict a communist or a key communist ally as the terrorist thugs they truly are.

Impeach Earl Warren
After showing a photo of a billboard depicting the Society’s 1960’s slogan “Impeach Earl Warren,” Maddow insisted that the Society targeted the Supreme Court Chief Justice because of his leadership role in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision regarding segregation of the nation’s public schools.

The Society did openly contend that the decision amounted to a usurpation of power by the Court and that the federal government had absolutely no authorization to meddle in education at any level. But the Warren Court blew numerous other holes in the Constitution that were condemned by constitutionalists throughout the nation. One of its decisions effectively outlawed prayer and Bible reading in the public schools.

After several of the Warren Court’s June 17, 1957 decisions that glaringly favored communists, a West Coast communist newspaper declared, “This is the greatest victory the Communist Party ever had.” And in September 1957, communists held a rally in New York City in order to “To pay honor to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent decisions.”

By 1966, constitutional expert L. Brent Bozell issued The Warren Revolution, his scholarly book full of charges against the Chief Justice and his left-leaning colleagues. The brother-in-law of William F. Buckley (who, incidentally, was cited by Maddow to support her attack on the Society), Bozell and his wife, Buckley’s younger sister, later denounced their famous relative. There are plenty of others who condemned what Earl Warren did as the nation’s Chief Justice.

A more able television journalist might have pointed out that Justice Hugo Black, one of Warren’s reliable compatriots on the Court, had a history of membership in the odious Ku Klux Klan. If Maddow wanted to condemn racial segregation, she could have targeted Black for his early years of KKK affiliation. Instead, she wrongly attacked The John Birch Society that has always condemned the KKK and its hateful policies.

To insist that The John Birch Society opposed Warren because of his role in desegregating the nation’s schools (the Society has always opposed both forced segregation and forced integration) is the kind of misrepresentation that can be expected of someone who relies on sloppy research or is a captive of mind-numbing political correctness. As in many other instances where the Society led in alerting the nation to problems, the organization’s campaign to Impeach Earl Warren sounded an alarm about judicial activism that many in America now recognize as a very serious problem.

Fluoridation of Water Supplies
Maddow then claimed that the Society considered the addition of fluoride to the drinking water “a communist mind-control plot.” She produced a page from a 1960 JBS publication that never said what she claimed while it recommended that citizens oppose the practice “if communists have been able to beguile a sufficiently large enough” portion of the population to want this questionable form of mass medication.

The chief reason why the Society opposed adding that substance to the water supplies was always that doing so is indicative of totalitarian control. Fluoride in the water treats the people whereas chloride added to reservoirs treats the water. The totalitarian mindset behind such a practice was referenced in an August 10, 1968 Boston Globe article. Tufts University School of Medicine Professor Dr. Melvin Ketchel approvingly stated in the article that authorities could add birth control substances to the water supply in order to control population growth.

In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich commented: "Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size."

Adding fluoride to water supplies wasn’t a “communist mind-control plot,” as Maddow erroneously claimed was the position of The John Birch Society. But the practice provides evidence of the kind of totalitarianism characteristic of communists and those who have been captured by their style of thinking.

What About Dwight Eisenhower?
Displaying “gotcha” mentality in full bloom, Maddow made reference to the contention by JBS Founder Robert Welch that Dwight Eisenhower was an “agent” of the communist conspiracy. Note that Welch did not say that the former President was himself a communist. Is the agent of a movie star or an athlete the screen idol or the ballplayer? Of course not.

Was Eisenhower an agent for communism when he betrayed millions who resisted repatriation to Russia at the end of World War II? Many of those unfortunate individuals committed suicide as an alternative to being forced into cattle cars for transportation to Soviet gulags.

Did Eisenhower then betray the brave Hungarian Freedom Fighters who revolted against Soviet tyranny at the urging of the U.S. government in 1956? Did his administration even block the plans of other nations to aid the Freedom Fighters?

Did Eisenhower and his State Department aid Castro in his takeover of Cuba in 1959 when the bearded revolutionary was known by some, including Robert Welch, to be a communist?

The answer to these questions, and many more similar in nature, is an emphatic yes. Of course, it can’t be expected that Rachel Maddow and her handlers would have read the 300 pages of damning evidence showing that Dwight Eisenhower helped communists to take control of and then maintain their domination over nation after nation. (See Robert Welch’s 1963 book, The Politician for the evidence.) 

Communist Plan To Create a Negro Soviet Republic  
The MSNBC commentator joyously ridiculed the Society for claiming the existence of a “secret communist plot to create a Negro Soviet Republic” in America’s Southeast. Way out on a limb again because of her inexperience, lack of historical knowledge, politically correct nastiness, and deficient research, she obviously has no knowledge of a 48-page booklet produced by the communist-controlled Workers Library Publishers in 1935.

Authored by self-proclaimed communists James W. Ford and James S. Allen, the booklet carries the title "The Negroes in a Soviet America.” On page 39 one can read “The Negro Soviet Republic,” followed by details about what they hoped to accomplish.

Maddow scoffed at the notion that communists had ever sought such a fracturing of the United States. She even laughingly quoted a JBS claim that this breakup would include communist domination in such cities as “Richmond, Virginia, New Orleans and Memphis.”

What did the communist publication say? It said that the new Republic sought by the communists “would be certain to include such cities as Richmond and Norfolk, Va., Columbia and Charleston, S.C., Atlanta, Augusta, Savannah and Macon, Georgia, Montgomery, Alabama, New Orleans and Shreveport, La., Little Rock, Arkansas, and Memphis, Tennessee. In the actual determination and boundaries of the new Republic, other industrial cities may be included.” Once again, The John Birch Society, not Rachel Maddow, was correct.

The communists didn’t succeed in creating their Soviet Republic in our nation’s Southeast. Maddow could have congratulated The John Birch Society for its efforts over many years in thwarting this communist plan by reproducing and distributing many thousands of copies of this communist booklet to alert fellow Americans. Instead, she exposed her own deficiencies by condemning the organization for pointing out what is easily shown to have been a major communist project during the mid-1900s.

Is There a Conspiracy?
Maddow led off her supposed “correction” of The John Birch Society’s contentions with vocally emphasized ridicule of the idea that any such thing as a “communist conspiracy” ever existed. Had she relied on competent researchers or if she knew any history unclouded by her need to be politically correct, she would never have embarrassed herself so gravely. Here is some of what she either ignored or has always been totally unaware of the many who know of the conspiracy’s existence:

1.    In 1949, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson labeled the Communist Party in America “a conspiratorial and revolutionary junta” while upholding congressional moves that outlawed the Communist Party in the United States.
 
2.    Among 12 major conclusions published at the close of its comprehensive July 30, 1953 report, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee stated: 1) “The Soviet international organization has carried on a successful and important penetration of the United States government and this penetration has not been fully exposed.” 12) “Policies and programs laid down by members of this Soviet conspiracy are still in effect within our Government and constitute a continuing hazard to our national security.”

3.    In the August 1956 issue The Elks Magazine, F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover expressed his deep concerns about the communist conspiracy: “We must face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism are being steadily advanced…. No one who truly understands what it really is can be taken in by it. Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.”

4.    At the 1958 meeting launching The John Birch Society, founder Robert Welch stressed the need to combat conspiracy and marshaled a great deal of evidence to back up his conclusion that communism “is not a political party, nor a military organization, nor an ideological crusade….” It is, he contended, “wholly a conspiracy….”

5.    In his 1962 book Why Not Victory, Senator Barry Goldwater arrived at the very same conclusion when he stated, “Communism is an international criminal conspiracy.”

6.    While there are numerous others who agreed about the existence of a conspiracy aiming to seize control of the planet, let us end this listing with comments made by journalist Carl Bernstein in his 1989 book Loyalties. Growing up with parents who were communists, he included this relationship in his early manuscript and then shared it with his father. He wrote about the reaction his parents gave to possible publication of that bit of history. Calling what his son had written “dangerous,” the elder Bernstein said, “You’re going to prove McCarthy right, because all he was saying was that the system was loaded with communists. And he was right.” Carl Bernstein courageously included those statements in his published work. 

To deny the existence of a communist conspiracy and to ridicule anyone who has made such a claim, as Maddow did on her television program, is absurd.

Our Conclusion
Correcting Rachel Maddow and her attack on The John Birch Society is hardly a daunting task. Never accusing her of “lying” as she claimed, the Society certainly does accuse her of being grossly and frequently incorrect.

We trust that anyone who now understands how incredibly wrong she is about her numerous claims in this instance will find other sources for their perspective about current events. Let us offer all the alternative of The John Birch Society. Its books, magazines and DVD productions will not mislead anyone and will prove to be very worthwhile alternatives to MSNBC’s factually incorrect, but definitely politically correct, evening commentator.

And let us close this report about how wrong this one TV commentator is about The John Birch Society by repeating an offer already made. Maddow has been informed that a spokesman for The John Birch Society would promptly appear on her program to discuss the Society and its 50+ years of calling the shots and slowing down the plan to lead our nation into a communist-style New World Order.

Fairness would dictate that the offer be accepted but it has been ignored.

Fairness does not seem to be in vogue at MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow program.

John F. McManus is president of The John Birch Society and publisher of The New American. This article originally appeared at JBS.org.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (31)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Ron Bedell said:

... Thanks, John, for exposing Rachel Maddow. You did a great job. Ron Bedell

December 28, 2009

Arvizu said:

... If not for the television network's extreme desire to misinform the American public with liberal dogma, Ms. Maddow's program would have been canceled many months ago. Not only does it attract a small viewer audience but the the program is really boring and Ms. Maddow's voice sounds very monotone.

December 28, 2009

LatAm said:

eisenhower before batista fled cuba, einsenhower called his natl security team to discuss what to do about the predicted fall of batista and rise of castro. ike directed the cia to come up with ways to neutralize castro. that was the start of the cia's zany assassination plots, as well as planning for the bay of pigs invasion. in no way did eisenhower support castro. his v-p, nixon, hated castro, and got full support from his chief. by the time that kennedy took office, the cia had ready the ike-nixon plan to invade cuba, which drew on the successful cia overthrow of the govt in guatemala --under ike-- just a few years earlier. ike imposed a dictatorship on guatemala in order to, as he saw it, get rid of communism.

December 28, 2009

Ernst said:

... This is a pretty pathetic misunderstanding on your part. At no time did RM claim that any of your actions or beliefs have ever been right or wrong. She wasn't trying to debunk any of your claims on any of the topics that were brought up. She is not saying that any of your theories are true or not. The point you are wilfully ignoring is that she is showing what kind of people the republican party has decided to align themselves with. And she never said that she thought any of your statements are true or false. She is just showing people who you are. She is exposing your mind=set by telling and showing evidence that originated from you. It was YOU who brought up "black helicopters have been debunked" or not. At no time did she say that your the fluoride theory was wrong. She is pointing out the type of thought your organization has when it comes to an opinion on fluoride. Your first rebuttal was to say your were "misrepresented" and her response back was to show that everything she said about your organization was true and correct. The responses you are giving belong in another argument. You gave a long winded rebuttal to debate that wasn't even happening. Instead of saying "Yes we did say those things." or, "No, we did not say those things" you go off in another direction. The journalistic cowardice on display here can only be resolved in one way. Go on the Rachel Maddow Show and prove yourself right. I'm sure she would love to have you on. But something tells me you not man enough to do so. She has called you out. Now what is your reply? Prove me wrong. It is a simple thing to do. Can you do it? Can you do this simple thing? Can you prove yourself right when challenged? Or are you just going to sit there in front of your computer and pretend to have an argument?

December 29, 2009

Flu-Bird said:

Legion of DOOM Obama seems to have hand picked members of the LEGION OF DOOM to be part of his carnet of scoundrels so who will be his next selection DR ZINN?

December 29, 2009

Florida Warren said:

Ernst, you're all wet! No one has to "prove" you wrong. You prove yourself wrong. Anyone who has watched a video of that snot-nosed twerp Maddow and her tirade against the JBS can see for himself that she strung together a long succession of long-disproved smears against the Birch Society. Maddow's (and your) black helicopter reference is a case in point. The JBS told its readers from the beginning that the black helicopter stoires were rubbish, yet Maddow and her associae persisted in trying to hang that around the necks of the JBS. As far as a JBS spokesman going on the Rachel Maddow show, she is afraid ever to speak to someone from the JBS on the phone much less have one on her show. She knows he would make mincemeat of her nonsense.

December 29, 2009

JJ Suprise said:

Reply to Ernst Ernst, Try reading the entire article before spouting off at the mouth. I guess you didn't notice the part where Mr. McManus said that the JBS has contacted her show to get one of our representatives on the show but she refuses to even reply to them. Pretty much the things presented by Maddow on her rant, were all taken out of context, like the part where she says the the JBS called fluoridation of the water supply a "communist mind control plot" of which they never said. You sir are the one who is "pretty pathetic".

December 29, 2009 | url

ernie said:

Debating the JBS It is extremely unlikely that Rachel would agree to give a forum to the JBS to present its views or to offer their rebuttal to her assertions. Nor do I think anything worthwhile would be accomplished by any such "debate" because, frankly, Birchers and their critics do not even agree upon the meaning of words -- much less upon what is credible factual evidence vs subjective opinion. For more than 40 years I have been "debating" JBS members and supporters. I have gotten precisely nowhere. Even when I quote from sources which the JBS has recommended in its publications as knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable -- Birchers just dismiss or de-value what I present. Even when I quote JBS members who were speakers for the JBS (but who have contradicted standard JBS dogma) -- I get no acknowledgement from JBS partisans that, "yes, we need to consider that". Frankly, there is no conceivable methodology that can ever be employed to falsify (to the satisfaction of most Birchers) the premises and conclusions used by the JBS to support its arguments. The JBS carefully selects only that data which it thinks supports its assertions, and then it ignores or de-values all other data. For a more extensive discussion regarding the nature and purpose of conspiracy theories, see my article here: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/ct-1

December 29, 2009 | url

ernie said:

Ultimate Dispute Here, perhaps, is the ultimate dispute: JBS POSITION -- Robert Welch 1960: "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.". [A Confidential Report To Members Of The Council of The John Birch Society – minutes of 1/9/60 meeting held at Union League Club in Chicago IL, page 2; minutes signed by Robert Welch.] AND JBS POSITION 1963: U.S. "50-70% under Communist influence and control” [American Opinion Scoreboard issue, July/August 1963] VERSUS FBI position "The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society, but its continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance. Too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified factual data regarding the inner workings of the conspiracy, have engaged in rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against persons whose views differ from their own. This is dangerous business. It is divisive and unintelligent, and makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator." [Hoover statement in February 5, 1962 letter FBI HQ file #94-1-369, serial #1676 - in reply to Mrs. W.R. Brown of Bountiful Utah; also published as letter-to-editor in Tri-Cities Daily newspaper of Sheffield, Alabama on Sunday March 31, 1963 -- and in other formulations in Hoover speeches]

December 29, 2009 | url

JJ Suprise said:

reply to ernie Ernie, Once again stating falsehoods by the JBS without actually citing them. As far as the JBS vs. FBI, sorry sir, look around. You seem to have so much information to contradict the JBS and Mr. Welch. Try the 10 planks of Communism. I think it is totally ridiculous that the FBI could say "that there is continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance." All 10 of the planks outlined by Marx are either completely or partially in force within the United States today! To deny that is ridiculous. Just as in the posts on the other article about Maddow, you talk about people rejecting "evidence" yet site none of those rejections except with ridiculous statements from the FBI which all one needs to do to realize these statements are insane is look around. Ever heard of The Federal Reserve, how about the IRS, how about public "education". How about the current treasonous takeover of our health care system and the obvious bribery being perpetrated? What about the so called "Department of Homeland Security" or the so called "Patriot Act"? Those things have done wonders for America? Just look around sir! The growth of Communism in our country and around the world, with the help of our Government is self evident. Perhaps the admission of "being part of a Conspiracy" and "working against the best interests of the United States" and "being proud of it" from David Rockefeller in his autobiography, "Memoirs" is really just "taken out of context"? Did you even read the rebuttal by Mr. McManus? How about rebutting his claims with some "facts" of your own? We will never find out whether or not it would be beneficial to have a representative on the Maddow show, because she is too much of a coward or a conspirator to even let them on the show! How much more of this Communist crap being forced down our throats will it take before you admit Conspiracy at the top?

December 29, 2009 | url

ernie (a translation) said:

... It is extremely unlikely that Rachel would agree to give a forum to the JBS to present its views or to offer their rebuttal to her assertions. Nor do I think anything worthwhile would be accomplished by any such "debate" because, frankly, Birchers and their critics do not even agree upon the meaning of words -- much less upon what is credible factual evidence from the JBS vs. the subjective opinion of the liberal left. For more than 40 years I have been attacking JBS members and supporters. I have gotten precisely nowhere. Even when I quote out of context from sources which the JBS has recommended in its publications as knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable -- Birchers just see through what I misrepresent. I've even tried this tactic on speeches where JBS speakers seemingly contradict JBS policy. Frankly, there is no conceivable methodology that can ever be employed to falsify truth (to the satisfaction of most Birchers) or the premises and conclusions used by the JBS to support its arguments. I carefully select only that data which I think supports my assertions, and then I ignore or de-value all other data. I am becoming discouraged. Even the facts I gather by the now communist dominated FBI to disparage the JBS admits to the conspiracy I so desperately want to conceal (although I am encouraged in their denial of how much progress has been made). Nonetheless, I SHALL PERSEVERE! I SHALL CONTINUE ON WITH MY LONG, INANE RAMBLINGS! I WILL SEE THE JBS DESTROYED! I WILL POST AGAIN (AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...)!

December 29, 2009

Finding this all interesting said:

... I'll confess to not knowing much about the John Birch Society. The expose by Rachel Maddow piqued my interest. I have read with interest the articles of rebuttal posted here and find them intriguing. What I find of even greater interest is the comments attached to these articles. There are the normal insults and pointless he said/she said responses from both sides. There is one poster, "ernie" is of especially great interest. He has a rather large number of posts on these articles and a rather extensive web site on the same subject. He apparently has give a great deal of attention centered on the John Birch Society over a period of what he claims to be 40 years. My question as to this this unusual preoccupation with a single subject matter is this: Does ernie have an agenda? Is he being paid by the John Birch Society so that he may garner attention to themselves? Or is the John Birch Society so dangerous to "the conspiracy" they they would hire him to combat the Society (in which case that would be proof there IS a conspiracy). There is also another answer to the question. As I said, this amount of attention directed at a single organization is unusual. Perhaps ernie is suffering from OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder). I know that unless there were some compelling reason for it, I would never dedicate 40 years of my life attack a single individual or organization. I'd either have to have a mental disorder or be very well paid! In the meantime, I think I'll check this John Birch Society out more closely. They may be on to something.

December 29, 2009

James G Conley,Sr said:

Anyone With a Thimbel Full of sence,Can see How Communism effects U.S.Daily With no comments on R.M. I Am 71years old,and seen the steady decline of our Nation. Beginning With the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Jusyice of the Supreme Court,I had just been discharged from the NAVY, (When it was still the navy)And Became a police officer,(When a police officer was Respected)And That supreme court began it's onslaught on law enforcement,I spent just short of 3years wearing a badge,and resigned my position because I Rejected a idea of a man in Washington,d.c.in a blackrobe,Who never Faced the Daily Routine of a street police officer,Telling Me How TO do my Job,Not to mention DE-Segregation,Look What That alone has done to America,From Elementary Through College,It Has Given U.S.One World Idiots like YOU,Who Sympathize,With U.S.S.R, And Want a Slave Government Run U.S.S,A.(United Soviet Satalite of America)STUFF IT...Signed poppaw38,a proud American.

December 29, 2009

Ernst said:

JJ This is very simple. JBS said they were misrepresented by RM. In response RM cited as her evidence documents that were produced by JBS. The fake journalist who wrote this piece had no other answer to the fact that they did indeed say everything that was attributed to them. This is not a matter of whether or not someone believes there is or is not a conspiracy to anything. I'll use the Mandela part as an example. RM never said that Mandela was or was not a communist. RM never said that the statements by JBS were true or not. Yet the guy writing this sad piece goes on and on trying to prove that Mandela is a communist. That was not the point of quoting JBS. He is offering a fake argument to an imaginary debate. RM was not trying to disprove ANYTHING the JBS claimed. That is not the issue. This guy doesn't even have the guts to stand up and say "Yes we did say those things. Those are statements we wrote." So his little challenge was nothing but an empty gesture. Look at what he he is arguing. When did RM say Mandela was not a communist? There is no debate going on. Every quote used by RM came from the JBS itself. The fact that he puts all his research in his rebuttal doesn't change the fact that that RM quoted JBS correctly. This is not about what was said and how true it is. It's just about what was said. No opinions. No beliefs. Tell me JJ did she not quote JBS correctly? This guy was the first to take something out of context. The proof is right before your eyes.

December 29, 2009

Ernst said:

JJ oops. Forgot the reference. The reference to the flouridation opinion cited by RM was March 1960 John Birch Society Bulletin. That someone coumd quote from the JBS own writings and then have someone on the opposite side say thats not a quote from them when its right in front of you shows your willingness to believe in whatever it takes to say you were right. Unless you think RM went back in time and planted bulletin herself, I think you saying that JBS never said what was in their own bulletin proves that your haven't given something even a chance to be true.

December 29, 2009

Bonnie said:

Ernst, what are you smoking? "This is not a matter of whether or not someone believes there is or is not a conspiracy to anything." If this is true, why did Rachel accuse the JBS of being paranoid? "This is not about what was said and how true it is." "It's just about what was said. No opinions. No beliefs." If that's the case, why all the fuss? Do you really believe that statements taken out of context, or MAKING UP STATEMENTS (yes, Rachel actually did that), does not constitute false and misleading intent? The attitude you are displaying here is one of: "Don't confuse me with facts... my mind is made up!"

December 29, 2009

Ernst said:

Bonnie I'm asking the same thing. It's very irritating to wait for a columnists work that they say will be forthcoming, and when it comes it's not about the topic or issue being discussed. The guy has gone off topic in a way that is just dishonest. Instead of backing up what was said and debating the issues that they themselves are presenting, he won't even acknowledge that the statements are true. HE was the one who said RM was misrepresenting JBS. When all she was doing was reading their own literature and showing where they are coming from. If you gonna go around spreading a ideology you have to be ready to defend it. This weak writer decides to shift the focus of his rebuttal from confirming quotes to a long explanation of why Mandela is a communist. When that issue wasn't even being discussed. He is trying to change the subject instead of standing up for what he believes. And in a attempt to be cute criticizing RM for her youth, and saying she doesn't know what she is talking about. My main issue is this: He won't admit a proven documented fact. But he will go on and on about something that wasn't even part of the discussion? I was looking forward to his response. And this is what puts out. This writer can't even be wrong right.

December 29, 2009

Bonnie said:

To: Ernst I guess you didn't watch the SAME Maddow programs the rest of us did. I guess you didn't read the ENTIRE response. I guess you don't understand an attempt to give leeway to irresponsible statements on Maddow's part. I guess you fail to understand the initial response I gave you. Mr. McManus give DIRECT response to Maddow on at least six counts. There was no denial of the content of JBS documents. What is called into question is Maddow's MISUSE of those documents by misapplication and inserting them into her own preferred context. Maddow is also being called on quoting statements WHICH WERE NEVER MADE, nor implied. (I think that is called lying.) "If you gonna go around spreading a ideology you have to be ready to defend it." JBS has done so, and done so my presenting facts, both current and historical. All you have done is try to rock the boat, but have not presented ANY facts but only vague accusations. If you have a SPECIFIC problem with any of Mr. McManus' statements, please present your side. But do not insult the intelligence of people who listened to Maddow and say she never mentioned Mandela (or Warren, or fluoride, or Eisenhower, or the conspiracy). Don't insult us with your selective memories.

December 29, 2009

Mbt m walk said:

Mbt m walk online shop-mbt shoes sale,You could select Mbt sport shoes & mbt shoes at a discount price.

December 30, 2009 | url

Ernst said:

Bonnie How is this for specific, all he had to do was confirm or deny the statements that were attributed to JBS. That is all he had to do. Instead he decides to give a history lesson on Mandela's communist leanings. When did RM ever give her opinion on the matter? She never said Mandela was or was not a communist. But he decides to give a history lesson. Tell me Bonnie, why bring up a subject that is not being discussed? Look at all the time he took to look things up and give dates and places about something no one talking about. It's like if we were talking about heavyweight boxing, and debating which was the better asset hand speed or punching power. Then right in the middle of the conversation when we should only be bringing up Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali, I said "Hey Bruce Lee was pretty fast." While that may be true, that is not what were talking about. But instead of getting back to the subject I start telling Bruce Lee stories. Is that specific enough for you? This guy is just telling stories.

December 30, 2009

Bonnie said:

Ernst opens mouth, inserts foot Mr. McManus confirmed the JBS accusation against Mandela in his article. He chose to do more than just confirm the statement had been made, he provided real evidence that the statement was true. If you do not know when Ms. Maddow made her views known, then you obviously either did not watch her program, you were in the kitchen for a snack at the particular time, or you have ADD. Why did Mr. MaManus bring up the subject of Mandela? Because Ms. Maddow brought it up in the first place! Did she say Mandela was NOT a communist? Yes! With words only? No. With words, combined with tone of voice, facial expression, and body language? Most definitely! And now you want to discuss boxing and Bruce Lee? LOL! Ernst, I challenge you to provide evidence that Rachel Maddow never mentioned Mandela in either of her programs. I will not be holding my breath, as a publically available video of the program shows Maddow commenting on that very subject at approximately the 4.5 minute mark.

December 30, 2009

Bonnie said:

Ernst chokes on foot You may also want to view the very first minute of Maddow's second airing. Maybe you were in the can when that segment aired. This video is also publicly available. Do you really still want to maintain the subject of Mandela is just something Mr. McManus pulled out of the air?

December 30, 2009

ernie said:

Reply to JJ JJ wrote to me: "Once again stating falsehoods by the JBS without actually citing them." 1. What "falsehoods" are you referring to. Please be specific. 2. I opened my message by quoting Welch's comments to his National Council and then referring to annual JBS Scoreboard issue of American Opinion magazine -- so what do you mean by me not "actually citing" appropriate documentation? Again, please be specific. Finally, a point of personal privilege: It would be VERY helpful and conducive to amicable discussion if you would refrain from making ad hominem slurs about me - and instead just present your evidence. Notice that I am not making any nasty comments about you, your character, your integrity, your patriotism or your sincerity.

December 30, 2009 | url

ernie said:

Brief Reply to "Finding all this interesting" Isn't it odd that you do not apply the same principle to the JBS? The JBS has spent 51 years presenting its position -- but that not only doesn't bother you -- it does not even surface on your radar as something suspicious or worthy of any concern. Why is that? How come you do not pose questions with sinister innuendo about the Birch Society's "agenda" or who might be "paying" them? Ultimately, you seem to miss the point -- the JBS has effusively praised both J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI for more than 5 decades as our nation's most knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source of data on the communist movement as well as on what constitutes legitimate and effective anti-communist activities. Therefore, why do you disparage my use of FBI documents and files now? Why do you characterize historical research as "an attack"?? If, for example, I post a message in this Forum which gives examples of instances when the FBI's investigations confirmed JBS interpretations, would you STILL pose the same questions or concerns and then state or insinuate that I suffer from some "mental disorder" such as "obsessive-compulsive"?? There are many scholars who devote their entire adult lives to studying, researching and writing about one particular topic. Do you consider all of them to have some sort of "mental disorder"? For example, Taylor Branch spent more than 20 years on his multi-volume history of our civil rights movement. Is he mentally disordered? Dr. John Earl Haynes has spent his entire lifetime researching and writing about the history of the communist movement. Is he suffering from a "mental disorder" or does he have "an agenda"?

December 30, 2009 | url

ernie said:

Sick Humor Does anybody besides me see the incredible sick humor in all of this? (1) On the one hand, JJ (and others) claim that I don't provide enough specific evidence to support my claims. (2) On the other hand, when I write and post on-line an 88-page detailed report on the JBS based, primarily upon first-time-released FBI files and documents -- and I quote DOZENS of specific FBI documents (and I provide full bibliographic citations and sometimes include scanned copies of documents) AND I also use other sources recommended by the JBS --- THEN -- I am "obsessed" and must have a sinister "agenda".

December 30, 2009 | url

Another "researcher" said:

Also did research... on Ernie Lazar! I am "obsessed" and must have a sinister "agenda". Yeah, you basically described it in a "nut shell" (pun intended). You were "dissed" by someone you believe to have been a member of the John Birch Society back in the 60's, and have been on a vendetta against the JBS ever since. Would you think I might be a little "off" if I were to spend the next 40 years following and debunking you? By your standards, I suppose not. I'd just be "another researcher." Me thinks perhaps you are a tad paranoid, although I doubt OCD -- although you DO seem to have some compulsive need to post wherever you can. No matter the subject, you also tend to get in a word or two about the JBS. I've also encountered other people (definitely not JBS supporters) who indicate you may be a few cans short of a six pack -- Tom Usher and Lloyd Miller. Regards, Alan (just another researcher) PS - I loved it when I found you considered the Constitution Party an example of extreme radicalism!

December 30, 2009

ernie said:

Reply to "Another researcher" Your comment is completely bogus. If you were GENUINELY interested in truth -- why didn't you contact me and ASK me how I became interested in the JBS instead of FABRICATING a lie and posting it here? Also -- your comment about my alleged beliefs about the Constitution Party is another deliberate malicious LIE. Because you are an ignorant fool -- you don't recognize that there have been several incarnations of the Constitution Party. My comment referred to the one that was created in 1952 and was led by people who had a long history of anti-semitism. The problem became so obvious that the original officers of the Party resigned! Lastly with respect to Lloyd Miller -- I very much doubt he has ever said what you claim because he and I have had many many amicable exchanges both publicly and privately and, in fact, I have defended Lloyd constantly in his Yahoo group against bigots who have made very unkind and untrue statements about him. All in all your message is a classic example of why so many JBS members and defenders are NOT taken seriously

December 30, 2009 | url

Ernst said:

Bonnie Ernst, I challenge you to provide evidence that Rachel Maddow never mentioned Mandela in either of her programs. I will not be holding my breath, as a publically available video of the program shows Maddow commenting on that very subject at approximately the 4.5 minute mark. She never said Mandela was or was not a communist. I am including my previous statement and your challenge because you cant seem to tell the difference between a claim and a report. I never said she did not mention Mandela Bonnie. If you read the EXACT words I wrote she never said if Mandela was or was not a communist. If you can't tell the difference let me know, and I'll walk you through every word slowly so you won't get confused and put words in that I didn't say.

December 30, 2009

ernie said:

Further reply to "Another Researcher" Just to illustrate how intellectually dishonest Alan is: The FBI file on the original Constitution Party (HQ 105-26793) reveals that the original co-Chairmen were Suzanne Stevenson, (President of Minute Women of America) and Percy L. Greaves (Editor of Christian Economics). However, both of them resigned a short while after the August 1952 founding convention because, according to Stevenson, "crackpots" had taken over. For specific details, see 9/1/52 article in the Chicago Tribune entitled "Constitution Party Aids Quit--Race Bias Hit" which mentions that they "resigned due to their objections to anti-semitism and anti-Catholicism within the Party." The comment I made in a Yahoo conspiracy group which "Alan" referred to explicitly pointed out that: "The 'Constitution Party' was formed in 1952. It endorsed Gen. MacArthur for President. State chapters were often organized or led by people who later became associated with the Birch Society, White Citizens Councils, the National States Rights Party, Posse Comitatus, and various KKK groups Several of the founding members had created or led organizations which were on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations for example, William H. MacFarland Jr. -- a close associate of Gerald L.K. Smith] I mention all this merely to demonstrate how unprincipled people like Alan make assertions which they never back up with factual evidence because they always want to slime the character, integrity and patriotism of their perceived opponents

December 30, 2009 | url

ernie said:

Final Reply to "Alan"-- "Another Researcher" OK folks -- here is the smoking gun which proves that Alan is not credible. I just received the following email from Lloyd Miller -- and I invite everyone's attention to his last sentence--because it so aptly describes ALAN! "Hmmmm! I can’t say I know “Tom Usher”. . . and I’ve certainly never related your thinking to six packs of anything! Nor do I think you are mentally challenged as that phrase might imply. As you know, we’ve argued heatedly about many topics over the years, but I don’t think I’ve impugned you in that or any similar way. Generally, I try to keep arguments on an issue, not generalize about the person and certainly not behind their back. Probably the worst I think of you is that you are a bit single minded in your critical focus on the JBS to the exclusion of the legions of irrational liberals and leftists. But everyone needs a speciality! Who is this Alan guy that made the comment? Maybe he means people on my old list made such comments about you. . . that would certainly be true. We sure had a legion of nutcases trying to impugn you in some of the most nonsensical ways imaginable!" I rest my case!

December 30, 2009 | url

mosdog said:

... Don't expect to be allowed to refute these smears on her propaganda broadcast Hanoi Maddow doesn't allow for "eqwual time" like her piece of s**t worshipper s demand for all of the radio hosts who daily fight an unlevel palying field in the media being as MSNBC, PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and half of the Fox panels are slanted hardcore left-wing

January 18, 2010