Having evidently been stung by the many facts we presented on December 28 to counter Rachel Maddow’s distortions and untruths about The John Birch Society, the MSNBC commentator struck again on her December 30 show. Because she ignored an “official” report exonerating JBS of various charges laid against the organization and its Founder, and relied instead on admitted “personal observations” in another report, she and her researchers displayed a rather slippery form of dishonesty. Here’s what needs to be said.

In 1961, California Governor Pat Brown asked his Attorney General, Stanley Mosk, to investigate JBS and report to him about the organization and its activities in the Golden State. Mosk and his staff did as requested and the Attorney General, who placed his name on the resulting 14-page document, declared that it contained only his “personal observations.” He added in his letter transmitting the document that it was merely “an expression of my opinion.” In other words, nothing in it should be considered the official view of any California government leader.  

To be sure, this 1961 report signed by Attorney General Mosk contained numerous denunciations about and disagreements with The John Birch Society. The Society never expected everyone to applaud what it was doing and saying. All that was ever asked is that there be honesty. This 1961 report signed by Mr. Mosk is what Maddow turned to for ammunition in her latest barrage against JBS.

However, two years later, another document issued by a California government body was not any collection of “personal observations.” It was, rather, a very official 62-page report published by an officially-constituted body of the California State Senate led by Democrat Hugh Burns.

State Senator Burns noted at the start of his comprehensive study that his two-year-long investigation had “been requested by the Society.” Senate committee staff members and hired investigators availed themselves of access to JBS officials, publications, and records. No stone was left unturned. And here is how this exhaustive “official” 1963 report closed: “Our investigation and study was requested by the Society, which had been publicly charged with being a secret, fascist, subversive un-American, anti-Semitic organization. We have not found any of these accusations to be supported by the evidence.”

If one is going to rely on the mere “personal observations” in one report and completely ignore the “official” conclusions in another, one has engaged in a disreputable and dishonest practice.

So favorable to the Society’s views, though not completely so, was the 1963 report that the Society sought and received permission from the California authorities to reprint it in its entirety. Copies by the thousands were distributed throughout the nation. Officially, The John Birch Society was given fair treatment and exonerated of the many nasty accusation aimed its way. Unofficially, the Society was roundly criticized, even ridiculed. Maddow’s choice of which report to rely upon says a great deal about her.

In her December 30 program, Maddow also mentioned the work of the editorialist from a 1962 Santa Barbara newspaper whose work excoriating The John Birch Society won for him a Pulitzer Prize. One of the charges Thomas Storke laid at the door of JBS claimed that its members had engaged in the odious practice of making “anonymous” telephone calls that made accusations about local political officials and Mr. Storke himself. But, according to Mr. Storke, these calls were “anonymous.”

If anonymous, how could he or anyone attribute them to Society members? That such a practice was never honestly attributed to JBS is fact.

As for the Pulitzer Prize, the members of the committee awarding their honor to Mr. Storke indicted themselves by choosing their honoree just as earlier Pulitzer officials had harmed themselves with their award to New York Times reporter Walter Duranty in the 1930s.

Duranty had filed several reports from the Soviet Union claiming that famine was non-existent in the area he was visiting. The complete opposite was true and millions perished at the hands of Soviet leaders who deliberately created the horror. Recent reviews of this matter by Pulitzer officials have led to the possibility that Duranty’s award will be revoked.

No one at JBS is suggesting that the award to Mr. Storke should be revoked, only that what he wrote ought to be more carefully scrutinized. We do wish to make known our view that there is no note of infallibility about a Pulitzer Prize or about any of its recipients.

For over 50 years, The John Birch Society has received venom, distortion of its positions, and downright dishonesty. No one in JBS has ever claimed that the organization’s spokespersons and published positions are completely undeserving of criticism.

However, most of the barbs tossed at our organization are easily shown to be baseless, Rachel Maddow’s latest contributions certainly included. She has added her name to the list of those who deal dishonestly with The John Birch Society.

John F. McManus is president of The John Birch Society and publisher of The New American.

Related articles:

Rachel Maddow, Black Helicopters, and the New World Order

Rachel Maddow Exposes Her Youth, Inexperience, and Political Correctness

Rachel Maddow Recycles Falsehoods Against the John Birch Society

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (32)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Amadeus8888 said:

... I see Maddow still has not invited an official representative on her show to discuss her lies. No surprise, but shows true cowardice and utter disregard for the truth. What a pitiful excuse for a "journalist." It's no wonder MSNBC and her show in particular are fixing to go broke from lack of an audience. It seems well deserved. Who wants to watch lies? Ironic to see her criticizing AIG bailouts (rightfully so) but completely omitting any mention of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars received by MSNBC's parent company GE. Pitiful. Pathetic. But I guess if it keeps liars on distortions on TV for the gullible viewers Maddow may have left, then as far as she is concerned it's probably well worth it. What a disgrace.

January 01, 2010

Flu-Bird said:

No truth in leftists media These liberal left-wing news media are not interested in the truth just in pushing a socialists left-wing agenda

January 01, 2010

ernie said:

Reply to McManus - part 1 I didn't see the 12/30 Maddow broadcast but if everything is as Mr. McManus claims -- then Rachel did get her facts wrong. However, it's also true that Birchers often misrepresent the 1963 California Senate report as "clearing" the Birch Society. The Chairman of that Subcommittee, (State Sen. Hugh M. Burns) when asked about the JBS in 1963, described it as… “…an extremist group, and, like extremist groups from time immemorial, plagues our country. Extremists from the Know-Nothings on have served no useful purpose.” When asked about the 1963 Report which Birchers always cite as “clearing” the JBS, Burns replied: “As I have stated before, the report is highly critical of Robert Welch, making mention of his historical ignorance, his belonging to an organization started by Fabian Socialists, his organizing the Society along Communist lines, and his extreme statements against distinguished Americans. Since the report was first prepared, other information has been brought to our attention, which material — until further investigated and reported — makes highly undesirable and improper any use of the subcommittee’s name for seeming exoneration of the John Birch Society.”

January 01, 2010 | url

ernie said:

Reply to McManus - part 2 The 1963 Report makes an important characterization of the JBS on page 53. It describes the JBS as being “sustained on a high degree of emotionalism” and the Report predicted that as the Society increased in numbers… “there is an increasing probability that among the new members will be a fringe of unstable, chauvinist people who are prone to accept as accurate the most irresponsible charges of Communist activity. This is the sort of person who is quick to accuse an innocent liberal of being a Communist and of forever d**ning anyone who was trapped into joining a Communist front group. Some of these members have been making accusations that are impossible to sustain, and as a result have found themselves facing legal actions for libel or slander.” In its 1965 Report, the Subcommittee updated its 1963 findings on the JBS. The Committee confirmed what it predicted about the JBS in 1963: “It has, as we predicted, been beset by an influx of emotionally unstable people, some of whom have been prosecuted in the courts for their hoodlum tactics in disrupting meetings and heckling speakers with whom they disagree…We are more critical of the Society now than we were [in the 1963 Report] for the reason that it has, in our opinion, merited such criticism by reason of its activities as exemplified by the irresponsible articles by a member of its National Council, the re-publication of The Politician, the inexcusable actions of its minority of irresponsible members, and dangerous increase of anti-Semitism among a minority of the membership.”

January 01, 2010 | url

ernie said:

Reply to McManus - part 3 For anyone interested in the controversy over the Santa Barbara newspaper articles on the JBS and the unfair criticisms made against the JBS -- you may see my rebuttal to claims made by JBS critics here: http://indy.liberationmedia.com/news/2007/apr/26/campaigns-vilification/

January 01, 2010 | url

Z said:

... And Rachel Maddow's source has spoken! Way to go, Ernie Lazar!

January 01, 2010

ernie said:

Reply to Z Z -- I was not Rachel's "source" for anything other than the January 1960 minutes of the first National Council meeting. Furthermore, I have never spoken to Rachel or exchanged emails with her. I spoke to her producer briefly. So, once again, you reveal that you are NOT interested in factual truth; instead, you want to demonize opponents and deliberately misrepresent the facts of the matter.

January 01, 2010 | url

Florida Warren said:

As with the adage, "The lady doth protest too much." Ernie has far too much to say about the JBS for a disinterested observer. It is obvious that he has his own personal agenda and is waging a vendetta against The John Birch Society, for reasons known only to him.

January 01, 2010

Mikey Pinkie-rings said:

Yeah, so? Ernie, Believe it or not, those words from an establishment politician in a powerful position is what you would expect from that perspective. It still exonerates the Society, in that it explains many facts, instead of sensationalizing fears. Just as with those who question Austrian economics, they call us Austrians "ignorant" for claiming that bailouts and make-work do not help improve the economy. In the end, though, the fruits tell the worth of the tree. Austrian economics predicts human nature's interaction within the economy far better than Keynesian economics. The JBS is far better at bearing out the truth than the MSM.

January 01, 2010

Robert Fisher said:

... i used to be a regular of the Rachel Maddow Show. lately she is using her Show to promote way to many Pro Gay activities and i have turned away from her program. Rachel, don't use this Show to push your own personal agenda and please leave your own Bedroom out of political discussions. correct or not is still a matter of personal opinion and as far as i'm concerned, same sex is still condemned by the church as it is only self serving defies the process of the human survival. Rachel, i know you make it your speciality to attack People that do not agree with you with a Vennom, excuse me if i can nor choose my words as eloquently as you but i'am sincere when i ask you again : i don't care if you or anyone else is Gay, but do not force me to accept you as is and keep your bed room out of Politics.

January 01, 2010

jbs-believer said:

Smear Campaign? It's obvious that "ernie" has a bone to pick with Mr. McManus, including the whole Society itself. Nobody spends that much time (surf through his website) dedicated in attempting to discredit an organization and it's leadership without an unbalanced motive. Ernie obviously has a lot of spare time as he meticulously collects and posts literally a maze of questionable snippets, "quotes" and comments dating back 50 years or more, apparent to holding a deeply embroiled grudge that one could argue is bordering on hatred. This should be nothing new to seasoned JBS members as we witness the destruction of America, drifting into the abyss of totalitarianism, and precisely as Mr. Welch had warned us. All the while, the anti-JBS mud-slingers have basked in their twisted propaganda tactics they self-righteously qualify as "professional journalism. View Mr. Welch's 1958 Speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZU0c8DAIU4

January 01, 2010

Dave said:

Oh, the irony! Funny how the Leftists squeal at the slightest intimation that somebody may actually use their own tactics against them. This from a bunch who care not a whit for the truth.

January 01, 2010

ernie said:

Reply to All The Replies Regarding My Messages You guys constantly amaze me. 1. You claim to be an educational organization. 2. By definition, an educational organization searches for truth 3. Truth is not always self-evident and it often requires careful examination and analysis of a great deal of primary source data. 4. However, when somebody actually takes the time to collect and review such data -- then you guys claim there MUST be something sinister, some "agenda", or "vendetta". TRANSLATION: You have no interest whatsoever in facts IF they contradict what you prefer to believe. So, for example, if Mr. McManus claims that the 1963 Report "exonerates" the JBS and the Chairman of the Subcommittee which produced that report categorically states it did NOT "exonerate" the JBS -- then you feel compelled to ignore, de-value, ridicule or dismiss that bit of information. Similarly, when for 50 years the JBS effusively praises both J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI as our nation's most knowledgeable, authoritative and reliable source of factual data about the communist movement -- BUT -- you discover that Hoover flatly rejected JBS premises and conclusions --- THEN -- SUDDENLY -- his comments are worthless.

January 01, 2010 | url

ernie said:

Comments by JBS on FBI - part 1 JBS Bulletin, July 1961, p 11 “But we have been equally emphatic at all times in expressing our confidence in J. Edgar Hoover and in the FBI under his direction.” Robert Welch 11/20/64 letter to J. Edgar Hoover after seeing Boston newspaper article regarding Hoover’s criticisms of Welch at an 11/18/64 press conference: "I can only hope that in time I may still earn your respect, simply by continuing to put all that I am and that I have into the same fight as your own. With all good wishes to you in the meantime, for your continued great service to our country, I am, Sincerely, Robert Welch" [FBI HQ file 62-104401, serial #2381, 11/20/64 letter by Welch] Hattiesburg MS American, 5/5/65, p4 “John Birch Society Representative Discusses Talk He Will Make Tonight” re Reed Benson: “Benson praised the dedication of J. Edgar Hoover who he said is the foremost authority on Communism. ‘I fear and tremble at thought of the day when he will be out of the FBI’ Benson said.” Albuquerque NM Journal, 3/22/66, p1, “John Birch Lecturer” re Julia Brown (former FBI informant within CPUSA): “We must demand full support for the great American, J. Edgar Hoover.” American Opinion, October 1966: “The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover”: Hoover is described as "the government's top authority on Communism. His patriotism, integrity, devotion to duty, and consistent efficiency are well known...Had we been wise enough to heed his clear words of warning over the years, we would not now be faced with such a monstrous conspiracy...God bless J. Edgar Hoover!"

January 01, 2010 | url

ernie said:

Comments by JBS on FBI - part 2 JBS contacts FBI asking for permission to publish book with Hoover comments on communism: “Mr. Welch advised he had the greatest admiration for the Director and that the captioned book was intended as an instrument against communism. He said he felt the statements on the subject from Mr. Hoover would be taken as statements from the world’s greatest authority on the matter of communism.” [FBI HQ file 62-104401, #3148; 6/28/67 airtel from SAC Boston to J. Edgar Hoover concerning contact made by Douglas C. Morse, Managing Editor of Western Islands Publishers.] Review of the News, 6/27/78, pp 31-44 John Rees: “J Edgar Hoover Was Right: A Review of FBI Documents Under the Freedom of Information Act” and Review of the News, 9/5/79, pp 31-44: John Rees: “They’re Out To Destroy The FBI” John Birch Society Website 8/19/93: Robert W. Lee: “Assassinating J. Edgar Hoover” “If it is true that a person's character can be judged as precisely by the enemies he earns as by the friends he makes, the character of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover must be rated high indeed…J. Edgar Hoover had, and obviously still has, the right enemies. They continue to stand, in their own peculiar way, as a special tribute to his character, his patriotism, and those ‘social values of home’ which he espoused.”

January 01, 2010 | url

Z said:

ernie - the REAL translation! You guys constantly amaze me. 1. You are an educational organization. 2. By definition, an educational organization searches for truth, which the JBS certainly does. 3. Truth is not always self-evident and it often requires careful examination and analysis of a great deal of primary source data, again, something JBS does extremely well. 4. However, when somebody (the JBS, in particular) actually takes the time to collect and review such data -- then people like me claim there MUST be something sinister, some "agenda", or "vendetta", and tries to discredit that source of truth. TRANSLATION: I have no interest whatsoever in facts IF they contradict what I prefer to believe. So, for example, if Mr. McManus invalidates any of the false claims against the JBS (many of which originate from myself), I feel compelled to ignore, de-value, ridicule or dismiss every bit of that information. Similarly, when for 40 years I have effusively praised both J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI as our nation's most knowledgeable, authoritative and reliable source of factual data about the JBS -- BUT -- you prevent evidence that discredits the FBI and shows that it has become increasing infiltrated with Insiders --- THEN -- SUDDENLY -- my comments are worthless. Not that I won't keep trying... I mean, just wait until you see my paranoid rebuttal to this translation in which I shall furiously claim how corrupt you all are and how you so hate the truth! I'LL TEACH YOU GUYS TO DISS ME!

January 01, 2010

ernie said:

Hoover Testimony re JBS/Welch Also see Hoover's testimony (below) at Warren Commission [Volume V, page 101—linkbelow--scroll to bottom of page]. Hoover was asked about an article on JFK's assassination that was published in the JBS magazine. http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol5/page101.php Significantly, Hoover ignored the specific question he was asked and, instead, he used the inquiry as an opportunity to characterize Mr. Welch and the JBS as "extremist" without mentioning their names: "Mr. Hoover: I have read that piece. My comment on it is this in general: I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies. " "Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man." Also see newspaper reports regarding Hoover's 11/18/64 press conference where he stated: "Personally, I have little respect for the head of the John Birch Society since he linked the names of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the late John Foster Dulles, and former CIA Director Allen Dulles with communism." [HQ 62-104401, #2381, 11/20/64]

January 01, 2010 | url

T. Dan Tolleson said:

Wait a minute, Ernie . . . Wait a minute! If what Chairman Burns SAID about the 1963 report is true -- for example, that it is "highly critical of Robert Welch" -- then why, oh why, did The John Birch Society seek and receive "permission from the California authorities to reprint it in its entirety"? According to McManus, "So favorable to the Society’s views, though not completely so, was the 1963 report that the Society sought and received permission from the California authorities to reprint it in its entirety. Copies by the thousands were distributed throughout the nation. Officially, The John Birch Society was given fair treatment and exonerated of the many nasty accusation aimed its way." Now, Ernie . . . If Burns was being truthful in his characterization of the 1963 report, then why would The John Birch Society voluntarily smear itself by publicizing this report? Or, if Chairman Burns was being mendacious in his comments about the 1963 report, does this rather obvious contradiction tell us, not only something about his character, but also about the internal dynamics of the subcommittee that he chaired? I’m reminded of a recent incident in the global-warming hoax, in which a short and scary summary was deliberately attached to a rather long climate report that contradicted the summary.

January 02, 2010

j burton said:

... Rachel never quoted this report. She just read from JBS material. What exactly did she say that is not correct? Anyone who thinks Rachel Maddow is being dishonest should go to her web site and listen to her report. She is merely stating historical facts from JBS documents. The 1965 update to the report is a very accurate description of the right today.

January 02, 2010

ernie said:

In reply to T. Dan Tolleson: Dan: The answer to your question is two-fold: (1) From the JBS perspective, the Report falsified the most egregious misrepresentations of the JBS which existed when the Subcommittee conducted its investigation. Consequently, there was immense PR value in quoting those portions which rejected the idea that the JBS was "fascist" or "racist" etc while ignoring all of the unfavorable statements and conclusions (2) The second answer to your question comes from a May 17, 1962 letter from JBS National Council member Paul Talbert to fellow Council member G. Cola Parker. Please notice the date of that letter, i.e. many months before the Report was actually published and released to the public. Talbert wrote to Parker that the Report made conclusions that might be considered "too favorable to the JBS" and he attributed the positive report to the fact that the JBS was "too hot to handle for an election year and too devestating against Governor Brown and Attorney General Mosk." Then Talbert mentioned that he had spoken with the Subcommittee's Chief Counsel, Richard E. Combs, and Talbert reported: "Confidentially, I can state that he is 100% on our side." So, Dan, suppose that a Report had been written in an election year about an organization which the JBS despises (let's say CFR) and the Report produced conclusions about CFR which falsified the most adverse JBS statements about CFR, BUT the JBS then discovered a private letter which revealed pro-CFR sentiments of the Subcommittee Counsel --- do you think the JBS would have embraced the "pro-CFR" Report as a totally fair, independent investigation??

January 02, 2010 | url

ernie said:

Further Reply to Dan Dan: Just FYI: Many years ago I contacted the Clerk of the California Senate to inquire if I could obtain copies of the affidavits submitted by JBS members to that Subcommittee -- along with other documentary evidence which was used by the Subcommittee to form its conclusions. I was told that all of the evidence was permanently sealed. Consequently, we will never know the actual story of whether or not that Subcommittee's investigators genuinely performed a thorough, independent investigation. Also -- keep in mind that the Subcommittee's focus was not to investigate whether or not the Society's statements and assertions were accurate and truthful. As Senator Burns stated on page 2 of the report: "We are only interested in finding out whether the JBS is un-American." In addition, there are statements in the Report which are so completely absurd that one wonders what they were based upon. For example, on page 61 you will see the following: "It is evident to us that since few members agree with Mr. Welch on a variety of matters, if he continues to make sensational and insupportable charges he will alienate rank and file loyalty." "Few members agree with Mr. Welch" when he made "sensational and insupportable charges"??? What were they talking about? It is precisely Mr. Welch's "sensational charges" that JBS members enthusiastically embraced and endorsed -- and they were essential JBS beliefs about the dire status of our nation! Even Mr. Welch stated that after the deluge of negative publicity in the Spring of 1961, the JBS lost only 100 members nationwide.

January 02, 2010 | url

T. Dan Tolleson said:

One more time, Ernie . . . and this time, please try to focus like a laser beam . . . If Chairman Burns was being truthful when he said that the 1963 report "is highly critical of Robert Welch," then why would The John Birch Society first seek and receive "permission from the California authorities to reprint it in its entirety," and then voluntarily publicize and disseminate this 1963 report "throughout the nation"? If Chairman Burns was being mendacious in his characterization of the 1963 report, then how could any fair-minded investigator give credence to any other derogatory statements Burns might have made about the 1963 report or The John Birch Society?

January 02, 2010

ernie said:

Reply To Dan - part 1 Dan- The JBS reprinted and publicized the first report because the Report falsified the most derogatory and damaging assertions made at that time about the JBS. Quoting from page 62: "Our investigation and study was requested by the society, which had been publicly charged with being a secret, fascist, subversive, un-American, anti-Semitic organization. We have not found any of these accusations to be supported by the evidence." THAT ONE PARAGRAPH ALONE was considered a victory and "exoneration" by Birchers. And don't forget the comment by Chairman Burns that the Subcommittee was not focused upon whether or not JBS assertions were accurate or truthful. Their focus was on whether or not the Society was "un-American" or subversive in any way. As Burns stated on page 2: "Our sole interest in the JBS must go to the question of whether the society is un-American. We are not interested in investigating the JBS to find out what its views are on Communism. We are only interested in finding out whether the JBS is un-American."

January 02, 2010 | url

ernie said:

Reply to Dan - part 2 MANY of the letters which the FBI received from concerned citizens from 1959-1961 wanted to know if the JBS was a legitimate anti-communist and pro-American group because many people wondered if it might be a communist-front OR "subversive" in some way. The JBS knew that most people would not read the entire Report but, instead, would see or hear ONLY the favorable comments which JBS members would often quote in their letters-to-the-editor or in speeches and articles. So the Report gave the JBS everything it wanted at that time---i.e. ammunition to throw back at their critics. Also, keep in mind that the JBS reprint included 20 additional pages of notes by Mr. Welch in which he attempted to "correct" what he considered errors in the Report. By the way, the JBS never quoted the unfavorable comments in the 1963 Report nor did it quote the Subcommittee's prediction which I mentioned in my earlier messages and it certainly did not quote from or reprint the 1965 Report which updated the findings of the 1963 Report and which confirmed its 1963 Report prediction. Lastly -- and this is critical -- other Reports by the Subcommittee from the 1950's and 1960's often REFUTED assertions made by the JBS and similar right-wing conspiracy organizations. Needless to say, the JBS never quoted from those Reports either---because they did not suit JBS public relations purposes.

January 02, 2010 | url

Richard Robinson said:

JBS in the mainstream media. Seeing JBS being attacked by the media means only one thing, that JBS is having an affect on keeping on Constitutional freedoms. Keep up the good work JBS!

January 03, 2010

Richard Robinson said:

U.S. Constitution This question is more directed at Ernie since he's interested in 'truth'. What is the Constitutional basis behind TARP (taxpayer funded bailouts) and public education? Can you please point to where it's at in the U.S. Constitution please?

January 03, 2010

Z said:

Reply to Richard Robinson Ernie has no interest in the economy, constitutional questions, illegal wars, healthcare, etc. His only concern is to attempt to nit-pick and second-guess the JBS leadership on who wrote what and who said what 40 years ago. In other words, none of his 47 recent posts have touched in the least upon current issues of any importance. A better question to Ernie would be: What was the poem 40 years ago (supposedly written by a self-reported JBS member) that mocked him and set him off on a life long vendetta against the JBS?

January 04, 2010

ernie said:

Reply To Richard Robinson Richard: Nice try at diverting attention from the subject being discussed. In case you did not notice the title of this thread, it is: Maddow Displays Dishonesty; Ignores Official Report About JBS If you want to discuss TARP, public education, etc. perhaps you should start a thread on those subjects? However, I will say this: EVEN IF the JBS was 100% correct about whatever other subjects you want to discuss -- it doesn't change the factual accuracy of the points I have made in this thread.

January 04, 2010 | url

ernie said:

Reply to Z Z: If you EVER want your views to be taken seriously, you should learn to (a) ask pertinent questions and (b) not deliberately fabricate lies about the beliefs of your opponents. Inventing falsehoods which you then attribute to critics only diminishes your credibility and makes it appear that you are not an honorable person. As merely ONE illustration: I have opposed our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan from their inception and there are messages posted on-line which confirm that is, and has always been my position. Furthermore (and this clearly reveals how intellectually dishonest you are) I have repeatedly said in messages that I AGREE with the JBS on many matters (although often for different reasons). For example: I support the idea of withdrawing from the UN and telling the UN to locate elsewhere; I support elimination of Cabinet Departments --such as Dept of Education; I oppose our entire foreign aid program; I oppose Roe v Wade -- because I prefer states make decisions about abortion-related matters. In general, my personal beliefs (both domestic and foreign policies) are 90% compatible with those of Pat Buchanan. THE POEM: It was written by a JBS Chapter leader and, in fact, I ultimately met her when I visited the AO Bookstore in my area. There was no "vendetta" (that is just your fabrication). As I have clearly stated on-line, I became fascinated INTELLECTUALLY with persons and organizations who espoused conspiracy interpretations of our history---because I couldn't figure out how quoting J. Edgar Hoover put me in the company of Communists! So--now that we know you are totally NON-credible -- why should anyone believe ANYTHING you write?

January 04, 2010 | url

ernie said:

Postscript for Z Z: One final word -- just to illustrate how ridiculous your comments are: My FOIA research over the past 29+ years has never been limited to the JBS. In fact, of the 500,000 pages of documents I have acquired thru FOIA requests, only about 15-20% pertain directly to the JBS. If you want to see the scope of what subjects I have pursued, an alpha list of my FOIA requests is here: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/foia Once I became familiar with the intellectual history of the arguments which the JBS was making (i.e. what persons, organizations, and publications had prior to 1958 made identical or similar assertions) I focused lots of my attention on those people and groups. Obviously, with respect to them, there was no connection to the 1960's "poem" which you are obsessed about. Example: I became very interested in the persons involved in the 1940's so-called Mass Sedition Trial. Furthermore, a very substantial amount of my collection consists of documents and files which are on the CPUSA. And I also pursued documents pertaining to left-wing organizations which the JBS characterized in derogatory terms such as CFR, National Council of Churches, Foreign Policy Association, United World Federalists, League of Women Voters, Anti-Defamation League, NAACP and all other national civil rights organizations, etc. So please stop pretending that you know anything whatsoever about my motives, my political convictions, or my interests. Lastly, just FYI -- recently a major university library has contacted me to inquire into the possibility of me donating my collection to them. Numerous scholars and authors have used documents in my collection in their own publications. Just out of curiosity---has any university or author or researcher contacted you about ANYTHING? No? I rest my case!

January 04, 2010 | url

Z said:

... If you EVER want your views to be taken seriously, you should learn to (a) ask pertinent questions and (b) not deliberately fabricate lies about the beliefs of your opponents. Good advice. You should try following it sometime. So--now that we know you are totally NON-credible -- why should anyone believe ANYTHING you write? Many of us have been wondering the same thing about you. In fact, of the 500,000 pages of documents I have acquired thru FOIA requests, only about 15-20% pertain directly to the JBS. Key word: directly ...arguments which the JBS was making (i.e. what persons, organizations, and publications had prior to 1958 made identical or similar assertions)... I do not believe the JBS ever claimed to be the first to uncover these truths. ...left-wing organizations which the JBS characterized in derogatory terms such as CFR, National Council of Churches, Foreign Policy Association, United World Federalists, League of Women Voters, Anti-Defamation League, NAACP and all other national civil rights organizations, etc. Well, yeah, that is true. The JBS never really had much nice to say about people who were trying to destroy us. ...has any university or author or researcher contacted you about ANYTHING? To be perfectly honest about it.... yes!

January 06, 2010

ernie said:

Final Reply to Z Since you don't specify anything which I have written which you consider to be a "lie" -- there is no way to evaluate your self-serving comment. Unlike yourself, I have provided specific details to support my claims. Have no idea what your point is in your reply to my "directly" comment. If you review my list of FOIA requests, you can see that I have pursued FBI files and documents on a huge number of subjects which have nothing whatsoever to do with the JBS and in fact, many of the persons and organizations I list were created in the 1920's thru 1940's and, obviously, have no relation to the JBS. So, again, you apparently want to convey something by innuendo when you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. With respect to your "trying to destroy us" comment: Again, you reveal your true colors. In your scheme of things, there is NO legitimate alternative viewpoint. Everything and everyone opposed to the JBS is, by definition, subversive or un-American or trying to destroy us. That is why giants within the conservative intellectual, political activist, and anti-communist movements rejected the JBS as inept and harmful to both conservatism and anti-communism. UNIVERSITY OR AUTHOR CONTACTS: Don't leave us wondering. Give us some specific details!

January 07, 2010 | url