Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin both endorse the John Birch Society

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin both endorse the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)


Chuck Baldwin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=209794): "The New American (http://www.TheNewAmerican.com/) it is the very best news magazine in the country." (John Birch Society Publication)

G. Edward Griffin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=202274) is a member of the John Birch Society.


Viddler.com - Ron Paul At the 50th Anniversary of JBS - Uploaded by jbirch (http://www.viddler.com/explore/jbirch/videos/1/?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23 b1da?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced= fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da)

Viddler.com - Chuck Baldwin Speech at JBS 50th Anniversary Celebration - Uploaded by jbirch (http://www.viddler.com/explore/jbirch/videos/2/?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e 63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced= 3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4)


Tangents: Neutralizing movements that undermine the work of patriotic Americans to preserve freedom
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258001


I post this because of this silly rumor:



I agree.. And in any case the JBS was funded by a rockefeller which was admitted by one of the founders.

That's a lie.


Eustace Mullins (http://www.rense.com/general39/EUSTACE.htm) received his information from the Revilo Oliver, a Racist White Nationalist.


Nelson Rockefeller's Nabisco Company bought James O. Welch's Candy Company. James O. Welch is Robert Welch's brother.
The Welch brothers didn't share the same political views.


Saying that Nelson Rockefeller funded or setup the John Birch Society is a complete lie.

Here's the story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Welch,_Jr.


Robert Welch decided to manufacture candy as a way to earn a living, describing it as "the one field in which it seemed least impossible to get started without either capital or experience." He founded the Oxford Candy Company in Brooklyn, New York, which was a one-man operation until he hired his brother James to assist him. James Welch left to start his own candy company in 1925.
...

The Oxford Candy Company went out of business during the Great Depression, but his brother's company, the James O. Welch Company, survived, and Robert was hired by his brother. The company began making caramel lollipops, renamed Sugar Daddies, and Welch developed other well known candies such as Sugar Babies, Junior Mints, and Pom Poms. Welch retired a wealthy man in 1956.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/01/us/james-o-welch-dies-at-79-founder-of-candy-company.html


In 1963 the National Biscuit Company, now Nabisco Brands Inc., bought Mr. Welch's company. Mr. Welch was a director of Nabisco from 1963 until his retirement in 1978. His son, James O. Welch Jr., of Short Hills, N.J., is president of Nabisco.



---


Do you seriously think Revilo Oliver, a Racist White Nationalist, is credible? The JBS kicked him out for being a racist. Revilo Oliver is a big reason why the JBS got smeared as racist.

Revilo Oliver called the JBS "the Birch hoax" because he thought the JBS was secretly run by Jews. That's why he was attacking the JBS.


Eustace Mullins is openly anti-Jewish and the JBS disowned him because of his views.



In the 1960s, Oliver supposedly broke with conventional American conservatism and, having become convinced that Welch had either cozened him from the start or sold out later, he even severed his connections with what he called "the Birch hoax." He thus came to openly embrace an essentially far-right worldview, and eventually to assist William Luther Pierce in forming the National Alliance, a White Nationalist organization, a significant portion of whose supporters and members would re-form under the name National Vanguard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revilo_P._Oliver

[johnrocks]

I like the JBS. I may not agree with 100% of their stands but they are our allies, not our enemies, for less government and more personal freedoms.

[Sola_Fide]

I remember reading American Free Press religiously when I was an undergrad...

Ah, those were the days:)

[FSP-Rebel]

Lew Rockwell mentioned on his recent FTL interview that William Norman Grigg was kicked out of JBS/New American because he didn't tow their line about the police being such standup people. Any truth to that? If so and you're (JBS) one to kick out a guy like WNG, you're not my style.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

JBS are your proto-typical Palecons with a more conspiracy bent. Libertarians while allies in many areas, are not welcome especially when we start advocating no state control of borders, free-trade, concern over Corporate power through manipulation of regulation & their basis of existence -- State charter, anti-authoritarian, anti-tradition, etc.

That said, I warmly welcome JBS on the issues we agree on, even if I think Frank is way too culturally conservative for my tastes :p I wouldn't mind so much if he was personally conservative like Ron Paul, but he is politically conservative and that is a turn off.

I wish the "Right" (Paleo-cons) would return to their Nock, Howard Buffet, etc. ways.

[FrankRep]

Lew Rockwell mentioned on his recent FTL interview that William Norman Grigg was kicked out of JBS/New American because he didn't tow their line about the police being such standup people. Any truth to that? If so and you're (JBS) one to kick out a guy like WNG, you're not my style.

The New American/JBS just wrote some articles highlighting police abuse. Aside from that, the JBS doesn't view Police Officers as "the enemy." [1 (http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog/3415),2 (http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue03/local.htm)]


Hot Time at Jimmy's Old Town Tavern
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/crime/4357-hot-time-at-jimmys-old-town-tavern

Drug War Costs Elderly Woman Her Life and Taxpayers $4.9 Million
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/crime/4350-drug-war-costs-elderly-woman-her-life-and-taxpayers-49-million



William Norman Grigg was ousted from the JBS because of his Hateful public attacks on Mormonism. Grigg was a major liability for the JBS because he was a public figure and speaker.

(William Norman Grigg is an ex-Mormon.)



http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2006/10/tonights-episode-tory-perspective-or.html


Depending on whom you ask about the decision to fire me, and his mood when you ask the question, my chief delinquency was either re-publishing on this site the deleted Birch Blog from last June exposing the phoniness of the immigration debate, or publishing "anti-Mormon" material on this site, or both.

The first I did because what I wrote was timely and urgent, and entirely ignored by Appleton (shorthand for JBS HQ).

It is redundantly obvious now that the immigration "debate" was what pro rasslers call a "work" -- while the effort to create a presidential dictatorship was real and deadly serious.

So if charge number one is taken seriously, what it means is that I was fired for being insistently right about something Appleton was trying desperately to ignore.

Charge number two -- that published "anti-Mormon" material on this blog -- is even more problematic. Full disclosure: I am an ex-Mormon. My family formally resigned from the LDS Church in 2003. This has caused quite a bit of turmoil in our relationships with friends and close family (including a few efforts to break up our marriage).

But the key "offense" here, the recent entry about Mitt Romney and torture, IS NOT ABOUT MORMONISM; it's about TORTURE.

There is a discussion of some aspects of Mormon doctrine and history that make Mormons uncomfortable, but there were no misrepresentations of any kind. And with Romney emerging as a serious presidential contender those matters will be ventilated for public inspection pretty soon.

[BuddyRey]

I like some JBS members and activities, but it's just not the right fit for me. Someone needs to found an organization like the JBS but without the fixation on the culture war stuff.

[FrankRep]

I like some JBS members and activities, but it's just not the right fit for me. Someone needs to found an organization like the JBS but without the fixation on the culture war stuff.

G. Edward Griffin's Freedom Force International (http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/) is attempting something similar to that. They're trying to create an International organization with less focus on cultural values.


Griffin compares the two organizations. He says to join Both.


http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/jbschart.pdf

G. Edward Griffin:

I have learned much from The John Birch Society, and I am grateful to it for introducing me to the reality of organized collectivism. Its publications have been extremely valuable as a source of reliable information amid a sea of media propaganda. There is no doubt in my mind that, if it had not been for the dissemination of this information by members of the Society, we would be much further along the road to totalitarianism than we are now.

There is no basis for conflict or competition between Freedom Force and The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/). It may appear on the surface that they are similar, but they are not. While their mutual objective is the defeat of collectivism, their structures and strategies are entirely different. It is like having an army and a navy, both with a common enemy. Each is made more effective by the presence of the other. Their differences do not make them competitive but complimentary. I am glad The John Birch Society is in the battle and I recommend that members of Freedom Force become members of the Society (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/jbs-membership/new-jbs-annual-membership.html) as well.

[ernie1241]

The problem with FrankRep is that he believes and parrots every word which the JBS presents about itself.

Apparently, Frank does not have the capacity to perform independent research -- because he is afraid he might discover that the JBS is not always being accurate and truthful about its own history.

For example: Revilo Oliver was not (as Frank claims) "kicked out of the JBS". Oliver resigned.

In fact, Robert Welch traveled to Urbana IL (Oliver's home) to ask him to reconsider his resignation!

Robert Welch sent a memo dated 8/8/66 to all JBS National Council members regarding Oliver’s resignation. The memo was addressed “To A Number of Friends Who Have Written Us About Dr. Oliver’s Speech” -- referring to the precipitating event, i.e. Oliver's speech at the 7/4/66 New England Rally For God, Family and Country.

Welch observed:

“Dr. Oliver was speaking entirely on his own, and not in any way expressing the views of the John Birch Society…We do not subscribe at all to Dr. Oliver’s ‘racial superiority’ theories, nor to his views concerning the degeneracy of the human race.” ...

“Despite our long and growing disagreement with Dr. Oliver over the subject matter of this letter, we have accepted his resignation from the Council with a considerable and natural reluctance. For he is an earnest anti-communist, as well as one of the world’s greatest scholars in the fields of classical languages and literature.”

Keep in mind that the year before Oliver's resignation, Robert Welch had described Oliver in the March 1965 issue of the JBS magazine, American Opinion, as “an authentic genius of the first water, and quite possibly the world’s greatest living scholar.”

Oliver's racist and anti-semitic sentiments were known LONG BEFORE the July 1966 speech which resulted in his resignation from the JBS but, nevertheless, Welch kept Oliver on the JBS National Council and as a major contributor to American Opinion magazine---including as editor of its annual Scoreboard issue.

As Oliver correctly pointed out in a letter he wrote to JBS National Council members about his July 1966 speech:

“There was no significant statement in that speech that I had not made, months or years before, in the pages of American Opinion, without eliciting the slightest objection or adverse criticism from Mr. Welch.”

Former FBI informant Herbert Philbrick (of I Led 3 Lives fame) told the FBI as far back as February 1961 that Oliver was "an extremist in anticommunist feelings and violently anti-Semitic" and Philbrick based his conclusion upon his contacts with Oliver in 1959!

This is not the first or only case where Robert Welch accepted or solicited racists or anti-semites into the JBS -- as long as they kept their personal bigotry to themselves so it would not reflect adversely upon the JBS -- because Welch considered them "earnest anti-communists". Another example is Verne P. Kaub of the American Council of Christian Laymen. Despite Kaub's virulent anti-semitism expressed in private letters to Welch, Welch nevertheless asked Kaub to join the JBS.

Perhaps the most incredible part of FrankRep's message is this excerpt:

"Do you seriously think Revilo Oliver, a Racist White Nationalist, is credible?"

The Birch Society routinely employed "racist white nationalists" as writers and speakers, and it accepted them as National Council members and it adopted the arguments which originated with "racist white nationalists" and it praised the politicians who promoted those arguments --- and the JBS insisted that they ALL were "credible".

Contrary to what FrankRep wrote, Revilo Oliver is NOT a "big reason why the JBS got smeared as racist." The primary reason why many people came to that conclusion (it was not really a "smear") is because:

1. The JBS allowed racists and segregationists to become members, speakers, and writers for the JBS and even included them on its National Council.

2. The JBS featured racists and segregationists on the American Opinion Speakers Bureau. For example -- Delmar Dennis and Jim Clark (Sheriff Selma AL)

3. The JBS adopted the arguments and evidence used by racists and segregationists in their unrelenting attempt to maintain the status quo in our southern communities. (For example: the JBS disseminated the "communist training school" argument concocted by Ed Friend -- the photographer of the Georgia Ku Klux Klan!)

4. When given the chance to demonstrate how it intended to apply all of the noble sounding principles which it claimed to adhere to -- the JBS defended white privilege and associated itself with the viewpoints of virtually every major racist politician in our southern states -- for example: Gov. Ross Barnett and Sen. James Eastland of Mississippi and Gov. George Wallace (AL). In fact, the JBS "Conservative Index" scored racist segregationist politicians in Congress very high -- as though they were role models!!



Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin both endorse the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)


Chuck Baldwin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=209794): "The New American (http://www.TheNewAmerican.com/) it is the very best news magazine in the country." (John Birch Society Publication)

G. Edward Griffin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=202274) is a member of the John Birch Society.

Viddler.com - Ron Paul At the 50th Anniversary of JBS - Uploaded by jbirch (http://www.viddler.com/explore/jbirch/videos/1/?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23 b1da?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced= fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da?advan ced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da?a dvanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1 da?advanced=fa23b1da?advanced=fa23b1da)

Viddler.com - Chuck Baldwin Speech at JBS 50th Anniversary Celebration - Uploaded by jbirch (http://www.viddler.com/explore/jbirch/videos/2/?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e 63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced= 3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?advan ced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?a dvanced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63 e4?advanced=3a8e63e4?advanced=3a8e63e4)

Tangents: Neutralizing movements that undermine the work of patriotic Americans to preserve freedom
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258001

I post this because of this silly rumor:

That's a lie.

Eustace Mullins (http://www.rense.com/general39/EUSTACE.htm) received his information from the Revilo Oliver, a Racist White Nationalist.

Nelson Rockefeller's Nabisco Company bought James O. Welch's Candy Company. James O. Welch is Robert Welch's brother.
The Welch brothers didn't share the same political views.

Saying that Nelson Rockefeller funded or setup the John Birch Society is a complete lie.

Here's the story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Welch,_Jr.


Robert Welch decided to manufacture candy as a way to earn a living, describing it as "the one field in which it seemed least impossible to get started without either capital or experience." He founded the Oxford Candy Company in Brooklyn, New York, which was a one-man operation until he hired his brother James to assist him. James Welch left to start his own candy company in 1925.
...

The Oxford Candy Company went out of business during the Great Depression, but his brother's company, the James O. Welch Company, survived, and Robert was hired by his brother. The company began making caramel lollipops, renamed Sugar Daddies, and Welch developed other well known candies such as Sugar Babies, Junior Mints, and Pom Poms. Welch retired a wealthy man in 1956.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/01/us/james-o-welch-dies-at-79-founder-of-candy-company.html


In 1963 the National Biscuit Company, now Nabisco Brands Inc., bought Mr. Welch's company. Mr. Welch was a director of Nabisco from 1963 until his retirement in 1978. His son, James O. Welch Jr., of Short Hills, N.J., is president of Nabisco.



---


Do you seriously think Revilo Oliver, a Racist White Nationalist, is credible? The JBS kicked him out for being a racist. Revilo Oliver is a big reason why the JBS got smeared as racist.

Revilo Oliver called the JBS "the Birch hoax" because he thought the JBS was secretly run by Jews. That's why he was attacking the JBS.


Eustace Mullins is openly anti-Jewish and the JBS disowned him because of his views.



In the 1960s, Oliver supposedly broke with conventional American conservatism and, having become convinced that Welch had either cozened him from the start or sold out later, he even severed his connections with what he called "the Birch hoax." He thus came to openly embrace an essentially far-right worldview, and eventually to assist William Luther Pierce in forming the National Alliance, a White Nationalist organization, a significant portion of whose supporters and members would re-form under the name National Vanguard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revilo_P._Oliver

[Gaius1981]

Whenever I watch the first part of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, when he's a boyscout in Utah trying to recover the cross, I think of the John Birch Society for some reason. That part of the movie seems so "Birchie" in a way. :)

[FrankRep]

...


Ernie1241, what are you trying to prove?


1.) Robert Welch didn't support the racist ideas of Revilo Oliver.
2.) People were less "Politically Correct" in the 1950s.
2.) Revilo Oliver was a professor and very smart, but racist.
3.) The John Birch Society does NOT support Racism or Anti-semitism.

The John Birch Society has Black and Jewish Members.

For example:

YouTube - Rev Steven Craft At John Birch Society Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsL6NJQUucE)

[FrankRep]

Ernie1241, what are you trying to prove?



We are Attacked for What We are Doing Right (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5811-ceo-february-2010-we-are-attacked-for-what-we-are-doing-right)


Art Thompson, CEO | John Birch Society - Newsletter (http://www.jbs.org/)
February 2010


Many members have seen one or more of the recent attacks aimed at The John Birch Society by MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow.

The first episode consumed over eight minutes and was generally based on the absurd notion that a communist conspiracy never existed — except in the minds of John Birch Society members. The second attack was the same, only this time it was the threat of a New World Order that was ridiculed.

Some who were exposed to this perspective would now fall for it because the media have chosen to hide the fact of communist growth and influence in the years since the staged fall of the Berlin Wall. This is a major portion of the Insider plan to lull the American people to sleep regarding a danger that really exists.

KGB Propaganda Is Still With Us

Lest one believes that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the “collapse of communism” were not planned and implemented by the Soviet Union’s KGB, we ask you to read Anatoly Golitsyn’s book, New Lies For Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/new-lies-for-old.html), written five years prior to the events. Therein, he outlined the KGB strategy in detail and said that it had been a plan in the making for years.



http://www.foundations-of-liberty.org/images/golitsyn_sm.jpg (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/new-lies-for-old.html)
New Lies For Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation
http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/new-lies-for-old.html


Anatoly Golitsyn was in a position to know. His career in Soviet intelligence included four years in the KGB think tank before defecting to the West.

As a result of this strategy implemented as part of the overall Insider plan to subjugate all of humanity, a great majority of Americans have never experienced a “communist threat.” The Insiders took one step back and produced a generation that looks to the wars against communism in Korea and Vietnam as ancient history, particularly those born after 1970. And, with people having very short-term memories, communism has become “out of sight and out of mind” with important help from the government schools and, especially, from the mass media.

It is very hard for most people to see either the problems created by the Council on Foreign Relations or those associated with communism. With tight Insider control over most of the media, the people are allowed only to see and read what their enemies give them. No Insider or any Insider wannabe stands up and says, “Look at me. I’m a communist,” or “Watch me carry out the designs of the CFR.” Let me cite an example from my own experience to demonstrate the ties between international socialism and the media, at least in the philosophical if not the actual sense.

Frank Krasnowski for many years served as the head of the very radical Trotskyite communist organization, the Washington state Socialist Workers Party. His son Marc led its youth arm, the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA). The two were very much involved in the violent turmoil in the 1960s and 1970s that played out in the streets of Seattle. While Marc was in college as a journalism student, his YSA controlled the student body organization at the University of Washington with the help of key faculty and well-trained student activists.

After graduation, Marc went to work for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, one of Seattle’s major newspapers. I believe that he even became its city editor for a time. Then he went to work as a journalist in the Midwest, finally ending back where he started, becoming the Communications Director for the Northwest Energy Coalition, an 85-plus member group of environmental and civic organizations, utilities and businesses.

Marc Krasnowski is only one example of how radical socialists work their way into media and media-related positions to gain influence, not only over the public but also over opinion molders. The amazing part of this story is that Marc has never really hidden his roots. What he has accomplished is an incredible example of the acceptance of this anti-constitutional attitude in the professional world.

Communists do not door-bell. They work on opinion molders or in areas of influence. For the most part, they hide the fact that they are communists or militant socialists.

Hoover Had It Right

It is difficult for people to believe that a conspiracy exists when it is not obvious. This is especially true when the conspiracy is quite large, well-organized, and disciplined sufficiently to remain out of the sight of an untrained eye. F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover put it this way in the August 1956 issue of the Elks Magazine: “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.”

As a result of the work of men like Marc Krasnowski, multiplied by hundreds or even thousands, freedom began rapidly deteriorating in the middle of the 20th Century. But there was an awakening about what was happening. It was rooted not simply in a movement that opposed communism; it was one that understood the principles of liberty and the wiles of the conspiratorial enemy. And it also had the determination to inform the American people about what was happening and rally them into action to save our wonderful heritage.

The Insiders, as well as their communist cadres, understood that this restoration movement was spearheaded by the fledgling The John Birch Society. The collectivists had always been able to defeat their enemies through the use of a smear campaign with a great deal of help from their allies in the print and electronic media. But they must have recognized that such a tactic might no longer work due to the structure of the new JBS organization. Such an opposition to collectivist schemes as the JBS had never before been formed in human history.

Step-by-Step Smear

So, as they started to smear The John Birch Society, they likewise started to formulate plans for other ways to defeat their opposition in case they weren’t able to stop the new anti-communist movement.

First, they had to build a faux anti-communist movement, one which would take on the trappings of anti-communism but sustain their plan for a New World Order. They fulfilled this need by using their invisible connections in the media to create and promote the neoconservative movement founded by Trotskyites (international socialists) who now claimed to be ex-Trotskyites.

Neoconservative members of the Council on Foreign Relations and others beguiled the faint-hearted into involving themselves in the respectable, responsible, and more comfortable neocon movement, avoiding The John Birch Society, which was under constant harassment by the media. And besides, there was less work for these individuals than membership in the Society would have asked of them.

Morality Necessary for Self-government

Likewise, a false front was formed to take care of the moral aspect of the opposition. Since the Society recognized that morality was of paramount importance in fighting both evil and collectivism, ad hoc committees were formed by the Society to combat abortion, sex education in the schools, drug abuse, pornography, etc. These ad hoc committees were busy exposing the fact that these various forms of immorality were being promoted by design and were intrinsically locked in with the communist conspiracy in order to debase the nation’s morality, a huge step on the road to establishing government control over all. A moral people will be self-governing; an immoral people invites restraint by government. Our country’s Founders knew this well.

John Adams claimed with good reason: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

This attitude also had to be addressed by the Insiders, and they did so by thrusting into the national limelight (through their control of the major media organs) and growing a new “Religious Right” movement they believed they could control. Of course, it appeared that this new religious-based movement was a step in the right direction.

The movement was focused on moral issues — and the liberal media were attacking it. However, the attacks simply served to stampede good people into a movement that offered false solutions along neoconservative lines; for instance, the constant call for moral issues to be made into federal law or amendments rather than state or local law. Federal law would ultimately lead to national police enforcement. The media attacks actually served to make “heroes” out of the media-designated leaders of the so-called silent majority in the minds of many.

Initially and then more so as time wore on, this new movement’s overriding purpose was to support the candidates of the Republican Party. Indeed, one of the primary organizations in this Religious Right phenomenon was helped substantially with seed money from the Senate Republican Campaign Committee.

My own experience within the Christian Right convinced me early on that it was largely controlled by the Insiders. I noted that while conservatives were given high praise, too many Council on Foreign Relations members and other one-worlders were always at the head table at their conferences and seminars.

True, here and there, good people formed organizations considered to be part of the Christian Right. But the overall direction has always been controlled by CFR types and their allies in the media. It wasn’t only what they said; it was even more what they didn’t say and what they didn’t do.

While containing a number of fine leaders, some of whom abandoned our Society to become part of this new Christian Right for the same reasons others had wandered into the neocon movement, never explained was how traditional morality is being undermined by a conspiracy as a strategy for creating moral anarchy followed by totalitarianism. Never exposed were the ties with communists and with other minions of the Insiders. Only rarely was the promotion of immorality shown to be a conspiratorial thrust at the very foundations of the American system of government. And the solution offered by these leaders was always the Republican Party.

Denying the Enemy’s Existence

Secondly, the strategy called for “killing” communism in the minds of the American people, the main message in Golitsyn’s book. Americans were to be lulled to sleep until it would be too late to stop the New World Order, the name for the communist goal of world government and socialism.

You have probably noticed that the media never even asks the question about what happened to all of the communists after the “collapse.” In country after country, these people simply changed their designation and are still leading promoters of international organization. Even if communism died (and it did not), the disciplined “former” communists did not perish.

In spite of all these tactics, our Society was able over the years to steadily create awareness in a sizeable number of the American people with understanding that had been absent for many decades. This understanding was beginning to seriously hamper the Insiders’ timetable.

The manner in which we were organized, the educational efforts of our members, and the willingness of people to involve themselves in action and to put feet underneath their rhetoric concerned the Insiders more than anything. For in the JBS program, they saw our organization’s potential to rally the American people. They knew that they could not bring the American people into submission if the people were aware of the dangers that lay ahead. Only in ignorance could the American people be subjugated.

What Makes Maddow Tick? — Fear

Back to Rachel Maddow: Due to the leftist/liberal/Insider dominance within the mass media and the short-term memory of so many Americans, she feels confident enough to ridicule The John Birch Society on her MSNBC program. Her style of reporting, however, has led to a steadily declining number of viewers. It remains to be seen if her dwindling audience will be more influential than the more than one million who have seen all or portions of our extremely popular DVD, Overview of America.

It is the growing influence of JBS that Maddow and her handlers fear. They have obviously been watching what we do. First she attacked us on her television program. We responded online to our audience. Then she aired another harangue for over nine minutes about our response. Obviously, she and her team are monitoring our website. Also, they have the capability, and we do also, of knowing just how many people are logging on to our site and it concerns them.

For members who are interested, we have archived the Maddow smear attacks and our responses on www.jbs.org (go to JBS.org and search for “maddow”). When you see these “back and forth” exchanges, you will get a sense of the dishonesty and bias that pervades the media. It is not something new; Americans have had to deal with similar smear campaigns since the beginning of our country. An extreme example from the past is Aurora, a publication issued during the Washington administration.



* Rachel Maddow Recycles Falsehoods Against the John Birch Society (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2602-rachel-maddow-recycles-falsehoods-against-the-john-birch-society)

* Rachel Maddow Exposes Her Youth, Inexperience, and Political Correctness (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2645-rachel-maddow-exposes-her-youth-inexperience-and-political-correctness)

* Rachel Maddow, Black Helicopters, and the New World Order (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2667-rachel-maddow-black-helicopters-and-the-new-world-order)

* Maddow Displays Dishonesty; Ignores Official Report About JBS (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2680-maddow-displays-dishonesty-ignores-official-report-about-jbs)



We have been expecting smear tactics to be aimed at us once again. Also, we have felt for a good while that other organizations would be formed to sidetrack the growing protest and constitutionalist movement rising all across the country. We think that the enemies of freedom planned to control these new organizations by co-opting them. But their plan is not working to their satisfaction. We await further developments that will help us to know what they next have in mind.

JBS Attacked Because of Success, Not Failure

Always remember that the smear tactic will be used against us not for our failures but because of our successes, and even more, the enormous potential possessed by JBS to change the course of history. This potential has only partially been realized.

Sunshine patriots and arm-chair gripers never seem to understand that a comfort zone can’t exist if we mean business every step of the way. The enemies of our Constitution and our nation’s independence know that we do mean business, and they will not be comfortable until they see us neutralized.

They are a long distance from achieving the amount of control needed to simply issue an order to suppress our efforts. Currently, there are too many obstacles in their way to be able to do that. But no one should relax with the thought that our enemies would never implement such plans.

On the day I am writing this, an early morning television program has told its audience that it was the Internet that helped radicalize the recent would-be bomber aboard the airplane into Detroit from Schipol Airport in Amsterdam. If enough people believe that it is the Internet that radicalizes people, then the use of the Internet can be denied to government-designated organizations — and then to others.

It would seem reasonable to deny Internet use to would-be terrorists. But let’s recall that officials in the Department of Homeland Security have already labeled constitutionalists, pro-lifers, and Iraq War veterans as potential terrorists. Yes, they had to back away from such an outrageous charge. But they initially targeted several categories of Americans that are hated by the communists. That any government official would have made such a charge does not bode well for the First Amendment, or for the rest of the Constitution for that matter.

Likewise we read and hear more and more concerning Internet security relative to our military and financial institutions. From hacking into the Pentagon, to monitoring the drones over Afghanistan, and to the activities of major banks, come stories about attempts to influence Americans into accepting nebulously described controls.

Now we see that the Obama administration is talking about a cyber treaty with Russia to protect our military capability. When has a treaty with Russia ever been in our favor?

Not to worry, Mr. Obama has appointed as Cybersecurity Czar a man named Howard Schmidt. He served similarly under George Bush. And we’re supposed to believe that there are substantial differences at the top of the Republican and Democratic parties. The more things change, the more they seem to remain the same.

The one overriding attitude possessed by Howard Schmidt is that he sees government as the only solution to all aspects of Internet security, whether it concerns the hacking into financial institutions, our military networks, or stopping terrorists.

First of all, it is the responsibility of the financial institutions to build systems that prevent hacking. This is likewise true of our military. Secondly, who gets to define who actually is a terrorist? Our government is so rife with crypto communists, socialists, and one-worlders that I feel certain our government’s definition of a terrorist would be so all encompassing that it would include any “anti-government” organizations, which is a government term for any group seeking to enforce the limitations contained in the Constitution.

The attempts to marginalize the constitutionalist movement — and along with it The John Birch Society — is part of a plan to have government not only clamp down on our use of the Internet but also place the names of key constitutionalist leaders on airline watch lists or no-travel lists. It seems obvious that these and other ways to block our ability to reach vast numbers of the American people will be employed if we don’t achieve sufficient strength.

Obama Violates the Constitution — Again

Another disturbing sign is that Mr. Obama has amended Executive Order No. 12425 so that Interpol will now be allowed to operate within the United States. This is another clear violation of the Constitution.

E.O. 12425 was originally signed by Ronald Reagan, giving certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities for Interpol to operate within the United States — with some restrictions. The Obama amendment action cancels these restrictions. Since Interpol is an enforcement arm of the UN’s International Criminal Court, this is an indication that the man who today occupies the White House has no problem with the ICC operating on American soil.

It may only be one step, but it can be an important one toward abrogating our Constitution. Keep in mind, one of the grievances outlined in our Declaration of Independence stated to the British king and the entire world the reasons for separating ourselves from the British Crown. One was: “He has combined with others to subject us to Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws....”

If the initial reports about this alteration of E.O. 12425 are correct, another grievance mentioned in the Declaration will be repeated: “...transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offenses.”

If we couple the changes in E.O. 12425 with the outrages coming out of the Department of Homeland Security, especially including the attitude about who domestic terrorists are, and add to these a number of other initiatives designed to control American citizens and businesses, it is hardly extreme to label all of it a blueprint for totalitarianism being rolled out before our very eyes.

And instead of sounding the alarm, the media fills giddy minds with pap including the latest extra-marital escapades of some degenerate in the entertainment or sports field.

Whether the Maddow attacks are a harbinger of things to come or only the personal vendetta of a would-be media star whose ratings are tumbling is unknown. However, we have seen a great deal of interest in our affairs by the New York Times, The Atlantic, and others over the past year. They made note of our existence but then backed off from any full-scale attack. On January 4, The New York Times published a prominently placed full-page ad touting the supposed excellence of reporting carried by MSNBC, including photos of Maddow along with those of similarly left-wing commentators Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman.

This reminds one of an attack dog that wants to bite but is held tightly on a leash. In our case, the initial attacks on us in the early 1960s began to produce less and less benefit for the Insiders, so the campaign against us that was proving to be counter-productive from the Insiders’ point of view ended as suddenly as it had started. There seems to be a reluctance to go too far too fast at this time.

The enemies of freedom face a dilemma. If they attack in an attempt to negate our influence with the hope of silencing us before they gain complete control of the Internet, we can use our web sites and other electronic opportunities to expose them. An important alternative open to them is to convince the American people of a need to exercise increasing control over the Internet supposedly to support our military and the financial infrastructure against hackers, and also depriving terrorists (whoever they are) of its use. They can make the Cybersecurity Czar a czar in every frightening sense of the term.

The communist Chinese already are doing this in cooperation with Google, a Council on Foreign Relations corporate member; however, Google may now be rethinking their involvement. Only time will tell.

If that point is ever reached, enough controls will be in place to stop any real opposition to government oppression, not just by The John Birch Society. They will, at first, allow non-effective opposition to function to give the trappings of openness on the Internet.

What the Maddows of the world never seem to understand is that if they are “honest” socialists, truly believing that the road to earthly paradise is through socialism, they should know that they will be some of the first victims of a government gone amok.

If history teaches us nothing else, it should show that totalitarians always eliminate almost immediately those who helped them come to power in the first place. Hitler had his Night of the Long Knives, Stalin his purges, and Mao his Cultural Revolution. The conspirators can never trust traitors, even those who helped them, since a traitor once can well be a traitor again.

Liberals who cannot tolerate government controls, and are too ignorant to realize that their own actions will bring about even more controls, are not fit to be part of a system that wears uniforms. They will be eliminated by the very forces they ignorantly helped come to power.

“Reformed” Socialists Rarely Shed Any Light

The internationalist socialist movement is rife with intellectuals who finally realized the errors of what they were doing. So they quit, writing books to expose the fact that socialism is not led by humanitarians, but by conspirators who want total power. The trouble with almost all of these tomes is that their authors were still socialists at heart and believers, not in conspiracy, but in mere intellectual error among those they were now denouncing. They regularly ended up sending a very confused message to the reader.

Our veteran members know that when we are attacked they should withhold judgment until they hear a factual response from JBS headquarters. In most cases today, the attacks are simply yellow journalism, using information that has been refuted in the past. But for every new generation, the forays against us appear to be the work of fresh attackers even though they contain the same tired smears. They affect some Americans simply because they have never previously heard what appears to be something new.

Likewise, when we publish a position on any subject, we have looked into the matter with great care beforehand. From time to time, we do come under attacks issued by well-meaning people who feel that we have not done our research well enough to know that what concerns them is correct and we are wrong. Honest individuals who are then given the whole story back off and some even apologize to us.

We are witnessing this pattern a little more than usual lately because there is so much disinformation being disseminated for the purpose of providing conservatives with dead end issues or positions that marginalize their effectiveness with opinion molders. Some of these initiatives are so well organized that they have all the appearances of being state-managed.

The Maddow smear showed the signs and placards held by recent protesters during the various demonstrations held around the country. The messages on some of these signs exhibited extremist views and, by innuendo, they were attributed to our Society. This has always been something we have worried about because these demonstrations and some of the messages seen on placards will be misunderstood by the general public. Too many Americans do not understand what a demonstrator is trying to say, or too many demonstrators make their point in a disrespectful manner. While there is much to protest, anyone taking part in a demonstration should never forget that, without care and good taste, the effect of their action on the general public — the uninformed American who must be persuaded, not insulted or maddened — can be counterproductive.

We live in a time when we have to be ready for a smear campaign and not allow ourselves to give enemies any ammunition to use against us. We must always conduct ourselves in a moral, ethical, and tasteful manner.

Take Heart: We’ve Got it Right!

While these thoughts may seem to be a tiny bit disheartening, they are intended to be quite the opposite. For we can take heart in the fact that we are attacked — for what we are doing right, not for what we are doing wrong. And we should certainly be encouraged because our potential to upset the plans of the Insiders is obviously worrying them.

If we allow ourselves to become demoralized, we will be defeated. And that too is as much a reason behind the smear campaign as it is to marginalize us in the eyes of American opinion molders.

Don’t let them get to you — ever.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5811-ceo-february-2010-we-are-attacked-for-what-we-are-doing-right

[pcosmar]

Hey ernie1241 is back.

He only shows up to continue his personal war with the JBS.

Doubts? Check post history.
:(

[ChaosControl]

I like the JBS for the most part. A few disagreements like on the borders, but overall they are one of the better organizations out there.

But I think they are a little too into conspiracies and a bit too paranoid about communism and socialism and have the inability to differentiate ideology from those who claim the ideology theirs.

[FrankRep]

But I think they are a little too into conspiracies and a bit too paranoid about communism and socialism and have the inability to differentiate ideology from those who claim the ideology theirs.

We're Constitutionalists and automatically reject Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and any other ISM related to Big Government.

Conspiracies do exist by the way, like the Federal Reserve Conspiracy.

[YumYum]

Frank,

You claim that Eustace Mullins is a liar, and you quote Griffin as a reliable source?

If it wasn't for Mullins incredible book that was published in 1952, "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve", there would not be any "End the Fed" campaign today. When Griffin wrote "The Creature From Jekyll Island", he blatantly ripped off Mullins and gave him no credit. That makes Griffin a thief. Even Ron Paul's information on the Fed is due to the excellent research of Mullins.

The only reason Mullins wrote about the Jews and is called anti-Semitic is because the Jews first attacked him for his book on the Fed. Before they attacked him, he claims that he was not very familiar with Jews, and because they attacked him so ruthlessly and made him their enemy, he began research into the history of the Jews. I have not read any of that material, but his book on the Fed is brilliant.

He never once mentions the word "Jew" in his book, and yet, in 1955 the ADL said his book was anti-Semitic, and that he was anti-Semitic. What, the Jews can hate Mullins for no reason, and he is not supposed to fight back?

Being part Jewish, I hate antisemitism, but this time the ADL and the Jewish community went too far.

So, why would Griffin, a member of JBS, rip off an "anti-semite", Eustace Mullins?

[FrankRep]

You claim that Eustace Mullins is a liar, and you quote Griffin as a reliable source?

I wrote this: "Eustace Mullins (http://www.rense.com/general39/EUSTACE.htm) received his information from the Revilo Oliver, a Racist White Nationalist."
Eustace Mullins and Revilo Oliver were friends. I guess they shared common feelings.


Neither Eustace Mullins or Revilo Oliver have any proof to backup their claims.

[ChaosControl]

We're Constitutionalists and automatically reject Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and any other ISM related to Big Government.

Conspiracies do exist by the way, like the Federal Reserve Conspiracy.

Well you can have voluntary communism too and there is nothing wrong with it. And not every state control of something is communist or socialist. I don't know about the JBS, but I do see a lot of "conservatives" seem to call a lot of things that are actually corporatist, socialist.

I realize some conspiracies exist.

[FrankRep]

Well you can have voluntary communism too and there is nothing wrong with it. And not every state control of something is communist or socialist. I don't know about the JBS, but I do see a lot of "conservatives" seem to call a lot of things that are actually corporatist, socialist.

I realize some conspiracies exist.

Voluntary Communism is Constitutional, what's your point?

Corporatism is Corporate Welfare/Government Protections. Sounds like Big Government to me.

[capousa]

Ernie,

The JBS has spent over 50 years fighting to reduce the size of government in our lives. You have spent most of the time just fighting the JBS. What are you fighting FOR?

Your main tactic is to make a disparaging comment about the JBS and then claim it is backed up by a document such as something from the FBI -- as if FBI memo's should be taken as the final truth on any matter. Here is an example from your googlepages (http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/jbs-1):


In an April 1961 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, Hoover explained how the FBI responded to inquiries it received about the JBS and he then added the following comment which reveals his thinking about the JBS:

"However, in the Introduction to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin dated 4/1/61, I specifically pointed out the need for an objective and dispassionate approach in fighting the communist menace. I felt this step was necessary because of the rash of vigilante-type individuals and organizations springing up throughout the country which tend to depart from fact and use gossip, hearsay, and unsubstantiated charges in fighting communism. In the long run, such tactics will hinder rather than help in this fight." [HQ 62-104401, #990, 4/5/61, J. Edgar Hoover to Attorney General Robert Kennedy.]

The FBI never claimed the JBS was a "vigilante-type organization". Nor, is there any reference in your source memo that backs your immediately preceding allegation that this memo was related to how the FBI responded to inquiries about the JBS. Your allegation is nothing but a fabrication on your part. It is NOT corroborated by the evidence you supply. You are merely hoping to trick the reader by placing key words in close proximity to each other. Again, I ask. "What are you fighting for?"

I think most DailyPaul readers can imagine what FBI memo's look like today if we update the words Robert Welch and Communists to Ron Paul and the Federal Reserve.

Here is a quote from Welch as it appears in the founding document of the JBS - The Blue Book (http://www.johnbirchsocietyvolunteers.org/bluebook):


It is not only that governments carry their peoples into horrible and utterly unnecessary wars, but it takes a very huge quantity of government to carry its people into the totalitarian struggle which war has now been made by this same quantity of government. Reduce all the governments of all the nations of the world to one-third of their present size -not one-third of their power, note, nor are we referring to their quality, but just to one-third of their bureaucratic numbers, their extensiveness, their meddling in the lives of their subjects – and you would immediately accomplish two things. You would reduce the likelihood of war between hostile nations to at most one-ninth of its present probability, and the destructiveness of any wars that did take place in the same proportion.

The greatest enemy of man is, and always has been, government. And the larger, the more extensive that government, the greater the enemy.

Along with renouncing US involvement in Vietnam in 1965 -- BEFORE Johnson escalated the war -- this was the type of Welch insight that made people in Washington like Hoover uncomfortable.YouTube - Robert Welch Explains Purpose of Vietnam War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co73TDl_F7E)

People who came into today's freedom movement inspired by Ron Paul are like many of the Birchers of the 60's. They have first hand experience in understanding that when you poke the king in the eye he does not react to you favorably.

[johngr]

Lol, Robert Welch agreed with Jane Fonda.

If you think about that... it might lead you to a very deep rabbit hole.

[ernie1241]

Frank:

1. FACTS MATTER -- even when inconvenient to your personal beliefs.

2. ACCURATE HISTORY MATTERS -- even when inconvenient to your personal beliefs.

You ALWAYS portray yourself as supremely knowledgeable about the Birch Society and its history but your messages are filled with FALSEHOODS.

Your cult-like devotion to the JBS may be praised in some quarters but anyone who is interested in FACTS cannot rely upon you for accurate information.

Lastly, once again you claim that the JBS "does not support racism or anti-semitism".

BUT HOW DO YOU DEFINE "SUPPORT" ????

You never tell us that. By any normal, customary definition (see below) an argument can be made that the JBS did support racists and bigots during its formative years.

Do you accept the customary definitions of "support" which are as follows?

"aiding the cause or policy or interests of"
"to keep from weakening or failing; strengthen"
"to give something greater credibility by being consistent with it or providing further evidence for it"

If we use the SAME definition of "support" which the JBS wanted us to apply to left-wing individuals and organizations vis-a-vis the CPUSA --- then the JBS certainly IS guilty of "support".

In instance after instance, the JBS stood for the status quo and white privilege. It was totally indifferent to the depredations inflicted upon minorities in our country --- which is why, of course, so few minorities joined the JBS -- as even Robert Welch acknowledged.

As I previously have brought to your attention, here are two comments made by Birchers which are essentially accurate:

GEORGE SCHUYLER:
"The White Citizens Council which has branches or cells everywhere, controls by terror such states as Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and to a lesser extent, Virginia...It has defied and disrupted the operation of the laws of the land. It has used threats and vicious economic reprisals...It has become a legal arm of Mississippi's Government.” [4/22/61 Schuyler column in Pittsburgh PA Courier]

REV. DELMAR DENNIS:
"The Klan in Mississippi has completely infiltrated every phase of the legal, political, social and economic system in Mississippi. The membership in the Klan ranges from common laborers and criminals, to judges, lawyers, doctors and political leaders. While they may not be active members, they are secret members who use their influence to further Klan efforts and aid Klan activities, for example, it is generally known in Klan circles that supervisors who pick juries use their influence to get Klan members on the jury panel."

So tell us Frank, what did the JBS advocate to address this grave situation as described by Schuyler and Dennis? NOTHING WHATSOEVER!

INSTEAD -- the JBS "supported" the very persons and organizations which defended the status quo which Schuyler/Dennis described! AND the JBS adopted the arguments used by racists and segregationists to perpetuate racism and segregation in the south!

The following comment appears on page 1 of the May 2008 issue of the John Birch Society Bulletin in an article entitled "The New World Order Isn't New".

"Just as the John Birch Society showed in the 1960's that the communists basically ran both the civil rights movement and the KKK, the strategy was nothing new. The former was used to transfer power to Washington DC in the name of civil rights and the latter provided a pretext for transferring power to Washington. You cannot get a really good conflict started unless you control both sides of the argument."

WHO "SUPPORTS" THAT INTERPRETATION OF OUR CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT---other than racists, segregationists and assorted other bigots???

Sen. Barry Goldwater did not believe that.

Giants within the conservative intellectual community did not believe that. For example, as Frank Meyer pointed out:

“It is true that here (as everywhere it profits them) Communist groups are active, seeking to take advantage of the turmoil and are sometimes successful in penetrating sections of the leadership of the movement. But the movement is not a Communist movement, as the John Birch Society implies with every device of rhetoric, with pictures, with innuendo, and often with straight-forward statement. There is, of course, much in the civil rights movement that conservatives should oppose, but when it is attacked in the Birch manner, on the basis of an obsessed insistence on conspiracy (’it’s all a Communist plot’) sober opposition is discredited and great positive harm done the conservative cause.”

The former East Coast PR Director for the JBS (Tom Davis) did not believe that. He stated in answer to a question posed by a TV interviewer about Welch's views on the civil rights movement:

"I know his thinking on the subject of the civil rights movement. I know that Mr. Welch feels that the Communists were perhaps totally responsible for instigating the trouble which exists in our southern states today, and we might say all over the country; to the degree that he believes that, I disagree with him…I think it was an example of his saying something in a way which was not salable to the American people. It was salable to Birchers because Birchers generally agreed with him anyway.”

The FBI did not believe that. For example, J. Edgar Hoover stated:

"Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists--because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all."
[J. Edgar Hoover speech, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - bold emphasis in original document].

So why did the JBS believe that FALSE argument? FROM WHOM did they get it?

In April 1960, J. Edgar Hoover gave a speech at African Methodist Episcopal Church in Chicago IL. I am quoting some excerpts from it below (along with my comments) because it so perfectly addresses the ultimate problem with the JBS:

“The two greatest problems confronting the law enforcement profession today are presented by those persons who, through indifference or fear, fail to carry out the responsibilities of good citizenship—and by those who complacently tolerate explosive social conditions in their own back yards. Where moral values are concerned, there can be no compromise. Too many apathetic persons are unwilling to take an active part in the clearance of moral slums. Righteous anger is an inevitable ingredient of a truly noble life. Supine indifference always is a sign of moral deterioration.”


Birchers WERE supinely "indifferent" to the responsibilities of good citizenship. They tolerated "explosive social conditions in their own back yards" and they defended the persons responsible for creating and maintaining those conditions!

“In recent months, still another dangerous threat against decency and life has asserted itself with renewed vigor on the American scene. I refer to the hate groups, the rabble rousers and other lawless elements which have dedicated themselves to maligning, intimidating and terrorizing vast segments of our population. Prejudice and intolerance, hate and fear, are a disease as infectious as a virus. The general increase in organized prejudice is most disturbing. It includes anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic and anti-Negro individuals and groups. These merchants of hate, slander and insinuation clutter the mails with their obscenity.” …

Although the JBS never explicitly endorsed racism nor did it condone or advocate violence against minorities --- it did tacitly accommodate or enable prejudice and intolerance, hate and fear -- by aligning itself with the worst elements in our southern states. It praised KKK-supported politicians such as Gov. Ross Barnett and Sen. James Eastland of MS and Gov. George Wallace of AL.

“The person who would bomb a school, desecrate a house of worship, or spread the doctrine of hate toward his fellow man constitutes a real threat to our American way of life. He lives in a vacuum of moral degeneracy. His crimes are so outrageous it is unthinkable that anyone except the extreme ‘lunatic fringe’ could rationalize or condone them. Invariably, these hate mongers attempt to drape themselves in a cloak of patriotism, but their real objective is to destroy the very American ideals which they claim to uphold. They preach ‘mobocracy’—disrespect for the law, for our Constitution, and disregard for the welfare of others.”

The JBS did not advocate "mobocracy" or disrespect for law but it validated local customs and laws which resulted in the horrific conditions described by George Schuyler and Rev. Delmar Dennis. In fact, Rev. Dennis was, in part, responsible for those conditions because he enthusiastically embraced and promoted the idea of inferiority of African-Americans -- and their supposedly deserved fate as second class citizens.

“I place the ‘fiery cross’ of the vicious Ku Klux Klan in the same category as the swastika of the Nazis and the godless ‘hammer and sickle’ of atheistic communism. All ignore the rights of everyone to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All right thinking citizens know that there is no place in America for vigilantes, rabble rousers, the ‘lunatic fringe’ and those who make a profit—political or material—out of merchandising prejudice.”

The JBS never adopted explicit symbols such as a fiery cross nor would it ever endorse subversive groups like the KKK or nazis. BUT---it made common cause with them in the sense that they all disseminated the same general arguments. Numerous prominent Birchers (including National Council members, JBS speakers, and JBS writers) were segregationists and many were associated with the White Citizens Councils movement!

“We must be ever alert to the evil influences of groups which spread hatred and bigotry. We cannot have full citizenship for some and part citizenship for others. We must all work together to dispel intolerance and promote brotherhood among all men.”

The JBS certainly disagreed with this sentiment expressed by Hoover. The JBS was perfectly willing to accept "part citizenship" for an entire category of Americans --- which is, obviously, why they embraced outright segregationists.

Even after he surfaced as an FBI informant, Bircher Rev. Delmar Dennis told a newspaper interviewer in 1967:

"I am doing nothing now but am going on a speaking tour with the American Opinion Speakers Bureau. I will be telling Americans everywhere the truth about what goes on inside the klan…I am definitely a segregationist and I also believe in obeying the laws of the land.”

Despite his self-proclaimed belief in segregation and its underlying noxious premises, the JBS hired Dennis as a speaker and as a Coordinator. He was just one of many people of similar beliefs and attitudes that the JBS embraced.

Lastly -- with respect to your comment that: "The John Birch Society has Black and Jewish Members."

SO WHAT?

SO DOES THE COMMUNIST PARTY --- and in much greater numbers!

Why do you even bring up that point? Tell us specifically!


Ernie1241, what are you trying to prove?


1.) Robert Welch didn't support the racist ideas of Revilo Oliver.
2.) People were less "Politically Correct" in the 1950s.
2.) Revilo Oliver was a professor and very smart, but racist.
3.) The John Birch Society does NOT support Racism or Anti-semitism.

The John Birch Society has Black and Jewish Members.

For example:

YouTube - Rev Steven Craft At John Birch Society Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsL6NJQUucE)

[FrankRep]

John Birch Society denounces Racism:



The associated press ran an article falsely claiming that the john birch society (JBS) harbored racism and anti-Semitism. Article by Dennis Behreandt


Racism and the John Birch Society


Dennis Behreandt | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
Thursday, 29 May 2008


The John Birch Society was falsely accused of racism and anti-Semitism by an Associated Press reporter, who offers no proof. The article appeared in 125+ news outlets over the 2008 Memorial Day weekend.

It is often suggested in the media that the John Birch Society harbors some elements of racism and anti-Semitism. That's a curious thing, particularly since the John Birch Society is always likewise noted as staunchly ultraconservative and anti-Communist.

A case in point comes from a recent Associated Press article by Shelia Byrd entitled "AP engages pastors, parishoners about racism in US." Midway through the article, discussing a church located in the Los Angeles suburb of San Marino, Byrd writes: "Before the 1960s, it was common for properties in San Marino to have a legal stipulation banning sales to blacks and Jews, and until 1989 the city was national headquarters to the ultraconservative, anti-communist John Birch Society."

Byrd and the Associated Press clearly want readers to take away one thought from this sentence: San Marino is a racist community, the anti-Communist John Birch Society had a headquarters (actually, it was just a regional office) there, therfore, the John Birch Society, like anti-communists generally, is racist.

There is more than one fallacy at work in this type of propagandistic construction. First, though two indicators, in a general sense, may be seen as rising in tandem, it is not necessarily the case that there is a causal relationship between the two. This is elementary logic. Consider the following syllogism as an example: Fish swim. Scuba divers swim. Ergo, scuba divers are fish.

Obviously, scuba divers are not fish, and anyone using such an argument to claim that they are is a fool. And yet, this is exactly the type of specious reasoning employed by Byrd in attempting to impute racism to the John Birch Society by leveling an ugly insult at the community in which the organization's headquarters were once located. By that standard, every resident and every business in that community is also racist, according to Byrd.

But the fallacious reasoning does not end there. Byrd implies that anti-communists are racists. On the contrary, anyone who knows anything about communism would know immediately that real anti-communists can never be racists.

Communism, like any other variant of socialism, is by its very nature collectivist. That means that communists, and communist theory, consider people at the level of the group. To a communist there are only groups of people like the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But committed communists don't stop at those two classifications. The communist dialectic requires groups to pit against each other in order to form an ultimate synthesis. Thus, wherever communists are active, they seek to define victim groups and oppressors. These are arbitrary and are as often based on ethnicities and religions as on economics. In simple terms, communist rhetoric and theory is little more than an embrace of crude tribalism.

To be anti-communist, then, is to be opposed to the brute classification of individuals by group. Because racism is nothing more than an arbitrary classification of individuals, real anti-communists must invariably oppose racism. As such, the John Birch Society has always held that racism and anti-Semitism are not only morally repugnant, but are the tools used by communists to sow discord and rancor amongst the citizens of a nation.

Byrd and the Associated Press, it should be noted, also use the label "ultraconservative" in an attempt to discredit the John Birch Society. In the context of the United States of America, however, "ultraconservative" is not a pejorative. In fact, it should be viewed as a form of praise.

To be a conservative in any nation is to desire to respect and, if necessary, to conserve those institutions that have proven their worth over time. Consequently, the word "conservative" can mean many different things in different places. An ultraconservative in London might conceivably be a strong advocate of British imperial ambition and monarchical power. In Moscow during the Gorbachev era (and even today), a conservative will likely be a supporter of Soviet-style secular tyranny.

In the United States, however, a conservative is one who seeks to support and retain the traditional institutions of the U.S. government, including the rule of law under the Constitution, and the political doctrines of individual rights and freedom as espoused by the Founding Fathers.

In celebrating and upholding the latter, The John Birch Society, as the Associated Press notes, is both anti-communist and ultraconservative. As a natural consequence, the Society both opposes collectivism in all its forms, including racism and anti-Semitism, and strongly supports the doctrines of individual freedom that have made this nation the greatest on Earth. Anyone who doubts this can ask any of our members, speakers and writers, including those who are African American and Jewish.

[Aratus]

THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY HAS BEEN QUITE CORRECT ABOUT THE ONGOING ANd WITHERING
INROADs ON OUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL Of RIGHTs. THEY HAVE DECRIED THIS fOR DECADES!

[ernie1241]

It is not a "personal war". It is a desire for FACTUAL discussions. I note, for the record, that you have not disputed anything I presented thus far. Consequently, your comment is worthless. Try addressing specific evidence presented if you want to be taken seriously.


Hey ernie1241 is back.

He only shows up to continue his personal war with the JBS.

Doubts? Check post history.
:(

[YumYum]

It is not a "personal war". It is a desire for FACTUAL discussions. I note, for the record, that you have not disputed anything I presented thus far. Consequently, your comment is worthless. Try addressing specific evidence presented if you want to be taken seriously.

Do you think that the JBS could have changed their views, and while they at one time supported racist, they no longer do?

[ernie1241]

Frank---Instead of copying and pasting every self-serving statement which the JBS presents about itself, why don't you, JUST ONCE, address the factual evidence which disputes your contentions?

If I find something which the Communist Party USA posted on-line about its alleged commitment to civil liberties and social justice and their opposition to racism -- would you consider their statement to be the ONLY data worth considering?

Explain to Liberty Forest readers WHY the Birch Society welcomed racists and segregationists into the JBS as members, as writers, as speakers, and even as National Council members (such as Tom Anderson, T. Coleman Andrews, and A.G. Heinsohn).

Explain WHY the Birch Society adopted and circulated arguments which originated ONLY with racists and segregationists---such as this August 1965 statement by the JBS which they placed in a nationwide advertisement about our civil rights movement entitled "What's Wrong With Civil Rights?":

“For the civil rights movement in the United States with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps toward the appearance of civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than thirty years.”

Who else, besides racists and segregationists, claimed that the civil rights movement in our country "has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists..."???

Explain WHY the JBS defended white privilege and praised politicians who perpetuated racism and segregation -- and gave them high scores on its "Conservative Index"

Explain WHY the JBS was totally MUTE about the daily depredations which were visited upon African Americans --- as described in the comment I provided to you by Bircher George Schuyler.

Explain WHY, if we were discussing LEFT-WING individuals and groups and we substituted "Communist" for "racists and segregationists" in my previous messages, the JBS would be absolutely livid about the supposed "pro-Communist" sentiments and "support" of those left-wing individuals and groups --- but (according to you) the same criteria for analysis and conclusions cannot be applied to the JBS with respect to racists and segregationists.

Explain WHY giants within the conservative movement whom the JBS often praised and whose writings the JBS sold --- nevertheless rejected the JBS position about our civil rights movement.

Explain WHY we should accept the JBS position on our civil rights movement, but we should reject the emphatic and totally opposite conclusion reached by J. Edgar Hoover and senior FBI officials within the Domestic Intelligence Division -- as well as the dozens of FBI informants within legitimate and subversive organizations who falsified JBS premises and conclusions.


John Birch Society denounces Racism:

Racism and the John Birch Society


Dennis Behreandt | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
Thursday, 29 May 2008


The John Birch Society was falsely accused of racism and anti-Semitism by an Associated Press reporter, who offers no proof. The article appeared in 125+ news outlets over the 2008 Memorial Day weekend.

It is often suggested in the media that the John Birch Society harbors some elements of racism and anti-Semitism. That's a curious thing, particularly since the John Birch Society is always likewise noted as staunchly ultraconservative and anti-Communist.

A case in point comes from a recent Associated Press article by Shelia Byrd entitled "AP engages pastors, parishoners about racism in US." Midway through the article, discussing a church located in the Los Angeles suburb of San Marino, Byrd writes: "Before the 1960s, it was common for properties in San Marino to have a legal stipulation banning sales to blacks and Jews, and until 1989 the city was national headquarters to the ultraconservative, anti-communist John Birch Society."

Byrd and the Associated Press clearly want readers to take away one thought from this sentence: San Marino is a racist community, the anti-Communist John Birch Society had a headquarters (actually, it was just a regional office) there, therfore, the John Birch Society, like anti-communists generally, is racist.

There is more than one fallacy at work in this type of propagandistic construction. First, though two indicators, in a general sense, may be seen as rising in tandem, it is not necessarily the case that there is a causal relationship between the two. This is elementary logic. Consider the following syllogism as an example: Fish swim. Scuba divers swim. Ergo, scuba divers are fish.

Obviously, scuba divers are not fish, and anyone using such an argument to claim that they are is a fool. And yet, this is exactly the type of specious reasoning employed by Byrd in attempting to impute racism to the John Birch Society by leveling an ugly insult at the community in which the organization's headquarters were once located. By that standard, every resident and every business in that community is also racist, according to Byrd.

But the fallacious reasoning does not end there. Byrd implies that anti-communists are racists. On the contrary, anyone who knows anything about communism would know immediately that real anti-communists can never be racists.

Communism, like any other variant of socialism, is by its very nature collectivist. That means that communists, and communist theory, consider people at the level of the group. To a communist there are only groups of people like the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But committed communists don't stop at those two classifications. The communist dialectic requires groups to pit against each other in order to form an ultimate synthesis. Thus, wherever communists are active, they seek to define victim groups and oppressors. These are arbitrary and are as often based on ethnicities and religions as on economics. In simple terms, communist rhetoric and theory is little more than an embrace of crude tribalism.

To be anti-communist, then, is to be opposed to the brute classification of individuals by group. Because racism is nothing more than an arbitrary classification of individuals, real anti-communists must invariably oppose racism. As such, the John Birch Society has always held that racism and anti-Semitism are not only morally repugnant, but are the tools used by communists to sow discord and rancor amongst the citizens of a nation.

Byrd and the Associated Press, it should be noted, also use the label "ultraconservative" in an attempt to discredit the John Birch Society. In the context of the United States of America, however, "ultraconservative" is not a pejorative. In fact, it should be viewed as a form of praise.

To be a conservative in any nation is to desire to respect and, if necessary, to conserve those institutions that have proven their worth over time. Consequently, the word "conservative" can mean many different things in different places. An ultraconservative in London might conceivably be a strong advocate of British imperial ambition and monarchical power. In Moscow during the Gorbachev era (and even today), a conservative will likely be a supporter of Soviet-style secular tyranny.

In the United States, however, a conservative is one who seeks to support and retain the traditional institutions of the U.S. government, including the rule of law under the Constitution, and the political doctrines of individual rights and freedom as espoused by the Founding Fathers.

In celebrating and upholding the latter, The John Birch Society, as the Associated Press notes, is both anti-communist and ultraconservative. As a natural consequence, the Society both opposes collectivism in all its forms, including racism and anti-Semitism, and strongly supports the doctrines of individual freedom that have made this nation the greatest on Earth. Anyone who doubts this can ask any of our members, speakers and writers, including those who are African American and Jewish.

[ernie1241]

Excellent question YumYum.

IF the JBS has changed their prior views about our civil rights movement history -- then why is it that they have never retracted any derogatory statement or conclusion about ANY of our national civil rights leaders and ALL of our national civil rights organizations which they published during the 1960's?

Did you notice my previous message which quoted from the JBS Bulletin of May 2008--copied again below?

"Just as the John Birch Society showed in the 1960's that the communists basically ran both the civil rights movement and the KKK, the strategy was nothing new. The former was used to transfer power to Washington DC in the name of civil rights and the latter provided a pretext for transferring power to Washington. You cannot get a really good conflict started unless you control both sides of the argument."

JBS dogma since the 1960's has NOT changed.

With respect to race relations in the U.S. everything we have accomplished in our country since the 1960's has occurred without any assistance from the JBS. The JBS has always been part of the problem -- not the solution -- which is why prominent conservatives (including J. Edgar Hoover) repudiated the JBS position regarding our civil rights movement.

Consider the following comments by J. Edgar Hoover:

“It would be absurd to suggest that the aspirations of Negroes for equality are communist inspired. This is demonstrably not true…” [J. Edgar Hoover speech, Faith In Freedom, 12/4/63, page 6].

“In general, legitimate civil rights organizations have been successful in excluding Communists, although a few have received covert counseling from them and have even accepted them as members…The CP is not satisfied with this situation and is continually striving to infiltrate the civil rights movement at every level. " [J. Edgar Hoover, U.S. News and World Report, 11/1/65, page 46].

“It is no secret that one of the bitterest disappointments to communistic efforts in this Nation has been their failure to lure our Negro citizens into the party. Despite every type of propaganda boomed at our Nation’s Negro citizens, they have never succumbed to the party’s saccharine promises of a Communist ‘Utopia’. This generation and generations to come for many years owe a tremendous debt to our Negro citizens who have consistently refused to surrender their freedoms for the tyranny of communism.” J. Edgar Hoover testimony before U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, 01/17/60, reprinted in March 1960 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, page 7]

As these comments make clear, Hoover and the FBI saw Communists as OUTSIDERS seeking ways to exert influence and control within our civil rights movement whereas the JBS has always portrayed them as INSIDERS who created and controlled the movement from the beginning!

If you want to see a clear-cut example of the horrific falsehoods and libels circulated by the JBS about one of our nation's most prominent civil rights leaders (A. Philip Randolph) -- ask the FBI to send you serial #46 of HQ file 100-55616 which is a 198-page January 1965 "correlation summary" about Randolph.

A “correlation summary” consists of excerpts from all FBI files which mention a subject and it then identifies the specific file number, serial number and date along with a synopsis of the content of each serial discussed.

There are numerous references in Randolph's correlation summary which reflect the profound hostility and hatred toward him by senior CPUSA officials. They described him as "a traitor" to his race.

Significantly, JBS member Lola Belle Holmes was an FBI informant inside the CPUSA. Lola worked closely with Randolph when he set up a new group called the Negro American Labor Council.

After she surfaced as an FBI informant and she testified before the Subversive Activities Control Board and the House Committee on Un-American Activities, she described Randolph as "anti-communist".

Nevertheless, the Birch Society slimed Randolph as follows in volume 1 of its "Biographical Dictionary of the Left":

“Randolph learned his lessons well as he rubbed elbows with Communists over the past three decades.” [Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, Volume 1, page 488; Western Islands Publishers, 1969]

In 1954, the House Committee on Un-American Activities published a report entitled “The American Negro in the Communist Party”. See page 29 which reports the testimony of two friendly witnesses who had defected from the Communist Party. They reported their instructions from Party leaders concerning Randolph:

“The Communist Party said that he [Randolph] had to be muzzled, and he was coming to Los Angeles in 1942, and I and Pettis Perry were given the job of working out a plan how we could discredit Randolph…So he was getting a medal that the NAACP gives each year to some outstanding American Negro, white, or any nationality in the field of human relations, and he was getting it for his work on integration of Negroes into industry…We wrote a speech that praised the Soviet Union, that called for the opening of the second front and that said Randolph was a traitor to his country…But it [the speech] gave the Party not only the opportunity to discredit this Negro leader, but it gave the Party the opportunity to reach the top negroes in America with the program of the Communist Party at that time.”


Do you think that the JBS could have changed their views, and while they at one time supported racist, they no longer do?

[MN Patriot]

[FONT="Courier New"]

Explain WHY the Birch Society adopted and circulated arguments which originated ONLY with racists and segregationists---such as this August 1965 statement by the JBS which they placed in a nationwide advertisement about our civil rights movement entitled "What's Wrong With Civil Rights?":

“For the civil rights movement in the United States with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps toward the appearance of civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than thirty years.”

Who else, besides racists and segregationists, claimed that the civil rights movement in our country "has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists..."???



Republicans were the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves, and most black people voted Republican. But the racist Democrats in the south prevented blacks from voting, which kept Democrats in power. Republicans originally supported the civil rights movement (CRM) in the 50's, Democrats opposed it. The Kennedy administration wasn't too keen on the CRM, either.

Then suddenly the Democrats took a big interest in the CRM, and painted Republicans and the JBS as racists because they opposed the over-reaching aspects of federal law. So the above quote is factually wrong, the CRM wasn't created by the communists, it was taken over by the communists, since the label "racist" suddenly had a terrible connotation.

Now it is a very effective way to smear someone, call them a racist and everything they stand for is discredited.

[FrankRep]

Do you think that the JBS could have changed their views, and while they at one time supported racist, they no longer do?


[FONT="Courier New"]Excellent question YumYum.

IF the JBS has changed their prior views about our civil rights movement history -- then why is it that they have never retracted any derogatory statement or conclusion about ANY of our national civil rights leaders and ALL of our national civil rights organizations which they published during the 1960's?


Thomas Sowell and Tom Woods both admit the Civil Rights Act violated the Constitution and failed.

Using your logic Ernie, Thomas Sowell must be racist as well.





The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason) (http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/)


Tom Woods.com
May 21st, 2010


In light of the hysteria in recent days, here’s some valuable information from Thomas Sowell, from his indispensable book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688062695?ie=UTF8&tag=thomacom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0688062695)?

http://s3.mediamatters.org/static/images/tv_clips/people/thomas-sowell.jpg
Thomas Sowell

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0688062695.01._SX140_SY225_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695

Sowell notes that champions of the Official Version of History ignore already existing trends in black employment, well under way long before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from which we are taught all blessings flowed. Writes Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.

“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.”

Sowell further notes that Asians and Hispanics show similar long-term upward trends that had begun years before the passage of the 1964 Act, and which were not accelerated either by the Act itself or by the “affirmative action” programs that (inevitably) followed. Mexican-Americans’ incomes rose in relation to those of whites between 1959 and 1969, but not at a greater rate than between 1949 and 1959. Chinese and Japanese-American households had matched their white counterparts in income by 1959 (in spite of the fact that Japanese-Americans had been interned in concentration camps less than two decades before, and countless Americans blamed Japan for the loss of their sons).


SOURCE:
http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/

=====



Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was UnConstitutional, Statist, and a Failure


Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.

http://www.mises.org/

YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH52tkt0C1A)

[ernie1241]

Frank's message which recommends Golitsyn's writings shows, once again, that Frank just mindlessly accepts ANYTHING presented by the JBS without doing the most rudimentary independent research into whatever matter is being discussed.

For anyone interested in determining whether or not Golitsyn was a credible source of information, consider the following:

1. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover thought Golitsyn was a fake

2. JBS writers Gary Allen and Alan Stang and Frank Capell wrote favorably about Col. Michael Goleniewski, a Polish Army Intelligence officer who defected in January 1961.

BUT Goleniewski stated categorically that Golitsyn was a Soviet disinformation agent AND Goleniewski characterized the JBS magazine, American Opinion, as "Communist infiltrated" !! because of its promotion of Golitsyn.

3. Conspiracy adherents often ask us to accept as factually reliable two or more different sources which present mutually exclusive conclusions. For a detailed discussion of the Golitsyn/Golienewski matter see:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/golitsyn


We are Attacked for What We are Doing Right (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5811-ceo-february-2010-we-are-attacked-for-what-we-are-doing-right)


Art Thompson, CEO | John Birch Society - Newsletter (http://www.jbs.org/)
February 2010


Many members have seen one or more of the recent attacks aimed at The John Birch Society by MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow.

The first episode consumed over eight minutes and was generally based on the absurd notion that a communist conspiracy never existed — except in the minds of John Birch Society members. The second attack was the same, only this time it was the threat of a New World Order that was ridiculed.

Some who were exposed to this perspective would now fall for it because the media have chosen to hide the fact of communist growth and influence in the years since the staged fall of the Berlin Wall. This is a major portion of the Insider plan to lull the American people to sleep regarding a danger that really exists.

KGB Propaganda Is Still With Us

Lest one believes that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the “collapse of communism” were not planned and implemented by the Soviet Union’s KGB, we ask you to read Anatoly Golitsyn’s book, New Lies For Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/new-lies-for-old.html), written five years prior to the events. Therein, he outlined the KGB strategy in detail and said that it had been a plan in the making for years.



http://www.foundations-of-liberty.org/images/golitsyn_sm.jpg (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/new-lies-for-old.html)
New Lies For Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation
http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/new-lies-for-old.html


Anatoly Golitsyn was in a position to know. His career in Soviet intelligence included four years in the KGB think tank before defecting to the West.

As a result of this strategy implemented as part of the overall Insider plan to subjugate all of humanity, a great majority of Americans have never experienced a “communist threat.” The Insiders took one step back and produced a generation that looks to the wars against communism in Korea and Vietnam as ancient history, particularly those born after 1970. And, with people having very short-term memories, communism has become “out of sight and out of mind” with important help from the government schools and, especially, from the mass media.

It is very hard for most people to see either the problems created by the Council on Foreign Relations or those associated with communism. With tight Insider control over most of the media, the people are allowed only to see and read what their enemies give them. No Insider or any Insider wannabe stands up and says, “Look at me. I’m a communist,” or “Watch me carry out the designs of the CFR.” Let me cite an example from my own experience to demonstrate the ties between international socialism and the media, at least in the philosophical if not the actual sense.

Frank Krasnowski for many years served as the head of the very radical Trotskyite communist organization, the Washington state Socialist Workers Party. His son Marc led its youth arm, the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA). The two were very much involved in the violent turmoil in the 1960s and 1970s that played out in the streets of Seattle. While Marc was in college as a journalism student, his YSA controlled the student body organization at the University of Washington with the help of key faculty and well-trained student activists.

After graduation, Marc went to work for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, one of Seattle’s major newspapers. I believe that he even became its city editor for a time. Then he went to work as a journalist in the Midwest, finally ending back where he started, becoming the Communications Director for the Northwest Energy Coalition, an 85-plus member group of environmental and civic organizations, utilities and businesses.

Marc Krasnowski is only one example of how radical socialists work their way into media and media-related positions to gain influence, not only over the public but also over opinion molders. The amazing part of this story is that Marc has never really hidden his roots. What he has accomplished is an incredible example of the acceptance of this anti-constitutional attitude in the professional world.

Communists do not door-bell. They work on opinion molders or in areas of influence. For the most part, they hide the fact that they are communists or militant socialists.

Hoover Had It Right

It is difficult for people to believe that a conspiracy exists when it is not obvious. This is especially true when the conspiracy is quite large, well-organized, and disciplined sufficiently to remain out of the sight of an untrained eye. F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover put it this way in the August 1956 issue of the Elks Magazine: “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.”

As a result of the work of men like Marc Krasnowski, multiplied by hundreds or even thousands, freedom began rapidly deteriorating in the middle of the 20th Century. But there was an awakening about what was happening. It was rooted not simply in a movement that opposed communism; it was one that understood the principles of liberty and the wiles of the conspiratorial enemy. And it also had the determination to inform the American people about what was happening and rally them into action to save our wonderful heritage.

The Insiders, as well as their communist cadres, understood that this restoration movement was spearheaded by the fledgling The John Birch Society. The collectivists had always been able to defeat their enemies through the use of a smear campaign with a great deal of help from their allies in the print and electronic media. But they must have recognized that such a tactic might no longer work due to the structure of the new JBS organization. Such an opposition to collectivist schemes as the JBS had never before been formed in human history.

Step-by-Step Smear

So, as they started to smear The John Birch Society, they likewise started to formulate plans for other ways to defeat their opposition in case they weren’t able to stop the new anti-communist movement.

First, they had to build a faux anti-communist movement, one which would take on the trappings of anti-communism but sustain their plan for a New World Order. They fulfilled this need by using their invisible connections in the media to create and promote the neoconservative movement founded by Trotskyites (international socialists) who now claimed to be ex-Trotskyites.

Neoconservative members of the Council on Foreign Relations and others beguiled the faint-hearted into involving themselves in the respectable, responsible, and more comfortable neocon movement, avoiding The John Birch Society, which was under constant harassment by the media. And besides, there was less work for these individuals than membership in the Society would have asked of them.

Morality Necessary for Self-government

Likewise, a false front was formed to take care of the moral aspect of the opposition. Since the Society recognized that morality was of paramount importance in fighting both evil and collectivism, ad hoc committees were formed by the Society to combat abortion, sex education in the schools, drug abuse, pornography, etc. These ad hoc committees were busy exposing the fact that these various forms of immorality were being promoted by design and were intrinsically locked in with the communist conspiracy in order to debase the nation’s morality, a huge step on the road to establishing government control over all. A moral people will be self-governing; an immoral people invites restraint by government. Our country’s Founders knew this well.

John Adams claimed with good reason: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

This attitude also had to be addressed by the Insiders, and they did so by thrusting into the national limelight (through their control of the major media organs) and growing a new “Religious Right” movement they believed they could control. Of course, it appeared that this new religious-based movement was a step in the right direction.

The movement was focused on moral issues — and the liberal media were attacking it. However, the attacks simply served to stampede good people into a movement that offered false solutions along neoconservative lines; for instance, the constant call for moral issues to be made into federal law or amendments rather than state or local law. Federal law would ultimately lead to national police enforcement. The media attacks actually served to make “heroes” out of the media-designated leaders of the so-called silent majority in the minds of many.

Initially and then more so as time wore on, this new movement’s overriding purpose was to support the candidates of the Republican Party. Indeed, one of the primary organizations in this Religious Right phenomenon was helped substantially with seed money from the Senate Republican Campaign Committee.

My own experience within the Christian Right convinced me early on that it was largely controlled by the Insiders. I noted that while conservatives were given high praise, too many Council on Foreign Relations members and other one-worlders were always at the head table at their conferences and seminars.

True, here and there, good people formed organizations considered to be part of the Christian Right. But the overall direction has always been controlled by CFR types and their allies in the media. It wasn’t only what they said; it was even more what they didn’t say and what they didn’t do.

While containing a number of fine leaders, some of whom abandoned our Society to become part of this new Christian Right for the same reasons others had wandered into the neocon movement, never explained was how traditional morality is being undermined by a conspiracy as a strategy for creating moral anarchy followed by totalitarianism. Never exposed were the ties with communists and with other minions of the Insiders. Only rarely was the promotion of immorality shown to be a conspiratorial thrust at the very foundations of the American system of government. And the solution offered by these leaders was always the Republican Party.

Denying the Enemy’s Existence

Secondly, the strategy called for “killing” communism in the minds of the American people, the main message in Golitsyn’s book. Americans were to be lulled to sleep until it would be too late to stop the New World Order, the name for the communist goal of world government and socialism.

You have probably noticed that the media never even asks the question about what happened to all of the communists after the “collapse.” In country after country, these people simply changed their designation and are still leading promoters of international organization. Even if communism died (and it did not), the disciplined “former” communists did not perish.

In spite of all these tactics, our Society was able over the years to steadily create awareness in a sizeable number of the American people with understanding that had been absent for many decades. This understanding was beginning to seriously hamper the Insiders’ timetable.

The manner in which we were organized, the educational efforts of our members, and the willingness of people to involve themselves in action and to put feet underneath their rhetoric concerned the Insiders more than anything. For in the JBS program, they saw our organization’s potential to rally the American people. They knew that they could not bring the American people into submission if the people were aware of the dangers that lay ahead. Only in ignorance could the American people be subjugated.

What Makes Maddow Tick? — Fear

Back to Rachel Maddow: Due to the leftist/liberal/Insider dominance within the mass media and the short-term memory of so many Americans, she feels confident enough to ridicule The John Birch Society on her MSNBC program. Her style of reporting, however, has led to a steadily declining number of viewers. It remains to be seen if her dwindling audience will be more influential than the more than one million who have seen all or portions of our extremely popular DVD, Overview of America.

It is the growing influence of JBS that Maddow and her handlers fear. They have obviously been watching what we do. First she attacked us on her television program. We responded online to our audience. Then she aired another harangue for over nine minutes about our response. Obviously, she and her team are monitoring our website. Also, they have the capability, and we do also, of knowing just how many people are logging on to our site and it concerns them.

For members who are interested, we have archived the Maddow smear attacks and our responses on www.jbs.org (go to JBS.org and search for “maddow”). When you see these “back and forth” exchanges, you will get a sense of the dishonesty and bias that pervades the media. It is not something new; Americans have had to deal with similar smear campaigns since the beginning of our country. An extreme example from the past is Aurora, a publication issued during the Washington administration.



* Rachel Maddow Recycles Falsehoods Against the John Birch Society (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2602-rachel-maddow-recycles-falsehoods-against-the-john-birch-society)

* Rachel Maddow Exposes Her Youth, Inexperience, and Political Correctness (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2645-rachel-maddow-exposes-her-youth-inexperience-and-political-correctness)

* Rachel Maddow, Black Helicopters, and the New World Order (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2667-rachel-maddow-black-helicopters-and-the-new-world-order)

* Maddow Displays Dishonesty; Ignores Official Report About JBS (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2680-maddow-displays-dishonesty-ignores-official-report-about-jbs)



We have been expecting smear tactics to be aimed at us once again. Also, we have felt for a good while that other organizations would be formed to sidetrack the growing protest and constitutionalist movement rising all across the country. We think that the enemies of freedom planned to control these new organizations by co-opting them. But their plan is not working to their satisfaction. We await further developments that will help us to know what they next have in mind.

JBS Attacked Because of Success, Not Failure

Always remember that the smear tactic will be used against us not for our failures but because of our successes, and even more, the enormous potential possessed by JBS to change the course of history. This potential has only partially been realized.

Sunshine patriots and arm-chair gripers never seem to understand that a comfort zone can’t exist if we mean business every step of the way. The enemies of our Constitution and our nation’s independence know that we do mean business, and they will not be comfortable until they see us neutralized.

They are a long distance from achieving the amount of control needed to simply issue an order to suppress our efforts. Currently, there are too many obstacles in their way to be able to do that. But no one should relax with the thought that our enemies would never implement such plans.

On the day I am writing this, an early morning television program has told its audience that it was the Internet that helped radicalize the recent would-be bomber aboard the airplane into Detroit from Schipol Airport in Amsterdam. If enough people believe that it is the Internet that radicalizes people, then the use of the Internet can be denied to government-designated organizations — and then to others.

It would seem reasonable to deny Internet use to would-be terrorists. But let’s recall that officials in the Department of Homeland Security have already labeled constitutionalists, pro-lifers, and Iraq War veterans as potential terrorists. Yes, they had to back away from such an outrageous charge. But they initially targeted several categories of Americans that are hated by the communists. That any government official would have made such a charge does not bode well for the First Amendment, or for the rest of the Constitution for that matter.

Likewise we read and hear more and more concerning Internet security relative to our military and financial institutions. From hacking into the Pentagon, to monitoring the drones over Afghanistan, and to the activities of major banks, come stories about attempts to influence Americans into accepting nebulously described controls.

Now we see that the Obama administration is talking about a cyber treaty with Russia to protect our military capability. When has a treaty with Russia ever been in our favor?

Not to worry, Mr. Obama has appointed as Cybersecurity Czar a man named Howard Schmidt. He served similarly under George Bush. And we’re supposed to believe that there are substantial differences at the top of the Republican and Democratic parties. The more things change, the more they seem to remain the same.

The one overriding attitude possessed by Howard Schmidt is that he sees government as the only solution to all aspects of Internet security, whether it concerns the hacking into financial institutions, our military networks, or stopping terrorists.

First of all, it is the responsibility of the financial institutions to build systems that prevent hacking. This is likewise true of our military. Secondly, who gets to define who actually is a terrorist? Our government is so rife with crypto communists, socialists, and one-worlders that I feel certain our government’s definition of a terrorist would be so all encompassing that it would include any “anti-government” organizations, which is a government term for any group seeking to enforce the limitations contained in the Constitution.

The attempts to marginalize the constitutionalist movement — and along with it The John Birch Society — is part of a plan to have government not only clamp down on our use of the Internet but also place the names of key constitutionalist leaders on airline watch lists or no-travel lists. It seems obvious that these and other ways to block our ability to reach vast numbers of the American people will be employed if we don’t achieve sufficient strength.

Obama Violates the Constitution — Again

Another disturbing sign is that Mr. Obama has amended Executive Order No. 12425 so that Interpol will now be allowed to operate within the United States. This is another clear violation of the Constitution.

E.O. 12425 was originally signed by Ronald Reagan, giving certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities for Interpol to operate within the United States — with some restrictions. The Obama amendment action cancels these restrictions. Since Interpol is an enforcement arm of the UN’s International Criminal Court, this is an indication that the man who today occupies the White House has no problem with the ICC operating on American soil.

It may only be one step, but it can be an important one toward abrogating our Constitution. Keep in mind, one of the grievances outlined in our Declaration of Independence stated to the British king and the entire world the reasons for separating ourselves from the British Crown. One was: “He has combined with others to subject us to Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws....”

If the initial reports about this alteration of E.O. 12425 are correct, another grievance mentioned in the Declaration will be repeated: “...transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offenses.”

If we couple the changes in E.O. 12425 with the outrages coming out of the Department of Homeland Security, especially including the attitude about who domestic terrorists are, and add to these a number of other initiatives designed to control American citizens and businesses, it is hardly extreme to label all of it a blueprint for totalitarianism being rolled out before our very eyes.

And instead of sounding the alarm, the media fills giddy minds with pap including the latest extra-marital escapades of some degenerate in the entertainment or sports field.

Whether the Maddow attacks are a harbinger of things to come or only the personal vendetta of a would-be media star whose ratings are tumbling is unknown. However, we have seen a great deal of interest in our affairs by the New York Times, The Atlantic, and others over the past year. They made note of our existence but then backed off from any full-scale attack. On January 4, The New York Times published a prominently placed full-page ad touting the supposed excellence of reporting carried by MSNBC, including photos of Maddow along with those of similarly left-wing commentators Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman.

This reminds one of an attack dog that wants to bite but is held tightly on a leash. In our case, the initial attacks on us in the early 1960s began to produce less and less benefit for the Insiders, so the campaign against us that was proving to be counter-productive from the Insiders’ point of view ended as suddenly as it had started. There seems to be a reluctance to go too far too fast at this time.

The enemies of freedom face a dilemma. If they attack in an attempt to negate our influence with the hope of silencing us before they gain complete control of the Internet, we can use our web sites and other electronic opportunities to expose them. An important alternative open to them is to convince the American people of a need to exercise increasing control over the Internet supposedly to support our military and the financial infrastructure against hackers, and also depriving terrorists (whoever they are) of its use. They can make the Cybersecurity Czar a czar in every frightening sense of the term.

The communist Chinese already are doing this in cooperation with Google, a Council on Foreign Relations corporate member; however, Google may now be rethinking their involvement. Only time will tell.

If that point is ever reached, enough controls will be in place to stop any real opposition to government oppression, not just by The John Birch Society. They will, at first, allow non-effective opposition to function to give the trappings of openness on the Internet.

What the Maddows of the world never seem to understand is that if they are “honest” socialists, truly believing that the road to earthly paradise is through socialism, they should know that they will be some of the first victims of a government gone amok.

If history teaches us nothing else, it should show that totalitarians always eliminate almost immediately those who helped them come to power in the first place. Hitler had his Night of the Long Knives, Stalin his purges, and Mao his Cultural Revolution. The conspirators can never trust traitors, even those who helped them, since a traitor once can well be a traitor again.

Liberals who cannot tolerate government controls, and are too ignorant to realize that their own actions will bring about even more controls, are not fit to be part of a system that wears uniforms. They will be eliminated by the very forces they ignorantly helped come to power.

“Reformed” Socialists Rarely Shed Any Light

The internationalist socialist movement is rife with intellectuals who finally realized the errors of what they were doing. So they quit, writing books to expose the fact that socialism is not led by humanitarians, but by conspirators who want total power. The trouble with almost all of these tomes is that their authors were still socialists at heart and believers, not in conspiracy, but in mere intellectual error among those they were now denouncing. They regularly ended up sending a very confused message to the reader.

Our veteran members know that when we are attacked they should withhold judgment until they hear a factual response from JBS headquarters. In most cases today, the attacks are simply yellow journalism, using information that has been refuted in the past. But for every new generation, the forays against us appear to be the work of fresh attackers even though they contain the same tired smears. They affect some Americans simply because they have never previously heard what appears to be something new.

Likewise, when we publish a position on any subject, we have looked into the matter with great care beforehand. From time to time, we do come under attacks issued by well-meaning people who feel that we have not done our research well enough to know that what concerns them is correct and we are wrong. Honest individuals who are then given the whole story back off and some even apologize to us.

We are witnessing this pattern a little more than usual lately because there is so much disinformation being disseminated for the purpose of providing conservatives with dead end issues or positions that marginalize their effectiveness with opinion molders. Some of these initiatives are so well organized that they have all the appearances of being state-managed.

The Maddow smear showed the signs and placards held by recent protesters during the various demonstrations held around the country. The messages on some of these signs exhibited extremist views and, by innuendo, they were attributed to our Society. This has always been something we have worried about because these demonstrations and some of the messages seen on placards will be misunderstood by the general public. Too many Americans do not understand what a demonstrator is trying to say, or too many demonstrators make their point in a disrespectful manner. While there is much to protest, anyone taking part in a demonstration should never forget that, without care and good taste, the effect of their action on the general public — the uninformed American who must be persuaded, not insulted or maddened — can be counterproductive.

We live in a time when we have to be ready for a smear campaign and not allow ourselves to give enemies any ammunition to use against us. We must always conduct ourselves in a moral, ethical, and tasteful manner.

Take Heart: We’ve Got it Right!

While these thoughts may seem to be a tiny bit disheartening, they are intended to be quite the opposite. For we can take heart in the fact that we are attacked — for what we are doing right, not for what we are doing wrong. And we should certainly be encouraged because our potential to upset the plans of the Insiders is obviously worrying them.

If we allow ourselves to become demoralized, we will be defeated. And that too is as much a reason behind the smear campaign as it is to marginalize us in the eyes of American opinion molders.

Don’t let them get to you — ever.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5811-ceo-february-2010-we-are-attacked-for-what-we-are-doing-right

[Gaius1981]

1) I take it there's a lot of crossover between the John Birch Society and the Constitution Party. Are there any disagreements between them? Does the John Birch Society support the effort to retake the Republican Party?

2) Is there any particular form of Christianity, such as Baptism or Catholicism, which is particularly prevalent in the John Birch Society?

[pcosmar]

It is not a "personal war". It is a desire for FACTUAL discussions. I note, for the record, that you have not disputed anything I presented thus far. Consequently, your comment is worthless. Try addressing specific evidence presented if you want to be taken seriously.

I did present specific evidence. Your Post History.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=5361130

The intelligent folks here can read.

:cool:

[FrankRep]

1) I take it there's a lot of crossover between the John Birch Society and the Constitution Party. Are there any disagreements between them? Does the John Birch Society support the effort to retake the Republican Party?


The JBS has members in the Republican and Constitution Party.


The John Birch Society's view of Partisan Politics:



Tangent: Partisan Politics (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258001&p=2853660)



Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country.

— Theodore Roosevelt

[I]f political action alone, or of itself, were the key to the solution of our problem, we would have solved that problem long ago. We proceed on a solider and more permanent program which includes political action, but without letting political action get out of perspective.

— Robert Welch, The Neutralizers


Notwithstanding our Founding Father’s disdain for political parties, party machinery is in place and not likely to go away. What George Washington called “the baneful spirit of party” is a tendency toward party zeal and loyalty that so often exceeds loyalty to country and adherence to principle. Party faithful tend to mistake party loyalty for patriotism, placing faithfulness to party leaders, platforms, or party unity ahead of the principles of constitutional government.

At the highest levels of party politics, “the baneful spirit of party” is not merely a tendency, it governs the party system. Make no mistake about it, state parties and local units have little or no influence over political action at the national level. The leadership of the two major political parties is — and long has been — under the control of the Insiders. Even though a party’s national platform may contain a number of principled, patriotic positions, with few exceptions the national strategy follows a pattern established by the enemy.

We believe that members of the Birch Society should work within the party of their choice to nominate and elect the best candidates and — where possible — help get correct principles written into their party’s official platform.

However, we offer a word of caution: Political action cannot rescue a nation adrift in a sea of ignorance. In order to get elected and remain in office, even the best politicians will appeal to the public’s existing level of understanding, rather than try to raise that level to a higher standard. Without the support of sufficient numbers of informed voters, few politicians will keep promises to limit government to its proper role. Instead, they find themselves walking a line designed to appease the uninformed voter.

Successful political action will be the result of correct information. Good candidates cannot be elected, or retained in office, by voters who cannot distinguish between a charlatan and a statesman or between a worthwhile cause and a pretext for power. Therefore, our first priority must be to invest our time and resources in building greater understanding of the principles of Americanism and of the forces working to obscure and destroy those principles.

Time and money invested in educating our friends is never wasted, whereas time and money spent getting out the vote or promoting a candidate is nearly always lost. This is true, even when our favorite candidate wins the election. For if he honors his oath of office and adheres to correct principles, he will not be understood or appreciated by the voting majority in his district, and the media will surely work to destroy him prior to the next election.




2) Is there any particular form of Christianity, such as Baptism or Catholicism, which is particularly prevalent in the John Birch Society?


The JBS has members of various faiths ranging from Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, and Mormonism.


The John Birch Society's view on Religion:



Tangent: Religious Neutralism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258001&p=2853603)



Do not yield to either of the two great psychological weapons which the Insiders are now using more extensively and more forcefully than even a decade ago. First is the argument that we should simply go home, repent our sins, and pray, thus leaving the outcome of this struggle entirely up to God. We urge you to pray, by all means, whenever you feel that prayer is in order; but never stop working against a Conspiracy that is already destroying the freedom to worship God at all wherever it can do so.

— Robert Welch, September 1976 Bulletin

For John [Birch] believed completely in free will, and even by his own understanding of the relationship of man to God, he had to be worthy in order to be chosen as one of God’s instruments on earth.

— Robert Welch, The Life of John Birch


America’s religious foundation is essential to restoring freedom and truth. The John Birch Society is not a religious organization; however, most of its members are devoutly religious, and their enduring faith provides them with a foundation of hope for achieving success in the secular affairs of our nation.

A few of our best citizens, however, have withheld their time, labor, and resources from the cause of freedom under the belief that only worship and prayer can save our nation in its present “fallen” state. They feel that it is too late to work for freedom because the world is already doomed to destruction and that the end is near. A few individuals go even further by hoping to hasten the “Day of the Lord” by allowing evil to flourish.

A widely accepted, biblically based position regarding the end of the world is that “not even the angels of heaven know the day nor the hour,” and therefore, no one can profess to know when the Lord will come or when the world will end. In the meantime, we sense a profoundly sacred duty to resist evil and promote good at every opportunity. Most religious Americans understand that God has given them that responsibility. Moreover, they accept that all men everywhere are bound by humane conscience to oppose oppression and evil, save lives, liberate captives, and pronounce the truth as quickly as it becomes known to them. It is when people do not follow their conscience and do not take steps to oppose evil that evil has prevailed — punishing everyone including those of their own faith and their loved ones.

A belief formerly prominent among almost all Christian sects — sometimes attributed to St. Augustine but dating back to the Apostles — can be summarized as follows: “Pray as if it were all up to God, but work as if it were all up to me.” This is a good maxim that should keep us on course as we work and pray for freedom in this troubled world.

[ernie1241]

I note for the record that MN Patriot does not dispute anything which I presented.

Question for MN Patriot regarding the people you describe as "racist Democrats in the south".

Please tell us what score they received in the Birch Society's "Conservative Index".

I'll give you a starting point: Sen. James Eastland of MS, the powerful head of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, was scored by the JBS as 96!

In other words, according to the JBS, 96% of the time, Eastland (the KKK-supported "racist Democrat") voted correctly -- because he properly understood the principles of Constitutional government.

This is the same Sen. Eastland who thwarted prosecution of the murderers of civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964 and the same Sen. Eastland who sought, and received, KKK endorsement/support for his candidacies.

Furthermore, you are wrong about how the Democrats characterized Republicans.

It was the close cooperation and genuine good will between President Johnson and Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen that made passage of civil rights legislation possible in the mid-1960's.

And it was equally close cooperation and genuine good will between Republican President Eisenhower and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson which made possible the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1950's.

PRINCIPLED opponents (such as Sen. Barry Goldwater) of civil rights legislation opposed it (as you correctly point out) out of their concerns over the proper role of federal government. However, they did NOT reject the premise that grave injustices existed which needed to be addressed. Nor did they characterize the civil rights movement as entirely as "Communist" enterprise --- as did the JBS.

MORE IMPORTANTLY -- unlike the Birch Society --- Sen. Goldwater and other PRINCIPLED opponents did not associate themselves with the bigots/racists within the white supremacy movement.

The Birch Society employed as writers and as speakers, many prominent white supremacists. For example Medford Evans -- the JBS Coordinator in Mississippi, who was Managing Editor of "The Citizen" -- the official publication of the White Citizens Councils movement.

I previously have mentioned Bircher Rev. Delmar Dennis. Even before he became an FBI informant he attended meetings of the KKK and then he subsequently became a member.

In addition:

(1) Delmar was a member of Americans for the Preservation of the White Race.
(2) In 1964, he wrote a pro-segregation pamphlet entitled “The Unconquerable Land”.
(3) He founded a whites-only church in his community.
(4) He was Chairman of the White Citizens Council in Lauderdale County MS and he was also Chairman of the Public Affairs Committee of the White Citizens Council chapter in Meridian MS.
(5) Delmar also served on the Board of Directors of the White Christian Protective and Legal Defense Fund. The JBS member who authored the book, Klandestine, correctly described the Defense Fund as a "KKK-fundraising front". And in November 1965 Rev. Dennis attempted to organize a pro-segregation group, called the Patrick Henry Society, in his community.

Do you have any comparable facts to report about principled opponents such as Sen. Barry Goldwater?



Republicans were the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves, and most black people voted Republican. But the racist Democrats in the south prevented blacks from voting, which kept Democrats in power. Republicans originally supported the civil rights movement (CRM) in the 50's, Democrats opposed it. The Kennedy administration wasn't too keen on the CRM, either.

Then suddenly the Democrats took a big interest in the CRM, and painted Republicans and the JBS as racists because they opposed the over-reaching aspects of federal law. So the above quote is factually wrong, the CRM wasn't created by the communists, it was taken over by the communists, since the label "racist" suddenly had a terrible connotation.

Now it is a very effective way to smear someone, call them a racist and everything they stand for is discredited.

[FrankRep]

The Real Ernie1241 (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/feb/23/bash-and-trash-are-all-conservatives-seem-be-doing/)


Ernie1241:


Let's face it folks. The GOP has declared war upon the American people. Republican Party leaders and a majority of Republicans in Congress have opposed EVERY economic and social reform over the past 60 years.

* They opposed FDR's New Deal.
* They opposed Truman's Fair Deal.
* They opposed social security.
* They opposed Medicare.
* They opposed unemployment insurance.
* They opposed workmen's compensation.
* They opposed civil rights legislation.
* They opposed appointment of the first Latino Supreme Court Justice


SOURCE:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/feb/23/bash-and-trash-are-all-conservatives-seem-be-doing/


Ernie1241, Ron Paul supporters reject most (or all) of those things listed. You have no business being on RonPaulForums.com.

[ernie1241]

According to internal documents written by senior JBS members, there have been several nasty disputes within the JBS over religious matters.

With respect to the religious makeup of the JBS....

May 1961 Welch letter to attorney Neil McCarthy:

Welch wrote to McCarthy that approximately one-half of JBS membership was Catholic, one-half of the field staff was Catholic and two-thirds of the Home office employees (in Belmont MA) were Catholic.

April 4, 1962 Robert Welch letter to Verne Kaub:

"Actually, and I am sorry to say, we do not have too many Jews in the JBS. This is partly because a smaller percentage of the Jewish people in America as a whole are true conservatives, than of the total population. But it is even more because of the greater pressures and dirtier pressures, which are put on them, against standing up for what they believe...But when you get into the Zionist picture, I repeat that you cannot think any less of the whole government of Israel or of the whole Zionist conspiracy than I do; except that I think its relative importance in the total importance in the whole picture has greatly decreased over the past three decades. Some day...I should be glad to exchange views with you...as to what has really taken place since around 1905 when I think the Zionist conspiracy -- and from then on for perhaps two decades --- was practically the father of the International Communist Conspiracy. Today I personally think that the relationship is almost exactly reversed, and that the child had now so far outgrown the parent in size and strength and importance that the parent is in a relatively minor position. But this does not make Golda Meir or Ben-Gurion or any of their extremist followers in this country any less culpable.."

JBS National Council member, Francis Fenton, 3/31/72 speech in Jackson MS:

Fenton stated that JBS had 100,000 members of whom 40% are Catholic. Also reported that "five of the 28 members of the Society's controlling council are Catholics…"

In later years, Mormons became a more prominent presence within the Society.



The JBS has members in the Republican and Constitution Party.


The John Birch Society's view of Partisan Politics:



Tangent: Partisan Politics (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258001&p=2853660)



Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country.

— Theodore Roosevelt

[I]f political action alone, or of itself, were the key to the solution of our problem, we would have solved that problem long ago. We proceed on a solider and more permanent program which includes political action, but without letting political action get out of perspective.

— Robert Welch, The Neutralizers


Notwithstanding our Founding Father’s disdain for political parties, party machinery is in place and not likely to go away. What George Washington called “the baneful spirit of party” is a tendency toward party zeal and loyalty that so often exceeds loyalty to country and adherence to principle. Party faithful tend to mistake party loyalty for patriotism, placing faithfulness to party leaders, platforms, or party unity ahead of the principles of constitutional government.

At the highest levels of party politics, “the baneful spirit of party” is not merely a tendency, it governs the party system. Make no mistake about it, state parties and local units have little or no influence over political action at the national level. The leadership of the two major political parties is — and long has been — under the control of the Insiders. Even though a party’s national platform may contain a number of principled, patriotic positions, with few exceptions the national strategy follows a pattern established by the enemy.

We believe that members of the Birch Society should work within the party of their choice to nominate and elect the best candidates and — where possible — help get correct principles written into their party’s official platform.

However, we offer a word of caution: Political action cannot rescue a nation adrift in a sea of ignorance. In order to get elected and remain in office, even the best politicians will appeal to the public’s existing level of understanding, rather than try to raise that level to a higher standard. Without the support of sufficient numbers of informed voters, few politicians will keep promises to limit government to its proper role. Instead, they find themselves walking a line designed to appease the uninformed voter.

Successful political action will be the result of correct information. Good candidates cannot be elected, or retained in office, by voters who cannot distinguish between a charlatan and a statesman or between a worthwhile cause and a pretext for power. Therefore, our first priority must be to invest our time and resources in building greater understanding of the principles of Americanism and of the forces working to obscure and destroy those principles.

Time and money invested in educating our friends is never wasted, whereas time and money spent getting out the vote or promoting a candidate is nearly always lost. This is true, even when our favorite candidate wins the election. For if he honors his oath of office and adheres to correct principles, he will not be understood or appreciated by the voting majority in his district, and the media will surely work to destroy him prior to the next election.






The JBS has members of various faiths ranging from Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, and Mormonism.


The John Birch Society's view on Religion:



Tangent: Religious Neutralism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258001&p=2853603)



Do not yield to either of the two great psychological weapons which the Insiders are now using more extensively and more forcefully than even a decade ago. First is the argument that we should simply go home, repent our sins, and pray, thus leaving the outcome of this struggle entirely up to God. We urge you to pray, by all means, whenever you feel that prayer is in order; but never stop working against a Conspiracy that is already destroying the freedom to worship God at all wherever it can do so.

— Robert Welch, September 1976 Bulletin

For John [Birch] believed completely in free will, and even by his own understanding of the relationship of man to God, he had to be worthy in order to be chosen as one of God’s instruments on earth.

— Robert Welch, The Life of John Birch


America’s religious foundation is essential to restoring freedom and truth. The John Birch Society is not a religious organization; however, most of its members are devoutly religious, and their enduring faith provides them with a foundation of hope for achieving success in the secular affairs of our nation.

A few of our best citizens, however, have withheld their time, labor, and resources from the cause of freedom under the belief that only worship and prayer can save our nation in its present “fallen” state. They feel that it is too late to work for freedom because the world is already doomed to destruction and that the end is near. A few individuals go even further by hoping to hasten the “Day of the Lord” by allowing evil to flourish.

A widely accepted, biblically based position regarding the end of the world is that “not even the angels of heaven know the day nor the hour,” and therefore, no one can profess to know when the Lord will come or when the world will end. In the meantime, we sense a profoundly sacred duty to resist evil and promote good at every opportunity. Most religious Americans understand that God has given them that responsibility. Moreover, they accept that all men everywhere are bound by humane conscience to oppose oppression and evil, save lives, liberate captives, and pronounce the truth as quickly as it becomes known to them. It is when people do not follow their conscience and do not take steps to oppose evil that evil has prevailed — punishing everyone including those of their own faith and their loved ones.

A belief formerly prominent among almost all Christian sects — sometimes attributed to St. Augustine but dating back to the Apostles — can be summarized as follows: “Pray as if it were all up to God, but work as if it were all up to me.” This is a good maxim that should keep us on course as we work and pray for freedom in this troubled world.

[ernie1241]

So, Frank, what is your point? How does your message address ANYTHING which I have written in this forum? You seem incapable of responding appropriately with FACTUAL evidence to refute anything which I present. WHY IS THAT?

You declare that I "have no business being on RonPaulForums.com" So, in other words, as is the case with every totalitarian or authoritarian mentality -- you never want to be contradicted and you never want anything you post to be challenged.

I certainly can understand why you are so hostile. Obviously, you are incapable of refuting anything I present -- so you simply want to censor me (or anyone else) who disputes what you write. THAT IS THE REAL FRANKREP!


The Real Ernie1241 (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/feb/23/bash-and-trash-are-all-conservatives-seem-be-doing/)


Ernie1241:


Let's face it folks. The GOP has declared war upon the American people. Republican Party leaders and a majority of Republicans in Congress have opposed EVERY economic and social reform over the past 60 years.

* They opposed FDR's New Deal.
* They opposed Truman's Fair Deal.
* They opposed social security.
* They opposed Medicare.
* They opposed unemployment insurance.
* They opposed workmen's compensation.
* They opposed civil rights legislation.
* They opposed appointment of the first Latino Supreme Court Justice


SOURCE:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/feb/23/bash-and-trash-are-all-conservatives-seem-be-doing/


Ernie1241, Ron Paul supporters reject most (or all) of those things listed. You have no business being on RonPaulForums.com.

[FrankRep]

So, Frank, what is your point? How does your message address ANYTHING which I have written in this forum? You seem incapable of responding appropriately with FACTUAL evidence to refute anything which I present. WHY IS THAT?

You're just a Big Government stooge, Ernie. You claim the Republican Party declared War on the American people because they opposed UnConstitutional programs.

Now I see why you Hate the John Birch Society!

[ernie1241]

No, Frank, it is NOT "my" logic. It is YOUR warped logic.

Thomas Sowell is not a racist. PLEASE READ THAT AGAIN.

Since I have falsified your premise --- what is left of your argument?

Do you truly not understand the difference between someone who opposes legislation from honorable and legitimate principles versus someone who opposes legislation because of their BIGOTRY and hostility toward an entire category of human beings?

Frank -- your comment reveals, once and for all, that you are morally and intellectually DEFECTIVE.

The difference between Sowell, Tom Woods, Barry Goldwater and other opponents is that they DID NOT ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH THE WHITE SUPREMACY MOVEMENT.

TEST FOR FRANK:

Ask Tom Sowell if he would hire or recommend as a speaker or a writer someone who HATED African Americans or someone who believed that African Americans were inferior beings who deserved to be treated as second class citizens.

Ask Tom Sowell if he would hire or recommend someone who associated himself with the KKK and similar white supremacy organizations.

(1) THEN come back and tell us Sowell's answer -- and his reasoning.

(2) THEN explain why the Birch Society DID hire and recommend people who believed African Americans were inferior beings who deserved to be treated as second class citizens.

(3) THEN explain why the Birch Society DID hire and recommend people who had connections to the KKK, the White Citizens Councils, or similar white supremacy organizations.

ONLY AFTER you explain these HISTORICAL FACTS can anything you present be taken seriously.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE FOR FRANK TO EXPLAIN:

Rev. Ferrell Griswold was Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Birmingham AL. From 1963-1965 he was on the staff of Gov. George Wallace of Alabama.

Rev. Griswold was a JBS member and paid speaker under the auspices of the Birch Society's Speakers Bureau. His primary speech was entitled “Civil Rights or Civil Riots”

As you read the following information, keep in mind that the Ku Klux Klan is listed as "subversive" on the Attorney General's List of Totalitarian, Fascist, Communist, Subversive, and Other Organizations.

Griswold was interviewed by FBI agents of the Birmingham field office on 9/26/63. One FBI document contains this notation regarding that interview:

“Griswold was interviewed by Agents of the Birmingham office on 09-26-63. During that interview he advised he was a member of the local JBS and attends meetings of that group regularly…Rev. Griswold stated he is a segregationist and is frequently invited to speak on the subject of constitutional rights and communism at local meetings of the Klan and other conservative organizations.” [FBI HQ 61-7558, #1060]

Among the speeches which Bircher Griswold gave were the following:

09-02-63 = United Klans of America rally at National Guard armory in Birmingham. Featured speaker was Imperial Wizard Robert Shelton. Griswold, Shelton, and third speaker (George Fisher) “alleged that the entire civil rights movement …is Communist inspired (and) the leaders of the various Negro groups active in the integration movement are Communists.” [HQ 157-370-4, #106; Birmingham report on UKA, page 5.]

02-08-64 = United Klans of America banquet at Dinkler-Tutwiler Hotel, Birmingham under name of "Alabama Rescue Squad". Griswold identified himself as a “Baptist minister active in United Americans For Conservative Government and ardent segregationist.” Griswold "claimed the Negro civil rights movement is completely dominated by Communists.".Other speakers included KKK and NSRP attorney Matt Murphy and Robert Shelton (Imperial Wizard, KKK). [HQ 157-370-4, #118; 2/9/64 SAC Birmingham teletype to JEH].

So, final question for FrankRep, WHY DID THE JBS HIRE REV. GRISWOLD AS A SPEAKER --- particularly when you consider that he not only was a racist but he frequently spoke before groups considered "subversive" by the Attorney General of the U.S.???



Thomas Sowell and Tom Woods both admit the Civil Rights Act violated the Constitution and failed.

Using your logic Ernie, Thomas Sowell must be racist as well.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason) (http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/)


Tom Woods.com
May 21st, 2010


In light of the hysteria in recent days, here’s some valuable information from Thomas Sowell, from his indispensable book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688062695?ie=UTF8&tag=thomacom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0688062695)?

http://s3.mediamatters.org/static/images/tv_clips/people/thomas-sowell.jpg
Thomas Sowell

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0688062695.01._SX140_SY225_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695

Sowell notes that champions of the Official Version of History ignore already existing trends in black employment, well under way long before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from which we are taught all blessings flowed. Writes Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.

“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.”

Sowell further notes that Asians and Hispanics show similar long-term upward trends that had begun years before the passage of the 1964 Act, and which were not accelerated either by the Act itself or by the “affirmative action” programs that (inevitably) followed. Mexican-Americans’ incomes rose in relation to those of whites between 1959 and 1969, but not at a greater rate than between 1949 and 1959. Chinese and Japanese-American households had matched their white counterparts in income by 1959 (in spite of the fact that Japanese-Americans had been interned in concentration camps less than two decades before, and countless Americans blamed Japan for the loss of their sons).


SOURCE:
http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-which-only-wicked-oppressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/

=====



Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was UnConstitutional, Statist, and a Failure


Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.

http://www.mises.org/

YouTube - Civil Rights and Statism [Thomas E. Woods, Jr.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH52tkt0C1A)

[ernie1241]

Again, Frank, you resort to deliberate lies instead of principled debate. I am not in favor of "big government" but I do support the "social justice" principles of the Catholic Church.

As I have repeatedly stated, the person whose views most closely resemble my own is Pat Buchanan.

Lastly, I do not "hate the JBS". Again, you resort to absurdity because you cannot refute the factual evidence I have presented. Now you know why nobody gives Birchers any serious consideration because, like yourself, they become immediately hostile, rude, and abusive whenever anyone challenges their personal political preferences.

ANOTHER TEST FOR FRANK:

Let's see if Frank can answer this question:

Can you list two or three prominent persons (whom we all would recognize) whose viewpoints you totally reject -- BUT, nevertheless, whom you acknowledge to be principled, honorable, intelligent, decent, and patriotic Americans?

OR

Alternatively, is it your position that there is no such thing as principled, honorable, intelligent, decent, and patriotic Americans IF they oppose your personal political preferences???






You're just a Big Government stooge, Ernie. You claim the Republican Party declared War on the American people because they opposed UnConstitutional programs.

Now I see why you Hate the John Birch Society!

[ernie1241]

Your comment makes no sense. Obviously, I disagree with the JBS. Are you saying that it is totally unacceptable for anyone to dispute ANYTHING which the JBS presents?

In other words, the JBS is infallible?

If you believe that the JBS is fallible -- then how would someone go about proving it to you -- if you characterize ALL criticism as unacceptable?

"Evidence" is DATA which refutes whatever is asserted. You notice that all of my messages cite specific EVIDENCE. You have not refuted ANYTHING which I presented.

Apparently, you agree that all the quotations I provided which reflect JBS writers/speakers and all my quotations from FBI documents, etc. are accurate. So what is your contradictory factual EVIDENCE?


I did present specific evidence. Your Post History.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=5361130

The intelligent folks here can read.

:cool:

[pcosmar]

ernie1241 Are you familiar with Cointelpro
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

You keep citing FBI documents. It was during this time that the FBI was involved in some extremely shady (and illegal not to mention immoral) activities.
Hardly a credible source of information.

Oh yeah, presently we have had the MIAC Report and other attacks by the ADL and SPLC.
Being on a list of "subversives" is hardly an insult at this point.

[FrankRep]

Speaking of which:


Ron Paul Speaks at a John Birch Society Luncheon - Aug 20, 2010


The John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/

The New American
http://www.thenewamerican.com/


YouTube - Ron Paul Speaks at a John Birch Society Luncheon, 8-20-2010 - Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otyWP_Gf3ow)

YouTube - Ron Paul Speaks at a John Birch Society Luncheon, 8-20-2010 - Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1gyp-vrqLw)

YouTube - Ron Paul Speaks at a John Birch Society Luncheon, 8-20-2010 - Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n2-p7lTRm8)

[WaltM]

Ernie1241, what are you trying to prove?


1.) Robert Welch didn't support the racist ideas of Revilo Oliver.


Unless you believe Welch was a dictator of the organization, you'd then still have to show that no members share Oliver's views.




2.) People were less "Politically Correct" in the 1950s.


Agreed.



2.) Revilo Oliver was a professor and very smart, but racist.


But?



3.) The John Birch Society does NOT support Racism or Anti-semitism.


Making them a PC organization prone to destruction from feminism, multiculturalism and egalitarianism. Of course, they cling desperately to their "Judeo-Christian" beliefs as their safeguard.




The John Birch Society has Black and Jewish Members.


Maybe recently, yeah, not when they were less PC, as you admitted.

[FrankRep]

WaltM = Troll.



Unless you believe Welch was a dictator of the organization, you'd then still have to show that no members share Oliver's views.

The organizational principles of the John Birch Society rejects racism.



3.) The John Birch Society does NOT support Racism or Anti-semitism.


Making them a PC organization prone to destruction from feminism, multiculturalism and egalitarianism. Of course, they cling desperately to their "Judeo-Christian" beliefs as their safeguard.


You comment makes no sense.



The John Birch Society has Black and Jewish Members.


Maybe recently, yeah, not when they were less PC, as you admitted.

The JBS has always invited people of all races to help fight to save the Republic and restore the Constitution.


The Effectiveness of The John Birch Society (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=236911)

Arthur R. Thompson, JBS CEO | JBS Bulletin
April 2010



Black American Speakers.

Several courageous black American JBS members helped bring an end to the violence and strife of the 1960s and 1970s. The work of such heroic individuals as Julia Brown, Lola Belle Holmes, Freeman Yearling and others, plus the writing of George Schuyler, brought a truly American message to large audiences especially in the South. Numerous demonstrations and their planned riots were canceled when the truth about the communist influence behind these operations was provided to Americans of all races.

[00_Pete]

To all talking crap at JBS, they have been fighting the "good fight" for decades, they predicted this whole mess before most of your parents werent even born, they had news media and intertainment industry throwing crap at them for decades and yet they have been enduring all the lies and insults...so you got NOTHING on them, quit your crying.

WaltM...your National-Socialist crap was created by a bunch of derranged, incompetent, non-ayrian, jews and half-jews and homosexuals, they were financed from day 1 by bankers and Wall Street (at least half of them jewish go figure) and the famous "economic and industrial miracle" of the Nazis was created by banks, Wall Street and certain key american corporations...JUST DEAL WITH IT.

[WaltM]

WaltM = Troll.


ad hominems don't hurt me




The organizational principles of the John Birch Society rejects racism.

You comment makes no sense.

The JBS has always invited people of all races to help fight to save the Republic and restore the Constitution.

Arthur R. Thompson, JBS CEO | JBS Bulletin
April 2010



Black American Speakers.

Several courageous black American JBS members helped bring an end to the violence and strife of the 1960s and 1970s. The work of such heroic individuals as Julia Brown, Lola Belle Holmes, Freeman Yearling and others, plus the writing of George Schuyler, brought a truly American message to large audiences especially in the South. Numerous demonstrations and their planned riots were canceled when the truth about the communist influence behind these operations was provided to Americans of all races.

how many ways do they want to have it?

Support Your Local Police. (tyranny starts at home)
Racially-inspired Programs Exposed. (organization based on race and community is unacceptable)
Stop Aiding Communists. (people who want to end racial division are bad too!)
Equal Rights Amendment Killed (at least not on the basis of race :)
Immigration problem, combating terrorism, Muslim terrorists (not racist, keep reading)
Exposing Conspiracy. (but they don't belive 9/11 was a conspiracy)

[FrankRep]

how many ways do they want to have it?

Support Your Local Police. (tyranny starts at home)
Racially-inspired Programs Exposed. (organization based on race and community is unacceptable)
Stop Aiding Communists. (people who want to end racial division are bad too!)
Equal Rights Amendment Killed (at least not on the basis of race :)
Immigration problem, combating terrorism, Muslim terrorists (not racist, keep reading)
Exposing Conspiracy. (but they don't belive 9/11 was a conspiracy)

Walt = Racist Troll

[WaltM]

Walt = Racist Troll

are you going to answer? or keep calling me names?

That goes to show how valid your positions are, when criticized, you call people racist.

Oh wait, that's what liberals call people when they lose an argument!

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/68948/1015153.gif

[Kotin]

Walt = Racist Troll

You may not agree with him but name calling does not make you look so great..

[FrankRep]

Support Your Local Police. (tyranny starts at home)

The John Birch Society was fighting against the Federalization of the Police.


Support Your Local Police (http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue03/local.htm)
(Oppose Police Federalization)

William F. Jasper | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Copyright 1998



Racially-inspired Programs Exposed. (organization based on race and community is unacceptable)

Racism in any form should be opposed.



Stop Aiding Communists. (people who want to end racial division are bad too!)
Equal Rights Amendment Killed (at least not on the basis of race :)
Immigration problem, combating terrorism, Muslim terrorists (not racist, keep reading)

What are you talking about?



Exposing Conspiracy. (but they don't belive 9/11 was a conspiracy)

The John Birch Society doesn't accept/believe the official story, but they don't support the "9/11 inside job" theory.

[WaltM]

The John Birch Society doesn't accept/believe the official story, but they don't support the "9/11 inside job" theory.

Ok.

My apologies.

Can you tell me what they believe about 9/11?

[FrankRep]

Can you tell me what they believe about 9/11?

We don't know HOW it happened, but we know the Government's response to it: Homeland Security, Patriot Act, and the Iraq War. The Government's response is the real issue we need to focus on. That's why the JBS fought against those three actions.

The New American just wrote article about 9/11 here: Truth About 9/11 Revisited (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258117)


Here's the John Birch Society's view of 9/11 and Terrorism:

Exposing Terrorism: Inside the Terror Triangle

Exposing Terrorism: Inside the Terror Triangle on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/6567370)



JBS CEO Art Thompson reveals there is more to the war on terror than meets the eye. He discusses terrorism, how it has been used in the past, reveals the state sponsors and others in the supporting network and demonstrates how Islam is being used to mask the real culprits. (2009, 17 min., DVD)

[capousa]

Frank,

Thanks for your efforts in the defense of freedom. Time to agree with Ernie that the JBS is not infallible and then move on from his trap of wasting the time and attention of those who are actually trying to fight tyranny.

Anybody on the ball can go back through Ernie's posts and see that his technique boils down to making declarations followed by "proof" that does not match up against the juicy declaration he just made. See my earlier post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2854757&postcount=20) that Ernie chose not to address.

Back to work...

[heavenlyboy34]

You may not agree with him but name calling does not make you look so great..

In my experience, that's actually pretty accurate description of Walt. :o

[low preference guy]

You may not agree with him but name calling does not make you look so great..

i think FrankRep is actually praising WaltM with faint damn. that's why he doesn't look good.