- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

John Birch Society makes a comeback

Published: Sun, May 20, 2012 @ 12:05 a.m.

Mainstream GOP echoes attack of right-wing group

By Jeanne Starmack


sharon, pa.

The John Birch Society, a once-prominent radical-right political organization that had all but disappeared, is making a comeback.

It’s evident, too, that its views, once shunned by mainstream Republicans, are making their way into the heart of GOP politics.

A JBS speaker will appear at a public meeting at the Sharon city building at 7 p.m. Tuesday. The group has sent speakers to meetings throughout the country over the past year. They’re warning that a 20-year-old, nonbinding United Nations accord that promotes sustaining Earth’s resources is threatening U.S. citizens’ rights and freedom.

At its winter meeting in January, the Republican National Committee also adopted a resolution to expose the accord, which is called U.N. Agenda 21. The RNC wants its resolution adopted into the Republican Party Platform at this year’s convention.

Agenda 21 was adopted in Rio de Janeiro on June 14, 1992.

Its preamble says: “This process marks the beginning of a new global partnership for sustainable development.”

In its introduction, it calls for considering the environment and natural resources when making decisions about economic growth.

The agenda calls for changes in consumption patterns, stating that unsustainable lifestyles of richer societies place “immense stress” on the environment, while poor societies struggle to meet basic needs. It recommends devising a strategy that meets the needs of the poor while reducing waste.

But what is the United Nations’ agenda? The JBS believes it is an ominous one.

“The John Birch Society wants to get the U.N. out of the U.S.,” said John Beveridge, leader of the Mercer County chapter, which has about a dozen members. “We believe in sovereign nations.”

His chapter scheduled the Tuesday meeting. City Manager Scott Andrejchak said the chapter is just using the council meeting room, and the city does not endorse the group’s message.

Here’s what JBS wants people to know: Individual choice is being taken away in the name of resource sustainability. What does that have to do with Agenda 21? Are there specific passages in the accord that threaten free choice in America?

Beveridge acknowledged he has not read it.

“I haven’t studied it. It’s 1,000 pages,” he said. He has, however, read a JBS booklet that outlines what Birchers believe is the hidden Agenda 21.

“Rising prices, high electric bills, water shortages, and a scarce supply of gasoline at the pump,” reads the introduction to the booklet.

“These are but a few examples of some of the conditions that the United States has faced in the past, but just for one moment, imagine how you would feel if the next time they happened they were a direct result of government policy.”

The introduction goes on to warn of local government sustainability boards that ration natural resources. The local sustainability boards exist now, the booklet points out.

In fact, there are 550 local governments throughout the U.S. that belong to the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, which is based in Bonn, Germany.

ICLEI’s website indicates its members are committed to sustainable development. It provides technical consulting, training, and information services.

It was founded in 1990, two years before Agenda 21 was signed, pointed out Hal Shurtleff, Midwest-Northeast field director for the JBS.

“ICLEI was set up two years before the Rio conference with the purpose of implementing Agenda 21,” Shurtleff said.

“You have people all over the U.S. buying into ‘man-made global warming’ and ‘We’re running out of everything!’” he said.

As a result, he said, governments are subsidizing green-energy projects such as windmills and solar panels, using taxpayers’ dollars to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. The assertion that global warming is man-made, he believes, is based on bad science.

Shurtleff used the town of Dedham, Mass., an ICLEI member, as an example.

“It hired an environmental-science major as an environmental officer to lessen its carbon footprint,” he said. “So they joined ICLEI, and you get money from the federal government to subsidize windmills, water restrictions, green-building codes, conservation easements and rezoning so you can lose your property rights — you can’t chop a tree down,” he said.

Is there an outcry in Dedham over the sustainability drive?

“We’re starting the outcry,” Shurtleff said.

Dedham’s website shows its environmental department promoting Friday as “bike to work day.” Under a “climate change” heading, there are tips for “going green” such as recycling, getting energy audits and installing motion detectors.

Why would ICLEI push Agenda 21 to get the government to subsidize green projects?

Power and money, said Shurtleff. “Most people are in it for profit.”

Shurtleff emphasized he has “nothing against windmills.” But, he said, the private sector should fund them.

Shurtleff said there are no specific passages in Agenda 21 that overtly call for government rationing of resources. “Smart growth” and “sustainable development” are watchwords, he said — clues that Agenda 21 is at work.

Shurtleff also rustled the dust of JBS’ past, calling the policies of Agenda 21 “socialist” and “collectivist.”

Established in 1958 to fight Communism, the organization hasn’t lost its anticommunist views just because the Cold War is over, he said.

It has lost some of its views, or at least downplayed them, through the decades, said Mark Potok, a senior fellow with the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil-rights organization that monitors extreme-right political groups.

“[JBS] gave up anti-Semitism in the 1960s and tries to hide its anti-black history,” Potok said, adding that it now focuses on conspiracy theories. “Today, they are a strange little group.”

When the group accused President Dwight D. Eisenhower of being a communist agent, “it was the end of them being taken seriously in the 1970s and ’80s,” Potok said.

In the 1990s, the JBS made a resurgence, with members attending gun shows and militia events, he said.

They have appeared at tea party events, though there is no evidence the tea party is aligned with them, he said.

Potok said the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory fits in with the JBS’ “very old fear” of globalization — this idea that we freedom-loving people would be forced into some hellish government tyranny.”

“The problem is, it distorts any kind of real attempt to deal with our problems as a society,” he continued.

He called Agenda 21 “a feel-good plan.”

“It is utterly nonbinding,” he said. “The real point is, it doesn’t make anyone do anything.”

Potok said the RNC’s recommendation that its resolution exposing Agenda 21 be adopted into the party platform means the cause would be taken up by Mitt Romney, the GOP’s presumptive presidential candidate.

That, he said, shows how far right the mainstream Republican Party has moved since Republican President George H.W. Bush signed Agenda 21 along with leaders of 177 other countries.


1NoBS(2758 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Wonderful. Just what we need - more uber-right religious nuts making demands.

Suggest removal:

2shurtleffhal(2 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

As opposed to uber-left religious nuts making demands?

Suggest removal:

3shurtleffhal(2 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfUIWM... This is a link to a short video entitled "Agenda 21 for Public Officials." For more information on Agenda 21 please visit www.jbs.org or contact me (857-498-1309 E-mail shurtleffhal@aol.com

Suggest removal:

4Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

I though that's what the tea party was with sheets on

Suggest removal:

5city_resident(528 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

This Agenda 21 stuff always makes me laugh. I agree that forcing people to live anywhere is bad. But some of these anti-Agenda 21 people seem to believe that the current return to/revitalization of cities, that we're seeing more and more of in the US, is somehow a plot by the UN to force people out of the suburbs.

Suggest removal:

6alentown(12 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Say what you will about this group, but they were at the forefront of the anti-communist movement in the post-war years and have been proven right about their concerns. This UN power grab is the latest of a 70-year attempt to undermine American sovereignty.
Please follow the issue, then make a judgement.

Suggest removal:

7doubled(210 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

So the birch society is aligned closely with the tea party -- who takes every opportunity to scream "austerity" and that we have to pay our debt off, right now, and it doesn't matter who suffers because we can't leave our grandkids with all this debt. Yet, in the same breath, they support birch's opposition to a concerted global effort to sustain our planet's natural resources. So, if I'm figuring this right, (and I believe I am) the tea party is very, very, very, very, concerned about leaving debt for our grandchildren, but doesn't seem to care whether or not we leave our grandchildren any food to eat. Is that how it works, baggers??

Suggest removal:

8doubled(210 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Hey alentown, You said...."Say what you will about this group, but they were at the forefront of the anti-communist movement in the post-war years...."

Oh, you mean the movement by Sen Joe McCarthy....the one that utterly destroyed the lives of hundreds of INNOCENT citizens of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.....Is that the movement these "patriots" spearheaded? They'd be laughable if they weren't so vile and disgusting.

Suggest removal:

9kk80586(229 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Poor reading comprehension much doubled? "They have appeared at tea party events, though there is no evidence the tea party is aligned with them, he said." Have someone read that to til you understand. I am not about defending jbs as I am vaguely aware of them but I can see the slant of vindy and the lies..err, errors of some posters. You may include yourself in the subset "some posters".

Suggest removal:

10ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

This 157-page report explains why J. Edgar Hoover and senior FBI officials within the Bureau’s Domestic Intelligence Division concluded in FBI memos that the JBS was “extremist”, “irrational” and “irresponsible”

Contrary to claims made by the Birch Society about the alleged "left-wing" origins of JBS criticism, the most potent adverse comments about the JBS have always originated from the right-side of the political spectrum. This report presents a representative sample of such comments.

This report presents documents which, generally, have never been previously publicly available -- including private correspondence between Robert Welch and numerous individuals and correspondence by JBS National Council members during the formative years of the Birch Society. This report is a work-in-progress and considerable new material will be added over the next few months.

Suggest removal:

11BuckeyeWoogie(10 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

The John Birch Society stands for limited government as understood by our founding fathers. The smears and twisting of facts are a result of the JBS being very effective at educating the public as to what our Government should be and what threats to that system of government may exist. The liberals that want expand the government under the guise of environmentalism are very upset that the JBS is being sucessful in stopping the plan. Others like Ernie are crackpots. FBI agents Dan Smoot and Cleon Skousen have vouched for the JBS and the so called proof that Ernie has is a pile of garbage.

Suggest removal:

12ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

In response to Buckeye:

I am happy to be in the company of such fellow "crackpots" as Sen. Barry Goldwater, Sen. John Tower, Cong. Walter Judd, Russell Kirk, James Burnham, Eugene Lyons, and numerous other prominent conservatives who have rejected the self-serving and false statements and assertions made by the JBS over the years.

Since Buckeye brought up former FBI Special Agents Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot, it is significant to point out the following facts"

1. Dan Smoot was censured and placed on probation shortly before his abrupt retirement from the FBI in 1951.
His superiors within the FBI considered him "a crackpot"

2. After Cleon Skousen associated himself with what the FBI described as "right-wing extremist" views, he was removed from the Bureau's mailing list. Furthermore, contrary to what Cleon's admirers (including the JBS) contend, Skousen's career in the FBI was predominantly administrative and other assignments which had nothing whatsoever to do with internal security matters.

If Buckeye truly believes that my evidence "is a pile of garbage" then it should be easy for him/her to falsify it by quoting from FBI files and documents. Since I am the only person in our country who obtained the entire FBI HQ file on the JBS (12,000 pages) plus numerous FBI field office files -- we can safely conclude that Buckeye has no interest in facts.

More about Cleon Skousen's career here:


More about Dan Smoot's career here:


Suggest removal:

13ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Additional FACTUAL information regarding the FBI's contempt for the Birch Society and its assertions may be had by contacting me directly:


I might also mention, for anyone (other than Buckeye, who is interested in actual facts) that all of my online reports include scanned copies of many of the more significant FBI documents which establish the accuracy of what I have written.

Suggest removal:

14Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Who cares what some bureaucrats decades ago had to say? (Except Ernie, who seems to have an unhealthy obsession based on the links he provided).
I know what JBS stands for today and I fully support it. Restore the Constitution and morality, get US out of the UN and educate the American people. I say Amen to that!

Suggest removal:

15BuckeyeWoogie(10 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

If one actually spent time combing through Ernie's pile of crud you would see that it is in fact a pile of crud. He makes claims as to facts and hopes that no one actually clicks on the links and takes a look at a bunch of hodge podge junk.

Notice that he does not attack the claims of the JBS because he knows them to be true, he spends his time instead making unfounded personal attacks.

It is noteworthy that the groups that actually so something and are effective take smears from guys like Ernie that sit around in their boxers behind a computer never actually doing anything.

Suggest removal:

16ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Bill: The answer to your question is that the JBS cares!

I copy below (in two parts due to length) a representative sample of comments made by prominent Birchers (including JBS founder Robert Welch) which indicate the high esteem in which the JBS has ALWAYS regarded the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover as our nation's most knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable source of factual data on internal security matters---especially the communist movement:


Robert Welch 3/4/57 letter to J. Edgar Hoover:

“Dear Mr. Hoover: As implausible as it seems that anybody could give you any new glimpse of the Communist conspiracy, I am still bold enough to think that this issue of my little magazine might. So I hope you will be able to find some time to read it. With great gratitude and admiration for your part in the effort to save our country and our civilization, and with all good wishes, I am, Sincerely, Robert H.W. Welch Jr.” [FBI HQ file 62-104401- #x1 – captioned “Memo From The Desk Of Robert H. W. Welch Jr.”]

JBS Bulletin, July 1961, p 11
“But we have been equally emphatic at all times in expressing our confidence in J. Edgar Hoover and in the FBI under his direction.”

Robert Welch 11/20/64 letter to J. Edgar Hoover after seeing Boston newspaper article regarding Hoover’s criticisms of Welch at an 11/18/64 press conference:

"I can only hope that in time I may still earn your respect, simply by continuing to put all that I am and that I have into the same fight as your own. With all good wishes to you in the meantime, for your continued great service to our country, I am, Sincerely, Robert Welch" [FBI HQ file 62-104401, serial #2381, 11/20/64 letter by Welch] and JBS Public Relations Director John Rousselot made the following comment about the critical observation about Welch made by Hoover: “I know Mr. Hoover says that about Mr. Welch. But we still have high regard for him and the FBI.” [Saturday Evening Post, “Hoover of the FBI”, 9/25/65, p. 32]

JBS magazine article, “The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover”, published in American Opinion, October 1966:

Hoover is described as "the government's top authority on Communism. His patriotism, integrity, devotion to duty, and consistent efficiency are well known...Had we been wise enough to heed his clear words of warning over the years, we would not now be faced with such a monstrous conspiracy...God bless J. Edgar Hoover!"

Suggest removal:

17ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


Hattiesburg MS American, 5/5/65, p4 “John Birch Society Representative Discusses Talk He Will Make Tonight” re: Reed Benson (JBS National Public Relations Director):

“Benson praised the dedication of J. Edgar Hoover who he said is the foremost authority on Communism. ‘I fear and tremble at thought of the day when he will be out of the FBI’ Benson said.”

Tom Davis, JBS Public Relations Regional Manager, 10/26/65 letter to J. Edgar Hoover. Davis was formerly a JBS Major Coordinator in New York:

“I continue to look upon the Bureau and its work with tremendous pride and admiration. Its efforts, under your direction, have so obviously been instrumental in preserving the security of the United States of America. God bless you and keep you strong.”

Albuquerque NM Journal, 3/22/66, p1, “John Birch Lecturer” re Julia Brown comment on Hoover (she was a former FBI informant within CPUSA who subsequently became a JBS member and paid speaker):

“We must demand full support for the great American, J. Edgar Hoover.”

Robert Welch letter to Hoover asking for permission to publish book with Hoover comments on communism:

“Mr. Welch advised he had the greatest admiration for the Director and that the captioned book was intended as an instrument against communism. He said he felt the statements on the subject from Mr. Hoover would be taken as statements from the world’s greatest authority on the matter of communism.” [FBI HQ file 62-104401, #3148; 6/28/67 airtel from SAC Boston to J. Edgar Hoover concerning contact made by Douglas C. Morse, Managing Editor of Western Islands Publishers.]

John Birch Society Website 8/19/93: Robert W. Lee: “Assassinating J. Edgar Hoover”

“If it is true that a person's character can be judged as precisely by the enemies he earns as by the friends he makes, the character of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover must be rated high indeed…J. Edgar Hoover had, and obviously still has, the right enemies. They continue to stand, in their own peculiar way, as a special tribute to his character, his patriotism, and those ‘social values of home’ which he espoused.”

Suggest removal:

18ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


If you actually read any of my online reports you would instantly recognize how absurdly false and defamatory your comment below is:

"Notice that he does not attack the claims of the JBS because he knows them to be true, he spends his time instead making unfounded personal attacks."

My JBS report (currently 157 pages) is devoted ENTIRELY to addressing specific assertions made by the Birch Society since its inception.

Now--Buckeye---WHAT SOURCES DID I RELY UPON for my evidence?

Come on! Be intellectually honest--just one time--OK?

I relied upon the very sources which the Birch Society told me are INDISPUTABLY factual and credible and authoritative.

I relied upon the FBI -- our nation's primary internal security agency. Why did I rely upon them? Because Robert Welch and senior FBI officials PLUS former FBI informants inside the Communist Party USA who subsequently became PAID SPEAKERS for the JBS --- ALL told me to rely upon the FBI!

Who else did I rely upon?

I used (for example)

* The House Committee on Un-American Activities

* The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS)

* The California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities

* Plus people like Robert Morris (former Chief Counsel of SISS) and former FBI informants (and JBS supporters) like Julia Brown, Lola Belle Holmes -- plus other JBS-recommended sources including GIANTS within the conservative and anti-communist movements whose publications THE JBS PUBLISHED AND/OR SOLD!!!!

So, Buckeye, why do YOU now PRETEND that NONE of these sources is acceptable??

Is it because you cannot refute any of them with FACTS -- so you must rely upon sarcasm and falsehoods to defend the JBS?

At least have the decency to be HONEST --ok? Most of my online reports present scanned copies of FBI memos plus other critically important data from sources which the JBS recommended! So stop lying about the quality of my research.

Lastly, check out the link to my report which summarizes the negative comments made about Robert Welch and the JBS by prominent CONSERVATIVES --- including even (for example) MRS. ROBERT WELCH!

Here is the link again:


If YOU want to pretend that the JBS is totally flawless and beyond any criticism -- then have the decency to admit that you care NOTHING for factual evidence!

Suggest removal:

19ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


1. If the sources that I relied upon which I listed in my previous message are NOT acceptable to you (even though they were effusively praised and recommended by the JBS) -- then please tell everyone reading our exchange here, WHAT SOURCES do YOU think should be relied upon for factual knowledge about past history?

2. If you ever read my online reports, (which you probably won't) you will notice that I quote extensively from FBI documents regarding the Communist Party USA. At its peak, the FBI had over 400 informants inside the CPUSA---including our two most important moles, Morris and Jack Childs. Morris Childs is particularly noteworthy because he provided the FBI with copies of secret CPUSA documents -- including financial data, dues payments summaries, membership statistics, mailing lists for CPUSA publications, etc.

Obviously, the JBS NEVER had access to ANY of this data.

So---is it your position that I should totally discard all of the CPUSA files I have obtained from the FBI (currently over 100,000 pages of CPUSA data in my collection)?

3. Insofar as I can find FBI memos and reports in my collection that SUPPORT certain statements or conclusions made in JBS publications or by JBS speakers -- should I also throw ALL that away -- because you regard ANYTHING from the FBI as worthless?

4. Lastly, what would it take in the way of evidence for you to graciously acknowledge materially important errors made by the JBS?

This is a particularly important question because a lot of what the JBS presented over the past 50+ years is based upon data which they claim they obtained from sources (people, organizations, publications, or agencies) which the JBS explicitly described as knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable. See, for example, my Bircher quotes in previous message re: Hoover and the FBI.

If you now want us all to believe that the JBS was TOTALLY MISTAKEN about the FBI --- then what JBS publications should be discarded because they contain statements or assertions based upon sworn testimony by FBI employees, FBI informants, or by prominent conservative authors who also recommended the FBI and other sources which I used in my reports??

Suggest removal:

20ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

For anyone who would like to see some of the CPUSA-related data which I have posted online, see the following report link.

Although Buckeye and Bill will never acknowledge their ignorance about this matter, I would like to point out that some of our nation's foremost scholars who have devoted their entire academic careers to researching and writing about the CPUSA (and other radical left groups) --- have complimented me for my research into FBI files on CPUSA-related subjects.

In fact, my research has been mentioned by scholars in messages they posted online in the History of American Communism discussion network here:


In addition, I am in the process of donating a large portion of my collection to a major university library -- here:


Does Buckeye or Bill Lamel have anything comparable to report about THEIR contributions to historical research --OR-- are they merely mean-spirited ankle-biters who have NOTHING to add to our factual knowledge about the historical matters I have spent 40+ years researching?

Suggest removal:

21ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Ooops! Forgot to paste my CPUSA webpage link into my previous message:


Suggest removal:

22Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Lol Ernie hold the personal insults it makes you look even more petty. Again I do not care at all what some bureaucrats wrote decades ago (even if Welch respected the bureaucracy for some reason), or about your borderline psychotic fascination with it (40+ years???? Sad. Do you have a real job? Have you contributed anything to restoring liberty?). I care about what I know to be true:
1) The JBS is composed of some of the finest and most upstanding patriots I have had the privilege of meeting.
2) It stands for the same things I do: More freedom, less government and with God's help a better world.
3) It is a very effective organization to wake up Americans and restore the Constitution, national sovereignty and morality.
4) There are no other organizations that I know of that meet those 3 criteria.

Suggest removal:

23ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


There are no "personal insults" except the ones your messages constantly hurl against me Bill.

Your current comment totally misses the point (as usual). Not just Robert Welch but every prominent Bircher and every prominent conservative anti-communist effusively praised the FBI as well as the other sources I mentioned in my previous messages.

TO THIS DAY -- the JBS still asks its members to read and believe statements and conclusions which are based upon the very sources which you now want to contemptuously dismiss as nothing more than "bureaucrats".

Also very significant that you describe historical research as a "psychotic" pursuit but, somehow, you do not apply that same standard to the hundreds of publications produced by the Birch Society.

Yes, the JBS has many fine, decent, intelligent, patriotic and honorable members. But it is also true that fine, decent, intelligent, patriotic and honorable people can be totally mistaken in their analyses and conclusions.

Lastly, the JBS has never "contributed anything to restoring liberty".

Instead, it has attacked and defamed virtually all of our national leaders and government officials.

The Birch Society and its surrogates have been the subject of many libel lawsuits. When the JBS and its surrogates have had the opportunity to prove the accuracy of their accusations in a courtroom environment — they have failed. The most famous example being the historic precedent-setting libel lawsuit brought by Chicago lawyer Elmer Gertz whom the JBS described in an article published in its monthly magazine as “a Communist fronter” and a “Leninist” engaged in a “conspiracy” against Chicago police.

After 14 years of litigation, including 2 different jury trials, numerous appeals, and review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the JBS paid Gertz $100,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages for malice. As you may know, punitive damages are only allowed when “malice” can be shown.

Malice, in legalese, refers to “reckless disregard for truth” arising from evil intent and a desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering.

So, again, one has to perform due diligence to understand the basis for JBS arguments and conclusions.

During the 1930′s and 1940′s many intelligent, decent, honorable, principled Americans associated themselves with organizations, or they signed petitions, which they later discovered were Communist-front enterprises.

Suggest removal:

24ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

PART TWO in reply to Bill:

The former FBI Assistant Director who headed the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division made a speech in 1961 which made the following observations. One could easily substitute “John Birch Society” for “Communist” or “Communist front or causes” in his statement:
“Over the years, some well-meaning, intelligent, and patriotic Americans of distinction—including clergymen—have been induced to give their names, their prestige, and often their talents to communist fronts or causes without apparently being aware of their true nature or purpose. These men and women were mostly motivated by a genuine and idealistic desire to further what they thought or had been led to believe were worthwhile and laudable social objectives and programs. These individuals were frequently too busy or too unsuspecting, or both, to investigate the nature and backing of the organization with which they had identified themselves. Even though in some cases they have known or suspected that communists were involved, they were too unfamiliar with communist practices to realize that communists were not interested in the cause itself, but only in the way it could be twisted and used to advance communist aims and goals.” [William C. Sullivan, Communism and Religion in The United States, Highland Park Methodist Church, Dallas, Texas, October 19, 1961, page 3.]

In closing, I point out that at no time have you disputed the factual accuracy of anything I have presented here. Instead, you resort (in typical Bircher fashion) to ad hominem slurs against me.

Perhaps YOU think ALL of these prominent conservatives were "psychotic" because they criticized the JBS???

Sen. Barry Goldwater, Sen. John Tower, Cong. Walter Judd, Russell Kirk, Ronald Reagan, Fred Schwarz, Martin Dies, Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer, former FBI informant Herbert A. Philbrick (of "I Led Three Lives" fame), William Henry Chamberlin, Cong. Gordon Scherer (House Committee on Un-American Activities), Col. William R. Kintner, conservative columnist George Sokolsky, the editors of the conservative newspaper, Human Events, Cardinal Richard Cushing, Lawrence Fertig, Anthony Bouscaren, Richard Nixon, James Jackson Kilpatrick, William F. Buckley Jr., publisher William Loeb (Manchester NH Union-Leader) and a host of other prominent individuals.

One ex-Soviet spy (Anatoly Granovsky) made the following comment about the JBS in 1961:

"The Soviet Communists would sacrifice a thousand American Communists to save the John Birch Society, for instance. I don't mean the Birch Society is Communist-infiltrated. It doesn't have to be. By discrediting prominent Americans, it confuses the population about whom to trust. In socializing Czechoslovakia…we did everything to divide the armed forces units trained by the British and the Americans by spreading rumors about officers until they were so thoroughly discredited their men would not obey them and they had to be removed."

Suggest removal:

25ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


I ask you the same questions which I presented to Buckeye.


1. If the sources that I relied upon which I listed in my previous messages are NOT acceptable to you (even though they were effusively praised and recommended by the JBS) -- then please tell everyone reading our exchange here, WHAT SOURCES DO YOU THINK should be relied upon for factual knowledge about our past history?

2. If you ever read my online reports, (which you probably won't) you will notice that I quote extensively from FBI documents regarding the Communist Party USA. At its peak, the FBI had over 400 informants inside the CPUSA---including our two most important moles, Morris and Jack Childs. Morris Childs is particularly noteworthy because he provided the FBI with copies of secret CPUSA documents -- including financial data, dues payments summaries, membership statistics, mailing lists for CPUSA publications, etc.

Obviously, the JBS NEVER had access to ANY of this data.

So---is it your position that I should totally discard all of the CPUSA files I have obtained from the FBI (currently over 100,000 pages of CPUSA data in my collection)?

3. Insofar as I can find FBI memos and reports in my collection that SUPPORT statements or conclusions made in JBS publications or by JBS speakers -- should I also throw ALL that away -- because you regard ANYTHING from the FBI as worthless?

4. Lastly, what would it take in the way of evidence for you to graciously acknowledge materially important errors made by the JBS?

This is a particularly important question because a lot of what the JBS presented over the past 50+ years is based upon data which they claim they obtained from sources (people, organizations, publications, or agencies) which the JBS explicitly described as knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable. See, for example, my Bircher quotes in previous message re: Hoover and the FBI.

If you now want us all to believe that the JBS was TOTALLY MISTAKEN about the FBI --- then what JBS publications should be discarded because they contain statements or assertions based upon sworn testimony by FBI employees, by FBI informants, or by prominent conservative authors who also recommended the FBI and other sources which I used in my reports??

Suggest removal:

26ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


I presume that you believe (as does the JBS) that Sen. Joseph McCarthy was a patriotic American whose accusations and statements were accurate and truthful.

However, Sen. McCarthy relied extensively upon data which he received from individuals who were associated with the FBI as employees or as informants inside the CPUSA who reported back to the FBI what they learned.

Furthermore, a few years ago, a very prominent conservative author (M. Stanton Evans) wrote a book entitled "Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joseph McCarthy".

Perhaps you think Evans is "psychotic" because he spent so many years researching a 60-year-old controversy?

Or, perhaps you think we should totally dismiss his book because he praised Hoover's FBI --AND-- Evans used information he found in FBI files?

You cannot have it both ways Bill.

You cannot contemptuously dismiss ALL data found in FBI investigative files or ALL sources recommended over the past 5 decades by the JBS (which even today they praise, quote, and sell) --- but, somehow, at the same time, totally dismiss those very same sources when they present conclusions which DO NOT CONFORM to JBS dogma or when they express severe criticism of the JBS!

A rational person candidly acknowledges factual evidence which does not conform to his personal opinions.

A rational person does not contemptuously dismiss or de-value such evidence or pretend that it does not exist (as you have done!)

In my JBS Report, for example, I quote numerous statements and conclusions made by Robert Welch and the JBS. I then present FACTUAL evidence which disputes those statements and conclusions.

One example:

According to Robert Welch:

“…we believe that there are not more than 300,000 to 500,000 Communists in our country (or about ¼ of 1% of our population) ..."[JBS Bulletin, July 1961, page 14]

By contrast, in 1961, the actual number of CP members in the United States according to the FBI was 5262 --i.e. nothing remotely close to Welch's perception of 300,000 to 500,000! [See FBI New York field file 100-80638, serial #1882, which is a 6/30/61 FBI Chart of CPUSA Membership, by state, by FBI field divisions and by CPUSA Districts.]

My JBS Report includes a scanned copy of that FBI chart. The FBI obtained its CPUSA membership data from its moles inside the CPUSA and from Party dues payment records.

Obviously, Robert Welch had not the remotest clue about the actual number of Communist Party members. He was just GUESSING.

So---you (and all other Birchers) have a choice. You can rely upon FACTUAL DATA or you can rely upon whatever FICTION is created by the JBS.

Suggest removal:

27Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Ernie: This will be my final post because honestly you are starting to scare me with your very bizarre obsession with this. It is my opinion that the JBS has been opposed by some bureaucrats, some faux conservatives and even some misled real conservatives, because it has been the most successful organization in exposing the true nature of the conspiracy of which communism was merely one arm. Some of the critics and bureaucrats you cited probably honestly believed what they said. To quote you:

"But it is also true that fine, decent, intelligent, patriotic and honorable people can be totally mistaken in their analyses and conclusions."

I agree.

Again, I support what the JBS stands for, the Birchers I know are some of the finest people I've met and as long as their mission aligns with my beliefs, I am willing to overlook occasional mistakes (everyone is human) over many decades of great work and continue working with them to restore liberty, morality and the Constitution. As far as I can tell this is the best and most successful organization fighting for my principles, so until a better one comes along or something changes with them, I said God Bless the JBS and the work they do and I will keep supporting them fully.

Suggest removal:

28Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Friends and Enemies
Posted by Charles Burris on May 25, 2012 04:16 PM

Last night's presentation at Tulsa's Ron Paul Headquarters on the John Birch Society was very edifying and enjoyable. Those persons attending were provided excellent factual information and materials regarding why they should consider joining this long-standing educational/political action organization for constitutional principles and limited government.

In addition to the presenters, I briefly touched on some matters relating to the history of the JBS and the long standing smear campaign of vilification and attack upon the Society by elements of the synthetic "conservative movement" directed by the late William F. Buckley Jr. and his National Review circle.

The JBS was only one of many specific targets of this group since the founding of NR in 1955. Others have included novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand, Old Right author John T. Flynn, Murray N. Rothbard and the libertarians, the Cato Institute and Inquiry Magazine (see editorials "Attack" and "Counter Attack"), writers Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran, Lew Rockwell and LRC, and most recently, Ron Paul and his followers. All of the aforementioned were deemed heretics of the established church by self-styled "conservative" Pope William F. Buckley and his curia.

These were not random targets but part of a sophisticated attack strategy by elements of the intelligence community going back decades in attacking specific groups or individuals deemed enemies of the state and of the CIA's phony "conservative movement" created to justify and rationalize the projection of imperial power and hegemony of the national security state.

In politics you must know your enemies as well as your friends and allies.

How many Mitt Romney advisors and future sub-cabinet members can you name from this collection?


Suggest removal:

29ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Bill: Why do you characterize my comments or my research as "an obsession" but you give the JBS a totally free pass for THEIR 50+ year "obsession"???

With respect to Bill Buckley:

Buckley and Robert Welch supported the same causes, contributed money to the same organizations, and had many of the same friends!

Even after Buckley rejected the JBS, he often defended the JBS.

But the main points continue to be:

(1) Suppose you totally ignore Buckley's contributions with respect to building & nurturing the postwar conservative movement in our country.

(2) That still leaves all of the prominent conservatives who rejected the arguments presented by Welch and the JBS. Nevertheless, Welch and the JBS recommended and sold their writings! Often, when Welch wanted to make some point in the monthly JBS Bulletin, he would quote something which they wrote or some of their testimony before Congressional committees!

(3) The "true nature of the conspiracy" must be judged against all available FACTUAL evidence. Significantly, in its 50+ years, the JBS has never acknowledged that it made any materially important mistakes!

(4) Thanks to the FOIA, every Bircher (even you!) can now obtain FBI investigative files which report what transpired during closed, secret meetings of the Communist Party in our country--particularly meetings of its senior officials. Sometimes, the FBI had one or more live informants at those meetings (like Morris Childs). Other times, the meetings were tape recorded. Many times, confidential Party documents were copied and given to the FBI by their informants.

When you compare what senior CP officials said or wrote in confidence to each other about all sorts of people and organizations versus the JBS position on those same people or organizations -- then, and only then, can you truly comprehend how often the JBS came to utterly absurd and false conclusions!

But DO NOT take MY word for that.

Just read the testimony or reports made by CP members who later became JBS members and/or speakers!

Example: Compare the JBS position regarding our civil rights movement and the most prominent leaders of that movement versus the bitter denunciations of those same individuals by senior CPUSA leaders!

And compare what former CPUSA members told the House Committee on Un-American Activities about their "orders" while in the CPUSA with respect to those civil rights movement leaders!

Suggest removal:

30ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Part 2 in reply to Bill:

What YOU euphemistically characterize as "an occasional mistake" is actually a massive and pervasive misunderstanding of reality by the JBS.

Again: the JBS has NEVER acknowledged that it has ever made ANY "mistake" about anything!

Perhaps if YOU were on the receiving end of some libelous or slanderous commentary by the JBS, you might have a more complete understanding of how much damage the JBS did.

The most prominent conservative intellectual of the 20th century (Russell Kirk) correctly pointed out:

"Nothing could do more to discredit all conservatives than the violent language and unreal views regularly found in American Opinion. As several conservatively-inclined gentlemen have remarked to me...they would be sorely tempted to believe that the leaders of the Birch Society are agents of the Kremlin subtly working to discredit all opposition to Communism by reducing anti-Communism to absurdity. All Americans of a conservative bent should be warned against associating themselves with an organization which is totally ineffectual in resisting Communism and socialism..."

Suggest removal:

31ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


As I am sure you know, the Birch Society (and other conservative organizations such as the American Conservative Union) created scorecards to evaluate the voting records of all members of Congress. The JBS scorecard was originally entitled "Conservative Index" and it is now known as "Freedom Index".

If you go back and review all of the issues of the JBS "Conservative Index" you will see the JBS position on legislation which the JBS proposed as the best method to evaluate the bona fides of genuine and indisputable "conservatives".

Then, if you review the public positions of people like William F. Buckley and the National Review crowd on all of those same legislative items, you would discover that Buckley and the NR crowd would always have scored VERY high on the Birch Society's own evaluation tool. Maybe not always 100% or even 95% but certainly in the high 80's and low 90's.

Your argument is rather transparent: find specific items where individuals disagreed with the JBS and then propose that those disagreements render them NON or ANTI or "FAUX" conservatives!

OK -- NOW READ the JBS Blue Book, pages 112-113 where Robert Welch explains his 1952 support of Sen. Robert Taft for President:

"In 1952 I disagreed with Bob Taft on at least three of his ten most important principles. Especially with regard to federal housing and United States Government aid to Israel. I was diametrically opposed to policies he advocated. Yet I made twenty-five radio speeches for Taft, in the primary campaign, on my own time and my own money. Nor was this done at all on the let's-take-the-lesser-of-two-evils theory. I was wholeheartedly and enthusiastically for Taft, for the nomination and the presidency, because I trusted him and he was going generally in my direction. The fact that he didn't see two or three issues out of ten the way I saw them didn't dampen the energy of my personal support for him in the slightest."

So, Bill, according to YOUR methodology, Robert Welch was NOT a conservative either!

Because he was willing to support someone with whom he "diametrically" disagreed on 3 "most important principles". PRINCIPLES -- not just positions!

Significantly, when Robert Welch created his first front organization designed to attract members for the Birch Society (CASE = Committee Against Summit Entanglements) -- he turned to the very people whom you now denounce as NON or ANTI-or "FAUX" conservative -- i.e. Buckley and the National Review crowd. And most of them signed up immediately!

Suggest removal:

32ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


On a personal note, might I point out that during our entire exchange here, you have given us ONLY your personal opinion, i.e. you continually express your admiration and support for the JBS.

By contrast, I have addressed the points you have raised by presenting very detailed contradictory factual evidence.

Significantly, you have never once addressed anything specific which I have written with any sort of verifiable factual evidence. Instead, you just continually repeat your high regard for the JBS. And you evade every question I ask.

In my experience, this is typical of how Birchers approach a discussion or a debate.

If a Bircher perceives a critic to be very knowledgeable -- they immediately resort to ad hominem arguments---as both you and Buckeye have done!

Notice that BOTH of you felt compelled to describe me as "obsessed" or "psychotic" or "crackpot".

That approach to "debate" is why Birchers have deserved the derogatory reputation which has been associated with the JBS since its inception!

It would be so refreshing to find a Bircher who could (1) acknowledge the factual accuracy of the evidence I present and (2) then present his/her own contradictory evidence.

Perhaps, then, readers could make an informed judgment regarding the merits (or lack of same) of your assertions about "the true nature of the conspiracy"!!

Suggest removal:

33BuckeyeWoogie(10 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Ernie says he got awards for his research? Then he gives links proving it to be true? Well guess what, lots of talk and no proof of any actual awards. I smell a fraud.

Suggest removal:

34ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Buckeye, instead of hurling insults, why don't you ask questions regarding anything you want to know about me?

I did not say I got "awards" for my research. I said many scholars have praised me for my research and they have cited me in their books, articles, conference papers, and doctoral dissertations.

I gave you the link to the History of American Communism discussion network. You can search for the messages posted there by Dr. John Earl Haynes -- arguably our nation's foremost scholar on the communist movement . He has praised my research and posted messages on the HOAC website to alert other scholars about it.

You may see more about the background of Dr. Haynes here:

Another very prominent scholar (Dr. David Garrow) has also praised my research. If you would like to give me your email address, I will forward to you several of his recent messages to me.

One of the reasons that Tamiment Library is accepting a large part of my collection--particularly with respect to the Communist Party (see my previous message where I inserted a ink to the webpage they created on me) -- is because of their awareness of my research due to my contacts with contributors to the academic journal American Communist History.

Now---turning to my collection on the Birch Society and other extreme right groups: As just one example, you can see me cited in the acknowledgements page of a fairly recent doctoral dissertation by Dr. Samuel Brenner, here:

At one time, the FBI told me that I was their largest single requester (5% of all requests received--i.e. about 8900 subjects) and I am very well known among FBI scholars and researchers.

So, again, I ask you:




If you want even more details about me and my background or my research---feel free to ASK instead of hurling insults. Pretend, just ONE TIME, that you actually have respect for independent research---even if it does not agree with your personal opinions!

Contact: ernie1241@aol.com

Suggest removal:

35ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Brenner's homepage is:


Suggest removal:

36ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


Incidentally, on a personal note, I just want to point out that in my experience your last message is typical of how Birchers "reason" and how they approach perceived critics.

Notice the immediate rush to judgment and use of ad hominem slur, i.e. "I smell a fraud".

NORMAL people ask polite questions before resorting to such accusations.


Because they do not want to violate God's 9th Commandment.

But Birchers (like yourself) do not feel constrained by normal rules of etiquette or even intellectual honesty.

I copy below the original statement I made which your current message was in reference to.

Notice how you DELIBERATELY distorted it so you could set up a straw-man to argue against:

I would like to point out that some of our nation's foremost scholars who have devoted their entire academic careers to researching and writing about the CPUSA (and other radical left groups) --- have complimented me for my research into FBI files on CPUSA-related subjects. In fact, my research has been mentioned by scholars in messages they posted online in the History of American Communism discussion network here:


This is another typical behavior pattern by Birchers, i.e. they cannot (or will not) accurately present the substance of what their perceived critics have said or written. Instead, they create FICTION and expect their victims to argue against the FICTION they created.

In closing:

I note for the record that neither Buckeye or Bill have had the decency to answer any of my questions. Instead, they use every opportunity to attack, attack, attack or belittle their opponents.

Neither of you seem to have the capacity to acknowledge obvious historical facts -- when those facts contradict what you prefer to believe.

As I told Bill, there are many fine, intelligent, decent, principled people in the JBS......BUT..... this is not a discussion regarding the admirable personal qualities of some portion of JBS membership.

Instead, this discussion is about the extent to which the Birch Society has circulated FALSE information and, in the process, how it has attacked and defamed hundreds of Americans.

The JBS does not believe that there is a LEGITIMATE alternative competing point of view to theirs. Instead, they always characterize their opponents as "enemies" who must be vanquished and rendered impotent.

In the past Birchers described their critics as "Communist" "Comsymp" or "Communist agent" -- or similar terms. But after losing libel lawsuits, they changed their all-purpose derogatory label to "Insider".

Buckeye is a flawless example of the type of behavior which Birchers think is entirely normal and acceptable!

Suggest removal:

37BuckeyeWoogie(10 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

I see no mention of "ernie1241" by any of the people or works you mention. Hence it continues to stink of fraud. Makes any reasonable person think that you may well be a crank with an axe to grind and no personal life to do something profitable with. Probably you were refused publication by the JBS and had your feelings hurt.

Your other links prove nothing other than your rantings

Suggest removal:

38Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Anybody who is interested in JBS and is not very familiar with it ought to just check out their website to find out for themselves what it is about: www.jbs.org

Suggest removal:

39Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Here is a 9 minute excerpt from a speech by JBS founder Robert Welch in 1974 and in part of it he quotes from a speech he made in in 1958: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZU0c8...

You can judge for yourselves if he was on target or not (virtually every prediction he made has come true exactly), and whether you agree with his ideas of less government, more freedom and with God's help a better world. I do, so once again, I intend to keep supporting JBS.

Get US out of the UN!
Restore the Constitution!
End the illegal wars!
Restore honest money!
Support your local police and keep them independent!
etc etc etc.

Suggest removal:

40ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago



You obviously have never even attempted to perform a search on the HOAC website.

Dr. Haynes has posted at least 3 messages there which mention my research. I think the last one was dated April 2. He copied an email I sent to him and several other major scholars. I had just obtained new FBI files about the CPUSA which had never previously been released.

As you may know, Dr. Haynes often writes his books in conjunction with Harvey Klehr. Today, about the time when you were writing your screed against me, I received the following email from Harvey. He was responding to yet another new FBI file (never previously released) which I obtained and I sent to Harvey, to Dr. Haynes, and to David Garrow, and to several other scholars who specialize in CPUSA history.


Ernie: Many thanks for sending this. It is fascinating and very historically significant. I would greatly appreciate your sending me future material as you get it. With thanks, Harvey."

David Garrow also thanked me for this new material.

When I first contacted him several months ago about my CPUSA webpage which included copies of FBI documents on the number of live informants which the FBI had inside the CPUSA (which, incidentally, had NEVER been previously known!) Dr. Garrow sent me the email copied below. His reference to "Levine" refers to a 1962 interview comment made by a former FBI Special Agent who speculated about the number of FBI informants inside the CPUSA --but he was clueless about the actual truth of the matter -- so I became the first person in our country to obtain documentary evidence from FBI Inspection Reports that revealed the actual numbers:

Suggest removal:

41ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


Garrow's email comment to me:

Hi--This is superb--thank you tremendously for e-mailing me! First off, I'm not at all surprised by the 401/408 informant numbers. On present-day reflection those make *much* more sense than the Levine #, and Levine of course was not a Division 5 HQ guy who would have been in any informed position to know the overall total--what he knew was no doubt street agent chatter. I've seen tens of thousands of pages of FBI docs, but I've never before seen unredacted inspection reports, and filing for inspection reports was a brilliant FOIA idea, and one neither I (nor anyone else that I'm aware of) ever thought of. Please send Harvey Klehr the link you sent me, if you've not already done so, or, indeed, send him your 'home page' link, for I went there too & have printed that out to read tonight, and I've also printed out those 8 pages in Division 5 inspection reports you put up and will give them a very close read tonight. I've remained seriously interested in the "Jack and Morris" story, and while I don't know that I'll have time in life to research & write about it further, I keep hoping someone serious...will do so. I'll write you further, but please keep me posted, and greatest thanks and congratulations on such important & original research work! Best wishes, Dave Garrow.

Now – please turn to page v of the Brenner doctoral dissertation (the acknowledgements page) and you will see his comment regarding his visit to my home and how much significant material he obtained from me which was used in his doctoral dissertation.

THEN…research articles about the KKK and other white supremacist groups which were written by Dr. John Drabble. You will see numerous references in his articles which mention documents which he obtained from my collection and which informed his articles published in academic journals.

As merely one example, see:

"The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE, and the Decline of Ku Klux Klan Organizations in Alabama, 1964 –1971" published in the January 2008 issue of Alabama Review.

You may also check out the archives of the Rachel Maddow program on MSNBC for December 23, 2010. During that broadcast concerning the Birch Society -- Rachel used material she received from me and she credited me on air for that material. You may see a reference to my contribution to Rachel's broadcast here:



you can read the transcript of Rachel's segment which mentions me here:


Suggest removal:

42ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


There are also many books that cite my research including, for example, the 1992 book by Dr. John George and Laird Wilcox entitled: "Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others On The Fringe: Political Extremism in America".

Here are a few other books which cite my research:

Ivan Greenberg: The Dangers of Dissent: The FBI and Civil Liberties Since 1965
----see one example here:


Alex Heard: The Eyes of Willie McGee: A Tragedy of Race, Sex, and Secrets in the Jim Crow South
---one example here:


Arthur Goldwag:
The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing On the Populist Right
---one example here:


Chip Berlet:
Right-Wing Populism In America: Too Close For Comfort
---one example here:


I could go on and on.

I also have numerous letters from major newspaper investigative reporters and letters from prominent authors of online articles plus letters from the American Library Association and from groups who monitor political extremist groups in our country --- all of which praise my research or thank me for providing material to them which they used in their own publications.


Suggest removal:

43ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


Bill Lamel posted the following message:

"Anybody who is interested in JBS and is not very familiar with it ought to just check out their website to find out for themselves what it is about: www.jbs.org".

That is about as compelling as recommending that interested parties go to the Communist Party website "to find out for themselves what it is about"!!

The problem with Bill's suggestion is that the JBS website is designed to seduce people into the JBS orbit by use of catch-phrases and buzz-words which most Americans have no problem with.

BUT what the JBS website DOES NOT INCLUDE (anymore than the CPUSA website includes relevant data about its history) -- is a candid discussion of the underlying predicates of JBS ideology.

For example, the JBS will NEVER tell you about the comments which I copy below which were made by JBS founder and leader, Robert Welch to the first meeting of the JBS National Council in January 1960.

Yes---Birchers like Bill will post links to one of Welch's sanitized speeches -- which are intended for public relations purposes --- but neither Bill Lamel or the JBS will tell you the real predicates of JBS ideology.

Political extremist groups (left or right) present isolated policy proposals or ideas which seem appealing. In fact, political extremists always seek to exploit targets of opportunity -- especially during times of economic, political, or social crisis.

But would any of us be willing to associate ourselves with their overall views and their agendas if we actually knew what they intended to do?

The JBS sanitizes what it believes when it attempts to seduce people into its ranks. It uses buzzwords that appeal to all Americans such as "freedom", "individual responsibility", "patriotism", "less government", etc.

Suggest removal:

44ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


The JBS knows that most Americans would recoil in horror if they became acquainted with the REAL face of the JBS -- which is revealed in these comments by Robert Welch:

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

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

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

“Our Supreme Court, dominated by Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, is so visibly pro-Communist that no argument is even needed…And our federal courts below that level…are in many cases just as bad.”

"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front." ...

"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists. Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department."

Suggest removal:

45BuckeyeWoogie(10 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Ok, now I see the deal. Ernie Lazar gets a paycheck to spew his drivel. See, Ernie is not talented enough to go to the MSM to defend the likes of Obama and Romney and Rockefeller. But he has demonstrated a willingness to serve the establishment elite so he gets paid to get on media sites that write about the JBS and spew links that are 99% his commentary and 1% actual documents that may or may not actually relate to anything.

A paid agent.

Suggest removal:

46Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

I have no problem with anything I know of that Welch has said. If one looks at the ten planks of the communist manifesto (central bank, progressive income tax, government education) it is fairly clear that those insidious goals are now firmly established in our nation. Welch believed based on a vast body of evidence that communism was just one arm of a conspiracy to create a dictatorial world government. The truth and wisdom of his warnings is becoming more evident every day. If anyone is interested in learning more about the JBS, check out their website www.jbs.org or a great magazine affiliated with them www.thenewamerican.com. Since I have been a subscriber for the last 3 years I have found it to be the single best source of current and accurate information for patriots.

Suggest removal:

47ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


I guess you don't realize how stupid your comments make you appear?

I am not paid by anyone and you cannot disprove anything I have written so, naturally, you must resort to childish slurs like referring to historical research as "drivel".

Once again, this is typical of the way Birchers present their case.

But I do thank you because you are just proving my point regarding why the JBS and its surrogates deserve the reputation they have.

Again, I point out that my online reports are based upon, and quote extensively from, the very sources which the Birch Society itself has recommended and praised for decades as indisputably knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable.

ONLY when Birchers (like yourself) cannot refute what is presented in my reports do they suddenly express contempt for those sources.

To quote an appropriate comment from the 1982 Appeals Court decision in the Gertz libel lawsuit which resulted, ultimately, in the JBS paying Gertz $400,000 for publishing its false and libelous article about him:

"There was more than enough evidence for the jury to conclude that this article was published with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz." [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 81-2483, Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 6/16/82, page 20].

Similarly, there is "more than enough evidence" presented in this forum that you are incapable of rational or amicable discussion about the JBS,

Suggest removal:

48BuckeyeWoogie(10 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Your links, which I did look at, are 99% your commentary with an occasional document, that sometimes is on point with your commentary. The fact that your grand research is in places no one ever heard of is testament to its value.

However, when a dedicated socialist such as yourself bothers and obsesses about the JBS, that is a nice indicator of the effectiveness of the group.

Suggest removal:

49ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


You are certainly entitled to your delusions.

My only point is that the JBS does not truthfully present on its website the predicates underlying its actual ideology.

The reason is because they are PR-savvy enough to know how most Americans would recoil in disgust.

There is an old saying about how politics is a process of addition, i.e. finding new allies, building coalitions, and incrementally adding to one's support in order to achieve success.

However, the JBS (and all other political extremist groups) practice the politics of SUBTRACTION, i.e. they do not recognize legitimate alternative competing points of view. All opposition is characterized as "enemies" who deserve to be vanquished and rendered impotent.

So, naturally, from the JBS perspective, the circle of acceptable "friends" or "allies" becomes smaller and smaller instead of larger and larger.

When Marian Welch left the JBS she did so because of how the new leadership of the JBS (after her husband died) was trashing Ronald Reagan in the pages of its magazine.

At one point the JBS hemorrhaged so many members that it had less than 14,000 active members--down from a peak of about 80,000 in the mid 1960's. Prominent National Council members and major financial contributors also left the JBS.

This is typical of highly ideological groups. They are prone to schisms because they are incapable of recognizing their own faults and weaknesses.

So, Bill, continue to believe what you describe as "the truth and wisdom" of Welch's warnings.

Ironically, those two words are almost identical to the title of an article which the JBS pubished in its magazine, American Opinion, in October 1966.

That article was: "“The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover".

For the edification of readers, here are a couple more nuggets from the JBS which reveal its real face:

1. From the April 2011 JBS Bulletin:

"The history of the socialist movement in the U.S. is one of advocating mandatory public education. Recall that it is the tenth step toward communizing any country outlined by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto…The aim of the Conspiracy has always been to break down the old social order and replace it with the anti-God system of socialism. Kindergarten was part of the breakdown of the old social order and it included that indoctrination of children at an ever-younger age away from their parents."

2. From the May 2008 JBS Bulletin:
"Just as the JBS showed in the 1960's that the communists basically ran both the civil rights movement and the KKK, the strategy was nothing new..."

Suggest removal:

50ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


You could not possibly have read my reports if you characterize them as "99 commentary" -- because my reports are devoted entirely to summarizing the contents of FBI investigative files that address the assertions made by the JBS.

That is why the chapter titles of my Report are in the format which you see, i.e. they begin with...

"The FBI vs the JBS"

Furthermore, my reports are filled with scanned copies of FBI documents or correspondence by Welch or other material which documents their accuracy.

Lastly, I am not "a socialist". But, again, this shows how Birchers are prepared to deliberately LIE in order to advance their arguments.

My personal political views are libertarian. And as I have stated repeatedly online, in many forums, I would be thrilled if Cong. Ron Paul or someone with his viewpoints was appointed as our Secretary of State.

IN ADDITION: I have defended the Birch Society for decades against some of its more rabid critics who make all kinds of maliciously false statements....which you can verify by contacting senior JBS officials who are familiar with me.

In fact, I happen TO AGREE with the JBS on a number of matters -- although probably for different reasons.

So, again, this just demonstrates how ignorant and malicious YOU are.

Oh -- with respect to how many people have seen my reports which, naturally, you want to de-value by your false comment:

In my previous messages I gave you several examples of publications which have cited my reports. I also mentioned that I have provided documentary evidence to many investigative newspaper reporters which they used in their articles.

I also mentioned Rachel Maddow's program which is seen by over 600,000 people.

In addition, when I had site meters on my reports, I was able to see the statistical summary of how many people viewed my report each week and, in many cases, those reports identified their origin. THOUSANDS of people came to my reports from links in Wikipedia articles. THOUSANDS more came to my reports from doing Google or Yahoo or similar searches.

My reports were accessed from major colleges and universities around the world (including our military educational colleges such as West Point and the Naval Academy), and also were frequently accessed at major media outlets.

Even today, I still receive numerous inquiries every week from all sorts of people---including relatives of JBS members asking me about their grandparents. In fact, the daughter of JBS National Council member Stillwell J. Conner is about to publish her book about her experiences growing up in a JBS family---and she will credit me for some of the documentation she is using in her book.

Again, your debate strategy is so transparently vicious and malicious that you have no interest whatsoever in what is truthful.

Suggest removal:

51Education_Voter(1153 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Thank you Ernie for your efforts.
You cannot move those who are entrenched in Right Wing Extremism.

But you might prevent some innocent from being drawn into their web.

I had contact with JBS in 1970 as a high school student. But before long, I found out that in the opinion of my mentors, "freedom" would be limited to white, protestant men.
I tried to assure them that the basement of St. Columba's Cathedral was not being used by Catholics hatching sinister plots to take over the U.S. government. No go. Don't even get me started on what they thought of Jewish people.
Their cleaned up website is not who they really are. As you can see from posters above, once you are drawn in, you will no longer be able to question their platform.

Suggest removal:

52ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


We are all still waiting to read your answers to my previous questions.

We know you are an expert at tearing down what other people have done----but we are still waiting to discover what YOU have done.

So please tell us:

1. What independent research and writing have you done and where has it been published?

2. What authors have cited your research or your writings in their publications?

3. What educational institutions have sent you forms to sign because they want to become a depository of your research and writings because it has such value?

4. What well-known academic scholars re: the Communist Party have routinely praised your work and asked you to keep them apprised of new material you discover?

The clock is ticking Buckeye....

Tick toc
Tick toc

We still await your answers

Tick toc
Tick toc

Suggest removal:

53ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


The issue of racism or anti-semitism inside the JBS has always been the most difficult to address factually and fairly.

The JBS does not permit outside independent researchers to have access to its archives for research purposes.

Furthermore, they do not allow scholars to have access to their membership via anonymous questionnaires so that a factual understanding of JBS membership could be compiled (with two minor exceptions during the 1960's).

I always intended to devote an entire chapter of my JBS Report to this issue--but I deliberately decided to make it the last chapter because I wanted more time to collect my thoughts and assemble the available factual evidence.

I probably will write a chapter which will use the late JBS member and JBS employee Rev. Delmar Dennis as the centerpiece -- so that I can address why it is that the JBS so often is characterized in the manner which your message suggests.

Much of the criticism of the JBS is unfair but it also true that the JBS has been a magnet for some very unsavory people.

Particularly troubling (to me) is the relationship which Robert Welch had with indisputable bigots such as Verne Kaub (the former head of the American Council of Christian Laymen, Inc - Madison WI).

I have copies of Welch's correspondence with Kaub (and with Gerald L.K. Smith) -- and those letters raise very troubling questions -- which I will address in whatever I finally put together.

Suggest removal:

54ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


As merely one example of what I am referring to:

In a February 10, 1961 letter to Dr. Lawrence A. Lacey of Madison WI, Robert Welch wrote:

'To me it seems likely, Dr. Lacey, that in 1900 or 1905, at the time of the first Russian Revolution which was led by Trotsky, or in 1917, or even up to the middle 1920's, the Communist Conspiracy was largely a child or at least a ward of the Zionist conspiracy. And for the reason Jews were preponderant in the top levels of the Communist hierarchy. But it seems equally clear to me that by 1937 or 1938, when Stalin had finally succeeded in taking into his own hands all of the reins of Communist power stretching out all over the world, the child had quite largely outgrown the parent as so often happens in the case of organizations as well as individuals. There followed a period where the Zionist conspiracy and the Communist conspiracy undoubtedly worked closely together, each one hoping and counting on `using' the other, and coming out on top. But it seems equally clear to me today---and that that this has been completely true for at least the past 15 years--- the Communist conspiracy has now absorbed into itself so many other leaders and elements, and has so outgrown the Zionist conspiracy, that it completely dominates the picture and that the Zionist conspiracy has itself become merely one of the tools of the top Communist command.' "

Suggest removal:

55BuckeyeWoogie(10 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

When you associate yourself with the likes of Maddow and Arthur Goldwag and get a paycheck for doing so, yes that puts you solidly in their camp. So, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

I am sure that you don't believe David Rockefeller admits he wants to bring down the United States etc., etc.

Suggest removal:

56ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

Buckeye - you need professional help!

I have never gotten any paycheck from anyone for anything I have ever written.

My "association" with Maddow or Goldwag (or anybody else who reads and uses or quotes something from my reports) is simply that they found something FACTUAL in my reports which they thought was useful.

A few weeks ago I sent a JBS Coordinator a link to my CPUSA webpage and he thanked me for it because it contained FACTUAL information he thought was useful.

So, according to your demented brain-dead "logic", I am now "associated" with, or "paid by" the JBS??


(1) Why don't you QUOTE something from my JBS Report that you disagree with and then present your counter-evidence.

(2) Making childish and false comments about me or my motives only diminishes YOU, not me or my reports.

(3) Perhaps you have never had a class in elementary LOGIC?

You cannot disprove a statement or conclusion by arguing against the person making the statement or conclusion (i.e. by making ad hominem slurs).

Instead, an argument stands or falls upon its own merits.

Example: I cannot disprove something you write merely by making some derogatory or sinister comments about you personally.

(4) Lastly, instead of constantly making false and defamatory statements about me -- why is it that you never want to address actual evidence? Is it because you know how weak-minded and indefensible your position is?

If the Birch Society has such unique and keen insights --- why can't you prove your superior knowledge?

Example: go back to my message here which quoted Robert Welch's speculation concerning the number of Communist Party members in the U.S.

Explain to us, as carefully and thoroughly as you can,

(a) HOW did Welch arrive at his estimate of "300,000 to 500,000" CP members?

(b) WHAT SOURCES did he rely upon in order to make that conclusion?

OR, alternatively,

(c) HOW did the JBS arrive at its conclusion that "communists basically ran both the civil rights movement and the KKK" ??

(d) WHAT SOURCES did the JBS rely upon in order to make that conclusion?

(e) How do you explain that NOBODY ELSE -- except the JBS and white supremacy organizations (like the KKK) ever believed that our civil rights movement was "created by" or "dominated by" Communists?

(f) Another example:

Tell us everything you know regarding what sources the JBS relied upon for its conclusion that Highlander Folk School in Tennessee was a "Communist training school" -- so we can all evaluate your EVIDENCE.

I predict you will not answer any of these questions because your mind simply is not capable of dealing with EVIDENCE instead of ad hominem slurs.

Suggest removal:

57ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


(1) Isn't it significant that YOU wrote the following comment to me at the beginning of our exchange?

(2) Perhaps you would now care to explain why YOU have decided to violate your own alleged "principle", i.e. WHY you now feel it is perfectly acceptable to make "unfounded personal attacks" upon me rather than address the evidence in my reports or in my messages here?


"Notice that he does not attack the claims of the JBS because he knows them to be true, he spends his time instead making unfounded personal attacks."

Suggest removal:

58BuckeyeWoogie(10 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

So you are saying your drivel is so bad no one, not even the liberal left you pander too will pay you for it, Ernie?

If true, that speaks volumes for its quality, no?

You lump in the JBS with a group like the KKK, something you know to be inherently a leftist trick but you say you are pure?

If you think it is all about communism, you missed the boat. Still ignoring David Rockefeller, eh?

What JBS field officer thanked you for links and research. Name the person.

Suggest removal:

59ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


(1) Contact Hal Shurtleff. He will confirm to you that he acknowledged that I have defended the JBS on numerous occasions against charges that it was a racist organization. He also will acknowledge to you that he recently thanked me for sending him my CPUSA webpage link.

(2) With respect to your snarky comment about payment for my writings: again, you reveal your malicious ignorance. One of the reasons why I have never sought to receive any sort of payment for my writings has to do with Freedom Of Information Act rules. I will not bore you with details since you have no interest in fairness or truth anyway but research the FOIA yourself if you genuinely care about how FOIA requesters can prevent or reduce search and reproduction fees for their requests.

(3) Once again, you deliberately lied about my position. I did not "lump in the JBS with a group like the KKK". I simply made an historically factual comment that only two groups in our nation have ever claimed that our civil rights movement was created by, dominated by, and controlled by the Communists. Those two groups are the JBS and white supremacy groups like the KKK. Other white supremacy groups I could have mentioned include neo-nazis. If you think I am mistaken, then present your evidence.

(4) Do I think it is "all about communism"? No--but for a very long time the JBS told everyone who would listen that IT WAS! Which is why the JBS created and published an annual "Scoreboard" issue of its magazine, American Opinion. As you may know, the purpose of that "Scoreboard" was to provide the JBS evaluation of the degree of "Communist influence and control" in every nation on earth. At one time, according to the JBS, the U.S. was 60-80% under "Communist influence and control".

Suggest removal:

60ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

BUCKEYE, part 2


Just for clarity -- I copy below a 1965 comment made by a very prominent conservative author (Frank S. Meyer) whose writings were recommended and sold by the Birch Society.

I present this so it will become apparent to everyone that my previous reference to the JBS position on our civil rights movement is not some "left-wing smear attack" -- as Birchers like yourself are always prone to claiming:


“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.”


Among the reasons why it is very hard for impartial observers to make a fair judgment about the JBS (with respect to racism) and also why it is so easy to wrongly caricature the JBS as a "racist" organization is because of the following factors:

(1) The Birch Society welcomed segregationists into its ranks as members, as chapter and section leaders, as writers, as speakers, and even as JBS National Council members – for example A.G. Heinsohn Jr., T. Coleman Andrews, and Tom Anderson.

(2) Major officers of the White Citizens Councils movement were also Birchers, such as: Medford Evans, William J. Simmons, and Louis W. Hollis. [Evans was a JBS Coordinator]

(3) The Birch Society employed racists and segregationists as speakers under the auspices of its American Opinion Speakers Bureau – such as Sheriff Jim Clark of Selma AL and Rev. Ferrell Griswold of AL (Griswold also spoke at KKK events!).

Suggest removal:

61ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago

REPLY TO BUCKEYE---continued

(4) The Birch Society approved of and promoted incumbent politicians and candidates for political office who were unapologetic Klan-supported white supremacists – such as Sen. James O. Eastland of MS and Gov. George Wallace of AL and Ross Barnett of MS. [The JBS scored Eastland on its "Conservative Index" as almost perfect -- despite his life-long bigotry.]

(5) Often, the JBS reprinted the speeches made by racists or otherwise endorsed their rants or subscribed to the arguments which they originated which characterized the civil rights movement as a "Communist" enterprise
[Example: characterizing Highlander Folk School as a "Communist training school" and then plastering our country with postcards and billboards showing Martin Luther King Jr. "attending a Communist training school".]

(6) Numerous prominent Birchers made it quite clear that they welcomed the support of white supremacists OR they did not think groups like the KKK were a particular problem.


Kent Courtney, a prominent JBS leader in Louisiana, was the featured speaker at a 6/5/65 “Conservative Rally” in Natchez MS sponsored by Americans For The Preservation of the White Race, Inc.

William J. Story, a JBS member who was a candidate for Governor of Virginia refused to join the other major party candidates in condemning the KKK.

James H. Sutherland was a JBS chapter and section leader in Missouri who founded the St. Louis chapter of White Citizens Councils. He was also active in Southern States Industrial Council and helped craft their annual Declaration of Policy which opposed school integration.

Bircher, Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, wrote in 1965:

“I’ll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action.”

Keep in mind that the JBS has always described itself (and is incorporated as) an "educational" organization.

So, Buckeye, tell us as precisely as you can: how many other "educational" organizations have this sort of record???

The JBS is not (and never has been) an explicitly racist organization. And it has expelled numerous people (over 1000 according to Robert Welch at one time) who were KKK members or racists) -- but it seems to have tolerated racists in its ranks as long as they did not publicly embarrass the JBS.

Suggest removal:

62ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


I certainly understand why you think there is "way too much to read" in this thread.

Debating a Birch Society member or sympathizer requires a lot of knowledge regarding JBS history and the actual predicates of JBS ideology.

Typically (as you can see from the comments made by Buckeye), Birchers resort to ad hominem arguments.

Consequently, one first must address their snide comments and then one has to present the specific evidence that reveals JBS beliefs or history which somebody like Buckeye does not want anybody to know.

All of this takes a lot of time and a lot of words. It is inescapable.

Notice, however, that Buckeye has never once disputed anything I have presented with counter-evidence. Instead, every one of his/her messages is devoted to attacking me with snide or sarcastic or libelous comments. That, you will discover, is typical Bircher behavior.

Notice, too, that Buckeye has never answered any of my questions.

Honorable people engage in polite discussion and when there are disagreements, they try to understand the reasoning of their critics or opponents--usually by asking and answering questions.

However, that is foreign to Buckeye and many other Birchers. Like all political extremists, Birchers believe that they are in possession of an Ultimate Final Truth (UFT)...and, consequently, they perceive their role as exclusively to disseminate their UFT while denigrating and demonizing all opposition. In that respect, the JBS operates exactly like the Communist Party. It is an indoctrination center -- not a genuine "educational" organization.

Suggest removal:

63ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years, 1 month ago


In my previous message in reply to Buckeye I made the following comment:

(3) Once again, you deliberately lied about my position. I did not "lump in the JBS with a group like the KKK". I simply made an historically factual comment that only two groups in our nation have ever claimed that our civil rights movement was created by, dominated by, and controlled by the Communists. Those two groups are the JBS and white supremacy groups like the KKK. Other white supremacy groups I could have mentioned include neo-nazis. If you think I am mistaken, then present your evidence.

I need to amend my statement because after I read it again, I realized how it might be misconstrued.

The asterisked portion (***) is my correction:

"I simply made an historically factual comment that only two groups in our nation have ever claimed that our civil rights movement was created by, dominated by, and controlled by the Communists. Those two groups are the JBS ***and comparable right-wing extremist groups*** and white supremacy groups like the KKK."

There were, of course, many groups during the 1950's or 1960's that subscribed to the premise that our civil rights movement was Communist-inspired and Communist-dominated and Communist-controlled.

In many cases, these groups were formed by persons who later became, (or were already) JBS members. It was not uncommon for these groups to circulate, sell, or recommended JBS publications or other material.

The Birch Society's Mississippi Coordinator (J. Vernon Pace) told the FBI that KKK meetings in his area were showing an anti-civil-rights-movement filmstrip produced by the JBS.

Furthermore, the reading lists disseminated by white supremacy organizations often recommended books and article reprints published by the Birch Society.

The point I was attempting to make is the same one made by Frank Meyer (see my previous message quoting his comment), i.e. most prominent conservatives dissociated themselves from the JBS position because they realized that our civil rights movement addressed genuine long-standing grievances and the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders and civil rights organizations rejected attempts by communists to takeover or manipulate the movement.

And the FBI made the same distinction. As J. Edgar Hoover observed:

"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 - Hoover speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; bold emphasis on words "not" and "never" in original document]

So, once again, the JBS position was in stark contrast to the vast majority of the conservative movement in our country.

Suggest removal:

64BuckeyeWoogie(10 comments)posted 4 years ago

Ernie, I have disputed your claims that you make and the links you claim support your arguments. The links do not in fact prove anything but are instead lots of rambling drivel that Ernie himself says no one in their right mind would ever pay for or has ever paid for. So what it amounts to is a load of crud of zero value (by Ernie's own admission).

Suggest removal:

65BuckeyeWoogie(10 comments)posted 4 years ago

Ernie, I come to find out that you were called out on your so called "thousands of documents" on the JBS and when asked to meet to review these docuemnts you refused. I suppose that anyone that is aganst your opinions is nuts or whatever. You claim ad hominum yet that is what you are doing. Typical new deal socialist thinking and right out of Sal Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

Suggest removal:

66Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years ago

Ernie, out of curiosity, do you have any more recent beef with the JBS? Anything from this millennium perhaps?
I was too young to be around during almost everything you have cited but I would be interested to know about more recent history.
I know the chapter leader in my area is one of the finest men I have had the pleasure of meeting, I have never found an error in their affiliated magazine that was not immediately corrected and all of the campaigns JBS is working on now I agree with wholeheartedly.

Suggest removal:

67ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


Please provide specific details regarding your accusation -- which is totally false (as usual). Nobody has ever "called me out to meet to review" my documents.

In fact, I created a new chapter of my JBS Report to provide copies of JBS-related documents which have never been previously publicly available.

See here:


In addition, as previously mentioned, two scholars have visited me and used documents in my collection in their academic articles and doctoral dissertation! I even gave you the link to the individual whose doctoral dissertation mentions that.

What DID happen is that Jim Capo, a JBS official, posted a message on the JBS website in which he claimed my documents were in "my imagination" and he also inserted a sinister comment about my "handlers" -- suggesting that I worked for some nefarious group.

So I responded to Jim by offering to send him any FBI documents he wanted to see IF he would publicly apologize on the JBS website so that Birchers would know that the statements I made on their website were truthful and accurate. Naturally, Capo refused to reply to MY challenge.

So please stop DELIBERATELY LYING about me or my research.

I note for the record, once again, that you still refuse to quote something from any of my reports that you disagree with and then present your counter-evidence -- because as a FICTION writer, you would prefer to just hurl more and more totally false and defamatory accusations.

YOUR argument is with the FBI -- not with me.

Your argument is also with Robert Welch and all of the senior JBS officials who effusively praised Hoover and the FBI as our nation's most knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable source of factual information about the communist movement ... since we now know (thanks to my FOIA requests) that virtually everything the JBS believes was falsified by the FBI!

Suggest removal:

68ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


I understand your point Bill but you forget something critical.

(1) The JBS has never retracted one word of its statements or conclusions from its formative years.

(2) The basic predicates of the JBS (from the 1960's and 1970's) are repeated in contemporary issues of the JBS Bulletin. See, for example, my previous quote from the 2008 JBS Bulletin re: our civil rights movement.

(3) In 2002, the JBS published a new edition of Robert Welch's private letter entitled "The Politician". Presumably, this falls into what you now want to dismiss or de-value as old information?

Welch's "private letter" was written starting in 1954 and then revised several times through 1958.

Now, WHY is this significant?

Because the back cover of the new 2002 edition tells readers that "The Politician" represents "the bitter, but little known truth" about our postwar history (specifically the Eisenhower years).

Furthermore, Bill, the closing comment on the back cover is as follows:

"But most importantly, The Politician exposes that 'conspiracy of gangsters' which even now is setting America's foreign and domestic policy."

The "conspiracy of gangsters" comment is put in quotation marks because it refers to a specific comment made by Welch in The Politician (page 260 of the new 2002 edition) where Welch describes Eisenhower as an enemy of our country who "is either a willing agent, or an integral and important part, of a conspiracy of gangsters determined to rule the world at any cost."

So, bottom-line, Bill:

Perhaps you are too young to know this or perhaps you do not want us to focus upon what the JBS said or did in the 1960's but the Birch Society wants us to read and believe statements and accusations made by Welch in a document he wrote during the 1950's and which contains the most malicious libels against the loyalty, patriotism, character and integrity of numerous prominent Americans.

Furthermore, if you review issues of the JBS Bulletin published during the past 5 years you will see repeated instances where the Birch Society REPEATS all of the arguments they originally published 4-5 decades earlier.

So, Bill, WHY should we ignore the historical record which establishes that the JBS still believes (and they want contemporary Americans to also believe) what they published 40-50 years ago?

Suggest removal:

69ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


Just for clarity:

You have not "disputed" anything I have written. All you have done (repeatedly) is offer your personal opinion -- usually through malicious libels against me.

To "dispute" something, you MUST provide EVIDENCE --- as I have done repeatedly in this forum and through my JBS report.

When I began this project by making FOIA requests in 1980, I anticipated discovering that, more often than not, Hoover and the FBI AGREED with the accusations made by Welch and the JBS. So imagine my utter shock when I discovered the precise opposite!

The first edition of my JBS Report was produced in early 1989. At that time, I had received the first 15 sections (out of 60 sections) of the FBI main file on the JBS (HQ file 62-104401), The title on my original Report was "FBI FILES ON THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY".

The entire purpose of my project was to summarize what was contained in FBI files re: JBS arguments because I discovered that NOBODY in our country had ever made an FOIA request to the FBI on the JBS or related subjects.

So....if you want to actually DISPUTE something in my Report (which you describe as worthless "crud") -- then obtain the FBI HQ main file on the JBS as I have done (12,000 pages) and then write your own report to summarize what you find there. THEN and ONLY THEN will what you have to say matter because ONLY THEN can you dispute anything I have written FACTUALLY.

OR---you can do what I previously suggested, i.e. you can answer questions regarding what sources Robert Welch relied upon to make his conclusions -- such as when he claimed there were "300,000 to 500,000" Communist Party members in our country -- when, in reality, there were only 5262.

When you are that massively wrong about something -- don't you think it matters?

Suggest removal:

70Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years ago

Ernie, my point is that if applied to other situations, your argument would have logical implications that I think would make people take what you are saying with a grain of salt. Take the Founding Fathers of America as examples. Some of them believed it was OK to own slaves. Obviously that was wrong. Does that mean we should abolish the US government and spend our time trashing the Founding Fathers and everything they did in the comments sections of news articles?

What were your specific problems with the Politician? I have read the book and found it to be very interesting, informative and well sourced. Even if Welch made a mistake or two or even three in the 60s or 70s that was later revealed to be a mistake after his death, does that mean we must dismiss everything he did? Does that mean the JBS needs to publicly trumpet the fact that its founder may have made a mistake or an incorrect estimate (based on the FBIs information which despite Welch's support for them I still take with a grain of salt) from the rooftops to satisfy you? I do not think so.

I repeat my question again: Do you have anything more recent on the JBS? All of the campaigns they are involved with right now I support wholeheartedly because I support the Constitution, American sovereignty, self government at the local level as much as possible and the exposing of people who work to destroy all of that which I hold dear. If you have any specific reason why I should not support those goals, please say so.

Suggest removal:

71ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


As you correctly point out, human beings often change their minds about very important issues. Often, those issues involve core values of morality and decency and equal protection of law.

However, the point you continue to evade is that the JBS has NOT evolved in its perceptions or its assertions or in its accusations.

You may recall that the Birch Society has stated repeatedly that Bill Clinton should not have been impeached for the reasons which Congress chose for impeachment. Instead, according to the JBS, Clinton should have been impeached FOR TREASON!

Similarly, back in 1979, Robert Welch stated in a series of JBS Bulletin articles that President Carter should have been impeached FOR TREASON.

The Birch Society DOES NOT RECOGNIZE legitimate alternative points of view. It regards all opponents as ENEMIES who must be vanquished and rendered impotent.

It describes its critics and its opponents (even fellow conservatives) in terms calculated to evoke fear, suspicion, contempt and disgust.

Lastly, there is a difference between what you previously euphemized as "an occasional mistake" (which, incidentally, the JBS has NEVER acknowledged that it made any materially important mistakes!) versus an entire worldview which is totally divorced from reality.

It is not just what FBI investigative files show. It also is the fact that every major conservative politician and activist and intellectual in our country has rejected the bizarre and mean-spirited JBS analyses and conclusions plus their analytical processes.

Political extremists ALWAYS pretend that they have unique insights -- that they (and only they) properly "connect the dots" to arrive at keen observations and proper conclusions.

The Birch Society is set up as an "educational" organization but education is a continuing PROCESS -- not a final destination. We alter our perceptions and our conclusions based upon NEW evidence -- often not previously known.

The JBS operates in precisely the OPPOSITE manner. It has never altered its perceptions or its conclusions. In fact, as previously stated, it continues to publish the same arguments that it did 5 decades ago!

If you think The Politician contains "well-sourced" and "informative" data -- then you have a much different understanding about that than I do.

Let me give you one clear-cut example -- in my next message

Suggest removal:

72ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


Here is an example of how the Birch Society uses language in a very sloppy and imprecise manner in order to mask its true intentions:

In his book length "private letter" entitled "The Politician" Robert Welch explicitly states (page 109):

"Now it is perfectly all right for a man to be a Democrat, even an A.D.A. [Americans For Democratic Action] Democrat, if that school of political philosophy expresses his own honest beliefs."

BUT just 10 pages later, Welch states that the objective of the ADA and a similar Republican group called Republican Advance was "the gradual communization of the United States to make easier its absorption into a world-wide Communist empire ruled from the Kremlin."

And, then, just a few months later, during his 12/58 lecture in Indianapolis to the 11 men whom Welch asked to support him with creating the John Birch Society --- as reported in the JBS Blue Book, page 117, Welch declared:

"But the ADA, whether a lot of its members know it or not, is the same as an arm of the Communist Party. Its weight can be thrown, and is thrown, time after time, with never an exception, in support of Communist objectives."


(1) Is it "perfectly all right" to be an “ADA Democrat”?


(2) Is the ADA a subversive group whose objectives amount to treason and whose agenda "is the same as an arm of the Communist Party" because it seeks to facilitate “the gradual communization of the United States to make easier its absorption into a world-wide Communist empire ruled from the Kremlin." ??

If the JBS mentality was operative within our Justice Department, what would happen to ADA leaders and ADA members?

What would happen to ANY American whom the JBS has previously described as a "Communist", or as a "Comsymp" or as "an agent" of the Communist Party?

Suggest removal:

73ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago



PART ONE of TWO due to length:

This example illustrates why you CANNOT rely upon the JBS for accurate evaluations of people or events or history.

Albert F. Canwell was the first Chairman of the Washington State Un-American Activities Committee. He was an ardent supporter of Senator Joe McCarthy. In later years, the editor of the JBS magazine, American Opinion, asked Canwell to write several articles for American Opinion---which Canwell did.

Canwell was also a paid speaker under the auspices of the JBS Speakers Bureau and he made speeches around the country for them.

The JBS publicity release on Canwell described him as follows:

"Mr. Canwell is one of America's principal authorities on the internal threat from Communism. During his tenure as Chairman of the Washington State Committee on Un-American Activities, he was the first person to expose the machinations of Alger Hiss. An author, Mr. Canwell has published articles in American Opinion magazine...He has also served as Chief of the Identification Branch in the Spokane Sheriff's Department, worked on foreign investigations for the late Scott McLeod of the Department of State, and helped the FBI uncover Soviet espionage operations during the 1940's. A keen researcher, crack investigator, and excellent speaker, Mr. Canwell is now Director of the American Intelligence Service and Freedom Library, Inc. of Washington."

In 1963, Canwell was one of several defendants in a libel lawsuit initiated by a Washington State legislator.

Several JBS members and supporters were co-defendants with Canwell because they had published material claiming that the state legislator and his wife were Communist or "under Communist discipline".

A JBS chapter leader in Bellingham WA (Lee Adamson) formed a Citizens Defense Fund to assist all of the defendants in that lawsuit--including Canwell.

The judge in the case ruled that Canwell should be considered an "expert witness" about communist matters.

So, are you now properly impressed with Canwell's bona fides and his credentials as a JBS-friendly person?

Here, then, is an excerpt from Canwell's lengthy 1997 Oral History interview about his long anti-Communist career. Timothy Frederick was the interviewer. Enjoy!!

Suggest removal:

74ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


Canwell's comments about Robert Welch may be found starting on page 283 of the transcript:

Albert F. Canwell: An Oral History, Washington State Oral History Program, Office of the Secretary of State, 1997 http://www.secstate.wa.gov/legacyproj...


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

Mr. Frederick:
Why was he doing that?

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

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

Suggest removal:

75ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


Canwell interview comments about Robert Welch continued:


"Then they also put great effort into getting me to join their National Speakers Bureau. Again it became obvious to me what they wanted. They wanted my reputation plus they could put my picture in their brochure or their catalogue that they put out. But they would never find any worthwhile speaking engagements for me. I knew how that worked. They got Westbrook Pegler to write for them for awhile and then they started the damnedest smear on him that you could imagine. I could see the pattern and I became acquainted with some of the national members of his board, Dan Draskovich and others, and Welch did the same thing to all of them. He’d get them to identify with the Birch Society either on the speakers bureau or on their board or on the writing level and then he’d circulate information about them, derogatory information that was damaging to them. You talk about a sophisticated espionage operation, that was it. I would say that ninety percent, ninety-five percent of the Birch Society members were just downright good Americans, nothing wrong with them at all."

Mr. Frederick: Was he a head case?

Mr. Canwell:
"A head case? I don’t know. I suspected that he was on drugs, and I say that from having observed him in two or three meetings where he was talking and he’d leave the meeting and take some pills. I don’t know what kind or what for but I suspected that might be the case. Are these international socialists psychopathic or what? You know they just aren’t pro-Americans. They aren’t supportive of our system. This is all news to you, I imagine. You may think I’m psychotic, but on this I’m not. I have correspondence. I told him that because of his activity he couldn’t get his name in the paper any more and that I was going to put him back on the front page. But I just didn’t have time to work on him properly."

Suggest removal:

76ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


I have many many more examples I could share with you.

Many of my examples originate from JBS members and paid speakers (!!!) who falsified JBS premises and conclusions when they testified under oath before Congressional committees or in courtrooms or in administrative hearings....BUT....the Birch Society NEVER tells you about that!!


Shouldn't an "educational organization" whose objective is self-described as presenting "the truth" and which claims that it is "fighting with facts" -- tell you this critically important data so you can make an informed judgment?

That is why the 1982 Appeals Court decision regarding the historic precedent-setting libel lawsuit which the JBS lost made the following comments about Scott Stanley Jr. (editor of JBS magazine, American Opinion) and Alan Stang (the author of the JBS defamatory article about Gertz).

"In summary, Stanley conceived of a story line; solicited Stang, a writer with a known and unreasonable propensity to label persons or organizations as Communist, to write the article; and after the article was submitted, made virtually no effort to check the validity of statements that were defamatory per se of Gertz, and in fact added further defamatory material based on Stang's 'facts'. There was more than enough evidence for the jury to conclude that this article was published with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz." [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 81-2483, Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 6/16/82, page 20].

There is also a footnote appended to this paragraph in which the Appeals Court observed that:

"Furthermore, Stang's conduct in investigating and researching the article also is evidence of actual malice."

The same pattern is apparent with respect to Robert Welch's so-called "private letter" concerning President Eisenhower. Anything which might be considered as positive evidence concerning Eisenhower's character, integrity, or motives is totally ignored or de-valued.

THAT is the type of "education" which the JBS proposes we ingest and operate under.


In my previous message, I mentioned the libel lawsuit in Washington that involved JBS members and supporters: they LOST that lawsuit too and wound up with the largest libel award in state history up to that time!

Suggest removal:

77Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years ago

Ernie: I agree that both Clinton and Carter should have been impeached for treason. They violated their oath of office to support the Constitution, which is clearly written. If they did not like it they should have pushed to have it amended.

"It is not just what FBI investigative files show. It also is the fact that every major conservative politician and activist and intellectual in our country has rejected the bizarre and mean-spirited JBS analyses and conclusions plus their analytical processes."

That is false and for somebody claiming to be an expert you really exposed a great deal of influence. Ron Paul, Ludwig von Mises, two of my personal heroes, and many other greats have expressed support and/or worked with the JBS.

" In fact, as previously stated, it continues to publish the same arguments that it did 5 decades ago!"

It has principles, as do I.

"What would happen to ANY American whom the JBS has previously described as a "Communist", or as a "Comsymp" or as "an agent" of the Communist Party?"

I can't answer for the JBS or Robert Welch, but in my opinion, anybody who would seek to enslave other people through unconstitutional government can believe whatever they want but should be kept away from power or at least be prevented from instituting tyranny by the chains of the Constitution as that document requires and as the Founding Fathers intended.

Regarding the interview with Canwell, are you suggesting that /you/ believe Welch was a communist or international socialist? Really? I did a quick google search and saw that you copied and pasted that whole segment from other posts you have made. What was the history behind it though? Why and how did Canwell and Welch have a falling out? A historical researcher (as you claim to be despite your obvious bias) would certainly include that information to allow people to come to their own informed conclusion.

Finally I noticed that you conveniently avoided addressing any of my questions. Anything more recent? Why reason why I should not support an organization running campaigns that I wholeheartedly support? Very brief answers will suffice. Please no more of this copying and pasting 10 pages worth of irrelevant material.

Suggest removal:

78Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years ago

I should also point out to be fair to you that it is unlikely that you could persuade me to stop supporting the JBS. I have agreed fully with every letter writing campaign they have asked me to participate in, I enjoy the company of great people, I support their goals etc etc. Out of curiosity and to get a better understanding of where you are coming from, what the JBS do to get you on this mission?
Speaking of great conservatives in our country who have also supported the JBS, how about former Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson? Why would you lie and claim that "every major conservative politician and activist and intellectual in our country." It really calls into question everything else you say.

Suggest removal:

79ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


(1) No, I do not believe Canwell was accurate in his comments and in fact I have previously stated online that his reference to Welch attending the London School of Economics is a falsehood. But my point is that the JBS recommended Canwell as "a principal authority" and as a "keen researcher, crack investigator..." -- which is obviously absurd.

(2) I did answer your question regarding "anything more recent". Past is prologue. The exact same analytical methods are employed TODAY by the JBS -- and they result in the exact same false or flawed conclusions.

Furthermore, I quoted from the May 2008 JBS Bulletin to demonstrate my point that the JBS still believes that "Communists" created, controlled, dominated and "ran" our civil rights movement -- which is absurd on its face.

THAT is why your interest in "recent" examples misses the ultimate point.

Why bother giving you "recent" examples if you do not recognize the fundamentally flawed reasoning employed by the JBS since its inception?

And I certainly understand why you do not want to address my example of Welch's statements regarding ADA -- because that, too, undermines your fundamental premise.

(3) Despite your approval of Cong. Ron Paul (which, incidentally, I happen to share) he is not a major figure in conservative movement history nor is he an intellectual giant who writes seminal texts.

Yes he has captured the imagination of many of us who are tired of a globalist foreign policy and, to his credit, he has spoken out against, and triggered conversation about, many government policies which are wrong-headed and even dangerous for our future.

But, in the larger scheme of things, he is merely a footnote. By comparison, consider the contributions of Russell Kirk during the mid 20th century and the impact he had on the entire conservative movement.

Incidentally, Ron Paul has never endorsed the mean-spirited and absurd conspiratorial premises of the Birch Society -- nor the views of other political extremists such as the 9/11 wackos.

Furthermore, Paul has explicitly stated on many occasions that he considered Martin Luther King Jr, to be a hero.

For example: during the January 2012 New Hampshire Republican debate, Paul stated:

"And one of my heroes is Martin Luther King because he practiced the libertarian principle of peaceful resistance and peaceful civil disobedience, as did Rosa Parks."

Significantly, the JBS thought BOTH King and Parks were subversive COMMUNISTS!

Which again documents my point about how the JBS position stands in stark contrast to virtually every major figure in both conservative and libertarian politics.

Check out my webpage devoted to right-wing critics of the JBS for more examples:


Suggest removal:

80ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago

Bill: Ezra Taft Benson was not a major figure in the conservative movement.

His writings and speeches were primarily concerned with religious issues.

Yes, he expressed support for Robert Welch and the Birch Society -- as did other people who well known. I can name many more of them than you can.

But nobody seriously consults the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture when they want to know factual information about internal security-related matters.

According to YOUR theory, ANYBODY who says ANYTHING positive about the JBS becomes a "major figure" in the conservative movement!

Suggest removal:

81Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years ago

Just thought I'd list a few more giants in the conservative movement who I have great respect for that have worked with and/or publicly supported and/or been members of JBS:

Murray Rothbard
Lew Rockwell
Alex Jones
Glenn Beck
Phyllis Schlafly
Jerome Corsi
Rep. Larry McDonald
etc etc.

Suggest removal:

82ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


I know there is ZERO possibility of me changing your support for the JBS.

That is NOT even my goal.

I would be totally happy if JUST ONCE, a JBS member would acknowledge that my comments in my JBS Report are factually accurate and truthful.

In other words, for example, it would be extremely helpful for serious discussions if JBS members would acknowledge such things as:

(1) Yes, the JBS and its surrogates have lost numerous libel lawsuits

(2) Yes, many senior officials of the JBS (including Robert Welch) effusively praised J. Edgar Hoover's FBI as our nation's most knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable source of factual data about the communist movement.

(3) Yes, FBI investigative files falsify most of the major premises and conclusions disseminated by the JBS.

(4) Yes, most of the most prominent figures in conservative movement history have rejected the JBS.

(5) Yes, even Mrs. Robert Welch (Marian Welch) terminated her membership -- and many very prominent JBS officials including National Council members and major financial contributors and JBS writers and speakers -- left the JBS often with caustic remarks about Welch and/or the internal procedures of the JBS

(6) Yes, even JBS-friendly politicians (such as Cong. Ron Paul) have never endorsed the crazy JBS predicates about major figures in our history like Martin Luther King Jr and Ronald Reagan. Nor have they endorsed the mean-spirited, hateful campaigns to impeach our Presidents for TREASON!

Suggest removal:

83ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago

Phyllis Schlafly always denied being a JBS member -- although she lied.

However, like many people, she BRIEFLY was a member, but as soon as she discovered how absurd the JBS was -- she left in a hurry.

Ditto for JBS National Council members who terminated their relationship with the JBS.

Suggest removal:

84ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


Incidentally, I let one of your comments pass without remarking on it:

NOBODY considers Lew Rockwell, or Jerome Corsi, or Alex Jones to be a "giant in the conservative movement".

If you polled 1000 people, I doubt that more than 2% would even recognize their names!

More importantly, none of them have contributed anything to our national debate -- unless you consider something like Corsi's birther arguments to be sensible and rational discussions??

But you DO raise an interesting question, namely:

HOW do we define/describe a "giant" within the conservative movement?

What qualities do they possess?

What effects do they have upon our national discussions and debates?

I would be happy to learn what you think constitutes the criteria for "giant" status --- whether in politics or anything else

Suggest removal:

85ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


Bill wrote:
"...anybody who would seek to enslave other people through unconstitutional government can believe whatever they want but should be kept away from power or at least be prevented from instituting tyranny by the chains of the Constitution as that document requires and as the Founding Fathers intended."

A VERY strong case can be made that the JBS, if it gained power in our country, would seek to enslave people plus imprison large numbers of Americans for "treason" or "un-American activities" or "subversion".

ALL political extremist groups (left wing or right wing) believe that there is always only ONE correct interpretation of controversial matters and only ONE correct public policy option to choose -- which, "coincidentally" ALWAYS conforms to their personal political/economic/social preferences!

Robert Welch EXPLICITLY stated in the JBS Blue Book (page 159), that:

"A republican form of government or of organization has many attractions and advantages under certain favorable conditions. But under less happy circumstances it lends itself too readily to infiltration, distortion, and disruption."

Because, (according to Welch), the "certain favorable conditions" were NOT in existence in December 1958, he proposed to create the JBS as a "monolithic" organization which "will operate under completely authoritative control at all levels" -- because, again quoting Welch, "democracy, of course, in government or organization, as the Greeks and Romans both found out, as as I believe every man in this room clearly recognizes -- democracy is merely a deceptive phrase, a weapon of demagoguery and a perennial fraud."

OK---so how did Welch quantify the supposed "unfavorable" conditions which existed in the U.S. in 1958 and thereafter?

This is very important because only then can we get an idea about when the JBS might think that the "FAVORABLE conditions" would exist to permit a republican form a government.

Consult the first edition of the “Scoreboard” issue of the JBS magazine, American Opinion (AO).

According to Welch, the Scoreboard issue was designed to estimate “the present degree of Communist influence or control over the economic and political affairs of almost all the nations of the world.”

Suggest removal:

86ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


According to the first AO Scoreboard the U.S. score was 20-40% under "Communist influence and control".

Lest you think that a 20-40% score represents insignificant “Communist influence and control” --- please remember the following:

In 1958, according to Welch, “a dedicated conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy” was in the U.S. Presidency, and Communist “tools” or “dupes” or "sympathizers" headed major U.S. government Departments such as Allen Dulles (CIA), Neil McElroy (Defense Department) and John Foster Dulles (State Department) and Earl Warren (U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice).

Thus, according to the JBS paradigm, as explained by Robert Welch in "The Politician" as well as in the annual Scoreboard issues of American Opinion magazine --- the U.S., Great Britain, France, and Germany and most NATO countries were already being led by Communist agents and sympathizers and the major institutions of western countries were dominated and controlled by equally disloyal individuals.

The reason why the JBS was created based upon a totalitarian model is precisely because Welch believed that the "certain favorable conditions" did NOT exist. And shortly after the JBS was founded he claimed that our government was already "literally in the hands of the Communists" -- which, of course, means the "certain favorable conditions" did not exist for government either

In 1960 the U.S. "communist influence and control” score had reached 40-60% and then in 1961 thru 1963 it was 50-70% and in 1964 it reached a staggering 60-80%.

Obviously, per the JBS, the "certain favorable conditions" which would permit a republican form of government simply DID NOT EXIST!

Now, combine all that data, with a list of all the U.S. politicians and public figures whom the JBS has described since the 1960's as Communist or Communist sympathizer or Communist agent -- plus re-visit the Welch position on ADA (and similar liberal groups), plus remember the JBS belief that most, if not all, of our Presidents since FDR have been traitors (which means the U.S. electorate cannot be trusted to elect the right candidates) AND THEN combine that data with the current edition of the JBS Freedom Index which tells us that our Congress IS NOT composed of people who understand our Constitution and they routinely violate their oath of office---then WHY should we expect the JBS to maintain a republican form of government TODAY when the "certain favorable conditions" STILL DO NOT EXIST?

Suggest removal:

87ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago

As Bill candidly acknowledges (and MANY Birchers share his opinion) the JBS wants a day of reckoning to commence whereby many Americans will be subject to trial, imprisonment or worse because their views don't conform to JBS dogma.

REMEMBER: The JBS thinks that most of our national leaders, government officials, and politicians over the past 80 years have been traitors and/or "agents" of a vast conspiracy.

AND: As JBS founder Robert Welch stated, it makes "no practical difference" to distinguish between an actual traitor, a Communist sympathizer, or a Communist "agent"!

That reveals everything you need to know about what the JBS would do if it ever achieved political power in our country.

Then remember the previous data I provided re: Robert Welch's grievously mistaken idea regarding the number of Communist Party members in our country.

Let me provide more of Welch's comment for context because it reveals something very important:

Welch wrote:

“…we believe that there are not more than 300,000 to 500,000 Communists in our country (or about ¼ of 1% of our population) and not more than a million allies, dupes, and sympathizers whom they can count on for any conscious support…” [JBS Bulletin, July 1961, page 14]

Thus, in total, Welch thought there were about 1.3 to 1.5 million Communists, Communist dupes, Communist sympathizers and Communist allies in the United States as of July 1961.

The FBI’s Security Index was designed to track all persons it considered actually or potentially dangerous to U.S. internal security. That Index included known and suspected Communist Party members plus Communist sympathizers, leaders in Communist fronts, and anyone whom the Bureau considered a potential security risk.

At the time Welch made his statement in July 1961, the FBI’s July 1961 Security Index report listed a total of 11,833 persons of which 9899 were in the “Communist” category--which included known or suspected Party members or sympathizers.

Thus, while Welch perceived more than a million Communist operatives or sympathizers or allies, the FBI concluded that only 9899 Americans were a potential security concern. [FBI HQ file 100-358086, serial #2939].

See my JBS Report for a more detailed discussion of the FBI Security Index criteria.

What Welch's comment tells us, however, is that more than one million Americans would have been at risk of losing their freedom if the JBS mentality had been predominant in our government.

And those one million plus would include many U.S. Presidents, Governors, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, state legislators, civil rights movement leaders, and numerous others identified by the JBS as "enemies" of our country.


If the JBS ever achieved power, it is CERTAIN that it would install a dictatorship -- because the "certain favorable conditions" (from the JBS perspective) HAVE NEVER EXISTED since the formation of the JBS in December 1958!

Suggest removal:

88Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years ago

I was actually planning to answer your remarks one by one after the first post (you never answered mine), but after I read the last one I firmly believe you have gone off your rocker and your strategy is just to make absurd amounts of wild and in my opinion crazy remarks hoping people will finally get tired of reading your bs. You think if people believed in less government more freedom and with God's help a better world there would be a dictatorship? Ok.. lol. Bye Ernie. I hope you find something to do with your life.

Suggest removal:

89ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago

Bill -- surely you are not naive enough to believe ONLY the self-serving comments made for PR purposes by a highly ideological organization like the JBS?

The quotes I provided you were made by Robert Welch himself -- and he EXPLICITLY declared that a republican form of government or of organization was ONLY possible "under certain favorable conditions".

Those "favorable conditions" DID NOT EXIST in 1958 -- which is why Welch created the JBS as a monolithic organization where its members could NOT choose or change JBS leaders nor vote on policies to be adopted.

Why, therefore, is it so "crazy" to accept the JBS at its word?

Like all political extremist groups, the JBS has contempt for the American electorate. After all, according to the JBS, we keep electing and re-electing and honoring people who are "conspirators" and who are destroying our Constitution and our freedoms.


See the current issue of the JBS Freedom Index which reports that 60% of our Congress violates the Constitution by their voting behavior -- and that percentage has remained fairly constant (give or take 5-10%) since the first issue was produced.

Furthermore, if you go back and review the history of the Bolsheviks and of the Nazis -- BEFORE they achieved power -- you will discover that they promised "freedom" and they used many of the same buzzwords as the JBS -- BUT AFTER THEY HAD POWER -- they installed their dictatorships!

BY YOUR OWN WORDS, you want our previous Presidents impeached for TREASON!

BY YOUR OWN WORDS, you want certain people prevented from having political power, based upon YOUR flawed understanding of what is "Constitutional". What mechanism do you propose to implement that?

THAT is why Americans have ALWAYS recoiled in disgust at the JBS -- because we know, instinctively, that the JBS would eliminate our freedoms -- especially when JBS publications describe American heroes like MLK Jr. and Eisenhower as subversive Communist agents!

Eisenhower's approval ratings when he left office are STILL among the highest achieved by any President in our postwar history....but if it were up to Welch and the JBS, he would have been executed for TREASON!

I hope you continue to spout your absurdities so that Americans see the true face of the JBS.

I will continue to report accurately and truthfully about what is contained in the historical record about the JBS -- and the sources I will use include current and former JBS members plus JBS publications plus the very people and agencies which the JBS itself has recommended as indisputably authoritative and credible!

Suggest removal:

90Bill_Lamel(14 comments)posted 4 years ago

All you have accomplished Ernie is to show anyone who may someday read this how disconnected you are from reality and that something has made you very very bitter over the JBS (which for some reason you refuse to explain). You cite one 50 year old phrase out of context from the deceased founder of the group (acting as if everyone in JBS considered him to be Jesus or something) and a score card clearly showing how they decide which votes violate or not the clear language of the Constitution (I would recommend that everyone read the Freedom Index also and see how their Congressmen are voting and whether they agree with the ranking process!) and you come to conclusions that are soooo asinine that you discredit anything else you have said and almost appear to be a caricature of a JBS critic.

Anybody who is interested I would suggest to them going to a JBS meeting to see how it goes. If you think these are groups of people working to establish dictatorships, OK :) Come back and report it here. If you think, like me, that these are patriots trying to restore the Constitution, promote individual liberty, honor God and network with fine upstanding people, great! Most of what we do is read the bulletin, write a letter to our Reps, maybe watch a video and then have a discussion for a little while afterward. I also sometimes take information to my state and US reps to educate them on things on find important.

I'm also glad to read in this article despite its obvious bias (and reliance on SPLC - lol!) that the JBS is making a comeback! This is precisely what America needs. More freedom, less government, and with God's help, a better world!

God bless America!

Suggest removal:

91ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago


I am not bitter about the JBS and as I have stated repeatedly, I happen to AGREE WITH the JBS on a number of issues.

But, you my friend, are in EXTREME denial.

You cannot even acknowledge obvious facts -- including explicit statements repeatedly made by Welch in speeches and writings.

Furthermore (understandably) you never want to acknowledge or address all of the JBS members and JBS officials who have left the JBS -- often with BITTER attacks concerning their experiences inside the JBS!

I certainly did not make THAT up. In fact, two websites were created by very prominent Birchers (one by Alan Stang and one by Don Fotheringham -- both of whom were long-time JBS members) -- to document the massive exodus from the JBS by its disgusted members, local leaders, National Council members, and financial contributors!

Obviously, we cannot rely upon Bill for a factual and truthful account of JBS history and we certainly cannot rely upon the JBS itself!


For anybody who would like to see the scope of my FOIA requests during the past 32 years -- the following webpage presents an alpha listing of my requests.


As will become obvious from even the most cursory review of this list -- I have expended extraordinary time and effort (and money) to obtain not just FBI investigative files -- but also other critical material such as reports originating from our military intelligence agencies (G-2, ONI, OSI).

In many cases, the FBI told me I was the first and only person to request and receive those files.

I also have acquired what is probably the largest private collection in our country of correspondence by senior JBS officials--including, of course, by Robert Welch and by many National Council members.

By contrast, all that Bill can present (endlessly) is his personal cult-like clucking noises of adoration of everything Birch.

UNLIKE BILL -- I encourage everybody to STUDY JBS history -- and not just mindlessly accept whatever it says about itself -- which is ridiculous if you want to discover the truth.

Individual JBS members are often very fine, decent, honorable, and principled Americans --- but the actual history of the JBS, as an organization, is FILLED with appalling libels against virtually every major figure in U.S. history during the past 80 years.

THAT is why the JBS or its surrogates have lost libel lawsuits.

THAT is why most of the conservative anti-communist community rejected the JBS --- even persons who were personal friends and acquaintances of Robert Welch -- and even politicians or government officials whom Welch effusively praised!

Suggest removal:

92ernie1241(59 comments)posted 4 years ago

As Russell Kirk wrote in February 1962:

"Robert Welch...is remarkably ignorant of the nature of the Communist conspiracy which he denounces; and the sound of his own words has led him to the verge of what Burke called ‘metaphysical madness’. Ever since he founded his society he has done more to injure the cause of responsible conservatism than to act effectively against communism…Many members of the Birch Society, I think,…got into the Society without knowing Mr. Welch’s drift, and might have left some time ago, had they not disliked seeming to desert under fire. Already some of the original abler members have drifted away or become inactive. This leaves the Society in the hands of the fanatic fringe of course…"

26 years later, Herbert Philbrick (of "I Led Three Lives" fame) made a comparable observation when he wrote:

“Very early on I formed the opinion that sincere as he was, Bob Welch was ‘off the mark’ in his crusade. Rather than hitting – or even aiming at – ‘the bull’s eye’, his arrows were landing all around the circumference of the target. As with the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, I don’t think Bob ever really understood the communist mind; how a communist thinks. I never read anything of his suggesting a true understanding of dialectical materialism; and, as Chambers and many others have pointed out, if you don’t understand D.M., you cannot grasp the real meaning of Marxism-Leninism.”

And the list of prominent conservatives of every imaginable background who rejected the JBS or its assertions includes senior military officers, former FBI informants inside the CPUSA, major intellectuals and political activists, major conservative media publishers, and major conservative politicians who scored very high on the JBS "Conservative Index" or its subsequent "Freedom Index" etc.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes