Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

For those interested in the Welch-JBS-Walker matter, it is more complex than what Paul Trejo wants us to believe. While it is certainly true that the Ole Miss incident was part of the reason why Welch distanced himself and the Society from Walker, one could fairly state that the Ole Miss episode was simply the last straw which broke the camel's back.

When Welch wrote his explanation to JBS National Council members, he mentioned the JBS members who wanted Welch and JBS to begin an all-out crusade to defend and support Walker. Welch stated that

"We have been flooded with letters, telegrams and long distance calls from all over the United States, many of them demanding my individual attention...Roughly two-thirds of these communications are from members -- both influential members and plain hardworking patriots -- who think we have 'let Walker down'. These range all the way from those who are mildly disappointed and critical; through those who say that if we are not going to use The John Birch Society organization to back General Walker then they are going to form separate organizations of their own for that specific purpose; to those who insisted the time had come to get out the guns, march to Springfield, Missouri, and rally behind a great patriotic General who was determined to save his country while there was still time." ...

BUT THEN WELCH DECLARED THAT THERE WERE "OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED" "which we do not think it wise to discuss specifically even here."

He then mentions the advice Walker was taking from Medford Evans and J. Evetts Haley which Welch characterized as unsound -- but Welch also referred to the American Mercury crowd whom Welch considered to be anti-semitic and anti-Catholic. As Welch described the situation........

"...but much more recently Walker has also been listening to advice from another source, and refusing to pay any attention to those who have tried to caution him about this source, and it is one which we do not trust at all, even as to good intentions. There is, in our opinion, danger of some very serious embarrassment to a lot of good Conservatives and even to the Conservative cause in general, if Walker continues to listen to that advice, or takes any overt actions based on it, or even merely gets himself definitely associated with this source. And since General Walker is noted for his obstinacy, we have to be as careful as we can not to let ourselves be dragged into this association in any way, even at the expense of having two thirds of our members angry and many of them even resigning or threatening to do so because we are not giving Walker 'the support which he should have.' And the report that we have 'abandoned' Walker is now being deliberately spread all over New York City, and among the Conservatives in many other places, to hurt the Society."

NOTE: The "source" whom Welch refers to as exerting a noxious influence upon Walker is a reference to Walker's involvement with the anti-semitic crowd which, at that time, owned American Mercury [AM] magazine [first, Russell Maguire and then Gerald Winrod's organization, Defenders of the Christian Faith and later Willis Carto's Legion for the Survival of Freedom.]

Edited July 3, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

...General Walker...had aspirations to run for governor and even president...

Gene

Gene, you're among a very few who recognize that Edwin Walker wanted to be our next US President.

It doesn't seem plausible today, but remember that in 1963 not only was Barry Goldwater running, but so was George Wallace. The old Dixiecrats were also thinking of running another candidate of their own.

The South was traditionally Democrat at a time when being a Democrat meant being a lily-white segretationist. Woodrow Wilson himself was elected partly on the fact that as President of Princeton University he fought to keep Black Americans out of the college. It was a winning formula in the South.

Edwin Walker was clearly a child of the South.

When H.L. Hunt encouraged and helped Edwin Walker to resign from the US Army (unsuccessfully in 1959, and successfully in 1961) he did so with the ideology of the John Birch Society. Walker was to win the Governor's office in Texas as a launching pad for President of the USA (much as other politicians have done this in more recent times).

Even though Walker wasn't fired by JFK, but quit despite JFK's efforts to retain him, Walker and H.L. Hunt continually fed the myth that JFK fired Walker -- that Walker was the victim of a Communist plot in the White House.

This mythology was not new -- it was started by Senator Eugene McCarthy with regard to President Truman firing General Douglas MacArthur in 1951. This mythology fed the US right-wing like gasoline on a fire. H.L. Hunt in the 1950s financed the Presidential campaign of Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur lost, but Hunt never gave up his drive to control the White House with his millions.

It was apparently H.L. Hunt's idea to groom General Edwin Walker to take the place of General Douglas MacArthur and become the right-wing President that H.L. Hunt always wanted.

So, Walker quit the US Army and forfeited his pension, but he landed in Dallas, in the neighborhood of H.L. Hunt's relatives, and he took an office in an oil company and began writing political speeches with the assurance that H.L. Hunt would finance his political campaigns.

One month after he quit the US Army, in December 1961, Edwin Walker gave his first speech in Dallas at the Dallas Memorial Auditiorium (the same Auditorium where Adlai was later humiliated in Dallas). Walker addressed the Dallas home-grown organization, NIC (National Indignational Convention). He received about one standing ovation every minute of his speech, and his final standing ovation lasted for three minutes, said one reporter.

(The speech was filmed, and YouTube kindly posts this snippet from Walker's first speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyONwsHqbw )

In the liberal press, Edwin Walker had a reputation of being a terrible speaker. However, to the right-wing press, when Walker addressed the right-wing extremist groups, he had a reputation of being a fiery, fire-and-brimstone preacher who could whip crowds up to a fever pitch.

Newsweek magazine in December 1961 featured Edwin Walker on its cover, as the leader of the ultra-right in the USA. The first part of 1962 saw Walker whip up crowds to a frenzy in city after city. He was a force to be reckoned with in those days.

The early sixties movie, Seven Days in May, starring Burt Lancaster as the US General who would give public speeches to whip up crowds to frenzies, was loosely based on Ex-General Edwin Walker. (The Kennedys did much to support that film.)

On Wednesday 14 March 1962, the Pecos Daily News, an independent, moderate Texas newspaper, published an article entitled, "The Unwanted And Also The Uninvited." It began as follows:

--------------------------- BEGIN QUOTATION FROM THE PECOS DAILY NEWS 3/14/1962 ---------------------------

"It is unpleasant to have to record the downfall of a once honored American that is ex-General Walker. The strange, poisonous bite of the John Birch Society infection forced him out of the Army for disloyalty to his Commander-in-Chief and inability to accept orders from his superior officers.

The Birch infection dumped him into the Texas political scene, where he filed himself as an unwanted candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor. The unhappy Birch-type overweening conceit impelled him to get into the race that Democrats urged him to avoid.

His assured loss of the nomination to any one of the several fine Democrats happily will wash him out of consideration for any elective place in either party. Now neither party will accept him as a Presidential nominee -- quite obviously his overly-ambitious ultimate goal..."

--------------------------- END QUOTATION FROM THE PECOS DAILY NEWS 3/14/1962 ---------------------------

So, Gene, I wanted to show you that your perception that Walker wanted to be US President was also evident to moderate Americans in 1962 as well.

I would only add that with 1962-1963 politics in mind, Edwin Walker's political focus was riveted on Cuba, Cuba and more Cuba. Even when Walker wrote his Public Letter to JFK only days before he deliberately instigated the Ole Miss riots in late 1962, that Public Letter keeps the main focus on Cuba, rather than on Ole Miss. Here's the full text of that letter: http://www.pet880.com/images/19620926_EAW_Open_Letter.JPG

So I repeat -- to understand the JFK murder, we should focus on 1962-1963, to the exclusion of later political developments, and resist projecting our more recent experience onto the events leading up to the JFK murder. Using this method, we can avoid projecting blame for 1963 onto the Bush family, and keep the focus where it squarely belongs -- on Ex-General Edwin Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 4, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Gene Kelly]

Paul:

I follow your posts because you make interesting points. You really have got me thinking about General Walker... again, since JIm Root had the same impact previously. Your passion about his role is a good thing in my opinion. The dialogue between you and Ernie is a bit exhausting, but there are sharp insights in both arguments. I do echo Pat Speer's sentiments that you both keep it professional, so we can all focus better on the key information. As Larry Hancock has emphasized, in this JFK case there's room for many views.

Regards,

Gene

[Paul Brancato]

Gene, Thomas, Larry - if it weren't for you three I would ignore this thread. Trejo and Lazar are engaged in a circular dance. I think we should just give them their own thread and rename it.

Ernie - thanks for making my case that it was not the Birchers who killed JFK, as he was just another commie simp or worse. They gained nothing from his death.

Paul T - likewise, whether you see it or not, you have made the case that getting rid of Castro was not the goal of the plotters, though you manage to rationalize your pov by saying that in the end their goal was thwarted. I prefer straight lines.

Thomas Graves - thanks for including the Soviet military machine as being a beneficiary - very inciteful and appropriately cynical. If one does not come away from studying this era with a cynical mind one has not seen deeply enough.

Gene - though I find much to agree with you on, one thing I don't agree with is your assessment that the forces at play in the '60's somehow faded into obscurity, other than of course the JBS. But they were always marginal. This is the strategy of tension writ large on the American stage. No Gene, the plotters took power and have never relinquished it. The military industrial congressional media complex is alive and stronger than ever. This way of reading history assumes that two party politics is a charade for the masses. Left, right, left right, we march our armies together in the service of the corporate power.

No Paul T - you are wrong - I have no problem with the 1%. Its an artificial construct, another meaningless division. But I do have a problem with those among them who are in on this dirty little secret.

[Harry J.Dean]

Paul Brancato, Dude buz me at hjay1211 @gmail.com

[Harry J.Dean]

December 1958 to November 1963

Subverting breezes rose and blew

Into the sails of U.S. Ship Of State

With power-plan winds known to few

On a December day in 58

Fearsome blows drove this crew

To mutiny then death to it's Captain

In a five year course to new harbor

As their helmsman tilted the rudder!

Edited July 22, 2014 by Harry J.Dean

[Paul Trejo]

As I continue my second review of Larry Hancock's superb book, Someone Would Have Talked (SWHT/2010) I'm moved to remark how closely the accounts of John Martino and Harry Dean correspond with each other.

John Martino claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a shooter at JFK on 11/22/1963, but was set up as a patsy by Americans who were radically opposed to the regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba.

Harry Dean also claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a shooter at JFK on 11/22/1963, but was set up as a patsy by Americans who were radically opposed to the regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba.

John Martino claimed that the JFK murder plotters believed that JFK was a Communist traitor to the USA.

Harry Dean also claims that the JFK murder plotters believed that JFK was a Communist traitor to the USA.

John Martino and Harry Dean never met. They never spoke with each other. There are differences in the details of their perspectives, yet the factors above stand out as key claims of both independent observers of the JFK murder -- John Martino on the East Coast, and Harry Dean on the West Coast.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 28, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Also, on page 201 of Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked (2010) we find another correlation between the account of John Martino and the account of Harry Dean -- namely, the correlation of the John Birch Society.

Here's what Larry Hancock wrote:

"It appears that gossip about a threat to the President was circulating among not only the Cuban Exiles, but also certain elements of the ultra-right. John Martino was moving within both of these circles in 1963 and 1964; he was in great demand for speeches and articles relating to the Communist menace in Cuba; something in which he sincerely believed. His speaking tours were sponsored by the John Birch Society." (Hancock, 2010, SWHT, page 201)

Independently of John Martino on the East Coast, Harry Dean on the West Coast was also exposed to gossip about a threat to JFK that was circulating among Cuban Exiles who were affiliated with the John Birch Society in Southern California, including but not limited to Loran Hall (a Cuban-American) and two Mexican-American US Army Veterans, Larry Howard and Guy Gabaldon.

Loran Hall and Guy Gabaldon also made ultra-right speeches sponsored by the John Birch Society, also about the Communist menace in Cuba, a cause in which they deeply believed.

It was in this context that Harry Dean particpated in a meeting with these individuals and Ex-General Edwin Walker, who had recently joined the fight against Castro, in which the name of Lee Harvey Oswald was raised as a doomed officer of the FPCC, and now a target of their rightist group.

This discussion, says Harry Dean, occurred about two months before the JFK murder, at a post-meeting of the John Birch Society in Southern California.

There is an individual who appears in both accounts: Larry Howard, traveling companion of Loran Hall. Harry Dean saw these to men together on a regular basis in Southern California, where they all gathered, often at the home of Guy Gabaldon.

Jim Garrison produced evidence that Larry Howard was also a comrade in arms of Gerry Patrick Hemming and Interpen. Larry Hancock produced evidence that Larry Howard's name was on the lease of the Louisiana training camp used by Cuban Exile groups like DRE and Alpha/66.

The circles are the same. Harry Dean, quite independently, ultimately confirms the story of John Martino.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 29, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

UPDATE:

I realize that Paul Trejo will not accept anything which I am about to reveal -- but for those of you following this ongoing discussion:

1. I recently received new copies of John Rousselot's FBI files. Interestingly, I received one file that I had not obtained as paper documents when I made my first request on him in 2003 when he died. However, the new file only supports what I had previously received in his HQ files.

2. As I have stated many times in reply to Paul's fictional story about "secret" FBI files --- there is always some way in which a persistent researcher can discover the existence of ANY material being withheld -- even if the actual file is exempt from disclosure for some reason -- such as "national security".

3. In 1983, John Rousselot was being considered for a position within the Reagan Administration. As a result, FBI HQ and Los Angeles field were required to perform a formal investigation into his background for obvious reasons. Nobody is allowed to work in the White House or in any sensitive government position without a very detailed background investigation.

4. Now here is where Paul's fictional story disintegrates into total absurdity. There are NOT two different investigations. In other words, there is not one FBI investigation about somebody's background which reports only favorable information and another separate investigation which produces an entirely separate report which discusses all adverse information. INSTEAD, the final report prepared on the basis of field office input combines the good and the bad so that the appropriate officials can make their informed judgment about the character, beliefs, morality, and values of the person being considered for employment or appointment.

5. When the FBI performs a full field investigation, it covers everything: family background, education, employment history, military service, criminal records, marital status, divorce records, financial status, tax liens, religion, alcohol and drug use, political beliefs and associations, and what neighbors or co-workers or business associates think about the applicant, etc.

6. OBVIOUSLY -- if somebody had ANY kind of association with some suspect activity (such as plotting to murder our President) --- EVEN IF only rumored or based upon GOSSIP --- that type of information WOULD BE included in the background report. And the FBI would attempt to determine if it was valid information -- and they then state in their final report what they have discovered. [Rousselot was well known by several Los Angeles County Superior Court and U.S. District Court Judges who recommended him for appointment---one of whom, US District Court Judge David Kenyon had known Rousselot almost his entire life!]

7. Significantly, there is not one single reference in any of Rousselot's files to any derogatory information with respect to his activities with the Birch Society. There is not one single reference in his FBI background investigation during 1983 to any kind of association with anybody who was planning any sort of criminal or subversive activity.

8. Just like Harry Dean, the FBI reviewed Rousselot's rap sheet -- so they knew exactly what contacts with law enforcement or with courts he had (from speeding tickets to his divorce, to more serious matters).

9. BOTTOM-LINE: Do you really think it is possible for somebody 35-40 years old (during 1960's) to be actively plotting the murder of a public official but NOBODY who knew him had the remotest clue about his ACTUAL beliefs, character, and values? Or about what he was planning to do and how he actively facilitated a murder??? And 15-20 years later, they STILL had no clue about him?

In my article about conspiracy theories, I make the point that most political conspiracy theories are based upon the predicate that we must throw away everything we know about human nature and human behavior. Instead, we have to substitute the most incredible hypotheticals which have not even one shred of factual evidence to support them -- EXCEPT in the minds of the true believer in the theory.

THAT is the ultimate problem here. As I have said repeatedly to Paul, our fundamental problem is epistemological -- i.e. the rules of evidence by which we separate fact from fiction and how we go about finding and verifying reliable evidence. When you are NOT constrained by ANY identifiable RULES OF EVIDENCE, you can ALWAYS INVENT whatever you want and believe it to be true!

[Paul Trejo]

UPDATE:

I realize that Paul Trejo will not accept anything which I am about to reveal -- but for those of you following this ongoing discussion:

1. I recently received new copies of John Rousselot's FBI files. Interestingly, I received one file that I had not obtained as paper documents when I made my first request on him in 2003 when he died. However, the new file only supports what I had previously received in his HQ files.

2. As I have stated many times in reply to Paul's fictional story about "secret" FBI files --- there is always some way in which a persistent researcher can discover the existence of ANY material being withheld -- even if the actual file is exempt from disclosure for some reason -- such as "national security".

3. In 1983, John Rousselot was being considered for a position within the Reagan Administration. As a result, FBI HQ and Los Angeles field were required to perform a formal investigation into his background for obvious reasons. Nobody is allowed to work in the White House or in any sensitive government position without a very detailed background investigation.

4. Now here is where Paul's fictional story disintegrates into total absurdity. There are NOT two different investigations. In other words, there is not one FBI investigation about somebody's background which reports only favorable information and another separate investigation which produces an entirely separate report which discusses all adverse information. INSTEAD, the final report prepared on the basis of field office input combines the good and the bad so that the appropriate officials can make their informed judgment about the character, beliefs, morality, and values of the person being considered for employment or appointment.

5. When the FBI performs a full field investigation, it covers everything: family background, education, employment history, military service, criminal records, marital status, divorce records, financial status, tax liens, religion, alcohol and drug use, political beliefs and associations, and what neighbors or co-workers or business associates think about the applicant, etc.

6. OBVIOUSLY -- if somebody had ANY kind of association with some suspect activity (such as plotting to murder our President) --- EVEN IF only rumored or based upon GOSSIP --- that type of information WOULD BE included in the background report. And the FBI would attempt to determine if it was valid information -- and they then state in their final report what they have discovered. [Rousselot was well known by several Los Angeles County Superior Court and U.S. District Court Judges who recommended him for appointment---one of whom, US District Court Judge David Kenyon had known Rousselot almost his entire life!]

7. Significantly, there is not one single reference in any of Rousselot's files to any derogatory information with respect to his activities with the Birch Society. There is not one single reference in his FBI background investigation during 1983 to any kind of association with anybody who was planning any sort of criminal or subversive activity.

8. Just like Harry Dean, the FBI reviewed Rousselot's rap sheet -- so they knew exactly what contacts with law enforcement or with courts he had (from speeding tickets to his divorce, to more serious matters)...

Actually, Ernie, that's interesting information about a man who was very well-known in John Birch Society circles, at a time when FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had a standing policy that no FBI Agent could join the John Birch Society because of their disloyal and unpatriotic values.

So, would you kindly tell us what the FBI report about Congressman John Rousselot said about his outspoken membership in the John BIrch Society?

We have a photograph of John Rousselot, by the way, standing and smiling wide in front of a giant billboard that read, IMPEACH EARL WARREN (Join the John Birch Society). So Rousselot did not keep his Bircher politics much of a secret.

So, Ernie, would you kindly tell us if the FBI reported anything about the BIrchers in Rousselot's background? Also, did the Reagan Administration hire John Rousselot for any position?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 30, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

UPDATE:

I realize that Paul Trejo will not accept anything which I am about to reveal -- but for those of you following this ongoing discussion:

1. I recently received new copies of John Rousselot's FBI files. Interestingly, I received one file that I had not obtained as paper documents when I made my first request on him in 2003 when he died. However, the new file only supports what I had previously received in his HQ files.

2. As I have stated many times in reply to Paul's fictional story about "secret" FBI files --- there is always some way in which a persistent researcher can discover the existence of ANY material being withheld -- even if the actual file is exempt from disclosure for some reason -- such as "national security".

3. In 1983, John Rousselot was being considered for a position within the Reagan Administration. As a result, FBI HQ and Los Angeles field were required to perform a formal investigation into his background for obvious reasons. Nobody is allowed to work in the White House or in any sensitive government position without a very detailed background investigation.

4. Now here is where Paul's fictional story disintegrates into total absurdity. There are NOT two different investigations. In other words, there is not one FBI investigation about somebody's background which reports only favorable information and another separate investigation which produces an entirely separate report which discusses all adverse information. INSTEAD, the final report prepared on the basis of field office input combines the good and the bad so that the appropriate officials can make their informed judgment about the character, beliefs, morality, and values of the person being considered for employment or appointment.

5. When the FBI performs a full field investigation, it covers everything: family background, education, employment history, military service, criminal records, marital status, divorce records, financial status, tax liens, religion, alcohol and drug use, political beliefs and associations, and what neighbors or co-workers or business associates think about the applicant, etc.

6. OBVIOUSLY -- if somebody had ANY kind of association with some suspect activity (such as plotting to murder our President) --- EVEN IF only rumored or based upon GOSSIP --- that type of information WOULD BE included in the background report. And the FBI would attempt to determine if it was valid information -- and they then state in their final report what they have discovered. [Rousselot was well known by several Los Angeles County Superior Court and U.S. District Court Judges who recommended him for appointment---one of whom, US District Court Judge David Kenyon had known Rousselot almost his entire life!]

7. Significantly, there is not one single reference in any of Rousselot's files to any derogatory information with respect to his activities with the Birch Society. There is not one single reference in his FBI background investigation during 1983 to any kind of association with anybody who was planning any sort of criminal or subversive activity.

8. Just like Harry Dean, the FBI reviewed Rousselot's rap sheet -- so they knew exactly what contacts with law enforcement or with courts he had (from speeding tickets to his divorce, to more serious matters)...

Actually, Ernie, that's interesting information about a man who was very well-known in John Birch Society circles, at a time when FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had a standing policy that no FBI Agent could join the John Birch Society because of their disloyal and unpatriotic values.

So, would you kindly tell us what the FBI report about Congressman John Rousselot said about his outspoken membership in the John BIrch Society?

We have a photograph of John Rousselot, by the way, standing and smiling wide in front of a giant billboard that read, IMPEACH EARL WARREN (Join the John Birch Society). So Rousselot did not keep his Bircher politics much of a secret.

So, Ernie, would you kindly tell us if the FBI reported anything about the BIrchers in Rousselot's background? Also, did the Reagan Administration hire John Rousselot for any position?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Totally false predicate Paul. But here again it reveals the fundamental difference between us and how we go about finding and verifying factual evidence. Let's take this one point at a time.

(1) In your first paragraph you made a bold and definitive declaration. You state that there was an official FBI policy originating from J. Edgar Hoover himself "that no FBI Agent could join the JBS because of their disloyal and unpatriotic views."

However, you NEVER provide ANY documentation to support your declaration. FOR EXAMPLE:

You never quote from any communication authored by Hoover.

You never quote from any FBI Manual.

You never quote from any FBI SAC Letter.

You never quote from any Hoover testimony before a Congressional Committee

You never quote from any Hoover press conference or interview

You never quote from any Hoover speech

You never quote any former FBI senior official who supports your personal opinion.

You never provide ANY documentary evidence to substantiate each individual element of your declaration, i.e.

* that Hoover or the FBI ever announced such a policy

* that the FBI concluded that JBS members were "disloyal"

* that the FBI concluded that JBS members held "unpatriotic views"

The reason why you never provide such documentation is because THERE IS NONE! Because, as is your custom, YOU DELIBERATELY LIE about this matter.

AND the proof is very easy to ascertain -- because, IF the FBI actually believed that JBS members (or the JBS as an organization) was, as you contend, "disloyal" -- THEN the FBI would have opened a formal investigation of the JBS to determine the identities of everybody who was a member and every field office would have been instructed to prepare (at a minimum) a quarterly summary report on the JBS --- just as they did about every other known or suspected "disloyal" organization.

SIGNIFICANTLY, however, the FBI never opened a formal investigation into the JBS and it never instructed its field offices to prepare any regular summary reports on the JBS in their territory.

IN ADDITION, IF the JBS was considered "disloyal", it would have been listed in the FBI file entitled "Thumbnail Sketches of Subversive Organizations" -- which every field office maintained and regularly updated -- but the JBS is NOT listed in that file.

IN ADDITION, JBS members would NEVER be allowed to be employed by any defense department key facilities. But JBS members were so employed. How do I know that? Because there are documents in the FBI HQ file on the JBS which contain descriptions of JBS members who were employed by some of our most important defense contractors.

IN ADDITION, if JBS members were considered "disloyal" then they could NEVER obtain security clearances. But JBS members DID obtain security clearances.

What Paul always does is PROJECT his personal opinions and judgments and evaluations onto the FBI and Hoover and (in Paul's mind) his personal opinions become the basis for conclusions which he then FALSELY ATTRIBUTES to other persons or agencies -- but which are EXCLUSIVELY the personal opinions of Paul Trejo!

(2). Your second paragraph asks:

So, would you kindly tell us what the FBI report about Congressman John Rousselot said about his outspoken membership in the John BIrch Society?

Your question is significant for two reasons:

1. Apparently you do not know the answer to your own question. Which means you have never bothered to find out!

2. It reveals, once again, that you form conclusions WITHOUT evidence!

The answer to your question is very simple: The FBI background report about Rousselot simply mentions that after he left Congress he was employed by the JBS. There was no further discussion about that.

(3) And, lastly, we have Paul's own words which reveal his TOTAL ignorance about this matter. Paul asks:

So, Ernie, would you kindly tell us if the FBI reported anything about the BIrchers in Rousselot's background? Also, did the Reagan Administration hire John Rousselot for any position?

I copy below the Congressional Biography entry for Rousselot -- which answers Paul's question and I highlight the key portion:

ROUSSELOT, John Harbin, a Representative from California; born in Los Angeles, Calif., November 1, 1927; attended the public schools of San Marino and South Pasadena, Calif.; B.A., Principia College, Elsah, Ill., 1949; insurance agent; assistant to public relations director, Pacific Finance Corp., Los Angeles, Calif., 1954-1955; public relations consultant; author; director of public information, Federal Housing Administration, Washington, D.C., 1958-1960; deputy to chairman of Board of Equalization, State of California, 1956; delegate, Republican National Convention, 1956; member of executive committee, Republican State Central Committee, 1956-1957; elected as a Republican to the Eighty-seventh Congress (January 3, 1961-January 3, 1963); unsuccessful candidate for reelection to the Eighty-eighth Congress in 1962; management consultant; elected to the Ninety-first Congress, by special election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of United States Representative Glenard P. Lipscomb, and reelected to the six succeeding Congresses (June 30, 1970-January 3, 1983); was an unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1982; special assistant to President Reagan, 1983; president, National Council of Savings Institutions, 1985-1988; unsuccessful candidate for nomination to the One Hundred Third Congress in 1992; died on May 11, 2003, in Irvine, Calif.

POSTSCRIPT:

What is particularly troubling about Paul's message is that HE KNOWS that the FBI never investigated the JBS because the FBI did NOT believe there was ANY reason to do so. How do I know that Paul knows? Because many months ago, I sent Paul a copy of an FBI serial which definitively stated that they were NOT investigating the JBS. There are numerous FBI documents which show that HQ told all of its field offices that NO investigation of the JBS was required.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

So, Ernie, all that simply means is that you aren't going to share the FBI findings about John Rousselot with us. Probably you realize it will shoot your theory out of the water.

As for the notion that FBI Director forbade any FBI Agents from joining the John Birch Society, that is already common knowledge, and so there's no need to for me to provide a citation for every sentence I write.

Also, you raise the issue of an FBI investigation of the JBS, which is a problem in your own mind, Ernie. I never mentioned that once. J. Edgar Hoover didn't need a major investigation of the John Birch Society to simply read one of their tracts and realize INSTANTLY that these people were Unamerican, disloyal and frankly idiotic.

The FBI Rule against Birchers being FBI Agents did not require an FBI investigation -- only Common Sense.

I think your long post only goes to show that you're running scared -- and you can't produce the proof of your many wild claims. We're still waiting -- for months -- for you to show the FBI results of your research of Harry Dean -- and you won't show it.

I think it's because you've already seen it, and it doesn't support your wild claims. Hmm.

As for Congressman John Rousselot, we have a speech by him, now showing on Youtube at this URL:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoC2lNw113k]

In this speech Rousselot blasts Reverend Martin Luther King as a Communist. One of the images on this YouTube video is that photo of Rousselot beaming before a John Birch Society billboard reading, IMPEACH EARL WARREN!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

So, Ernie, all that simply means is that you aren't going to share the FBI findings about John Rousselot with us. Probably you realize it will shoot your theory out of the water.

As for the notion that FBI Director forbade any FBI Agents from joining the John Birch Society, that is already common knowledge, and so there's no need to for me to provide a citation for every sentence I write.

Also, you raise the issue of an FBI investigation of the JBS, which is a problem in your own mind, Ernie. I never mentioned that once. J. Edgar Hoover didn't need a major investigation of the John Birch Society to simply read one of their tracts and realize INSTANTLY that these people were Unamerican, disloyal and frankly idiotic.

The FBI Rule against Birchers being FBI Agents did not require an FBI investigation -- only Common Sense.

I think your long post only goes to show that you're running scared -- and you can't produce the proof of your many wild claims. We're still waiting -- for months -- for you to show the FBI results of your research of Harry Dean -- and you won't show it.

I think it's because you've already seen it, and it doesn't support your wild claims. Hmm.

As for Congressman John Rousselot, we have a speech by him, now showing on Youtube at this URL:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoC2lNw113k]

In this speech Rousselot blasts Reverend Martin Luther King as a Communist. One of the images on this YouTube video is that photo of Rousselot beaming before a John Birch Society billboard reading, IMPEACH EARL WARREN!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

No, Paul, I DID share the FBI's findings about Rousselot. Please pay attention.

(1) The FBI summarized everything which their investigation discovered and the Bureau then sent their report to the White House and Rousselot was appointed in April 1983 to the position of Special Assistant to the President, as Deputy Director of the Office of Public Liaison -- precisely because there was no significant adverse information discovered as a result of the investigation. Certainly nothing to indicate that Rousselot was disloyal, or that he had engaged in, condoned, or facilitated any kind of criminal or subversive activity.

(2) And, incidentally, the same can be said about Robert Welch. The FBI never opened any formal investigation about Welch. There was a very brief preliminary inquiry but the FBI never heard one peep from anybody to indicate that Welch or any other JBS official was involved in any sort of criminal or subversive activity. You and Harry claim that Harry told Wesley Grapp about Welch and Rousselot and Walker and Galbadon. There is no corroboration for that statement in ANY FBI file. However, we have Harry's statement that Grapp supposedly summarily dismissed what Harry told him because (obviously) it was not credible. YOU may feel differently -- but there is nothing in any FBI file to support Harry or your belief. Sorry -- but that is simply the FACT about this matter.

(3) It is NOT "common knowledge" that Hoover "forbade any FBI Agent from joining the JBS."

IF IT WAS "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" -- then some author or researcher would have discovered the proof for that assertion by now and they would have presented that "common knowledge" in one of their articles, books, or conference papers. Significantly, you cannot QUOTE even ONE source for your statement -- even though you now double-down on your absurdity by claiming it was "common knowledge".

(4) There are only TWO public references by Hoover to the John Birch Society.

The first was during his Warren Commission testimony -- although he does not mention Welch by name. Instead, Hoover described the beliefs of Welch about President Eisenhower and about Chief Justice Warren as "extremist".

The second public reference by Hoover was during a 3-hour press conference in November 1964 when the Warren Commission Report was released. During a wide-ranging press conference, Hoover stated that he had "no respect" for Welch. But neither Hoover or the FBI ever publicly stated anything about JBS members not being allowed to become FBI Agents. Nor has ANY author ever made such a statement. So one wonders how it became (according to you), "common knowledge" ???

The ONLY way the FBI would even learn whether an FBI employee was a JBS member was when their employee filled out their annual form regarding what organizations they belonged to. If the organization did NOT appear on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations -- then there was no basis for refusing employment UNLESS there was some other derogatory information which precluded employment.

The point is that simply being a member of an organization does not necessarily tell you what that member believes. For example, John Rousselot and many JBS National Council members publicly DISAVOWED Welch's comments regarding President Eisenhower. And, in fact, several senior JBS officials were major financial contributors to Eisenhower's campaigns AND they were involved in their state GOP efforts to elect or re-elect Eisenhower. And TWO of those National Council members WORKED in the Eisenhower Administration (T. Coleman Andrews and Clarence Manion).

There is a brand new book (just published this month) about the JBS which is easily the best-researched, the best-documented, and the best-written study ever written about the JBS. See it here: {For some reason, EF is not printing webpage URL's. The book is entitled "The World of the John Birch Society: Conspiracy, Conservatism, and the Cold War" by Dr. Darren J. Mulloy -- whose research specialty is U.S. political extremist organizations. Google him or his book on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0826519814/ref=cm_sw_su_dp

Significantly, Dr. Mulloy, does not mention one word regarding what YOU consider to be "common knowledge". If you want, I will give you Dr. Mulloy's email address and you can ask him if he came across anything during his research to support your contention.

(5) With respect to this comment by you

Also, you raise the issue of an FBI investigation of the JBS, which is a problem in your own mind, Ernie. I never mentioned that once. J. Edgar Hoover didn't need a major investigation of the John Birch Society to simply read one of their tracts and realize INSTANTLY that these people were Unamerican, disloyal and frankly idiotic.

There is a profound difference between thinking that somebody is stupid, ignorant, or a political extremist versus believing that they are NOT loyal to their country or "un-American". The latter REQUIRED (BY LAW) a full investigation by the FBI. Significantly, there was no such investigation.

AGAIN: Your personal opinions are NOT the operative rules by which the FBI functioned.

(6) With respect to this comment by you:

I think your long post only goes to show that you're running scared -- and you can't produce the proof of your many wild claims. We're still waiting -- for months -- for you to show the FBI results of your research of Harry Dean -- and you won't show it.

Not only have I summarized it repeatedly in this thread, I also created an entire webpage to share it in detail. UNLIKE your eBook which contains not a single documentary reference or footnote or bibliographic citation or scanned copy of an important document, my webpage conclusively establishes what you now claim I have never provided!

Edited July 30, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

FYI:

I do not have enough space to upload the FBI HQ file on Rousselot here in EF but I emailed the main section of the HQ file to Paul Trejo so he can post it online.

Significantly, even Rousselot's more liberal colleagues in the House of Representatives recommended him for the White House position because his reputation in Congress was spotless.

For example, Rep. Barber Conable recommended Rousselot as a person of unquestioned integrity and loyalty. At one point, Conable was voted the "most respected" member of Congress by his colleagues because of his character, honesty, and integrity. After leaving Congress, Conable was appointed President of the World Bank -- an institution which the Birch Society considers to be akin to satan!

Significantly, when the FBI checked on Rousselot with all their usual sources in order to discover any potential adverse info (aside from info in their own files) -- such as local police departments in areas where Rousselot had lived, and the CIA, and the U.S. Secret Service, and HUAC etc. they found NOTHING derogatory about Rousselot.

I DO have enough space left to post the Los Angeles field investigation re: Rousselot so it is attached. So, now, Paul can stop whining and moaning and just admit there is NOTHING in FBI files to support any derogatory conclusions about Rousselot's character or integrity -- and nothing, in particular, to support the assertion that Rousselot was ever involved in, aware of, or facilitated ANY kind of illegal activity.

Rousselot, John H. - Los Angeles-1.pdf

Edited July 30, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

FYI:

I do not have enough space to upload the FBI HQ file on Rousselot here in EF but I emailed the main section of the HQ file to Paul Trejo so he can post it online.

Significantly, even Rousselot's more liberal colleagues in the House of Representatives recommended him for the White House position because his reputation in Congress was spotless.

For example, Rep. Barber Conable recommended Rousselot as a person of unquestioned integrity and loyalty. At one point, Conable was voted the "most respected" member of Congress by his colleagues because of his character, honesty, and integrity. After leaving Congress, Conable was appointed President of the World Bank -- an institution which the Birch Society considers to be akin to satan!

Significantly, when the FBI checked on Rousselot with all their usual sources in order to discover any potential adverse info (aside from info in their own files) -- such as local police departments in areas where Rousselot had lived, and the CIA, and the U.S. Secret Service, and HUAC etc. they found NOTHING derogatory about Rousselot.

I DO have enough space left to post the Los Angeles field investigation re: Rousselot so it is attached. So, now, Paul can stop whining and moaning and just admit there is NOTHING in FBI files to support any derogatory conclusions about Rousselot's character or integrity -- and nothing, in particular, to support the assertion that Rousselot was ever involved in, aware of, or facilitated ANY kind of illegal activity.

If the FBI failed to mention Rousselot's membership and advocacy of the John Birch Society in their investigation of him for a position at the White House, then they were seriously derelict in their duties.

Thankfully, the paltry few pages of "research" that Ernie has posted here does not represent an FBI investigation, but mainly consists of (1) several pages of the intent to investigate; and (2) a few interviews with Rousselot's close friends and neighbors all of whom said he was a great guy, good neighbor, no drugs, no criminal record, and best of all, was once a Congressman in California.

In other words -- it barely scratches the surface of a true investigation. Insofar as there really was an FBI investigation of John Rousselot, and insofar as John Rousselot failed to obtain a full-time position with the Reagan White House, we must therefore conclude that Ernie Lazar continues to withhold vital information about the John Birch Society and John Rousselot.

Why? For what purpose? Could it be because any official light on the John Birch Society would show them in an unflattering position -- and by proxy, John Rousselot would also be shown in an unflattering position?

At least Harry Dean is honest about it -- he admits he was once a member of the JBS, that disloyal organization that accused US Presidents of being Communists, Communist-controlled, Communist-dupes and so on -- but Harry Dean quit the JBS and criticized them fiercely afterwards.

It was, after all, according to Harry Dean, leading members of the John Birch Society, like Congressman John Rousselot, Ex-General Edwin Walker, and frequent speakers like Guy Gabaldon and Loran Hall, who conspired during the second week of September, 1963, at a Southern California office of the John Birch Society, to organize and finance their participation of the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK in Dallas in November of that year!

The evidence continues to pour forth from history and research. Experts like Joan Mellen, Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich have narrowed our field of suspects to those involved in feverishly Anti-Castro people, like those mentioned above, and including rogue CIA agents like David Morales and David Atlee Phillips, as well as Cuban Exile trainers and leaders like Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall, with their comrade Larry Howard, whose name was on the lease of the Lousiana paramilitary training camp used by the paramilitary Minutemen along with Cuban Exiles in the DRE and Alpha/66 led by Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Thomas Beckham.

Guy Banister was also a leading member of the John Birch Society as well as the Minutemen.

The visits of Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Gerry Patrick Hemming at the home of Ex-General Walker in Dallas throughout 1963 is confirmed by actual correspondence between Walker and Hemming in the personal papers of Edwin Walker currently stored at UT Austin.

The field is narrowing. We are getting closer and closer to naming the ground-crew with every passing month. And the closer we get, the more brightly the banner of the John Birch Society shines in that billboard in the background, screaming, IMPEACH EARL WARREN!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 31, 2014 by Paul Trejo