The president of this new organization is Vance Smith (LDS member) who was previous president of the JBS.What is Freedom First Society?
Freedom First Society is an action-driven membership organization that builds on the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers: our nation is a Republic — a government of laws. Our Constitution, the highest law of the land, also serves to protect our God-given rights against the whims of any one person or even of the majority.
We value responsibility, truth, justice, initiative, and self-sacrifice.
Some of our priorities:
•Emphasize the proper role of the U.S. government.
•Expose the conspiracy to manipulate world affairs (including the nightly news).
•Act as patriots to defend our country and promote man's God-given right to be free.
•Encourage a healthy distrust of those we entrust with power.
•Influence like-minded people to take action, which will then influence others.
New John Birch Society Competitor
-
moonwhim
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4251
New John Birch Society Competitor
http://www.freedomfirstsociety.org/arti ... -Team.html
-
moonwhim
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4251
Re: New John Birch Society Competitor
Our Founding Principles
Purpose and Perspective
•Our purpose is to defend, restore, and support the principles of freedom that made America great. We seek the opportunity for new generations to enjoy that heritage and to help future generations understand and value its underlying principles so they, too, can preserve the foundation for freedom and build constructively upon it.
•We recognize that at the time of our founding (2007) the most powerful and ruthless Conspiracy in the history of mankind has a grip on world affairs and is seeking rapidly to eliminate the last bastions of potential resistance to its world hegemony. This Conspiracy stands in opposition to the values of all of the great religions and seeks to infiltrate, undermine, and subvert all significant institutions for its satanic purposes. We are reminded of, and accept, the admonition: “ The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. ”
•We believe that the days of freedom are limited unless sufficient numbers of Americans can quickly be brought under strong leadership to expose this Conspiracy and force it to be routed. The preservation of freedom will require major commitments of time, influence, and money on the part of an increasing number of individuals to build the essential organization.
•Freedom First Society seeks value far beyond the immediate fight, because the conditions for freedom must always be nurtured and layers of strength built to ward off the next conspiracy against freedom or to prevent the erosion of those layers through complacency and lack of understanding.
Values and Insights
•Freedom First Society is particularly guided by the insights and experience of Robert Welch , as reflected in his writings and speeches.
•We thoroughly support the great Roman legacy — the rule of law , an immense contribution to protecting our rights over the discredited arbitrary rule of men.
•We subscribe to the principles of a Republic and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who, with the U.S. Constitution , created the best, practical example of a Republic to date.
•We subscribe to Americanism , which is the novel concept that guided the birth of our nation — the idea that government should be the servant of the people , that governments are properly instituted to secure the people's God-given rights.
•And thus we support the healthy distrust of those we entrust with power . As Thomas Jefferson wisely counseled: “Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism…. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
•We respect the lessons of history . History and reason both argue that indispensable supports for a free society include widespread adherence to religion and morality , the traditional family, as well as cultural elements of Western Civilization such as responsibility, truth, justice, initiative, and self-sacrifice.
•Although experience shows that freedom is the key to economic prosperity, the primary justification for defending freedom is not economic, but religious and moral. It is man's God-given right to be free .
•We subscribe to the principle, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Thus we vigorously oppose racism, anti-Semitism, hatred, and bigotry , and recognize them to be destructive forces and motivations.
•We believe that foul and illegitimate means cannot be justified by imagined good ends .
Organizing Policies
•We seek to provide monolithic leadership to enable patriots to build an organizational body that will sufficiently inform Americans to rout the Conspiracy's influence, restore our Republic, and help rebuild our nation's layers of strength.
•Since we earnestly seek to preserve freedom, our top priority must be to expose the Conspiracy. Until that is accomplished, any other focus must be regarded as a tangent. We strive to be experts on the principles of freedom and to determine what its enemies are doing so we can identify for our members and prospective members the most effective strategies to defend our freedom.
•Freedom First Society is an organization of volunteers, whose very lifeblood is the activity of its members. We acknowledge that volunteers will differ in their abilities, opportunities, and even commitment to participate. However, each member should understand that preserving America is still his responsibility.
•Members are encouraged to develop their own understanding of the principles of freedom and to inform themselves of the threats to it. Members should understand, however, that this self-education cannot be an end in itself. The primary purpose for informing oneself must be to take effective action — to become an educating fire fighter.
•We agree with Edmund Burke: "When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
•For Freedom First Society to accomplish its mission, an overriding responsibility of members must be to inspire other responsible individuals to take an interest in what we offer and help bring them into the organization. Therefore, we seek the association only of responsible men and women of high character, capable of positively influencing others in the battle for freedom.
•Finally, we enthusiastically seek, in the words of Robert Welch, "less government, more responsibility, and — with God's help — a better world."
-
larsenb
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11007
- Location: Between here and Standing Rock
Re: New John Birch Society Competitor
Any idea why he jumped ship to found a new organization??moonwhim wrote:http://www.freedomfirstsociety.org/arti ... -Team.html
The president of this new organization is Vance Smith (LDS member) who was previous president of the JBS.What is Freedom First Society?
Freedom First Society is an action-driven membership organization that builds on the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers: our nation is a Republic — a government of laws. Our Constitution, the highest law of the land, also serves to protect our God-given rights against the whims of any one person or even of the majority.
We value responsibility, truth, justice, initiative, and self-sacrifice.
Some of our priorities:
•Emphasize the proper role of the U.S. government.
•Expose the conspiracy to manipulate world affairs (including the nightly news).
•Act as patriots to defend our country and promote man's God-given right to be free.
•Encourage a healthy distrust of those we entrust with power.
•Influence like-minded people to take action, which will then influence others.
-
moonwhim
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4251
Re: New John Birch Society Competitor
Here is a website and FAQ article I have posted below, it was written by Don Fotheringham (LDS) who worked for the JBS for many years....this will give you some insight as to what has happened to the JBS....check out this website for more info.
---------------------------
FAQs
(Frequently Asked Questions)
http://donfoth.com/faqs.html
1. Q: Why this website?
A: This website exists because it is the only means by which members of the John Birch Society can learn the truth about what has happened to the organization. A knowledge of what has taken place is essential if we expect to save our country. I am convinced that for 47 years the Birch Society has been kept on course with help from God, and that His help came because we employed truth against our enemy and upheld truth as a standard among ourselves.
But the principle of truth among ourselves was thrown out the window last year by certain individuals who created and circulated false reports for the purpose of overthrowing the Society's leadership.
2. Q: What got you concerned?
A: My first inkling that something strange was under way came at the Robert Welch Club in Salt Lake City in April 2005. When I greeted the Utah and Idaho coordinators - three very dear, long-time friends - I was received with flimsy handshakes and almost zero eye contact. Wow! Do I need a better deodorant? What on earth is this all about?
I was puzzled by the cool reception in Salt Lake until months later when I learned that a coup had been under way since about that time. Art Crino, then a member of the Executive Committee, told our Washington coordinator that he had been working to dump Vance Smith, our CEO, since April of 2005. Another belated confession came to me directly from Council member Cliff Wasem, who said he had been working energetically on the plan since May, 2005
I guess my long-time friends on the staff would not trust Don Fotheringham with such sensational news, and they were right. I would certainly have blown the whistle. And that might have prevented the disastrous circumstances we now face.
3. Q: How was the planned coup uncovered?
A: Finally, in September 2005, Vance Smith got wind of the plot, and asked Art Thompson, his Development Officer, if he knew anything about a coup. Art said, "Yes, and I am part of it." He immediately told Vance that he had better not fire him because it was "irreversible," that everything was in place. He assured Vance that there was nothing anyone could do to stop it.
4. Q: How did the coup prevail?
A: The instigators were emboldened because they saw an opportunity to persuade a majority of the members of the Board of Incorporators, which held the formal legal authority at JBS, that a crisis existed, and that the life of the JBS depended upon immediate intervention by the Incorporators. The Board then voted to bypass the succession process established by Robert Welch and, via a new intermediate Board of Directors, appoint two of their numbers and the prime instigator as President, Vice President, and CEO respectively.
5. Q: What was the normal succession route?
A: All previous leaders, after Robert Welch, had been appointed strictly by the process ordained by the founder (through the Executive Committee of the National Council); therefore nobody expected the Incorporators to usurp the leadership authority of the Executive Committee. But this unprecedented step was taken, and it has turned the Birch Society upside down. It has damaged the carefully-set boundary that up to that time had prevented the democratic campaigning for an identified leader. Mr. Welch was adamant about preventing such a thing.
6. Q: How was such a revolution possible?
A: Art Thompson, Art Crino and Cliff Wasem had circulated letters and petitions in the Council and among staff members as a means of gaining popular support for the removal of Vance Smith. Even had the charges against Mr. Smith been true, no cause could justify the reckless action taken October 21 when the Incorporators tore apart our monolithic structure. This website exists to bring this fact to light and to propose the means for getting back our great institution and the freedom of our country.
The takeover was a classic example of communist tactics at work. The incessant cry that "Smith must go," was so shrill that no serious attention was paid to the fourfold damage being inflicted on the Society: 1) the loss of our monolithic structure, 2) the dismissal of our most responsible Executive Committee, 3) the loss of intelligent, dynamic leadership (Vance Smith and Tom Gow), and 4) the loss of considerable financial support from key members of the Executive Committee: Wayne Rickert, Walt Ruckel, and Keith Van Buskirk.
7. Q: What is the authority structure now?
A: We now face the problem of a Board of Incorporators that has appointed two of its own members to the Society's top leadership positions: Jack McManus as President, and Larry Waters as Vice President. And guess who is the new CEO? The coup mastermind himself, Art Thompson. He was awarded the title of Chief Executive Officer, replacing the man he so flagrantly maligned. And as long as they can maintain a majority vote on the Board of Incorporators, they really are accountable to no one.
Does anyone really think we can expect God's help in our fight for freedom after the disgraceful performance of those who engineered the takeover of the John Birch Society?
8. Q: What is the solution?
A: The solution is to build informed pressure on current JBS leaders, their support on the Council, and thereby on the Incorporators to restore the leadership structure as it was constituted on October 1, 2005. That means restoring the supreme authority of the Executive Committee as it was developed by Robert Welch and the men who were in place before the coup.
Since foul and improper means cannot lead to good ends, we recommend, as part of that program, exposing the smear campaign and tactics that enabled a few men in 2005 to destroy the power structure developed by Robert Welch and seize the reigns of authority at JBS.
9. Q: What can I, as a JBS member, do to correct this problem?
Click here for Recommended Action for Concerned JBS Members
A: As always, inform yourself before acting. As one source, consider the information provided on this website. And check back frequently for new information.
Build pressure for reform by communicating your written assessment where it will count (click here for recommended addresses).
10. Q: Wasn't Art Crino booted off the Executive Committee for failing to give Vance Smith a vote of confidence?
A: No. Art was booted off because he had been working behind the backs of the other Executive Committee members to organize a change in the Society’s leadership. As this was the proper responsibility of the Executive Committee, the other members felt betrayed.
11. Q: Didn't Vance Smith steal the buildings that house the JBS and American Opinion Books in Appleton?
A: Ridiculous! In late October, Vance Smith and Tom Gow, with the concurrence of the JBS Board of Directors, took steps to ensure that the JBS would own its own buildings way into the future.
Vance and Tom formalized the understanding they had with the JBS National Council and top donors who had contributed to the purchase of the buildings. Many of these donors were promised at the time they contributed that the buildings would continue to benefit the Society far into the future. They were told that the Society would manage its financial affairs responsibly and no longer incur huge debt simply because the Society was unwilling to live within its means.
That pledge had been honored for more than 10 years, but Vance, Tom, and other Executive Committee members were concerned that the incoming team who had orchestrated the coup would no longer respect this pledge. So a restrictive covenant was placed on the buildings to be held in trust as an endowment for the future of JBS.
JBS still owns its buildings, but a restriction on their sale or mortgage is held in trust. Vance and Tom are not Trustees for the Endowment Trust and have absolutely no say in the matter at this point. Since the JBS still owns its buildings, no one has any personal interest in the buildings and it is another false rumor to suggest that JBS could be charged rent by the Trust. In fact, JBS leaders who are now suing to break the Trust, can still sell or mortgage the buildings if there is a compelling reason for doing so, but for a period of ten years they would need to seek and obtain permission from the Trustees of the Trust.
12. Q: Didn't Vance Smith and Tom Gow steal Robert Welch University when they resigned and occupied the University?
A: No. Vance had Tom had been officers of RWU for more than a decade and were serving on the top RWU boards that controlled RWU, when the coup at JBS occurred. When Tom resigned from JBS he moved his office to RWU and went on the RWU payroll. Vance already had an office at RWU, but did not come on the RWU payroll until January of 2006.
The split between JBS and RWU was created by the new leaders of JBS who decided they could not work with RWU as long as they were not directly in charge. The JBS and Robert Welch University were always independent corporations, although the top boards of many of these were populated by members of the JBS Executive Committee. Generally, most of the corporations in the JBS family did not have their own payroll and were run and managed by JBS employees. But the various corporate boards always operated at arms length to preserve the independent status. But in 2003 RWU went one step further in establishing its independence by establishing its own payroll and hiring its own employees, although RWU still received some services from JBS.
13. Q: Isn't Vance Smith suing the John Birch Society?
A: Absolutely not. When a few employees of The John Birch Society decided on November 11, 2005 to unlawfully break into and seize control of Robert Welch University, an independent corporation, they were not acting on behalf of The John Birch Society. The veteran members of the Board of Trustees/Incorporators of RWU then obtained a Temporary Restraining Order to regain physical control of RWU. They then filed a lawsuit in Outagamie County Court on behalf of RWU for permanent control. The Defendants in that case were specific individuals – not The John Birch Society. The Defendants then filed a counterclaim. That was in November of 2005 and the matter stands for trial on July 17, 2006. Then in January of 2006, some of the same employees at JBS filed a new lawsuit on behalf of The John Birch Society against G. Vance Smith, Tom Gow, RWU and the other members of the RWU Board of Incorporators.
14. Q: Do you think it is right to air the JBS dirty laundry on a website?
A: This website is the only efficient way many members have to receive an independent perspective on what has happened at and to The John Birch Society. I believe this service is desperately needed at this time and that many members very much want this information and to be able to pass it on to other members efficiently.
No one wants to provide aid and comfort to the enemies of JBS or provide those enemies with ready information about personalities, etc., which they could use to harm JBS. However, the principal threat to the JBS right now is not from without. If responsible action, based on sound information, is not taken so that the JBS survives as a viable organized force in the freedom fight, what our enemies might do in the future won’t matter.
15. Q: How can you defend Vance Smith after reading Steve Bonta's bitter letter?
A: Steve Bonta resigned from RWU on June 22, 2005. It is important to understand that his June letter of resignation (posted on this website) is cordial and professional. In fact, his resignation was followed by several courteous — almost apologetic — voice-mail messages to Vance Smith. In one message Steve said, "Please understand that I do not have any bitterness or rancor toward you or anyone else at the JBS."
So what happened four months later to provoke Bonta's long, vitriolic attack on Vance Smith? Leaders of the mutiny saw an opportunity to cash in on Steve's resignation. They told Steve that Vance Smith and Tom Gow had started a rumor that Steve had had an affair with a girl from RWU Camp. Apparently, this evil report so enraged Steve that he was goaded into writing his second, terribly bitter letter — a letter that has been widely circulated by Art Thompson, and made available to the Council and the entire Field Staff.
No one believes the absurd rumor about the girl from camp. But Steve was less than prudent in 1) believing that anyone would conjure up a story so completely out of his character, and 2) that he would not first go privately to the accused perpetrator, rather than to immediately project his bitterness on the public screen.
Steve is a talented writer, but his letter contains significant errors. Just to show that there is another side to the story, here are a few examples:
• Steve admits that Vance was grooming him (Steve) to succeed Vance as the leader at RWU, yet he is later critical of Vance, insisting that Vance had no plans for a successor. (Vance had told Steve that in time a university president would be selected and that he, Vance, would stay on as a member of the board only.)
• Steve seriously misstates key parts of the record, such as the conflict over funding at RWU.
• Steve makes much ado over the entry of Paul Smith as an equal to himself at RWU; however Steve was being assigned properly over school education, while Paul was being placed over RWU administration. Bear in mind that, prior to this, Steve had abdicated his role as RWU's chief administrator and had by default turned those duties over to a man whose past record had proven him incapable of doing the job. Better administration was desperately needed. Steve objected to having anyone equal to himself at RWU, so Vance relented and agreed that Paul would report to Steve. Apparently, in order to justify himself, Steve needed to amplify his case and therefore he re-invented the leadership matter, implying that Vance had gone back on his word.
• Steve's letter asserts that Vance demanded accountability from others, but was not himself accountable to anyone. Steve must know better than that, for 14 years every member of the Executive Committee received and reviewed regular reports on the state of the JBS and lately RWU. Much of the pressure for performance, that made Steve so uncomfortable, came from those who held Vance Smith strictly accountable in every phase of the freedom fight. Notice that those members of the Executive Committee to whom Vance reported have valiantly defended him through these difficult months.
• There is a good bit of irony in Steve's bitter assault on Vance Smith — railing on him for gossip and slander — for after his weekly meeting with Vance on high-level leadership matters, Steve routinely returned to RWU where he made disparaging remarks to members of his staff and betrayed confidential details regarding his meetings with Vance.
• It was my privilege to work under Vance Smith for 10 years. He kept accurate records in both visual and audio form (thank the Lord he did!). Those records, some of which are on this website, expose the duplicity of those who have maligned Vance and turned the freedom battle upside down.
16. Q: Didn't Vance Smith accuse Jack McManus of being anti-Semitic?
A: Several years ago, Vance and several employees now at JBS, including Art Thompson and fellow Catholic Gary Benoit, as well as members of the JBS Executive Committee were shocked when they discovered statements Jack had been making at religious conferences. Some of these conferences were even providing platforms to blatant anti-Semites.
Vance and other JBS leaders were extremely concerned that because of Jack’s position as President of the Society at the time (and now again), his carelessly worded statements and careless associations could easily cast doubt on the Society’s clear history of opposition to anti-Semitism.
At the time, Vance and others kept the matter quiet and tried to reason with Jack to help him see the danger and to realize how his statements were not at all religious in character and how they contradicted the great wisdom Robert Welch had repeatedly expressed on the matter. Despite the many voices of concern, and Jack’s assurances of future restraint, he continued to flirt with these associations and enjoy the attention he received. Those who understood this record became concerned when Jack managed to achieve a position at JBS, backed by his position on the Board of Incorporators, where he effectively had to answer to no one.
17. Q: Who do you think would make a good leader for The John Birch Society?
A: I don’t think that is properly a matter for the members to decide. Or that they should even campaign for particular candidates. There are reasons why the Founding Fathers did not want the American people to choose the President, and some of those apply to our situation, as well. The Society’s top executive needs to be selected in a calm atmosphere by people who have the opportunity to evaluate his capabilities for the job, not just respond to his public face. And then if the executive does not work out, if he does not deliver results, then, like the owners of an athletic team, they need to hire a new coach.
That said, I would hope that a restored Executive Committee would take another look at G. Vance Smith’s record. After all, Vance did bring important stability to the Society when it seemed to be changing leaders every few years. Under Vance’s 14 years of leadership the Society weathered many storms, made some significant progress, and stayed true to the vision of Robert Welch.
18. Q: Why did our most generous donors resign from the Executive Committee?
A: In October of 2005, a majority of the JBS Board of Incorporators decided to use its corporate authority to choose a new Board of Directors for JBS and repudiate the Executive Committee’s long-standing responsibility for choosing the leadership of JBS.
The Incorporators, including two of the employees who were insisting that G. Vance Smith resign, even refused to postpone their action until after a full airing of the charges leveled against Vance could occur at a meeting of the National Council scheduled for a mere eight days later. The Incorporators rejected this reasonable request despite the fact that a majority of the Council members had signed a petition asking for just such a postponement. The Council wanted the opportunity to hear both sides and ask questions.
But the Incorporators refused and proceeded to effectively neuter the Executive Committee, turning these men into mere figureheads. Moreover, the instigators of the coup had insulted these donors by accusing them of being in Vance’s pocket and trying to buy The John Birch Society. The donors weren’t about to support arrogant men who were not even interested in their counsel.
19. Q: Where did the Board of Incorporators get so much authority?
A: With many corporations, a Board of Incorporators exists only long enough to get the organization started and is immediately replaced by stockholders. Mr. Welch set up the JBS so that the Incorporators would be the permanent equivalent of stockholders. Their corporate function was to elect a Board of Directors, who would in turn choose the officers. Mr. Welch staffed both of these corporate boards with trusted employees who would carry out the statutory requirements of the JBS as a Massachusetts corporation.
These boards had always held supreme statutory authority but had respected their role of operating in the background. For Mr. Welch did not intend that these statutory boards would choose the future leadership for the nationwide membership organization he was founding. He wanted a subcommittee of the prestigious men he recruited to the National Council to have that responsibility.
However, in September-October of 2005, a majority of the Board of Incorporators (two JBS employees and one former employee) were persuaded that it was their calling to override the judgment of the Executive Committee and, more importantly, of Robert Welch, and, relying on the corporate power of the Board, assume supreme working authority over the entire John Birch Society.
20. Q: Why didn't members of the Council oppose the process that damaged our structure?
A: Many did. And not just members of the Executive Committee. A majority of members of the National Council petitioned the JBS Board of Incorporators not to intervene and instead let the Council meet in Orlando to air the charges. Only two members of the Council -- Art Crino and Cliff Wasem -- were actively campaigning to topple Vance. Many of the rest had been predisposed negatively toward Vance based on hearsay from staff whom they respected who called them with a litany of complaints.
That’s why it was so refreshing that a great majority of the Council also wanted to meet in Orlando to hear both sides. We should all be distressed that the JBS Board of Incorporators determined that they could not delay for even eight days until after Orlando, but that G.Vance Smith suddenly posed such a serious threat after 14 years of leadership that the Incorporators needed to take this unprecedented step. More likely, they feared that their complaints against Vance would not be validated in Orlando and that even if the Executive Committee decided to replace Vance that they would not be chosen as the new leaders.
21. Q: Why don't you give the new team a chance to show what they can do?
A: Today, the new team is indisputably in charge. By speaking out, I am not in anyway denying them their chance to show what they can do. If my voice were quiet, other members who are questioning the leadership they are receiving would still wonder what is going on. In frustration, some may well drop out of the fight. However, if members understand what has happened and what needs to be repaired, they may be willing to stick it out and even help to motivate positive change.
22. Q: Why don't you just shut up and let us get on with the freedom battle?
A: Because I care about the outcome. The freedom battle cannot be won without sound organizational leadership. The current leadership at JBS appears to be just playing with some of the issues. Where is the plan for victory and the challenge to members to implement that plan? For example, the recent (July) Bulletin offers no plan to get us out of the United Nations or even a vision of that objective. It contains plenty of newsletter-style criticism of the UN but fails to ask members to do anything about the UN other than contacting their congressman in support of H.R. 1146 (while members are asked to congratulate their rep if he is a cosponsor they are not tasked to ask him to become one if he, like most, is not). But what if their congressman won’t listen? What should members do to get him to listen? Silence. What is the purpose of the Bulletin if not to provide leadership for action? The vital Recruitment section lacks ANY suggestions or even a request for recruitment, strangely devoting that space to the immigration campaign and pending legislation. Yet we know that the Society must grow, under sound leadership, to have any chance of winning significant victories.
For more information:
Don Fotheringham
P.O. Box 59
Glendale, UT 84729 US
Email: [email protected]
(435) 648-2766
---------------------------
FAQs
(Frequently Asked Questions)
http://donfoth.com/faqs.html
1. Q: Why this website?
A: This website exists because it is the only means by which members of the John Birch Society can learn the truth about what has happened to the organization. A knowledge of what has taken place is essential if we expect to save our country. I am convinced that for 47 years the Birch Society has been kept on course with help from God, and that His help came because we employed truth against our enemy and upheld truth as a standard among ourselves.
But the principle of truth among ourselves was thrown out the window last year by certain individuals who created and circulated false reports for the purpose of overthrowing the Society's leadership.
2. Q: What got you concerned?
A: My first inkling that something strange was under way came at the Robert Welch Club in Salt Lake City in April 2005. When I greeted the Utah and Idaho coordinators - three very dear, long-time friends - I was received with flimsy handshakes and almost zero eye contact. Wow! Do I need a better deodorant? What on earth is this all about?
I was puzzled by the cool reception in Salt Lake until months later when I learned that a coup had been under way since about that time. Art Crino, then a member of the Executive Committee, told our Washington coordinator that he had been working to dump Vance Smith, our CEO, since April of 2005. Another belated confession came to me directly from Council member Cliff Wasem, who said he had been working energetically on the plan since May, 2005
I guess my long-time friends on the staff would not trust Don Fotheringham with such sensational news, and they were right. I would certainly have blown the whistle. And that might have prevented the disastrous circumstances we now face.
3. Q: How was the planned coup uncovered?
A: Finally, in September 2005, Vance Smith got wind of the plot, and asked Art Thompson, his Development Officer, if he knew anything about a coup. Art said, "Yes, and I am part of it." He immediately told Vance that he had better not fire him because it was "irreversible," that everything was in place. He assured Vance that there was nothing anyone could do to stop it.
4. Q: How did the coup prevail?
A: The instigators were emboldened because they saw an opportunity to persuade a majority of the members of the Board of Incorporators, which held the formal legal authority at JBS, that a crisis existed, and that the life of the JBS depended upon immediate intervention by the Incorporators. The Board then voted to bypass the succession process established by Robert Welch and, via a new intermediate Board of Directors, appoint two of their numbers and the prime instigator as President, Vice President, and CEO respectively.
5. Q: What was the normal succession route?
A: All previous leaders, after Robert Welch, had been appointed strictly by the process ordained by the founder (through the Executive Committee of the National Council); therefore nobody expected the Incorporators to usurp the leadership authority of the Executive Committee. But this unprecedented step was taken, and it has turned the Birch Society upside down. It has damaged the carefully-set boundary that up to that time had prevented the democratic campaigning for an identified leader. Mr. Welch was adamant about preventing such a thing.
6. Q: How was such a revolution possible?
A: Art Thompson, Art Crino and Cliff Wasem had circulated letters and petitions in the Council and among staff members as a means of gaining popular support for the removal of Vance Smith. Even had the charges against Mr. Smith been true, no cause could justify the reckless action taken October 21 when the Incorporators tore apart our monolithic structure. This website exists to bring this fact to light and to propose the means for getting back our great institution and the freedom of our country.
The takeover was a classic example of communist tactics at work. The incessant cry that "Smith must go," was so shrill that no serious attention was paid to the fourfold damage being inflicted on the Society: 1) the loss of our monolithic structure, 2) the dismissal of our most responsible Executive Committee, 3) the loss of intelligent, dynamic leadership (Vance Smith and Tom Gow), and 4) the loss of considerable financial support from key members of the Executive Committee: Wayne Rickert, Walt Ruckel, and Keith Van Buskirk.
7. Q: What is the authority structure now?
A: We now face the problem of a Board of Incorporators that has appointed two of its own members to the Society's top leadership positions: Jack McManus as President, and Larry Waters as Vice President. And guess who is the new CEO? The coup mastermind himself, Art Thompson. He was awarded the title of Chief Executive Officer, replacing the man he so flagrantly maligned. And as long as they can maintain a majority vote on the Board of Incorporators, they really are accountable to no one.
Does anyone really think we can expect God's help in our fight for freedom after the disgraceful performance of those who engineered the takeover of the John Birch Society?
8. Q: What is the solution?
A: The solution is to build informed pressure on current JBS leaders, their support on the Council, and thereby on the Incorporators to restore the leadership structure as it was constituted on October 1, 2005. That means restoring the supreme authority of the Executive Committee as it was developed by Robert Welch and the men who were in place before the coup.
Since foul and improper means cannot lead to good ends, we recommend, as part of that program, exposing the smear campaign and tactics that enabled a few men in 2005 to destroy the power structure developed by Robert Welch and seize the reigns of authority at JBS.
9. Q: What can I, as a JBS member, do to correct this problem?
Click here for Recommended Action for Concerned JBS Members
A: As always, inform yourself before acting. As one source, consider the information provided on this website. And check back frequently for new information.
Build pressure for reform by communicating your written assessment where it will count (click here for recommended addresses).
10. Q: Wasn't Art Crino booted off the Executive Committee for failing to give Vance Smith a vote of confidence?
A: No. Art was booted off because he had been working behind the backs of the other Executive Committee members to organize a change in the Society’s leadership. As this was the proper responsibility of the Executive Committee, the other members felt betrayed.
11. Q: Didn't Vance Smith steal the buildings that house the JBS and American Opinion Books in Appleton?
A: Ridiculous! In late October, Vance Smith and Tom Gow, with the concurrence of the JBS Board of Directors, took steps to ensure that the JBS would own its own buildings way into the future.
Vance and Tom formalized the understanding they had with the JBS National Council and top donors who had contributed to the purchase of the buildings. Many of these donors were promised at the time they contributed that the buildings would continue to benefit the Society far into the future. They were told that the Society would manage its financial affairs responsibly and no longer incur huge debt simply because the Society was unwilling to live within its means.
That pledge had been honored for more than 10 years, but Vance, Tom, and other Executive Committee members were concerned that the incoming team who had orchestrated the coup would no longer respect this pledge. So a restrictive covenant was placed on the buildings to be held in trust as an endowment for the future of JBS.
JBS still owns its buildings, but a restriction on their sale or mortgage is held in trust. Vance and Tom are not Trustees for the Endowment Trust and have absolutely no say in the matter at this point. Since the JBS still owns its buildings, no one has any personal interest in the buildings and it is another false rumor to suggest that JBS could be charged rent by the Trust. In fact, JBS leaders who are now suing to break the Trust, can still sell or mortgage the buildings if there is a compelling reason for doing so, but for a period of ten years they would need to seek and obtain permission from the Trustees of the Trust.
12. Q: Didn't Vance Smith and Tom Gow steal Robert Welch University when they resigned and occupied the University?
A: No. Vance had Tom had been officers of RWU for more than a decade and were serving on the top RWU boards that controlled RWU, when the coup at JBS occurred. When Tom resigned from JBS he moved his office to RWU and went on the RWU payroll. Vance already had an office at RWU, but did not come on the RWU payroll until January of 2006.
The split between JBS and RWU was created by the new leaders of JBS who decided they could not work with RWU as long as they were not directly in charge. The JBS and Robert Welch University were always independent corporations, although the top boards of many of these were populated by members of the JBS Executive Committee. Generally, most of the corporations in the JBS family did not have their own payroll and were run and managed by JBS employees. But the various corporate boards always operated at arms length to preserve the independent status. But in 2003 RWU went one step further in establishing its independence by establishing its own payroll and hiring its own employees, although RWU still received some services from JBS.
13. Q: Isn't Vance Smith suing the John Birch Society?
A: Absolutely not. When a few employees of The John Birch Society decided on November 11, 2005 to unlawfully break into and seize control of Robert Welch University, an independent corporation, they were not acting on behalf of The John Birch Society. The veteran members of the Board of Trustees/Incorporators of RWU then obtained a Temporary Restraining Order to regain physical control of RWU. They then filed a lawsuit in Outagamie County Court on behalf of RWU for permanent control. The Defendants in that case were specific individuals – not The John Birch Society. The Defendants then filed a counterclaim. That was in November of 2005 and the matter stands for trial on July 17, 2006. Then in January of 2006, some of the same employees at JBS filed a new lawsuit on behalf of The John Birch Society against G. Vance Smith, Tom Gow, RWU and the other members of the RWU Board of Incorporators.
14. Q: Do you think it is right to air the JBS dirty laundry on a website?
A: This website is the only efficient way many members have to receive an independent perspective on what has happened at and to The John Birch Society. I believe this service is desperately needed at this time and that many members very much want this information and to be able to pass it on to other members efficiently.
No one wants to provide aid and comfort to the enemies of JBS or provide those enemies with ready information about personalities, etc., which they could use to harm JBS. However, the principal threat to the JBS right now is not from without. If responsible action, based on sound information, is not taken so that the JBS survives as a viable organized force in the freedom fight, what our enemies might do in the future won’t matter.
15. Q: How can you defend Vance Smith after reading Steve Bonta's bitter letter?
A: Steve Bonta resigned from RWU on June 22, 2005. It is important to understand that his June letter of resignation (posted on this website) is cordial and professional. In fact, his resignation was followed by several courteous — almost apologetic — voice-mail messages to Vance Smith. In one message Steve said, "Please understand that I do not have any bitterness or rancor toward you or anyone else at the JBS."
So what happened four months later to provoke Bonta's long, vitriolic attack on Vance Smith? Leaders of the mutiny saw an opportunity to cash in on Steve's resignation. They told Steve that Vance Smith and Tom Gow had started a rumor that Steve had had an affair with a girl from RWU Camp. Apparently, this evil report so enraged Steve that he was goaded into writing his second, terribly bitter letter — a letter that has been widely circulated by Art Thompson, and made available to the Council and the entire Field Staff.
No one believes the absurd rumor about the girl from camp. But Steve was less than prudent in 1) believing that anyone would conjure up a story so completely out of his character, and 2) that he would not first go privately to the accused perpetrator, rather than to immediately project his bitterness on the public screen.
Steve is a talented writer, but his letter contains significant errors. Just to show that there is another side to the story, here are a few examples:
• Steve admits that Vance was grooming him (Steve) to succeed Vance as the leader at RWU, yet he is later critical of Vance, insisting that Vance had no plans for a successor. (Vance had told Steve that in time a university president would be selected and that he, Vance, would stay on as a member of the board only.)
• Steve seriously misstates key parts of the record, such as the conflict over funding at RWU.
• Steve makes much ado over the entry of Paul Smith as an equal to himself at RWU; however Steve was being assigned properly over school education, while Paul was being placed over RWU administration. Bear in mind that, prior to this, Steve had abdicated his role as RWU's chief administrator and had by default turned those duties over to a man whose past record had proven him incapable of doing the job. Better administration was desperately needed. Steve objected to having anyone equal to himself at RWU, so Vance relented and agreed that Paul would report to Steve. Apparently, in order to justify himself, Steve needed to amplify his case and therefore he re-invented the leadership matter, implying that Vance had gone back on his word.
• Steve's letter asserts that Vance demanded accountability from others, but was not himself accountable to anyone. Steve must know better than that, for 14 years every member of the Executive Committee received and reviewed regular reports on the state of the JBS and lately RWU. Much of the pressure for performance, that made Steve so uncomfortable, came from those who held Vance Smith strictly accountable in every phase of the freedom fight. Notice that those members of the Executive Committee to whom Vance reported have valiantly defended him through these difficult months.
• There is a good bit of irony in Steve's bitter assault on Vance Smith — railing on him for gossip and slander — for after his weekly meeting with Vance on high-level leadership matters, Steve routinely returned to RWU where he made disparaging remarks to members of his staff and betrayed confidential details regarding his meetings with Vance.
• It was my privilege to work under Vance Smith for 10 years. He kept accurate records in both visual and audio form (thank the Lord he did!). Those records, some of which are on this website, expose the duplicity of those who have maligned Vance and turned the freedom battle upside down.
16. Q: Didn't Vance Smith accuse Jack McManus of being anti-Semitic?
A: Several years ago, Vance and several employees now at JBS, including Art Thompson and fellow Catholic Gary Benoit, as well as members of the JBS Executive Committee were shocked when they discovered statements Jack had been making at religious conferences. Some of these conferences were even providing platforms to blatant anti-Semites.
Vance and other JBS leaders were extremely concerned that because of Jack’s position as President of the Society at the time (and now again), his carelessly worded statements and careless associations could easily cast doubt on the Society’s clear history of opposition to anti-Semitism.
At the time, Vance and others kept the matter quiet and tried to reason with Jack to help him see the danger and to realize how his statements were not at all religious in character and how they contradicted the great wisdom Robert Welch had repeatedly expressed on the matter. Despite the many voices of concern, and Jack’s assurances of future restraint, he continued to flirt with these associations and enjoy the attention he received. Those who understood this record became concerned when Jack managed to achieve a position at JBS, backed by his position on the Board of Incorporators, where he effectively had to answer to no one.
17. Q: Who do you think would make a good leader for The John Birch Society?
A: I don’t think that is properly a matter for the members to decide. Or that they should even campaign for particular candidates. There are reasons why the Founding Fathers did not want the American people to choose the President, and some of those apply to our situation, as well. The Society’s top executive needs to be selected in a calm atmosphere by people who have the opportunity to evaluate his capabilities for the job, not just respond to his public face. And then if the executive does not work out, if he does not deliver results, then, like the owners of an athletic team, they need to hire a new coach.
That said, I would hope that a restored Executive Committee would take another look at G. Vance Smith’s record. After all, Vance did bring important stability to the Society when it seemed to be changing leaders every few years. Under Vance’s 14 years of leadership the Society weathered many storms, made some significant progress, and stayed true to the vision of Robert Welch.
18. Q: Why did our most generous donors resign from the Executive Committee?
A: In October of 2005, a majority of the JBS Board of Incorporators decided to use its corporate authority to choose a new Board of Directors for JBS and repudiate the Executive Committee’s long-standing responsibility for choosing the leadership of JBS.
The Incorporators, including two of the employees who were insisting that G. Vance Smith resign, even refused to postpone their action until after a full airing of the charges leveled against Vance could occur at a meeting of the National Council scheduled for a mere eight days later. The Incorporators rejected this reasonable request despite the fact that a majority of the Council members had signed a petition asking for just such a postponement. The Council wanted the opportunity to hear both sides and ask questions.
But the Incorporators refused and proceeded to effectively neuter the Executive Committee, turning these men into mere figureheads. Moreover, the instigators of the coup had insulted these donors by accusing them of being in Vance’s pocket and trying to buy The John Birch Society. The donors weren’t about to support arrogant men who were not even interested in their counsel.
19. Q: Where did the Board of Incorporators get so much authority?
A: With many corporations, a Board of Incorporators exists only long enough to get the organization started and is immediately replaced by stockholders. Mr. Welch set up the JBS so that the Incorporators would be the permanent equivalent of stockholders. Their corporate function was to elect a Board of Directors, who would in turn choose the officers. Mr. Welch staffed both of these corporate boards with trusted employees who would carry out the statutory requirements of the JBS as a Massachusetts corporation.
These boards had always held supreme statutory authority but had respected their role of operating in the background. For Mr. Welch did not intend that these statutory boards would choose the future leadership for the nationwide membership organization he was founding. He wanted a subcommittee of the prestigious men he recruited to the National Council to have that responsibility.
However, in September-October of 2005, a majority of the Board of Incorporators (two JBS employees and one former employee) were persuaded that it was their calling to override the judgment of the Executive Committee and, more importantly, of Robert Welch, and, relying on the corporate power of the Board, assume supreme working authority over the entire John Birch Society.
20. Q: Why didn't members of the Council oppose the process that damaged our structure?
A: Many did. And not just members of the Executive Committee. A majority of members of the National Council petitioned the JBS Board of Incorporators not to intervene and instead let the Council meet in Orlando to air the charges. Only two members of the Council -- Art Crino and Cliff Wasem -- were actively campaigning to topple Vance. Many of the rest had been predisposed negatively toward Vance based on hearsay from staff whom they respected who called them with a litany of complaints.
That’s why it was so refreshing that a great majority of the Council also wanted to meet in Orlando to hear both sides. We should all be distressed that the JBS Board of Incorporators determined that they could not delay for even eight days until after Orlando, but that G.Vance Smith suddenly posed such a serious threat after 14 years of leadership that the Incorporators needed to take this unprecedented step. More likely, they feared that their complaints against Vance would not be validated in Orlando and that even if the Executive Committee decided to replace Vance that they would not be chosen as the new leaders.
21. Q: Why don't you give the new team a chance to show what they can do?
A: Today, the new team is indisputably in charge. By speaking out, I am not in anyway denying them their chance to show what they can do. If my voice were quiet, other members who are questioning the leadership they are receiving would still wonder what is going on. In frustration, some may well drop out of the fight. However, if members understand what has happened and what needs to be repaired, they may be willing to stick it out and even help to motivate positive change.
22. Q: Why don't you just shut up and let us get on with the freedom battle?
A: Because I care about the outcome. The freedom battle cannot be won without sound organizational leadership. The current leadership at JBS appears to be just playing with some of the issues. Where is the plan for victory and the challenge to members to implement that plan? For example, the recent (July) Bulletin offers no plan to get us out of the United Nations or even a vision of that objective. It contains plenty of newsletter-style criticism of the UN but fails to ask members to do anything about the UN other than contacting their congressman in support of H.R. 1146 (while members are asked to congratulate their rep if he is a cosponsor they are not tasked to ask him to become one if he, like most, is not). But what if their congressman won’t listen? What should members do to get him to listen? Silence. What is the purpose of the Bulletin if not to provide leadership for action? The vital Recruitment section lacks ANY suggestions or even a request for recruitment, strangely devoting that space to the immigration campaign and pending legislation. Yet we know that the Society must grow, under sound leadership, to have any chance of winning significant victories.
For more information:
Don Fotheringham
P.O. Box 59
Glendale, UT 84729 US
Email: [email protected]
(435) 648-2766
-
Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: New John Birch Society Competitor
JBS has steadily been infiltrated over the years....my wife was roommates with one of Vance's daughters at Ricks. He's good to go and has one awesome family!!! I remember when that started coming down....Bliss almost had me convinced to join until that affair started going public.
