Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tim Gratz: Right-Wing Extremist


Recommended Posts

Question for Tim Gratz:

If one professes to be a Christian, but his politics reflect a different direction, at what specific point does one's politics [works," in the Christain vernacular] betray his faith, and show him to be a hypocrite? At what point do one's works, failing to back up one's proclaimed faith, become a beam in one's eye? Or are James' words concerning faith without works--and by extension, works which are in conflict with one's faith--no longer valid in this day and age?

Because of questions such as these, I no longer claim affiliation with ANY political party; blind allegiance to party, if it conflicts with one's core beliefs, should be severed. Someone wiser than myself said that no man can serve two masters [in opposition to one another]. Once you realize this, if you have a conscience, Tim, you'll be forced to choose which master to serve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mark, I do not think political beliefs equate to Christian works.

At the same time I would have to agree that certain political viewpoints are inconsistent with Christianity. I would (as I am sure you would) question the Christianity or morality of a politician proclaiming racism.

However, I do not think it fair to question someone's morality because he or she favors a confiscatory income tax policy, or because he or she does not believe government social welfare programs are effective.

One has to understand that there are many political questions upon which persons of morality (whether or not of religious origination) not only can but do differ. It is wrong, I submit, to label someone a hypocrite because he or she holds a different political ideology than you do.

I say it is far better to judge a politician by, for instance, his or her contributions to charitable organizations than his votes on social issues. I found it interesting that some very well-off liberal politicians filed tax returns indicating their contributions to charity were de minimus. To me, that is being hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I will as soon as I can but I am under time constraints.

I see you have time to post again. Could you please add your “political biography” to the relevant thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5051

The material on this thread would be best placed here:

"Is it better for our political leaders to believe in God than to be agnostics or atheists?"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5163

"Should governments pass legislation that might encourage behaviour that is contrary to religious teaching. For example, abortion, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, etc."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5165

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, I believe you are missing my point yet again. I don't label anyone a hypocrite simply because they hold a different political belief than I; but when their political beliefs and their personal beliefs are diametrically opposed, by definition hypocrisy has occurred. For example, if you personally oppose abortion as a practice that conflicts with your religious beliefs, yet you campaign for--or contribute money or raise funds for--a party that favors government funding and nearly-unlimited funding of abortion, that activity qualifies as hypocrisy.

Another example: I personally oppose abortion on demand, yet the SCOTUS has ruled that there exists a right to abortion. While the court ruling is opposite my personal belief, I also believe that mankind was placed on the Earth to operate as free moral agents, to choose between right and wrong. Therefore, is it moral for me to campaign against someone else's right to be wrong? Or should I refrain from judging them, adhering to the "judge not" admonition of the Bible, and allow the Supreme Judge to perform that function?

I may counsel folks not to perform abortions, I may counsel folks not to have an abortion, but the bottom line is we are all free moral agents, and have been dating back to the case of Adam, Eve, Serpent et al in the Garden of Eden judicial circuit. Since the law does not FORCE anyone to have an abortion against their will, the law then makes this a matter of personal choice. As with casino gambling, which my home state has made legal in certain venues...I can also choose not to participate, and can counsel others to do likewise, but the ultimate choice is up to the individual and their own conscience.

So neither do I judge you, or anyone else, a hypocrite. One's own words, actions, and beliefs make that call. A man of conscience will work this out for himself.

And you haven't answered my question: At what point does a conflict between one's purported beliefs and one's political actions equal hypocrisy? If actions = works, and beliefs = faith, how much of a conflict does there need to be to become a hypocrite? And I really don't think it matters whether one is a liberal or a conservative, as the definition of hypocrisy has no political exceptions, to my knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, to clarify Mr. Stapleton's question, at what particular point does an income tax become "confiscatory"??

60%? 50%? 40%? 39.362537839%? To this point in the discussion, the term "confiscatory" has yet to be defined.

Or is this another of those "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it" terms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Or, to clarify Mr. Stapleton's question, at what particular point does an income tax become "confiscatory"??

60%? 50%? 40%? 39.362537839%? To this point in the discussion, the term "confiscatory" has yet to be defined.

Or is this another of those "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it" terms?

Mark, I suspect that this term means the immposition of a progressive rate of tax. Something that the rich, and their supporters will fight tooth and nail against. I would settle for a rich man paying the same rate of tax, in real terms, as the rest of us have to endure. But this, of course is anathama to the prevailing political ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, to clarify Mr. Stapleton's question, at what particular point does an income tax become "confiscatory"??

60%? 50%? 40%? 39.362537839%? To this point in the discussion, the term "confiscatory" has yet to be defined.

Or is this another of those "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it" terms?

Mark, I suspect that this term means the immposition of a progressive rate of tax. Something that the rich, and their supporters will fight tooth and nail against. I would settle for a rich man paying the same rate of tax, in real terms, as the rest of us have to endure. But this, of course is anathama to the prevailing political ideology.

Hi Steve,

Here here to that. If the rich paid their fair share, Governments might have sufficient funds to pay for schools and hospitals. Of course, this is a utopian ideal because the rich pay political parties direct--instead of through the tax system--ensuring Governments will never succumb to rational thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, read somewhere--search under "history of Pledge of..." pledge penned by socialist preacher, with no "God" in it at all. Just an interesting aside FWIW.

********************************************************************************

****

Here you go, Chrissie:

Overview:

Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God."

The current Pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

History of the Pledge of Allegiance:

The Pledge was originally written in 1892-AUG by Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931). He was an American, a Baptist minister, and an active Socialist. He included some of the concepts of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, who wrote a number of socialist utopian novels, such as Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). In its original form, it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It was first published in a children's magazine Youth's Companion, in 1892 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in the Americas. 4 The word "to" was added before "the Republic" in 1892-OCT. He considered including the word "equality" in the pledge, but decided against it because he knew that many Americans at the time were opposed to equality for women and African-Americans. Opposition to equality continues today; a sizeable minority of American adults remain opposed to equal rights for women.

By 1924, the "National Flag Conference, under the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Francis Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored." 3

Most Jehovah's Witness children refuse to acknowledge the flag. In 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school boards could compel them to recite the Pledge. The court reversed itself three years later. 4

In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." 4 With the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, it became both "a patriotic oath and a public prayer...Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change." 3

The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase

"Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as is communism.

Most communists, worldwide, are Atheists. But, in North America, the reverse is not true; most Atheists are non-communists. Although there are many Atheistic and Humanistic legislators at the federal and state levels, few if any are willing to reveal their beliefs, because of the intense prejudice against these belief systems.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this change to the Pledge. The Court has commented in passing on the motto saying that: "[o]ur previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge [of allegiance], characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." [Allegheny, 492 U.S.]

On 2002-JUN-26, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1 to declare the Pledge unconstitutional because of the addition of the phrase "under God." This decision only affects the states of AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA. However, the ruling will only take effect if it is upheld on appeal. The decision may be appealed to the entire 9th U.S. Circuit Court, or to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is interesting to note that this decision happened to occur one day after the 40th anniversary of the Engel v. Vitale decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared unconstitutional the inclusion of state-sponsored school prayer as a part of instruction in public schools. The Texas Justice Foundation had declared that anniversary a day of mourning. 1,2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The division of church and state is under serious attack, with the Orwellian twisting of language making it appear that it is the godless atheists and agnostics leading the attack, rather than defending it. A father who legally argued that the two words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance all of our children are required to recite every day at school was portrayed as a virtual soldier for Satan. In all of the news coverage and demonizing of this man, it was never mentioned that those same two words didn't exist in the original Pledge; they were added in the midst of the McCarthy red scare era.... I believe that the Christian fundamentalists have managed, in McCarthyistic fashion, to promote a literal biblical interpretation that is no less dangerous in the world of international relations than Muslim fundamentalism. It wasn't so long ago that Rabin was assassinated in Israel by a Jewish fundamentalist. An understanding of the overriding impact of religious fundamentalism on all aspects of personal psychology, social attitude, tolerance for other positions and civil liberties is pertinent to understanding the true threat under which we are living today.
Tim, read somewhere--search under "history of Pledge of..." pledge penned by socialist preacher, with no "God" in it at all. Just an interesting aside FWIW.
Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."... In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon.... The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this change to the Pledge.

The same thieving Supreme Court justices who stole the 2000 election with a decision that admittedly had no legal rationale that could be invoked as precedence, ducked out of rendering any judgment on the Pledge issue by way of a technicality about the judicial standing of a non-custodial parent.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great posts everyone. These are indeed complicated concepts and the thinking expressed here demonstrates that simplistic definations are not the best way to address one's political philosophy or ideaolgy.

That said however, I agree most here with Tim C. , but of course I too would clasify myself as an "extreme liberal".

Tim G, surely you must SEE that the difference between Barry Goldwater and Geroge Bush is EXTREME?

Back in 64 I found Goldwater scary, but...fast forward to now....this group is positively terrifying.

And I know you -(Tim G)- believe W to be a Christian. I do not. His policies and vindictiveness are about as anti-Christian as it gets. Too late people are beginning to see this gang of thugs for what they really are.

(But I also believe he stole both elections).

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting that Tim Gratz has been very reluctant to explain why he joined the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). However, evidence of his right-wing views can be found in his defence of George Bush. He has also been quick to attack those who have criticised other right-wing politicians. This happened recently when I suggested that William Buckley might have been in some way involved in the assassination of JFK. Buckley was of course the founder of YAF. I thought it might be a good idea to carry out research into the political ideas of Buckley and the YAF. It has been an interesting journey and does indeed reveal some interesting information about the JFK assassination, the CIA, Watergate, and the activities of Tim Gratz.

William F. Buckley was the son of an extreme right-winger, William Buckley Sr., a Texas oil millionaire (according to the New York Times he left $110 million at his death in 1958). Like other Texas oil millionaires, H. L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Sid Richardson, etc. Buckley was willing to use his considerable resources to help to persuade the public that anyone who suggested that taxes designed to redistribute wealth was a “communist”. These millionaires were especially hostile to anyone who suggested that the oil depletion allowance should be brought to an end.

It is no surprise that Buckley became a right-wing activist (so did all his brothers and sisters). His first book, God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of Academic Freedom (1953) was a call for all socialist and liberal academics at Yale to be sacked. According to Buckley, “the purpose of education was not to acquaint students with the means of discovering the truth, but with received truths and the means of defending them”. Truth to Buckley was his right-wing interpretation of Christianity. Buckley argued that all those academics that took an alternative view to this should be removed from office. In other words, the function of a university was to indoctrinate students in received wisdom.

As Buckley pointed out: “I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.”

Of course this bilge could not find a commercial publisher. Therefore Buckley’s rich daddy supplied the necessary funds via one of his company’s, Catawba Corporation. This money went to the Henry Regency Company, a publisher that had created great controversy a couple of years earlier by bringing out two books attacking the Nuremberg Trials. Henry Regency was a wealthy German-Catholic who had funded attempts to keep the United States out of the war with Germany.

Buckley’s father also spent a fortune promoting this book. This included persuading people like Max Eastman and Selden Rodman to write rave reviews in the American press. Interestingly, the most hostile review came from McGeorge Bundy in the Atlantic Monthly. He called Buckley a “twisted and ignorant young man”.

Buckley’s next book was McCarthy and Its Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning (1954). This was a passionate defence of Joseph McCarthy, who like Buckley, was advocating the sacking from office of all those who held left of centre political views. As Buckley wrote: “We cannot avoid the fact that the United States is at war against international Communism and that McCarthyism is a program of action against those in our land who help the enemy.” Buckley admitted that not all the men who McCarthy and himself wanted sacked were not all traitors: “men whose only fault may be that they are incompetent political analysts, men of bad judgement.” But for the good of the “advancement of American interests, the merely incompetent men must go out along with the traitors.” Before the book was published, McCarthy was able to go through the manuscript and make suggested changes. Buckley then rewrote these passages. Buckley and his co-author, his brother-in-law, Brent Bozell, also wrote speeches for McCarthy during this period.

In 1952 McCarthy had meetings with an old friend, E. Howard Hunt, about establishing a right-wing magazine. At first he tried to buy The American Mercury. He finally decided to establish his own magazine, The National Review. Some of the money came from his father. Buckley also had meeting with other right wing Texas oilmen such as H.L. Hunt. Another oilmen who contributed was Lloyd Smith. Roger and Gerrish Milliken (South Carolina textile magnates) and Jeremiah Milbank (New York financier). These men were associated with funding several right-wing organizations, including the John Birch Society. It was later revealed that there was another secret backer of Buckley’s activities. I will return to this point later.

The National Review’s first target was Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Buckley attacked what he saw was the administration’s concessions to communism and the welfare state. Buckley described Eisenhower program as “essentially one of measured socialism”.

When Eisenhower agreed to meet Khrushchev in 1959 Buckley wrote: “The President will meet with Khrushchev as Chamberlain and Daladier met with Hitler at Munich, as Roosevelt and Churchill met with Stalin at Yalta.” (National Review, 15th August, 1959). Privately, Buckley was urging a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Earlier he had advocated this policy against North Korea. Later, he urged its use in Vietnam.

The journal also disliked what they saw was Eisenhower’s sympathy towards the civil rights movement. Surprisingly as it may now seem, Buckley saw Eisenhower and Nixon as a “dangerous liberals” as they accepted the New Deal reforms and were willing to seek accord with the Soviet Union. During this period Buckley described himself as a "revolutionary against the present liberal order".

When Joseph McCarthy died in 1957 Buckley devoted two issues of the National Review to him. As the journal pointed out, McCarthy was the symbol of the continuing fight against liberalism.

Buckley was particularly concerned with the sympathy that Eisenhower and Nixon showed towards racial integration and voting rights. In an article entitled “Why the South Must Prevail” (24th August, 1957) the journal argued that the Deep South was “right to disenfranchise blacks from voting in elections”. In an editorial of the same edition, Buckley wrote that the whites were the advanced race and that uneducated blacks should not be allowed to vote. He was particularly concerned that if given the vote, blacks would vote for socialistic measures to solve their economic problems.

Buckley argued that liberals who pursued the “absolute right of universal suffrage” for the Negro were endangering existing standards of civilization. According to Buckley, this was not only true of America. He was also concerned about what was taking place in countries that were part of the old empires. He advanced the theory that “acceding to black demands for independence and one man, one vote, whites were inviting a return to barbarism”

Buckley shared the same views of other neo-fascists of the time such as George Lincoln Rockwell (founder of the American Nazi Party), Gerald L. K. Smith (founder of the Christian Nationalist Party), Russell Maguire (publisher of The American Mercury), General Charles Willoughby (a financial supporter of the National Review) and Robert Welch (the founder of the John Birch Society).

All these men believed the theory of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world (Protocols of Zion). Buckley was in constant contact with these men. The surviving correspondence shows that he attempted to improve their public image. Buckley actually felt uncomfortable with anti-Semitism.

In the 1960 presidential election he tried to get Barry Goldwater adopted as the Republican Party candidate (another one urging a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union). Part of this campaign involved establishing Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) with the John Birch Society. The main mission of the YAF was to “prepare young people for the struggle ahead with Liberalism, Socialism and Communism”.

Robert Welch was also a supporter of Goldwater. However, Buckley and Goldwater, were furious when Welch circulated a private letter that Eisenhower had been "knowingly receiving and abiding by Communist orders, and consciously serving the Communist conspiracy, for all his adult life." Buckley and Goldwater were concerned that this story would get out and destroy Goldwater’s prospects to get the nomination. After all, Eisenhower was a much loved figure in the Republican Party. Buckley wrote to Welch asking him to stop making these extreme comments about Eisenhower. However, he added: “If Eisenhower were what you think he is, then the elimination of Eisenhower would be a critical step in setting things a right.”

When the attempts to get Goldwater the nomination Buckley refused to endorse Richard Nixon who he considered to be far too liberal. Buckley considered supporting JFK (he liked the speeches he had been making about the need for increasing military spending on nuclear weapons and promising retaliation against Castro’s Cuba). However, Buckley distrusted JFK’s civil rights policy and decided not to endorse either candidate (he told friends that he planned to abstain from voting).

Buckley quickly got disillusioned with JFK. The Bay of Pigs operation showed that JFK had been lying about his planned strong action against Castro. Buckley was also furious with JFK policies concerning universal suffrage in the Third World and his comments about civil rights in the Deep South. However, it was JFK’s reactions to the Cuban Missile Crisis that really upset Buckley. If Eisenhower was a dangerous liberal, JFK was indeed a communist. To re-quote Buckley’s earlier letter to Welch: “If Eisenhower were what you think he is, then the elimination of Eisenhower would be a critical step in setting things a right.” If Buckley believed that JFK was a communist, was it right to “eliminate” him.

When JFK was assassinated Buckley was one of the first to suggest that Oswald was part of a KGB/Castro conspiracy. He went onto argue that Earl Warren, a man he considered to be a communist, had covered this up in his report.

Buckley continued to make extreme right-wing statements. For example, when Viola Liuzzo, the civil rights activist from Detroit was murdered in March 1965, Buckley argued that it was her own fault as she “drove down a stretch of lonely road in the dead of night, sharing the front seat with a young Negro identified with the protesting movement”.

He also led the smear campaign against Martin Luther King in the press (based on documents leaked by J. Edgar Hoover). He urged the repression of King and other civil rights and anti-war protestors on “constitutional grounds”. Buckley compared King to Hitler and Lenin. He said that he wished Lenin and Hitler had been repressed in the same way as King should be repressed. (National Review, 19th August, 1967).

In 1968 Buckley supported Nixon because he feared the Democrats might pull out of Vietnam. However, he soon got disillusioned with Nixon as a result of his attempts to negotiate with the Soviet Union and China. Buckley now became a strong supporter of Spiro Agnew and he went into overdrive when it was reported that Nixon might replace Agnew with John Connolly in 1972.

It was the Watergate Scandal that finally exposed Buckley’s long-term relationship with the CIA. As long as Agnew was vice president, Buckley made no real attempt to protect Nixon from this scandal (he did say in the National Review that Nixon was only doing what Democrats had been doing for years).

However, Buckley did help out his long-term friend, E. Howard Hunt. He gave Hunt advice and even paid some of his legal bills. He also became guardian of Hunt’s children and executor of Dorothy Hunt’s estate. After the death of Dorothy while carrying $10,000 in cash, Hunt had a meeting with Buckley. He told him that he believed that Nixon gave the order for the Watergate break-in. Hunt told Buckley that he had a safe-deposit box that contained documents that would protect him when he really got into trouble.

However, the resignation of Agnew complicated matters. So also did the decision by the CIA to fully expose Nixon’s relationship with Hunt and the others involved in Watergate. This dragged Buckley into the scandal and exposed him as a long-time CIA agent. Someone leaked information about Buckley to Sherman Skolnick. In his Hotline News he claimed: “Bill Buckley’s so-called oil fortune is mostly money deposited by the CIA… He has admitted he has been a long-time deep cover operative for the CIA. Over the years he has participated in several operations in Mexico with E. Howard Hunt, including preparations for the assassination of John F. Kennedy.”

It was revealed that Buckley was recruited into the CIA by James Burnham. A former supporter of Leon Trotsky, Burnham had been “turned” in the 1930s. Burnham introduced Buckley to E. Howard Hunt who arranged for him to join his covert CIA operation in Mexico City. After three months training in Washington, Buckley arrived in Mexico City in September, 1951. His first task was to help Eudocio Ravines write an anti-Communist book The Yenan Way (it was an attack on the Chilean Communist Party).

Buckley’s other major task was working as an undercover agent with university students in Mexico City in an attempt to create a right wing organization. This is of course what he later did in the United States with Intercollegiate Society of Individualists (1953) and the Young Americans for Freedom (1960).

Buckley officially left the CIA in April 1952. He returned to the United States where he concentrated on producing right-wing political propaganda. In 1953 he established the ISS, an organization that free copies of right-wing books such as Road to Serfdom (Friedrich A. Hayek) and The Income Tax: Root of all Evil (Frank Chodorov).

Some investigative reporters began to look at the accounts of the National Review. It had been losing a great deal of money over the years. It was not clear from published accounts who had been funding this operation. Some speculated that it was the CIA. In other words, Buckley was a key figure in Operation Mockingbird.

Evidence for this view came from a very strange source. On 29th January, 1975, the Washington Post published an article by George Will, the National Review’s Washington columnist. He posed the question: “Was National Review, with four ex-agents of the CIA on its staff, a CIA operation?” He claimed that several members of the National Review’s had believed that it was receiving funds from the CIA. Will also pointed out that Buckley was very close to E. Howard Hunt and had been raising funds for him.

Up until this time George Will had appeared to be a devoted follower of Buckley. What made him turn against Buckley? Was the National Review’s Washington columnist working for Richard Helms?

It was also revealed that Buckley was a long-time friend of two former directors of the CIA, William Casey and George Bush.

However, Nixon thought Buckley was working for him. When the Watergate tapes were released, Nixon is heard to say that Buckley would write an article in the National Review calling for Hunt to be given clemency (8th January, 1973).

It was also revealed that the National Review had obtained funds from the American-Chilean Council (ACC). This helps to partly explain the support that Buckley had given to General Pinchet’s coup (this included a defence of the execution of 500 Chilean opponents of the regime). Buckley wrote that this action was popular in Chile because “people prefer an authoritarian government to chaos.”

Buckley also published the claim (based on information from the ACC) that Orlando Letelier had been assassinated in Washington because he had been “entangled in international terrorism and was receiving funds through Havana”.

I think this information helps us to understand Tim's posts. It also helps explain why he has been so reluctant to reveal the background to his political ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!!! Ball's in your court Tim. You have indeed some serious explaining to do.

(Tho he may be someplace where there's no power at the moment).

I have always just hated Buckley, he's so arrogant and so right wing, and he just seemed ot ooze evil....

What a great post John!!

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Found this on a Conervative (US) website, it always pays to know what their up to, anyway hope you get a laugh out of it,I did.

"Conservative Christian groups are upset about the cartoon character SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS, claiming the well known childrens television programme is promoting a homosexual agenda." Must be the crabbie paties. LOL, Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...