I have decided to create a page on Tim Gratz.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgratzT.htm

As a result of this I have decided to reinstate Tim. I know he was originally removed for threatening to sue me and I fully expect him to do so again, however, I think it is only fair that he gets the opportunity to defend himself. (He might also be able to provide some insight into Bush's decisions in Iraq and Iran.)

Most of you will know Tim for his postings on Fidel Castro's involvement in the JFK assassination. This is only the latest example of his role as a disinformation agent.

Tim obtained a political science and law degree from University of Wisconsin. As a student he was active in the Republican Party and a member of the Young Americans for Freedom.

Tim became Chairman of Wisconsin Republican Party College Organization. On 18th December, 1971, Gratz received a phone call from a man calling himself Don Simmons. In fact, his real name was Donald Segretti. Apparently, Dwight Chaplin had hired Segretti to disrupt the Democratic campaign. Tim later recalled: "Simmons said he was interested in running a "negative campaign" in Wisconsin. He explained that the purpose of the campaign was to create as much bitterness and disunity within the Democrat primary as possible.... He also said he was interested in planting spies in the Democrat candidate's offices."

Donald Segretti offered Tim $100.00 per month, plus expenses, to co-ordinate these projects. Tim agreed to work on the project and he was given an advance payment of $50.00. Tim later told Anthony Ulasewicz that "although the whole incident seemed strange" he agreed to help "as most of the ideas he suggested seemed like they were worth doing anyway". However, Tim claimed he told Karl Rove, Chairman of the College Republican National Committee, about this dirty tricks campaign.

This is strange as we now know that Rove himself was part of Segretti's campaign. In fact, he probably played a leading role in this dirty tricks operation. Rove had becoome friends with CIA asset, Bob Bennett. in 1968. According to one report, Bennett became a "mentor of Rove's".

In 1970, Rove used a false identity to enter the campaign office of Democrat Alan J. Dixon, who was running for Illinois State Treasurer, and stole 1000 sheets of paper with campaign letterhead. Rove then printed fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters, with the effect of disrupting Dixon's rally. It is important to remember these details of this dirty tricks campaign.

Donald Segretti later told the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (3rd October, 1973) the main objective of his dirty tricks campaign was to discredit Edmund Muskie as he was the candidate that Richard Nixon feared the most. As one political commentator pointed out: "he seemed unstoppable; he had had ample financial backing, name recognition, experience, image, endorsement, and top standing in the polls."

Other targets included Edward Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson. It was decided that George McGovern was the candidate that Nixon wanted to face in the presidential election. Tim was one of 28 people hired by Segretti to carry out this smear campaign.

During the New Hampshire primary, the Manchester Union Leader, published a letter that claimed Muskie had made disparaging remarks about French-Canadians. The newspaper also attacked the character of Muskie's wife Jane, reporting that she drank heavily and used bad language during the campaign. Muskie made an emotional speech defending his wife. The press reported he had broken down in tears and this damaged his image as a calm and rational politician. Although Muskie won the New Hampshire primary, this incident had raised doubts about his ability to be a strong president.

As Keith W. Olson (Watergate: The Presidential Scandal That Shook America) has pointed out: "Segretti carried out his tricks to the fullest extent in Florida". Patrick J. Buchanan told John N. Mitchell and H. R. Haldeman on 2nd January, 1972, "clearly, the Florida primary is shaping up as the first good opportunity and perhaps the last good opportunity to derail the Muskie candidacy".

One of Segretti's agents stole Muskie campaign stationery and mailed a fraudulent letter to 300 supporters of fellow contenders, Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson. This letter claimed that Jackson had fathered a child with an unmarried teenager and that the police had arrested him on homosexual charges. It went onto claim that Humphrey had been arrested while in the company of a prostitute, for driving under the influence of alcohol. It was assumed that Muskie was behind this smear campaign and his credibility as a honest politician was severely damaged.

Other dirty tricks in Florida included a naked girl running through Muskie's hotel claiming that she was in love with the Democratic contender. Segretti's agents, posing as Muskie supporters, telephoned voters in the middle of the night asking them to support their candidate.

George Wallace, won 42% of the vote in the Florida primary. Hubert Humphrey came in second, with 18.6%, then Henry Jackson with 13% and the the pre-election favourite, Edmund Muskie, finished fourth with 8.9%. This result added support to Segretti's claim that his dirty tricks campaign had the ability to remove people like Muskie from the race.

Segretti and his team of agents, including Tim, now began to concentrate on the Wisconsin primary. Dirty tricks included distributing leaflets that appeared to have been produced by Muskie's campaign team. One of these invited Milwaukee's black residents to a free lunch and beer picnic at which they could meet Coretta Scott, the widow of Martin Luther King and famous television stars. When they arrived their excitement turned to anger when they found no celebrities, no lunch, and no beer. Sound familiar? Yes, it is virtually a carbon copy of Rove’s activities against Alan J. Dixon in 1970.

Once again this dirty tricks campaign worked. On 4th April, 1972, George McGovern won the Wisconsin primary. George Wallace came second with Edmund Muskie in fourth position. A few days later, Patrick J. Buchanan reported to John N. Mitchell and H. R. Haldeman that "our primary objective, to prevent Senator Muskie from sweeping the early primaries.... and uniting the Democratic Party behind him for the fall has been achieved." Buchanan then recommended that they concentrate on assisting McGovern's bid to be the presidential candidate "in every way we can".

During their investigation of the Watergate Scandal the journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discovered that Donald Segretti had attempted to smear leading politicians such as George McGovern, Edward Kennedy, Edmund Muskie and Henry Jackson. This included the letters sent during the Florida primary elections. The FBI had also revealed that the letter that had been sent to the Manchester Union Leader during the New Hampshire primary was also a forgery.

On 27th October, 1972, Time Magazine published an article claiming that it had obtained information from FBI files that Dwight Chaplin had hired Segretti to disrupt the Democratic campaign. The following month Carl Bernstein interviewed Segretti who admitted that E. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy were behind the dirty tricks campaign against the Democratic Party.

It is not known what role Tim Gratz played in this campaign. Nor do we know details of all the dirty tricks campaigns organized by Segretti/Rove. Segretti only confessed to those that the FBI had discovered. We can assume that there were others that have never come to light.

The date of the meeting that Tim had with Segretti is very important. According to the statement he gave to Anthony Ulasewicz hey met on 18th December, 1971. This is at the very beginning of the proposed dirty tricks campaign. Their main activities were in 1972. It is also interesting that Tim tells Rove about his meeting with Segretti who then arranges for him to meet Ulasewicz. We now know that Ulasewicz and Rove both held important roles in these dirty tricks campaigns. In fact, Ulasewicz, was in charge of Operation Sandwedge. This was a highly secret operation that has never been fully revealed. In fact, as Ulasewicz points out in his autobiography, the Senate Committee looking into the Watergate Scandal, avoided all questions on Sandwedge. The name gives as a clue, a sand wedge is a club that you use when you are in serious trouble.

In his book, The Taking of America, Richard E. Sprague argued that Gratz was involved with Donald Segretti and Dennis Cassini in supplying money to Arthur Bremer before he attempted to assassinate George Wallace. After Nixon had arranged to face McGovern in 1972, Wallace posed the main threat to his election. Wallace intended to run as a third-party candidate. Polls were suggesting that if this happened, Wallace would take Nixon's right-wing votes and McGovern could win the election. Wallace had to be removed from the race. The link between Segretti, Ulasewicz, Gratz and Bremer is therefore, highly significant.

We mainly know J. Timothy Gratz as a supporter of Bush's right-wing policies and his theory that Fidel Castro was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Is there a link between these activities and Tim's shady political past?








http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgratzT.htm

Well it will be interesting to see Tim back. We all miss the debates between him and Robert -Charles Dunne. RCD always kicked butt. Now that W is in the tank in terms of popularity it will be fascinating to read Tim trying to defend his president, (who is indefensible in my opinion). And to respond to the Rove dirty tricks information. I can hear him now!

But 'cha know he will turn every thread into his Castro -did -it nonsense.

None-the less- let me be the first to say "welcome back Tim".

Dawn

Welcome back Tim,
I await with intrigue your continued input,
John

In case you missed it, here are a couple of classic Tim Gratz and Robert Charles-Dunne confrontations on Watergate:

(9th July, 2005)

J. Timothy Gratz: Re dirty tricks, without looking at the memorandum, I do not recall ever writing a memorandum. I had told you that before, in a private e-mail. This is not to say I had not written a memorandum to anyone about Segretti's approach to me, and if I saw the entire memorandum I might be able to determine from the verbiage whether I actually wrote it.

Robert Charles-Dunne: But counsellor, in your very first sentence you admitted having written a memo, and wish only that it be reproduced here in its entirety to ensure proper context. I know that certain memories may fade with time, but just how many memos must one write on just how many political scandals, before one fails to recall their own footnote to political sleaze culture history? Geez, Tim; you're the good guy in this tale... can't you remember what you did to earn that qualification?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that the hierarchy of your own Republican party would forge a memo and falsely attribute it to you? If so, why do you remain a member of so corrupt and despicable a party?

J. Timothy Gratz: I was concerned about much of what Segretti was proposing, which, of course, was why I reported him. As I said before (and is the truth) I was concerned that Segretti (who I knew as "Simmons") was being funded by a well-meaning but ill-informed rich Republican (perhaps W. Clement Stone) or by a Democrat or by the Democratic Party as an agent provocateur.

Robert Charles-Dunne: Your mind works in interesting ways. You can actually envision a scenario in which the Democrats would recruit a young Republican to spy on the Democrats' own campaign for the Democrats? Couldn't Democrats simply spy on their own campaign? It seems much simpler. I don't know which is odder: that you believed that then, or that you think we will now. Your elaborately byzantine Castro-did-it nonsense pales by comparison.

J. Timothy Gratz: I wanted to report Segretti's activities to the highest level of the Committee to Re-Elect the President which is why I contacted Karl Rove (who was then the Chairman of the College Republican National Committee). I asked him to contact a high official in CREEP for me.

Robert Charles-Dunne: Reporting the mysterious "Simmons" to Rove only alerted Rove that his former mentor Segretti was running a non-secure operation. Rove may assert that he didn't know "Simmons" was Segretti, but that's an obvious falsehood. Among the things that got Segretti disbarred and sent to jail was the 1972 poaching and improper use of a rival candidate's letterhead. Two years earlier, Karl Rove did the same thing while under Segretti's tutelage. Rove would have recognized Segretti's modus operandi, even if Rove didn't know Segretti was using the nom de guerre "Simmons," which is itself highly questionable. Irrespective of your claimed aims, your actions did not cause Segretti's operation to be shut down; only to be made more secure, which I suspect was your real intent. If anything, Ulasewicz was dispatched to learn how much you knew and exercise damage control in the event that you really were a square john who'd stop at nothing to get to the truth of the matter. No worries there, apparently.

J. Timothy Gratz: I cannot remember all of the things that Segretti suggested doing. Some were clearly objectionable, which is why I reported him of course. Some I thought were probably not only objectionable but also illegal (e.g. printing bogus tickets to Democratic fund-raising dinners).

Robert Charles-Dunne: So, you thought some of these suggested acts were "illegal," but didn't report them or "Simmons" to the police; instead you sought to protect the Republican party from its own excesses, which is precisely what informing Rove accomplished.

J. Timothy Gratz: Whether or not campaign espionage, that does not involve an illegal activity such as wiretapping, is unethical, is, I submit, a close question, in part because both parties do it. (As you are probably aware, LBJ assigned Howard Hunt to spy on the Goldwater campaign.)

Robert Charles-Dunne: Uh-oh. Slippery ethical slope ahead... using somebody else's purported excesses to justify one's own real ones.

J. Timothy Gratz: Also, to the extent Segretti proposed distributing literature truthfully exposing "issues" with the Democratic candidates, I clearly would have approved of that idea, but if it was to be done, thought that CREEP ought to know WHO was doing it.

Robert Charles-Dunne: Perhaps you could point out why you thought at the time that CREEP didn't know "who was doing it." You may not have known, but what made you suspect they didn't?

J. Timothy Gratz: Why did I not report Segretti to the police? Well, he had not at that time suggested any specific ILLEGAL activities.

Robert Charles-Dunne: Two grafs above this one, you claimed: "Some I thought were probably not only objectionable but also illegal (e.g. printing bogus tickets to Democratic fund-raising dinners)." Which is it, counsellor?

J. Timothy Gratz: What he was trying to get me to do at the outset was to get a college student to volunteer for the Muskie campaign so the student could spy on the Muskie campaign. I thought it more appropriate for CREEP to find out who he was and close down his operation.

Robert Charles-Dunne: You just finished saying, again two grafs above this one, that you thought at the time that CREEP didn't know "who was doing it." Now you seem to admit that CREEP had the power to "close down his operation," indicating that "Simmons" must have in some way been answerable to CREEP, and not the Democrats as per your prior fantastic assertion. Which is it, counsellor?

J. Timothy Gratz: And by the way John, as a result of CREEP finding out that Segretti was working for the WH due to my complaints, it is NOT true that Segretti was "shut down" because he was becoming careless. Segretti continued to perform his dirty tricks right up until the election.

Robert Charles-Dunne: So, Rove and Ulasewicz and Caulfield didn't seem to care what Segretti did; only that he not be caught doing it. Nice to see that your party's hierarchy took your concerns to heart.

(10th July, 2005)

J. Timothy Gratz: I received a telephone call at my apartment on Saturday morning, December 18th, 1972, from a man who identified himself as Mr Don Simmons. He said he wanted to find a young person in Madison to do work for the reelection of the President, for about ten to fifteen hours per month, and wanted to put this individual on a retainer basis. He said the work involved opposition research, etc.

He said he was from a political consultant firm in New York. He said he received my name from Randy Knox. We set up a meeting in the Park Motor Inn Lounge for that afternoon.

Robert Charles-Dunne: We must question why "Simmons" placed a called to Knox, and why Knox suggested Tim Gratz was the man with whom "Simmons" would wish to speak. Given the planned agenda of disrupting and sabotaging rival political candidates, surely "Simmons" was seeking operatives with both flexible morality and tight lips. Unless "Simmons" was just cold-calling anyone and everyone within the Young Republican camp - a surefire invitation to the entire plan being exposed and backfiring against the Republican "dirty tricks" squad - "Simmons" must have had reason to believe that Knox was unethical and could be relied upon to keep his mouth shut, and/or Knox had reason to believe that Tim Gratz could be recommended for the same reasons. It may prove to Tim's credit that he alerted Karl Rove.

J. Timothy Gratz: Simmons said he was interested in running a "negative campaign" in Wisconsin. He explained that the purpose of the campaign was to create as much bitterness and disunity within the Democrat primary as possible. He suggested doing things such as planting questions in student audiences before which the Democrat candidates were working, getting students to picket the Democrat candidates, e.g. a black student to picket Muskie regarding his remark on a black V.P. candidate, etc. He also said he was interested in planting spies in the Democrat candidate's offices. He said that he wanted to concentrate on Muskie, and give second priority to McGovern.

Robert Charles-Dunne: How, exactly, does this square with Tim's current contention that he thought "Simmons" might have been sponsored by Democrats? In this very thread, he has asserted: "I was concerned that Segretti (who I knew as "Simmons") was being funded by a well-meaning but ill-informed rich Republican (perhaps W. Clement Stone) or by a Democrat or by the Democratic Party as an agent provocateur." One cannot dismiss as wholly fantastic the notion that Democrats would recruit a young Republican to damage their own campaign, only to unmask the charade at a later date, for whatever damage it might do to the Republicans. However, even in the murky world of political intrigue, common sense dictates that it is such a stretch of the imagination as to be highly unlikely. The more compelling rationale is that it was what it purported to be: a campaign designed to inflict maximum damage against the Democratic candidate for President, be it Muskie or McGovern.

J. Timothy Gratz: Simmons said he wanted to pay someone $100.00 per month, plus expenses, to co-ordinate these projects. He also said he was willing to pay a salary of up to $50.00 per month to a person we could plant in Muskie headquarters. I asked him if he was working for the CCREP or the RNC. He replied he was working on his own, with his own money. (He implied that he was saying this because he did not want anyone to be able to trace his activities to the Nixon campaign or the Party officially.) I asked him how I could establish his credentials, and he was, frankly, evasive, although I got the impression that he was implying this evasiveness was deliberate.

Robert Charles-Dunne: This is precisely the vague, but reassuring, come-on used by "Maurice Bishop" in recruiting Veciana: "I represent certain interests of considerable authority and influence, but they must remain unnamed. Draw your own conclusions."

J. Timothy Gratz: Although the whole incident seemed strange, I tentatively agreed to work on his project (as most of the ideas he suggested seemed like they were worth doing anyway). He gave me $50.00 in advance payment, and said he would call back in early January. He said I should concentrate initially on finding someone to plant in Muskie HQ. He said that we would communicate only by telephone, for security reasons.

Robert Charles-Dunne: One notes the interesting use of language in the graf above: "I tentatively agreed to...." Upon acceptance of the $50 on offer, I suggest there was nothing "tentative" about the arrangement. "Simmons" clearly thought he had bought and paid for services yet to be rendered, an impression Tim deliberately sought to foster.

One also notes that Tim didn't balk at agreeing to the arrangement, and did not storm out of the meeting or threaten to report "Simmons" to the authorities. That he was never asked to actually deliver on what he had agreed to do was due only to the fact that "Simmons" never called back.

Why didn't he call Tim back? Because Ulasewicz (or someone within his White House group), alerted by Karl Rove, tipped off "Simmons" that Tim Gratz had loose lips. Otherwise, "Simmons" would have continued to assume that Tim Gratz was his man - bought and paid for - and contacted him again to put the plans in motion. Clearly, someone advised "Simmons" not to pursue contacts with Tim Gratz, or there would have been follow up contacts.

J. Timothy Gratz: Mr. Simmons registered at the Park Motor Inn on Dec 16, 1972, and checked out on Dec. 19th. He listed his home address as 1400 Olympic Avenue NW, Wash DC. He paid his bill in cash. He made approximately twelve local phone calls, and three long distance calls. One of the long distance calls was to Randy Knox' home in Fort Atkinson; one was to a Madison area (884 exchange) number, and one was to Peoria, Ill., 309-674-2143. (We are checking this number out through contacts in Illinois.)

Robert Charles-Dunne: Precisely how did you ascertain the above details, Tim? It seems as though you managed to procure a copy of "Simmons"' hotel bill. Surely the staff of the Park Motor Inn - even in the less sophisticated times of 1972 - would not disclose to anyone confidential information about a guest, his home address, his method of payment, the number of phone calls he placed, the numbers to which those calls were made, etc. In order to obtain this information, did you use the $50 to bribe a Park Motor Inn employee, or did you misrepresent yourself to such an employee as a police officer? Who were these "contacts in Illinois" from whom you expected to learn the subscriber to whom the number 309-674-2143 was registered?

Up until the final graf of the memo, one might reasonably believe your assertion that you were simply a waif who got caught up in something larger and uglier than you had expected to find. The reportage of the above details, however, suggests that you were more skilled or schooled than you were naive, or that you wished to demonstrate to the memo's intended audience that you might offer some utility to them in their future plans. Either way, it seems that your final graf in the memo sinks any plausible credibility to the central tenet of your story: that you were an "innocent" who found himself embroiled in something through no fault of his own.

I also welcome you back, Tim. I await with input your continued intrigue. (Just kidding.)

Ron

Hi Tim

You may be interested to know that the thread on Michael Collins Piper's book Final Judgment , in which you were such an enthusiastic participant, has now reached the 29th page.

Have you have used your time out to prepare a definitive rebuttal of Piper's thesis? (as opposed to slurs, abuse and ad hominem attacks)

John

Tim never did like my suggestion that John J. McCloy may have been involved with the assasination of JFK.

Perhaps we will have an opportunity to continue the discussion.

Jim Root

So where is Tim? Usually by now he would have had 10 new threads and 50 new posts.

Is he actually back here? Does he even want to be? Or is he even aware that he's been re-admitted?

Dawn-
trying to stay warm here in a rare freeze and ice storm in Austin, TX.

T.G.

Your "femme nikita" awaits the return of her "favorite Fascist she just loves to hate."

I'll be here to defend your right to defend yourself.

There hasn't been the high caliber of thought-provoking debate carried on here since you left the place [well maybe Simkin has carried on a few, but it's a tough job trying to keep that ball rolling].

Look at all the folks on site here, right now! I haven't seen that tray filled with so many names here before, EVER!

Come back, Gratz! I miss you.

Ter [freezing her ass off in SoCal]

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

Dawnie, T.G.'s probably just soaking up the rays down there in Key West before heading in-doors to put his final editorial note in his newspaper column. Lucky stiff.

I'll bet Tim is busy down in Key West, perhaps with a federal grant, trying to figure out what happened to the 2006 hurricane season. (Nature's dirty tricks.)

Perhaps he's in Cuba, researching the Castro Government's highly effective hurricane survival strategies?

Here's another quote from Oxfam's fascinating report Weathering the Storm: Lessons in Risk Reduction from Cuba:



If I lived in Florida, with criminal incompetents like FEMA ultimately responsible for my safety in climatic disasters made ever more likely because the Dubya gang are in charge of US climate change policy... well, a trip to Cuba might seem like a very good idea.

Perhaps, for his safety and well-being, he might decide to stay?

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

"...well, a trip to Cuba might seem like a very good idea."

Hey, don't be knockin' Cuba. That's where I want to retire.

Why is this such an incomprehensible idea?

The idea is not considered incomprehensible.

The briefest possible explanation for why it is eschewed by anyone who has troubled themselves to investigate this case is:

All "evidence" of Castro complicity crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.

All such "evidence" of Castro complicity originates with CIA.

All such "evidence" of Castro complicity that has previously been debunked is resurrected every four or five years as though it is newsworthy.

All such regurgitated "evidence" is trafficked by those "researchers" who have their own ties to the Agency that originally scripted it.

Perhaps rather than inquiring why the idea is considered "incomprehensible," you - and an honest resolution to this case - would be better served by determining why an Agency of the US government has elected to repeatedly lie to the very taxpayers upon whom its very existence depends.

Need more be said?

My page on "J. Timothy Gratz" is now number one at most of the search-engines. However, Tim has not replied to my email inviting him to join in this debate. Nor have I heard from Tim's lawyers.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgratzT.htm

Tim sent me an email complaining that he'd tried to sign on but was unable. I assured him it was a mis-communication. Does he need to respond to your email before he can sign on?

No, he just logs in the same way as he did before.

He threatened to sue me in federal court for libel........



He wasted a lot of our time and energy and I am not interested in

reading his long, boring and insipid postings about how

the communists killed Kennedy.


Beware...........

Any word on Tim's return?
John

No, he has not accepted the invitation to rejoin the forum.

I heard from him back in February, when he said he was putting together a fundraising event for an anti-Slavery coalition that was held in late March, and he would be busy until then. (Did you know that 40% of the world's chocholate comes from Africa where the factories are full of enslaved children?).

He said he kept monitoring the forum however.

While we are on different sides of the political fence, I get along with JTG.

BK

Bill, whilst that anti-slavery message sounds all warm and cuddly, it is being used by certain groups as a "front". The real targets are the usual ones of the religious right: abortion, gay marriage etc.

I have a sneaking respect for the Timster, too... but it's always the same old game with certain groups...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/states/south_dakota/

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

"I heard from him back in February, when he said he was putting together a fund raising event for an Anti-Slavery coalition that was held in late March, and he would be busy until then. (Did you know that 40% of the world's chocolate comes from Africa where the factories are full of enslaved children?)."

Now, that's a noble stance for someone to take. And, very un-fascistic, characteristically speaking. See, I knew we'd eventually have a good influence on T.G. Good for him!

"While we are on different sides of the political fence, I get along with JTG."

I feel the same way. I've always respected his opinion regardless of whether it was different from mine simply because he was polite, articulate, and intellectually astute in getting his point across without resorting to hysterical rebuttal. I actually learned a great deal from reading T.G.'s posts. He also had a great sense of humor, as well. I thought he had shown great promise in his willingness to acquiesce and see the other side of the coin when successfully refuted. He was a gentleman debater of the first degree. And, if someone had been taking pot-shots at me concerning my career, I'd have wanted to sue them for slander and libel, as well. Rock on, T.G.!

Count me in too! I also like JTG and found him to be all that Terry mentioned. I do not agree with all he says, but the same goes for a few others here. Yet, that does not mean that I disagree with all things they say. I have missed Tim too.

____________
Dixie

There are likely other factors at play behind this.

When one talks Cocoa in Africa it is basically the Ivory Coast.

There is ethnic tension there.

90% of the cocoa is produced by small farms. Over the past half century there has been a drift to the Ivory Coast and "who is a citizen" is an issue. The slave children seem to be from outside the Ivory Coast (Mali) and even through repatriated in some degree, they (apparently) willingly make their way back to the work they had in the Ivory Coast.


FACTBOX-Key facts on Ivorian rebel leader Guillaume Soro
Sat 7 Apr 2007 9:51 AM ET

April 7 (Reuters) - Ivory Coast's President Laurent Gbagbo named a new government led by rebel leader Guillaume Soro on Saturday under a deal to reunite the country after a civil war.

Following are some key facts on Soro:

* Born on May 8, 1972, to parents of modest means in the village of Diawala, in the far north of Ivory Coast, near the border with Mali. His full name is Guillaume Soro Kigbafori and he says that his last name means invincible in his native Senoufou language.

* As secretary-general of the FESCI* student federation, he spent a short term in prison in 1997 after being arrested for inciting student "disobedience". Later Soro went to France to study law. * In 2000 he returned to Ivory Coast and was asked to head the youth wing of the political party of the man who became his arch enemy, current President Laurent Gbagbo.

* After a September 2002 rebellion against Gbagbo which triggered the civil war, Soro was named secretary-general of the rebel Patriotic Movement of Ivory Coast (MPCI).

-- In December 2002, Soro's MPCI combined with two other rebel groups -- the Ivorian Popular Movement of the Great West (MPIGO) and the Movement for Justice and Peace (MJP) -- to form the Forces Nouvelles (New Forces). Soro became secretary-general of the group.

* Interim Prime Minister Charles Konan Banny included two rebel leaders in the government in 2005. Soro was named minister of reconstruction and reinsertion while his deputy, Louis Dakoury Tabley, was made minister of war victims.

* Soro and Gbagbo signed a peace deal in March 2007 and agreed to appoint a new transitional government within five weeks. Gbagbo named Soro prime minister, replacing Banny.


*FESCI - A recent U.N. report name the FESCI as one of several pro-government militia groups that took part in the brutal repression of an opposition demonstration...More than 100 people were killed in the violence that the United Nations blames on Ivory Coast's highest authorities.

Some students have tried to set up their own associations, acting at their own peril.

One of the organizers, Habib Dodo, who was also the head of the youth wing of a communist party, was found dead (June 2004) last month at a side of a road, his body stuffed into a cocoa bag.

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

"Bill, whilst that anti-slavery message sounds all warm and cuddly, it is being used by certain groups as a "front". The real targets are the usual ones of the religious right: abortion, gay marriage etc."

We must've been posting at the same exact time, Greg. I never saw this before posting my reply. If this is the case then that's too bad. I just wish T.G. would come back clue us in, but why should he even want to bother. I guess we're probably "small time" to him by now, anyway.

I can assure those in doubt that Tim's commitment to the anti-slavery cause is genuine. He's been telling me about it for months. The links he's sent me have mostly been related to the film "Amazing Grace," an historical epic about William Wilberforce's campaign to end the slave trade in England. While some of the supporters of the anti-slavery cause are right-wing churches, with an anti gay and anti-abortion agenda, none of the links he's sent me have said anything about this.

See for yourself:

www.freedomdaykeywest.com

www.onevoicetoendslavery.com

www.ijm.org

I was also taken in by Tim Gratz’s “Southern Gentleman” image when he first joined the forum. His brand of “compassionate conservatism” that was at the time being promoted by his leader, George Bush, was fairly convincing. However, he found it difficult to play that role for any length of time. Every so often he revealed his right-wing, religious fundamentalism. For example, when the 16 year old Nic Martin mentioned that she would consider having an abortion if she got pregnant. His attacks on her drove her from the forum.

Then there was the defence of the South American death squads. According to Tim, as long as you could label the victims as “communists” it did not matter.

His postings about the communists being behind the assassination of JFK were very entertaining but they no doubt had some influence on the politically illiterate who read the forum.

Tim took every opportunity to express his sympathy for the plight of black Americans. But where was he when it mattered. He was a member of the Young Americans of Freedom who during the 1960s attempted to label civil rights leaders as “communists”. This was an organization that considered Richard Nixon as left-wing and the main objective of the organization was to get Barry Goldwater elected so that he could start using nuclear weapons in Vietnam. As the recently published correspondence of its founder William Buckley show, the purpose of YAF was to promote neo-fascist governments in the Americas, in an attempt to destroy the threat of communism in the US.

Some members of the forum carried out research into J. Timothy Gratz. It was no real surprise to find out that in the 1970s he was involved in dirty tricks campaigns against the Democrats and that he was eventually debarred as a lawyer because of his dubious behaviour.

When this information was posted he threatened members with legal action. He also made similar threats against William Turner, the journalist who originally provided the information to Richard E. Sprague (The Taking of America) that Tim was involved with Donald Segretti and Dennis Cassini in supplying money to Arthur Bremer before he attempted to assassinate George Wallace.

My posting of this information led to more threats of legal action. Of course this never happened. If you type in “J Timothy Gratz” in Google you will find my page on Tim as number one. Yet, I am still to hear from Tim’s lawyers.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgratzT.htm

However, I suspect the real reason Tim does not return is that he is no longer able to defend the policies of George Bush. Do you remember his endless posts about his support for Bush’s invasion of Iraq? No wonder Tim is in hibernation. He is lying low until the next election when he will return to smear the Democrat candidate (don’t you remember his posts about John Kerry in the last election).

I was, and continue to be, friendly with Tim, but I supported his ouster from the Forum. His skin was a bit thin and he was too lawsuit-happy, first threatening Shannon with litigation, and then John. When John quoted something Tim said out of context, Tim responded not by pointing it out to John, but by threatening to sue him. Which is a bit ridiculous, in my book. If I remember correctly, he later admitted he was a bit tired of being the token GOP spokesman on the forum. Of course, trying to defend Bush's policies would be enough to wear anyone out. Look at Colin Powell and Scott McClellan, for two.

Tim, as so many, was full of contradictions. As John pointed out, he was an outspoken supporter of the civil rights movement, and would frequently defend LBJ on those grounds. And yet he was a Goldwater Republican and a member of the YAF. Both Goldwater and the YAF were outspoken supporters of "state's rights," which back then meant the right to enact policies designed to prevent blacks from voting.

Gee Pat... I could send you a lot of links that having nothing to do with those things. either.

To quote from the link I provided in a previous reply "... the equation of abortion and slavery is hardly new – George W. Bush famously alluded to it in his last presidential campaign – it seems even more tasteless in this context, where activists are seeking to change the subject from actual, modern-day slavery."

Incidently, there's another Gratz using the guise of civil rights to actually undermine that very concept... Jennifer Gratz. She presides over something calling itself The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
http://www.michigancivilrights.org/jengratzbio.html

She has been aided and abetted in these endeavors by the Center for Individual Rights - an alleged public interest law firm set up specifically to end affirmative action and other civil rights initiatives.

If she is not herself a member of YAF, she draws a lot of support from that organization.

To Terry and others who have posted on this matter... I commend your willingness to see the good in people, but sometimes doing so is a risky proposition.

To John S... well said, though I do hope Tim does come back. This latest episode in the Life & Times of J Timonthy Gratz is just business as usual for the Religious Right. I bear him no malice for that which is expected behavior.

The money for Amazing Grace comes from right-wing billionaire Philip Anschutz. It is no coincidence that the radical right want to promote the image of William Wilberforce as a brave campaigner against slavery. Wilberforce was himself a right-wing politician with a long record of being opposed to universal suffrage, trade union rights, equality of women.

Wilberforce was not in fact against slavery until shortly before his death. As Wilberforce pointed out in a pamphlet that he published in 1807: "It would be wrong to emancipate (the slaves). To grant freedom to them immediately, would be to insure not only their masters' ruin, but their own. They must (first) be trained and educated for freedom."

Wilberforce campaigned against the slave trade. Unlike those on the left who campaigned against the institution of slavery on moral grounds, Wilberforce was against the slave trade for economic reasons.

Wilberforce had been converted to the campaign against the slave trade by Adam Smith who argued that capitalists could obtain higher profits from free workers than slaves (Smith provided plenty of examples from the costs of production of sugar, etc. throughout the British Empire).

Although it is important to study Wilberforce when dealing with the slave trade it is also important to look at the role of others like Elizabeth Heyrick (Wilberforce refused to allow women hold senior positions in the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade), Olaudah Equiano, Ottabah Cugoano and Zamba Zembola.

It is in the interests of the right to portray the campaign against slavery as being led by conservative white males like J. Timothy Gratz. In fact, the truth is very different.

For a full debate on the subject of slavery and the activities of Philip Anschutz, see these two threads:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7308

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5954

John and Greg, I humbly request you watch the movie before you persist in presenting it as a piece of right-wing propaganda. It is anything but. Wilberforce is presented as a friend to the common man. In the movie, he is heavily influenced by the guilt of a former slave ship captain, the writer of the song Amazing Grace, played by Albert Finney, and by his friendship with a former slave turned best-selling author. The film focuses on the moral arguments against the slave trade, although it does acknowledge that Wilberforce and his collaborators had to play politics and make the slave trade uneconomical, before they could kill it.


Not everything Tim Gratz touches is tainted by his right-wing beliefs.

Exactly. He wasn't. He was an enemy of the working man.

Okay, so we're in agreement then that the film is not right-wing propaganda, as right-wing propaganda would not present a bleeding heart liberal, as Wilberforce is presented in the movie, as both courageous and heroic, and successful businessmen as petty and selfish. If there's anything "right-wing" about the movie it's that insists morality and Christianity can be used to better society. Well, duh. Any film about Martin Luther King would make the same points.


As far as Anschutz's role... it's distant. His company also produced Sahara and Ray, not exactly right wing propaganda. Anschuitz is a businessman, pure and simple. He's currently trying to re-build downtown L.A. He wants to glitz it up. Nothing about a church on every corner, last I heard.

The point of Amazing Grace is the epiphany that the brutal slave Captain had. It's not an uncommon 'phenomena' that happens and that really changes people. Hence the potency of the song. For some it happens on their death bed, for some in time to spend the rest of their life working to undo the 'evil' they have wrought. That's a good thing.

Tim always struck me somewhat as a person manipulated. A 'good heart', but a conservative upbringing that introduces contradictions. That's how it seems. On the other hand that is also a good cover.

There is a story behind the Cocoa trade that has similarities to the Congo issues (uranium, minerals, UN, fights between left and right) that ran concurrent with the Kennedy assassination. Walker, and other right wigers of the day, had a finger in this pie.

One must in this instance also be aware of the issues of eugenics and patronage. Sure Tim may very well be doing the right thing, but I think it could also be an intervention of sorts. The coffee trade and the Vietnam War is another similar issue. It has also similarities to other interventions to regulate third world primary industries which sounds all very nice but the eventual outcome can often be that the people who are supposed to be helped are merely dispossessed or disarmed.

Taking into account the civil war in the Ivory Coast, which is basically where this Cocoa comes from, the 'ploy' of ending a slave trade of children could be a cover for an intervention that in the end does nothing for the people themselves.

That may be true, Pat. But his involvement with the "abolitionist" movement most certainly is.

The website for the International Justice Mission was one of the links Tim sent you. Presumably this was meant to imply an association with that organization.

Read on...

Overall, the Bush administration has devoted more than $295 million in anti-trafficking program assistance in more than 120 countries, according to the State Department. More than 2,800 people around the world have been convicted of trafficking-related crimes in the past three years, and 24 countries have enacted new anti-trafficking legislation. One of George W. Bush’s favorite U.S. programs is the International Justice Mission (IJM), which is run by Gary Haugen, 41, author of Good News About Injustice, and Sharon Cohn, 34, the organization’s vice president of interventions, who has overseen brothel raids in Cambodia.

* * *

It’s impressive stuff. But human-rights activists, program officers, and health-care educators who work to help trafficking victims describe a dark side to the “abolitionist” movement. The movement’s most prominent figures include right-wing policy-makers, a Jewish “moral entrepreneur,” and evangelical leaders, whom critics call overzealous and moralistic. Together, the “abolitionists” have formed a potent political force (“It’s the most powerful coalition for human rights in America today -- perhaps in the world -- all under the radar screen of the press,” says one of its adherents) known for steamrolling opponents and stifling dissenting voices. Some say they’re even snuffing out organizations that don’t adhere to a party line regarding prostitution.

Organizations are denied funds if they refuse to sign a “loyalty oath,” as one senior officer with an NGO describes a new clause on federal-aid contracts that require grant recipients to say they oppose prostitution.

In addition, Bush’s most celebrated programs, including the IJM, are scorned by anti-trafficking activists in places where they operate. A brothel raid led by the IJM last May in Thailand resulted in the freeing of 29 women. But the women were arrested, and to some, it didn’t feel much like freedom. “The women became very annoyed when told they had been ‘rescued,’” say the authors of a Shan Women’s Action Network report. “They said, ‘How can you say this is a rescue when we were arrested?’”

And though the particular fates of these 29 women are unclear, experts say it’s often the case that when prostitutes -- many of whom come from the notorious Shan State in Burma (now officially called Myanmar), where systematic rape and human-rights abuses are common -- are “freed” from Thai brothels, they end up in a worse situation. Legally, these women cannot claim refugee status in Thailand. “After ‘rescue,’ their situation will be made known to Burmese authorities, local village officials and family members,” according to the report. “Under these circumstances, a safe and beneficial return home is impossible.”

For Cohn, the important thing is freeing women and children from bondage. She speaks convincingly about the horrors of being “serially raped,” especially if you’re a 6-year-old child. And she’s proud of the fact that, so far in 2004, the IJM has saved 152 victims of child sexual exploitation and trafficking. IJM officers try to follow up with the women and children they’ve saved and make sure they’re OK, she says.

Regarding the Thailand episode, Cohn says: “It’s probably safe to say we have a different perspective of the raid. Seven underage girls were rescued. If there’s even one girl, she’d still have the right not to be raped day and night.”

Miller has run into opposition not just from the usual suspects among on-the-ground advocates from NGOs. People within the State, Justice, and other departments have become incensed. Recently, Miller has expanded his reach to the Department of Defense, which will change its military code so soldiers can be court-martialed for visiting a prostitute.

And there have been minor diplomatic dustups. The “Trafficking in Persons Report” contained a case study of a 15-year-old Thai girl taken to Tokyo and raped in a karaoke bar. The report concealed the girl’s real name and called her “Sirikit.” As it turns out, Sirikit is the name of a venerated Thai queen, and it wasn’t pleasant when news of this goof reached the Thai press. “Oh, my gosh, it was terrible,” says Miller, nearly climbing out of his chair. “It’s embarrassing. We had to send them an apology.”

On a more serious level, people who’ve met Miller and worked with his staff say he’s created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Some people have suffered recriminations, been “blacklisted,” or lost their funds. Yet according to several sources, none of whom was at all willing to speak on the record, Miller isn’t even the kingpin.

* * *

The muscle guy in the “abolitionist” movement is Michael Horowitz, 66. A Jewish kid from the Bronx who went to City College and then to Yale Law School, Horowitz served as general counsel for the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan, and is now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington. Referred to by author Allen Hertzke as a “moral entrepreneur” in Hertzke’s newly published book, Freeing God’s Children, Horowitz is the one, activists and program officers say, who calls the shots.

The other leading figures are Charles Colson, a former Nixon counsel and an influential evangelical leader; Donna Hughes, the University of Rhode Island professor whose congressional testimony helped lay the groundwork for the August 2004 change in federal contracts and who writes articles on the subject for the National Review; Laura Lederer, a former anti-pornography crusader; and Lisa Thompson, a trafficking specialist with the Salvation Army. “Horowitz is the Charlie to their Angels,” says an administration official.

Full text here:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...;articleId=8763

As for watching the movie... not a chance in hell of me contributing to the coffers of those whose aims are abhorrent to me.

You hold a very narrow view of what right-wing propaganda is. It is a lot more than attacking liberals. For over 200 years history textbooks in the UK have portrayed change as taking place as a result of the ruling class feeling sorry for the masses. The truth is the masses, black and white, forced the ruling class into introducing reforms.

It would be a damned shame if people refused to see this fine film because people who've never seen it have incorrectly and foolishly labeled it right-wing propaganda. It would also be a damned shame if people stopped watching fine films and television programs merely because someone distantly associated with the film or program has political views they dislike. If this were standard behavior, we would have few fine films, as most every film-maker would be horrified by the thought of alienating the market. The hope for the world is for people to find common ground. This movie finds common ground, and shows that what now seems so obvious--that slavery is evil and should be eradicated--was not always so obvious, and only became obvious through the efforts of people of good will.

While Wilberforce is the "hero" of the film, he is not depicted as an unwavering moral force. It is through his contact with others that he receives the strength to carry on his fight. The film's ethical center is held by two men. One is Oloudaqh Equiano--a former slave turned writer and abolitionist, played by African musician Youssou N'Dour. The other is John Newton, a repentant slave ship captain and composer of the hymn Amazing Grace, played by Albert Finney. The film does not depict Wilberforce the leader of the anti-slavery movement as much as the sole voice of the movement in Parliament. Even there, however, he has the behind-the-scenes help of William Pitt, who is under pressure to hide his anti-slavery convictions, seeing as the royals are making a killing, literally, from the slave trade.

Anyone interested in seeing the film should do so, without fear they will be brain-washed into voting Republican.

Pat, yes, he produced "Ray". His major contribution was insisting on toning down the drugs and sex aspects of the story. He is slowly and deliberately changing the landscape - and I'm not talking about downtown LA. His influence and power in Hollywood is growing, and is driven by his Religious Right agenda.