Nixon and the Jews
Whenever new Nixon tapes are released, the next-day stories invariably highlight the most outrageous tidbits, which typically include some anti-Jewish slurs. This go-round was no exception. Along with Nixon's apparently unserious threat to nuke Vietnam, reporters pounced on this 1972 exchange about Jews in the media between Nixon and the Rev. Billy Graham:
BG: This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain.
RN: You believe that?
BG: Yes, sir.
RN: Oh, boy. So do I. I can't ever say that, but I believe it.
BG: No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something.
As the Chicago Tribune noted, Nixon, Graham, and Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman also cracked anti-Semitic jokes, discussed which journalists were Jewish, and lamented that Washington reporting had deteriorated since Jews entered the trade. (As the National Archives explains here, there are no complete transcripts of the tapes. However, historian Stanley Kutler edited a valuable collection of transcripts relating to Nixon's Watergate transgressions, entitled Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes, and a University of Virginia project is planning to publish volumes of additional transcripts.)
As in the past, the recent reports of Nixon's Jew-bashing were followed by professions of shock. (The Anti-Defamation League's press release is here.) Such shows of indignation are probably on balance a good thing, reaffirming as they do that the president shouldn't be seeking revenge against a particular ethnic group. Yet they also betray either an incredibly short memory or a measure of disingenuousness. Have journalists forgotten the identical slurs heard on earlier tapes? Or the stories in 1994 reporting that, according to Haldeman's then-just-published diaries, Graham spoke to Nixon of"Satanic" Jews? Nixon's loyalists are no less opportunistic. For them the periodic disclosures serve as occasions to pen op-eds explaining why their benefactor, despite the slurs, really wasn't a Jew-hater. (The late Herb Stein, Nixon's [Jewish] chief economist, wrote one of these apologias in Slate.)
Defending Nixon from charges of anti-Semitism has occupied his supporters for a half-century. The accusations date to the postwar years, when the American right remained closely tied to the unvarnished anti-Semites of the '30s who railed against the"Jew Deal." Although Nixon never publicly voiced any of this old-fashioned bigotry, some of his political kinsmen did, and his strident anti-communism played with the Jew-hating fringe. (Extreme anti-communism always contained an anti-Semitic component: Radical, alien Jews, in their demonology, orchestrated the Communist conspiracy.) In Nixon's early campaigns, anti-Semitism was a latent theme.
When the Republicans nominated Nixon as their vice-presidential candidate in 1952, some opponents accused him of anti-Semitism. Nixon had Murray Chotiner, his (Jewish) campaign manager, secure the ADL's stamp of approval. Still, into the summer voters inundated campaign headquarters with letters asking about Nixon's feelings toward Jews. The candidate sometimes responded himself, with his characteristic earnestness."I want to thank you for … your courtesy in calling my attention to the false rumor that I am anti-Semetic [sic]," he wrote in one reply."I am enclosing a copy of a letter which Murray Chotiner has sent to these people which, I believe, is self-explanatory." The questions were kept alive by a brief flap over the revelation that in 1951 Nixon had bought a home whose deed prohibited its resale or rental to Jews. And they haunted him in his 1956, 1960, and 1962 campaigns as well. The anti-Semitism issue loomed large enough in the 1960 presidential race that Newsweek's Raymond Moley devoted a column to defending Nixon while New York's (Jewish) Sen. Jacob Javits did likewise on the Senate floor.
When Nixon was elected president in 1968, a general feeling existed, said his (Jewish) aide William Safire, that"Nixon just doesn't like Jews." To combat this impression, Nixon loyalists emphasized things Nixon did that were"good for the Jews." The main example was his delivery of arms to a besieged Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. That argument was weak, since Nixon's support was both equivocal and contingent; he never believed in the moral necessity of a Jewish homeland. On other issues, the politics of Jews—overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic—and Nixon's remained far apart.
What rendered the apologias untenable was the public release of White House tape transcripts during the 1974 Watergate endgame. Safire recalled that Arthur Burns, a (Jewish) friend whom Nixon appointed Federal Reserve chairman,"felt especially incensed about the ethnic slurs on the tapes. [Leonard] Garment, [Nixon's (Jewish) counsel], Stein and I all felt that sinking sensation in an especially personal way. It simply did not fit in with all we knew about Nixon's attitude toward Jews, and it fit perfectly with most Jews' suspicions of latent anti-Semitism in Nixon, which all of us had worked so hard to allay."
Since 1974, the publication of aides' memoirs and the release of more tapes have shown that Nixon made anti-Semitic references more often than Safire and others suspected. Sometimes, he simply grouped all Jews together in an unseemly way ("[Supporters of] the arts, you know—they're Jews, they're left wing—in other words, stay away"). Other times, he was more explicit (calling supporter Robert Vesco, who later fled the country to escape criminal charges,"a cheap kike"). Sometimes he chalked up nefarious behavior to Jews ("The IRS is full of Jews," he told Haldeman, when the IRS commenced an audit of the Rev. Billy Graham."I think that's the reason they're after Graham, is the rich Jews").
At least once the anti-Semitism appears to have had hard consequences. As Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein first reported in The Final Days, and as White House memos later confirmed, Nixon feared that a"Jewish cabal" at the Bureau of Labor Statistics was skewing data to make him look bad, and he instructed his aide Fred Malek to tally up the Jewish employees at the bureau—a count that probably resulted in the demotion of two Jews. (It later forced Malek's own resignation from George Bush's 1988 presidential campaign.)
Still, Nixon's loyalists haven't shied from defending him. Garment has argued that Nixon's words on the tapes are just private mutterings, too fragmentary to allow the conclusion that he was anti-Semitic. Others have used the"some of his best aides were Jewish" rejoinder, pointing to Burns, Chotiner, Garment, Safire, Stein, and of course Henry Kissinger (about whom Nixon privately made anti-Semitic comments). Still others, including Nixon Library Director John Taylor in a 1999 letter to Slate, contend that when Nixon said"Jews," he really meant something like"anti-war liberals," at whom he was justifiably angry.
All these claims can be easily countered. To the dismissal of Nixon's remarks as just"private," one could argue that private comments are actually more revealing than public remarks of someone's true feelings, especially since overt anti-Semitism has become taboo. And this response, like Taylor's, begs a key question: If he's not anti-Semitic, why does Nixon vent his anger at anti-war liberals by focusing on their Jewishness? Making their ethnicity central to his complaint, when their ethnicity is nowhere at issue is, arguably, exactly what defines anti-Semitism. As for the prevalence of Jewish aides in Nixonland, again one has to understand how prejudice works. Anti-Semites, racists, and other bigots construct a definition of a group based on stereotypes and then direct their hatred toward the group. When they encounter an individual who seems to defy the stereotype—a friend, an aide, a Cabinet secretary—the negative view of the group as a whole isn't called into question; rather, the nonconforming friend gets defined as an"exception," allowing the hostile picture of the group as a whole to stand. On the tapes, Nixon and Haldeman are often heard discussing exactly these sort of"exceptions."
Perhaps most important, all these apologias for Nixon seem aimed at keeping him free of some permanent stigma, of being branded with a scarlet A. But this is ultimately just a semantic concern. There's no way to settle whether Nixon was an anti-Semite—not just because you can't peer into someone's soul, but also because there's no litmus test for anti-Semitism. No, Nixon didn't hate all Jews personally, nor did he use unreconstructed Henry Ford-style anti-Jewish appeals—though, of course, virtually no major public figure in the last 50 years has. Yet clearly he thought and spoke of Jews as a group, more or less united in their opposition to him, possessing certain base and malign characteristics, and worthy of his scorn and hatred. You don't have to call that anti-Semitism if you don't want to. But there's no denying it represents a worldview deserving of the strongest reproach.
This column first appeared on Slate.com and is reprinted with permission of the author.
comments powered by Disqus
mark safranski - 6/4/2004
I'm not Jewish but you are quite clearly a paranoid nut.
Moses Maimonides - 9/21/2003
Why do jews believe nobody knows their true motives? Why do self-styled jew "intellectuals" such as yourself believe their kind so safe, so insulated, so "we've-gotten-over-on-every-Goy" that they become slack in the attacks used against decent, deceased Gentile-men?
What did Goebbels say about the jew? "Three new lies every day" Yeah, that was it. He was right. Unfortunately for the jew, nobody's listening anymore. Each day that passes finds more and more lemmings stopping before the cliff. In spite of what the hate-jew rabbi threatened from israel (We'll nuke every European capital city - if we go down, we'll bring the world with us!), nobody's listening anymore. And that is what jews hate the most (right after Jesus Christ and before Adolf Hitler), to be IGNORED.
Wally Duncaster - 6/13/2003
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Double Standards in Reporting about Mike Murdoch and Rev. Billy Graham.
“Early in his ministry, the Rev. Billy Graham relinquished control to a board of directors to help ensure that there would be no conflicts of interest. Graham is a charter member of the evangelical council.
In 2000, he received $197,911, including benefits and an expense account, for his work as chairman of the ministry, according to the organization's IRS forms. The ministry's revenue that year was $125 million.”( [Mike Murdock] Profit in the pulpit Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Mar. 2, 2003
http://www.dfw.com/ By DARREN BARBEE, Star-Telegram Staff Writer)
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram did not report truthfully that the Southern Baptist Evangelist and crook Billy Graham in 2000 spent over 50 percent of his time in bed or in the hospital. It didn’t report about all the hidden charges to his organization including health care provider and helper that he didn't pay directly. It didn’t report that At 84, Billy Graham Is Taking 100% Salary As CEO and Employee and working less than 10 %!
Although requested by me on numerous occassion Billy will not release his personal income tax like Bill Clinton did and President Bush does. I don't have to release my income tax as my salary doesn't come to me from a non-profit organization and I am not a CEO like Billy is!
So please check into the follow facts and the email that I sent to B.G.E.A. that they are stonewalling?
At 84, Billy Graham Is Taking 100% Salary As CEO and Employee and working less than 10 %!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003
Thank you for your reply concerning Billy Graham's memory lapse!
I have an important question to which I would like to have an answer does Dr. Billy Graham at 84 years of age still take a 100 percent salary as a employee and chairman of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Organization and work less than 25 percent of time?
The sad part about Billy Graham's refusal to accept real responsibility is his use of the phrase "Although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made in an Oval Office conversation with President Nixon ... some 30 years ago." You will appreaciate Bill Clinton the former President of United States and a great liar also used a similar phrase to avoid answering questions asked of him during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and would state " I don't recall." But God has a perfect memory and he recalls all things and so do others.
Graham's two faced hypocrisy also came out in a 1989 when a Graham memo to Nixon was made public. It took the form of a secret letter from Graham, dated April 15, 1969, drafted after Graham met in Bangkok with missionaries from Vietnam. These men of God said that if the peace talks in Paris were to fail, Nixon should step up the war and bomb the dikes. Such an act, Graham wrote excitedly, "could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam".
Graham lent his imprimatur to this recommendation. Thus the preacher was advocating a policy to the US Commander in Chief that on Nixon's own estimate would have killed a million people.
This disclosure of Graham as an aspirant war criminal did not excite any commotion when it became public in 1989, twenty years after it was written.
Billy Graham has raised up two sons Ned and Franklin who are as deceitful as their father. Ned Graham, the son of Billy Graham, Southern Baptist minister, president East Gates International, a group that distributes Bibles in China told Christianity Today in an interview that he had abused alcohol and spent an "inappropriate amount of time" with two women on his staff.
Grace Community Church, Southern Baptist Convention, in Auburn, Washington--which counted Ned Graham, his wife, and their two sons as members established the fact that Ned Graham was an adulterer, alcoholic, wife abuser, and drug user and revoked Graham's ministerial credentials. It directed Graham to stop using the title reverend.
Yet in a style reminiscent of Jimmy Swaggart, who refused to be defrocked by the Assembly of God denomination, Ned Graham left that congregation for another church.
Most of the staff and board members of East Gates International resigned amid controversies. East Gates, in Sumner, Wash., withdrew its membership in the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability after Ned replaced the board members with his sister Ruth Graham McIntyre, brother-in-law Stephan Tchividjian, and business leader Peter Lowe.
Graham's sister Gigi Tchividjian has joined the office staff and Ned Graham continues as East Gates president. The ECFA the self-policing organization Billy Graham helped start requires that a majority of board members not be related by blood or marriage, which is no longer the case for East Gates. Nepotism is alive and well in Evangelical ministries?
A December East Gates fund-raising letter included a note from his father saying that "Ruth and I are proud of and grateful to God for our son Ned." East Gates has distributed 2 million Bibles to Christians in China, Billy Graham said, encouraging Christians to "back this unique and effective ministry."
It is interesting to see the most famous "evangelist" (some say) not being able to educate his children, especially Ned. At the same time, having a bunch of so-called Christians following the leadership of such wreckless person. Franklin Graham wears jeans, boots, denim shirt, and leather jacket. He was a teen rebel who drank, smoked, fought, and led police on high-speed chases. He was kicked out of LeTourneau College. He used to be a rebel and a 'bum' got religion and become more sophisticated and formed "the Samaritan's Purse' so that he can fly around the country and charge things to his non-profit corporation. As a result his ministry, Samaritan's Purse, had a run-in with the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. The ECFA suspended Samaritan's Purse while it looked into Franklin's (Graham) compensation and use of the company plane.
Although Billy Graham encourages religious leaders to be open about their salaries and publish their finances none of the Grahams reveal their total compensation nor release their personal income tax as President Bush does and former President Clinton has done. It's the law of the land that all non profit chairman of corporations must reveal their total salary and that Billy, Ned and Franklin do not to their donors speak volumes of their hypocrisy?
Yes, Jesus told us to beware of hypcrites like Dr. Billy Graham.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barb Webb"
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 2:39 PM
Subject: Mr. Graham
Mr. Graham apologized in regard to the Nixon tapes which were
recently broadcast. Although Mr. Graham had no memory of what he
had said, he felt it was appropriate at this time to give an
apology. He does not actually feel about Jewish people in the
way the words were said. Mr. Graham has made many friends over
the years among the Jewish leaders and rabbis and has a great
respect for them.
Please pray for Mr. Graham and our Association--that we will be
truly faithful and obedient to our Lord. May God bless you.
Beware Of Hypocrisy
In the meantime, when an innumerable multitude of people had gathered together, so that they trampled one another, He began to say to His disciples first of all, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy "For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. "Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops. Luke 12:1-3
Yes, Jesus taught His disciples first of all in front of an innumerable multitude of people to beware of hypocrisy with a promise “For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. "Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.” Now many foolish one just don’t seem to get it that whatever is spoken or done in secret will one day come out just like it did with Southern Baptist Evangelist Billy Graham.
It seemed impossible, when H. R. Haldeman's White House diaries came out in 1994, that the Rev. Billy Graham could once have joined with President Richard M. Nixon in discussing the "total Jewish domination of the media." Could Mr. Graham, the great American evangelist, really have said the nation's problem lies with "satanic Jews," as Mr. Nixon's aide recorded?
Mr. Graham's sterling reputation as a healer and bridge-builder was so at odds with Mr. Haldeman's account that Jewish groups paid little attention, especially because he denied the remarks so strongly.
"Those are not my words," Mr. Graham said in a public statement in May 1994. "I have never talked publicly or privately about the Jewish people, including conversations with President Nixon, except in the most positive terms."
That was the end of the story, it seemed, until two weeks ago, when the tape of that 1972 conversation in the Oval Office was made public by the National Archives. Three decades after it was recorded, the North Carolina preacher's famous drawl is tinny but unmistakable on the tape, denigrating Jews in terms far stronger than the diary accounts.
"They're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff," Mr. Graham said on the tape, after agreeing with Mr. Nixon that left-wing Jews dominate the news media. The Jewish "stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain," he continued, suggesting that if Mr. Nixon were re-elected, "then we might be able to do something."
Finally, Mr. Graham said that Jews did not know his true feelings about them.
"I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know," he told Mr. Nixon, referring to A. M. Rosenthal, then the newspaper's executive editor. "And all — I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances."
Mr. Graham, who is now 83 and in poor health, quickly issued a four- sentence apology, but he did not acknowledge making the statements and said he had no memory of the conversation, which took place after a prayer breakfast on Feb. 1, 1972.
The comments were all the more stinging because Graham had long been considered a staunch friend of the Jewish people. He lobbied for freer emigration of Soviet Jews, castigated Southern Baptists for singling out Jews for conversion and has long supported the state of Israel. When the tapes first surfaced, Graham issued an apology but said he couldn't remember making the comments. 
Billy Graham could claim to be a spokesman for Christianity all he wants, but what he said was and is not God and God let him be seen for what he is, a hypocrite and racist. Now Billy Graham will have to answer to God for his lies and cover up and will go down in history for what he was, an evangelist who hated Jews, but it’s a warning that no one is safe from being exposed for things said or done in secret.
Speaking of hypocrisy amongst the Pharisees, the media reported that
"About half of Baptist organizations contacted by the independent newspaper Baptists Today would not disclose salary information for their top executive. Three Southern Baptist Convention entities said policies allowed them to release only salary ranges.
Presidents Albert Mohler of Southern Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and Kenneth Hemphill of Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, declined to provide any information on compensation. New Orleans Seminary did not return numerous phone calls regarding the salary of President Charles Kelley. However, the IRS requires all colleges and universities to report the salaries of the top five paid staff members, Brumley explained." 
 March 17, 2002 The New York Times Billy Graham Responds to Lingering Anger Over 1972 Remarks on Jews By DAVID FIRESTONE
 Friday, March 22, 2002 Graham weathering the storm Evangelist fighting for respect after controversy at the twilight of his career By Allen G. Breed Associated Press
 The Associated Baptist Press - http://www.abpnews.com on April 3, 2001
Josephine Melrose - 1/6/2003
To Whom Is ECFA Accountable?
On Friday night, Dec. 27, 2002, NBC Dateline had an excellent show concerning super healing Evangelist Benny Hinn and his lack of credible healings or financial accountability. But NBC’s reporting about the Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability (ECFA) was off the wall even though Paul Nelson, its president, was also on the program. It is a fact that ECFA is no more accountable or less devious then Evangelist Benny Hinn.
ECFA was founded by Billy Graham's business manager after the Southern Baptist Evangelist was embarrassed in 1977 when the Charlotte Observer discovered an undisclosed $23-million fund in Texas, apparently not mentioned in the accountings of the Minneapolis headquarters of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. As a result Graham's business manager led the formation of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability after Graham said on a national telecast, ". . . there are some charlatans coming along and the public ought to be informed about them and warned against them, " "stated K. Hadden and Charles E. Swann in their book Prime Time Preachers.
Jeffrey K. Hadden and Charles E. Swann in their book Prime Time Preachers: The Rising Power of Televangelism (1) also stated:
In 1977 Senator Mark Hatfield informed a group of evangelical leaders that if they did not assume responsibility for regulating themselves there was every likelihood that legislation would be required. In fact, Congressman Charles Wilson of Texas had already introduced a bill that would have required disclosure "at the point of solicitation."
In December 1977 representatives of thirty-two evangelical groups met in Chicago to discuss cooperative efforts. Thomas Getman, chief legislative assistant to Senator Hatfield, told the group, "Legislation is not important; disclosure is." Getman encouraged "a voluntary disclosure program . . . that will preclude the necessity of federal intervention into the philanthropic and religious sector."
Almost two years later Dr. Stanley Mooneyham, president of World Vision, acknowledged, "There is no denying that this threat of governmental action was one of the stimuli'' that produced the December meeting and the subsequent activities which led to the founding of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.
A religious tax exempt non profit organization and corporation is not like a private company which exists for profit? Revenues for religious organizations come from the donations and gifts of ordinary individual some of whom have sacrificed to give to them. For this is what many Evangelical Evangelists including Benny Hinn and Billy Graham request 'their sacrificial giving?" But the life style of TV evangelist such as Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch, Morris Cerrulo, Robert Tilton. Billy and Franklin Graham is more like famous movie stars than disciples of Jesus and their financial accountability to their donors is mostly non-existent. So-called audited financial statements when distributed by many of the Evangelical Evangelist are a joke and do not tell the true story of how the donated money was spent but rather how they were recorded. They don’t reveal the total compensation of the chairman or founder or any of his family members or what he had charged to his indirectly owned religious non-profit corporation.
The Associated Baptist Press - http://www.abpnews.com on April 3, 2001 also reported that "About half of Baptist organizations contacted by the independent newspaper Baptists Today would not disclose salary information for their top executive. Three Southern Baptist Convention entities said policies allowed them to release only salary ranges.
Presidents Albert Mohler of Southern Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and Kenneth Hemphill of Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, declined to provide any information on compensation. New Orleans Seminary did not return numerous phone calls regarding the salary of President Charles Kelley. However, the IRS requires all colleges and universities to report the salaries of the top five paid staff members, Brumley explained."
Many evangelists in America, such as Billy and Franklin Graham, belong to the Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability that purports to work on behalf of the donor but in reality exists for the spenders. Although ECFA has in its possessions the total compensation of all the chairmen of religious evangelical non-profit organizations that belong to it, it will not disclose them. Requests for such information from ECFA are stonewalled!
The Tampa Tribune had reported that "Billy Graham encourages religious leaders to be open about their salaries and publish their finances" But this does not change the fact that Rev. Billy, Ned and Franklin Graham, Rev, Jesse Jackson or any other prominent Baptist leader in America are not open about their total salaries and those of their family members and special friends. It is a fact that none of the prominent Southern Baptist evangelists, including Billy and Ned, Franklin Graham, Bill Bright, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or Louis Paula who belong to the Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability reveal their total compensation package and those of their family members and special friends to their donors upon request.
None of the Evangelical evangelists release to the public their personal income tax as President Bill Clinton did or President Bush does? All these evangelists demand that others be honest and accountable and demonstrate integrity but refuse to release their personal income tax, less people see how much they are stealing from the sheep?
A prominent family run evangelical ministry like Billy and Franklin Graham has a responsibility to be open, to show integrity and give accountability and to do all things above board. So to hide their total compensation package and those of their family and special friends shows that something fishing is going on. But all of this is not surprising if one examines the history of ECFA and its statements.
It is a fact that Fundamental Evangelical leaders in America, even those who belong to ECFA, never show their total compensation to their donors. They are not stupid. If they disclose anything is just your basic salary but not their personal income tax?
So to whom is the Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability accountable to? To themselves? Definitely not to their donors or the public as seen by their own words! ECFA has as its Mission Statement that it is committed to helping Christ-centered organizations earn the public's trust through developing and maintaining standards of accountability that convey God-honoring ethical practices.
Also Its donor bill of rights states that its responsibility to make sure your charity's standards and guidelines assure you of a "bill of rights" as a donor. You have the right to:
1. Know how the funds of an organization are being spent.
2. Know what the programs you support are accomplishing.
3. Know that the organization is in compliance with federal, state, and municipal laws.
4. Restrict or designate your gifts to a particular project.
5. A response to your inquiries about finances and programs.
6. Visit offices and program sites of an organization to talk personally with the staff.
Nothing in the donor's "bill of rights" talks about checking into illegal or unusual expenses or salaries? But ECFA states that it wants to earn the public's trust through developing and maintaining standards of accountability that convey God-honoring ethical practices.
In other words ECFA tells you what kind of information you can request and what kind of information they will give you. But they will not explain why Billy Graham, 84, as Chairman has been taking a 100 % salary plus special perks including special secretary and medical staff for the last ten years and working less than 25 percent of the time. No other employee of B.G.E.A has these kinds of privileges!
The bottom line is that integrity in ECFA is nonexistent and they are nothing but con-artists fooling and deceiving the public with words and paper work.
Mark Safranski - 4/5/2002
Mr. Greenberg has pointed to recent revelations ( or more accurately, recent reminders ) of Richard Nixon's propensity for using vulgar slurs when venting his paranoia about real and perceived political enemies in his private conversations.( For those interested, Christopher Hitchens also comments on the Nixon-Graham exchange in the current NATION online : http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020415&s=hitchens )
However I am tempted to ask " What is the point ? ". Did Nixon's ugly prejudices take shape in terms of foreign policy ? No, Nixon brought the US into an informal alliance with Israel against the Soviets and their Arab clients, going so far as to put US forces on worldwide alert to deter the Soviets from menacing the Jewish state. Mr. Greenberg is flatly wrong when he complains of Nixon's insufficient Zionism - Nixon was far more supportive of Israel than any of his predecessors.
Nor did Nixon seem to let his ignorant musings about Jews conspiring against him get in the way of appointing or employing a phalanx of aides and political consultants of Jewish faith, as Mr. Greenberg himself admits. Nixon was hardly unique in his mild antisemitism considering his generation and other, more revered presidents - Lincoln and Wilson for example - have expressed prejudice in terms of policy while receiving far less historical outrage from historians or journalists. Likewise, Hillary Clinton has periodically consorts with truly vicious antisemites with hardly a word of criticism being heard outside of conservative magazines and she has been credibly accused of using a slur. Senator Robert Byrd, an ex-Klansman, uttered the most infamous of racial insults on live television as recently as last year with almost no resulting commentary. Jesse Jackson has suffered more damage to his political standing from his sex scandal than for his antisemitic remarks or association with the notorious Jew-baiting Louis Farrakhan. Why ?
In death even as in life there is some truth to Nixon's self-pitying complaints that he was (and remains) held to a different standard than Democratic politicians by liberal media pundits. None of this excuses Nixon's idiotic beliefs but I find it doubtful that if Ted Kennedy was postumously found to have muttered similar antisemitic garbage that either SLATE or Mr. Greenberg would muster the same degree of indignation.
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing