search forgrantsrecipientsfunderspeoplewebsite
researcharound the webhot topicsissuesconservative philanthropyresources

RELATED LINKS

Internal Links

Grants to:

"City Journal"
"New Criterion"
Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Independent Women's Forum
Manhattan Institute

Profiles:

Profile of Person David Horowitz
Center for the Study of Popular Culture

Related stories:

Original MT Report David Horowitz's Campus Jihads

Cursor.org

MediaTransparency.org sponsor

More stories by Bill Berkowitz

PERC receives Templeton Freedom Award for promoting 'enviropreneurs'

Neil Bush of Saudi Arabia

Newt Gingrich's back door to the White House

American Enterprise Institute takes lead in agitating against Iran

After six years, opposition gaining on George W. Bush's Faith Based Initiative

Frank Luntz calls Republican leadership in Washington 'One giant whining windbag'

Spooked by MoveOn.org, conservative movement seeks to emulate liberal powerhouse

Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action jihad

Tom Tancredo's mission

Institute on Religion and Democracy slams 'Leftist' National Council of Churches

Media Transparency writers

Andrew J. Weaver
Andrew J. Weaver &
Nicole Seibert

Andrew J. Weaver, et. al.
Bill Berkowitz
Bryan G. Pfeifer
Dave Johnson
David Domke
David Neiwert
David Rubenstein
Dennis Redovich
Eric Alterman
Jerry Landay
Mark & Louise Zwick
Max Blumenthal
Michael Winship
Phil Wilayto
Rob Levine

Fundometer

Evaluate any page on the World Wide Web against our databases of people, recipients, and funders of the conservative movement.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Bill Berkowitz
June 15, 2005

Campus Crusader

Before 9/11, David Horowitz attacked political correctness on college campuses across the country. These days, under the rubric of academic freedom, bands of Horowistas are waging a vigorous ground war against liberal academics

In April, during a speech in Indiana, a student threw a pie in his face; two months later, his face appeared on the cover of the Western Massachusetts-basedDavid Horowitz - Campus Crusader Valley Advocate under the headline, "American Gladiator." Florida Governor Jeb Bush has called him a "fighter for freedom." He claims that he's "changed the dynamics" of the debate about "academic freedom" on college campuses across the United States, while at the same time, he accuses the media and his opponents of waging a "malicious campaign" against him.

He's David Horowitz and he's on the road again. As part of his permanent tour in support of his so-called "Academic Bill of Rights," Horowitz recently lent his support to Florida State Representative Dennis Baxley's (R-Ocala) Academic Freedom Bill of Rights. Rep. Baxley's legislation, which in late-March passed out of the House Choice and Innovation Committee by an 8-to-2 vote (the only two Democrats on the committee voted against it) was a broad assault on academic freedom. Allegedly aimed at leveling the playing field for so-called beleaguered conservatives on the state's campuses, the devil was clearly in the details.

According to The Florida Alligator, in addition to guaranteeing that students would "not be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree," the bill would have advised professors "to teach alternative 'serious academic theories' that may disagree with their personal views."

"Some professors say, 'Evolution is a fact. I don't want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don't like it, there's the door,'" Rep. Baxley maintained.

A Florida university professor countered Baxley's claims:

"For a biologist for whom evolution is no more a theory than is the law of gravity, to have to present 'alternative' religiously-oriented or inspired views would be contrary to his very understanding of the scientific method. That would be comparable to Galileo being forced to recant his scientific observations that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the opposite as ordained by the Church."

According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, students who felt their views were disrespected in the classroom or thought they were singled out for "public ridicule" by their professors would have the right to sue them and the university.

During the debate over the Baxley bill, opponents argued that allowing students to sue their professors would create chaos in the classroom and force judges to determine what might or might not be academically appropriate. "This is a horrible step," Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, said. "Universities will have to hire lawyers so our curricula can be decided by judges in courtrooms. Professors might have to pay court costs -- even if they win -- from their own pockets. This is not an innocent piece of legislation."

According to the St. Petersburg Times, Rep. Baxley decided to join Horowitz's crusade after he "attended a conservative conference in St. Louis last summer where Horowitz spoke about academic freedom. The message struck a chord [and] … after talking to Horowitz," he introduced his bill in the Florida Legislature.

While Rep. Baxley's bill ultimately failed to garner enough support this legislative session, its introduction signaled the beginning of a battle in Florida that could go on for a number of years and eventually result in a future law.

In addition to Florida, 13 other states have introduced some type of "Academic Freedom" legislation: California legislators "considered an academic bill of rights [that contained] an eight-point credo designed to increase political diversity in the classroom," the St. Petersburg Times reported. "The same declaration was debated in Maine … Congress also is considering something similar." In early June, the Christian Science Monitor reported that "Four state universities in Colorado … [had] adopted the principles under legislative pressure in 2004." In Minnesota, right wing state senator Michelle Bachman, a vocal opponent of gay rights, introduced two bills modeled on Horowitz's complaints, one targeted at state colleges and universities and one at state high schools.

The creator of the Academic Bill of Rights movement is David Horowitz, the former left-winger who is a well-funded, media-savvy, right wing activist/provocateur. Leading the charge is Horowitz's Students for Academic Freedom (SFAF)-- a group he founded in 2003. Three people -- none of whom are students -- run the operation of its Washington, DC,-based office, the St. Petersburg Times' Anita Kumar reported in late May. The organization "has encountered fierce opposition from faculty and administrators, who accuse outsiders of trying to dictate the number of Republican and Democratic professors on campus."

Kumar described the scene:

In a tiny, cramped room tucked in the National Hispanic Medical Association on K Street near the White House are the D.C. offices, such as they are, of Students for Academic Freedom. From here, 26-year-old Sara Dogan rallies college students and helps them organize for the fight ahead.

Booklets instructing students on the campaign are piled on a shelf, alongside a stack of the academic bill of rights. Copies of Horowitz's books line another shelf.

As national campus director for Students for Academic Freedom, Dogan has helped launch 150 campus chapters in almost every state, though some have only one or two students. The University of Florida, Florida State University and Florida International University have chapters. The University of North Florida is starting one, too.

"I've changed the dynamics," Horowitz, who also runs the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC - website), which publishes the online journal, Frontpagemag.com, told Kumar. "I've introduced a game plan here that is effective. This will work."

Then, in classic Horowitz-Speak, he told Kumar that the media and his opponents were waging a "malicious campaign" against him. "What you get is lies, lies, lies," he said. "I didn't think it would be quite this vitriolic and dishonest."

(For more on Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights, see "What's Not To Like About The Academic Bill of Rights" by Dr. Graham Larkin.)

California scheming

Students for Academic Freedom is not only involved with lobbying state legislatures; on some campuses, they and/or similarly minded groups, have launched an all-out assault on liberal professors, employing classic McCarthyite tactics. Veteran journalist David Bacon recently reported that conservative students at Santa Rosa Junior College in Santa Rosa, California, who were supporting a California version of a Student Bill of Rights, resorted to some pretty smarmy and underhanded tactics. They issued "leaflets quoting Section 51530 of the [California] Education Code," and then "anonymously posted [them] on the doors of ten faculty members" at the College. The leaflet quoted the code:

"No teacher ... shall advocate or teach communism with the intent to indoctrinate, inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism." Such "advocacy," the statute says, means teaching "for the purpose of undermining patriotism for, and the belief in, the government of the United States and of this state."

"Fifty years ago," Bacon wrote, "when left-wing teachers were hounded out of the state's school system during the cold war, this code section was rushed through the legislature to make it legal."

Santa Rosa Junior College Republicans claimed responsibility for the action: "We did this because we believe certain instructors at SRJC are in violation of California state law," the group's press released stated. At the same time, a news release appeared on the website of California College Republicans headlined "Operation 'Red Scare.'" The organization's chair, Michael Davidson, told reporter John Gorenfeld "a lot of the college professors are leftovers from the Seventies - and Communist sympathizers."

In a letter published in the Oak Leaf, the campus newspaper, Molly McPherson, the president of the SRJC College Republicans, wrote that the professors she "targeted were not selected at random … There have even been accounts of JC teachers openly advocating Communist and Marxist theories… [which have] been outlawed in the classrooms of a country with the strongest free speech rights in the world."

As Bacon pointed out, when campus Republicans were unable to "document the massive teaching of communism at the junior college, they retreated to general complaints of 'leftist bias' by faculty members. Evidence to support charges of biased teaching seemed just as scarce. In a forum discussing the flyer, student trustee Nick Caston pointed out, 'I have been on the Board of Review (the last step of the grievance process) for three years and have never heard a complaint about bias in the class room.'"

Veteran SRJC professor Marty Bennett, one of the instructors targeted by the College Republicans told Bacon that he never "talked with any of the students who were involved in this." Bennett, who acknowledges teaching labor history in his social sciences classes, thought that he was "identified in the community as someone involved in the labor movement [and] … that's probably why I was chosen."

The conservative student's campaign aimed to coincide with the introduction of SB5 by Sen. Bill Morrow, R-San Juan Capistrano. Morrow's bill, which said that "faculty shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination," failed to pass the Senate Education Committee on April 20.

In the beginning…

Not only has David Horowitz garnered significant financial support from a host of conservative foundations (see the list of 137 grants totaling more than $13 million the Center has received since 1989, including nearly $1 million in 2003), he has also received intellectual support from conservative critics funded by the same philanthropies. In the autumn 2001 issue of City Journal -- a quarterly published by The Manhattan Institute (website) , a conservative think tank, Roger Kimball, a longtime conservative critic, waxed effusively about the intrepid efforts by both David Horowitz, and the Independent Women's Forum (website.)

At the time of Kimball's essay, Horowitz and the IWF had purchased advertisements in college newspapers to promote their political agendas.

Those ads -- attacking the Reparations for African Americans campaign, and debunking "feminist myths" about date rape, domestic violence and pay inequity, respectively -- stirred-up a hornet's nest on a number of campuses. They also gained national media coverage, and essentially was one of the first substantial shots taken by conservative groups against liberal academics in several decades.

Horowitz's advertisement was particularly clever. Headlined "10 Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks Are a Bad Idea for Blacks and Racist, Too," it became the centerpiece of Horowitz's CSPC campaign against reparations for African Americans, an issue that at the time was beginning to gain some traction in academic circles.

Kimball, who is the managing editor of The New Criterion (website) -- a publication that claims to be "a staunch defender of the values of high culture," praised the Horowitz advertisement for being "carefully reasoned and deliberately provocative." He was particularly enthusiastic over Reason Number 8, which read in part: "What about the 'reparations' to blacks that have already been paid? Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans, in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions)--all under the rationale of redressing historical racial grievances."

Taking a page from Horowitz's playbook, the Independent Women's Forum prepared its own controversial advertisement. The ad, which was entitled "the 10 most common feminist myths," was done "to tweak the noses of the college Sisterhood," Kimball claimed. "Are you tired of male-bashing and victimology?" the ad asked. "Have you had your fill of feminist 'Ms./Information'? Have you been misled by factually challenged professors?"

The IWF ad, Kimball wrote, "debunked with special authority such dogmas as the epidemic of 'date rape' (wildly exaggerated - it says), the inequity in pay between men and women (ditto), and the prevalence of domestic violence perpetrated by males (ditto)."

According to Kimball, "These saucy campaigns artfully flush into the open the intolerance behind the 'progressive' pieties that suffocate debate on campuses. Some dismiss the ads as 'pranks.' In fact, they're more like the old Voice of America broadcasts spreading truth behind the Iron Curtain. No wonder they make the academic cadres so mad."

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, with questions surfacing about the nature of the terrorist attacks, Horowitz went back to the campuses and launched a preemptive strike against dissent. His new advertisements warned students "not to join an 'antiwar' effort against America's coming battle with international terrorism," suggesting that they "think again" before making such a move.

As is his wont, Horowitz's threat was aimed at setting the guidelines for debate over President Bush's permanent war against terrorism. "There is a difference between honest dissent and malevolent hate, between criticism of national policy and sabotage of the nation's defenses," Horowitz pointed out. He also confessed to having been part of a movement of "thousands of other New Leftists," in the sixties that opposed the war in Vietnam and had "crossed the line between dissent and actual treason."

Leaving aside Kimball's rather nostalgic view of the "old" Voice of America broadcasting "truth" behind the Iron Curtain, his column was early to link the work of Horowitz with the Independent Women's Forum, which Media Transparency's profile describes as "neither Independent nor a Forum. Not independent because it is largely funded by the conservative movement. Not a forum because it merely serves up women who mouth the conservative movement party line."

Meanwhile, in Florida, David Horowitz's local dance partner, Rep. Dennis Baxley appears to see himself as a modern day Daniel fighting the lions of liberal academia. During the debate over his legislation, Baxley claimed he was smeared by "leftists" and called a McCarthyist by "critics [that] ridicule me for daring to stand up for students and faculty." Like the late Republican Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, whose name has become synonymous with the hurling of phony accusations and who claimed to have lists of known communists in the US government, Rep. Baxley claimed that "he had a list of students who were discriminated against by professors, but refused to reveal names because he felt they would be persecuted," the St. Petersburg Times reported.

Printer friendly

sign in, or register to email stories or comment on them.

divider

 

 

MORE ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Bill Berkowitz
March 16, 2007

PERC receives Templeton Freedom Award for promoting 'enviropreneurs'

Right Wing foundation-funded anti-environmental think tank grabbing a wider audience for 'free market environmentalism'

On the 15th anniversary of Terry Anderson and Donald Leal's book "Free Market Environmentalism" -- the seminal book on the subject -- Anderson, the Executive Director of the Bozeman, Montana-based Property and Environment Research Center (PERC - formerly known as the Political Economy Research Center) spoke in late-January at an event sponsored by Squaw Valley Institute at the Resort at Squaw Creek in California. While it may have been just another opportunity to speak on "free market environmentalism" and not the kickoff of a "victory tour," nevertheless it comes at a time when PERC's ideas are taking root.

In a story written just before Anderson's northern California appearance, Truckee Today's Karen Sloan described PERC as an organization that "contends that private property rights encourage good stewardship of natural resources." The story, headlined "'Enviroprenuer' scholar to speak at Resort at Squaw Creek," pointed out that "PERC scholars argue that government subsidies often degrade the environment, that market incentives can spur individuals to conserve and protect the environment and that polluters should be liable for the harm they cause others."

On its website, PERC -- a non-profit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1980 -- calls itself "the nation's oldest and largest institute dedicated to original research that brings market principles to resolving environmental problems." PERC maintains that it "pioneered the approach known as free market environmentalism."

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
March 10, 2007

Neil Bush of Saudi Arabia

During recent visit, President’s brother describes the country as a 'kind of tribal democracy'

In late February, only a few days after Saudi Arabia beheaded four Sri Lankan robbers and then left their headless bodies on public display in the capital of Riyadh, Neil Bush, for the fourth time in the past six years, showed up for the country's Jeddah Economic Forum. The Guardian reported that Human Rights Watch "said the four men had no lawyers during their trial and sentencing, and were denied other basic legal rights." In an interview with Arab News, the Saudi English language paper, Bush described the country as "a kind of tribal democracy."

Neil Mallon Bush, the son of President George H. W. Bush and the brother of President George W. Bush, attended the forum to renew old family friendships and to drum up a little business for his educational software company. "The Jeddah Economic Forum has been very productive," Bush told Arab News. "I have been to this conference four times since 2002. I have seen it develop from the very beginning. There was less participation in the past, now there is more international participation."

These days, Neil Bush is the chairman and CEO of Ignite Learning, a company devoted to developing technology-assisted curriculum. Ignite calls it COW: "Curriculum on Wheels." In an interview with Arab News' Siraj Wahab, Bush talked enthusiastically about his company's mission: "We are building a model in the United States for developing curriculum that is engaging to grade-school kids, and our model is to deploy this engaging content through a device. So it is easy for any teacher to use our device through projectors and speakers. The curriculum is loaded on the device. We use animation and video and those kinds of things to light up learning in classrooms for kids. It helps teachers connect with their kids. We are planning to develop an Arabic version of that model."

A video on Ignite!'s website makes clear the enervating, rote approach to learning taken by the Bush family. While this may not be an advance in actual education, it does serve to enrich Neil Bush and commodify teachers. In concept it is much like Channel One, whereby Chris Whittle enriched himself forcing millions of primary school students to watch repackaged TV News sandwiched between corporate advertising.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
March 2, 2007

Newt Gingrich's back door to the White House

American Enterprise Institute "Scholar" and former House Speaker blames media for poll showing 64 percent of the American people wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances

Whatever it is that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has come to represent in American politics, the guy is nothing less than fascinating. One day he's espousing populist rhetoric about the need to cut the costs of college tuition and the next day he's talking World War III. One day he's claiming that the "war on terror" may force the abridgement of fundamental first amendment rights and the next he's advancing a twenty-first century version of his Contract with America. At the same time he's publicly proclaiming how "stupid" it is that the race for the presidency has already started you know that he's trying to figure out how to out finesse Rudy, McCain and Romney for the nomination. And last week, when Fox News' Chris Wallace cited a poll showing that 64 percent of the public would never vote for him, he was quick to blame those results on how unfairly he was treated by the mainstream media back in the day.

These days, Gingrich, who is simultaneously a "Senior Fellow" at the American Enterprise Institute and a "Distinguished Visiting Fellow" at the Hoover Institution, is making like your favorite uncle, fronting a YouTube video contest offering "prizes" to whoever creates the best two-minute video on why taxes suck. Although the prizes may not be particularly attractive to the typical YouTuber, nevertheless Gingrich recently launched the "Winning the Future, Goose that laid the Golden Egg, You Tube Contest." According to Newt.org, participants are to "Create a 120 second video explaining why tax increases will hurt the American economy, leading to less revenue for the government, not more. Or in other words, explain why we shouldn't cook the goose that laid the golden eggs (the American economy) by raising taxes."

Although he hasn't formerly announced his candidacy -- and he probably won't anytime soon -- Gingrich definitely has his eyes on the White House. He's just still figuring out how he will get there. Over the past several months Gingrich has been ubiquitous on the media and political scenes.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
February 25, 2007

American Enterprise Institute takes lead in agitating against Iran

Despite wrongheaded predictions about the war on Iraq, neocons are on the frontlines advocating military conflict with Iran

After doing such a bang up job with their advice and predictions about the outcome of the war on Iraq, would it surprise you to learn that America's neoconservatives are still in business? While at this time we are not yet seeing the same intense neocon invasion of our living rooms -- via cable television's news networks -- that we saw during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, nevertheless, a host of policy analysts at conservative think tanks -- most notably the American Enterprise Institute -- are being heeded on Iran by those who count - folks inside the Bush Administration.

Long before the Bush Administration began escalating its rhetoric and upping the ante about the supposed "threat" posed to the US by Iran, well-paid inside-the-beltway think tankers were agitating for some kind of action against that country. Some have argued for ratcheting up sanctions and freezing bank accounts, others have advocated increasing financial aid to opposition groups, and still others have argued that a military strike at Iran's nuclear facilities is absolutely essential. For all, the desired end result is regime change in Iran.

If President Bush plunges the U.S. into some kind of military conflict with Iran, you can thank the Washington, D.C.-based American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a key player in the current debate over Iran.

President Bush acknowledged as much when he recently appeared at the AEI for a much-publicized speech on his War on Terror, which focused on the front in Afghanistan.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
February 18, 2007

After six years, opposition gaining on George W. Bush's Faith Based Initiative

Unmentioned in the president's State of the Union speech, the program nevertheless continues to recruit religious participants and hand out taxpayer money to religious groups

With several domestic policy proposals unceremoniously folded into President Bush's recent State of the Union address, two pretty significant items failed to make the cut. Despite the president's egregiously tardy response to the event itself, it was nevertheless surprising that he didn't even mention Hurricane Katrina: He didn't offer up a progress report, words of hope to the victims, or come up with a proposal for moving the sluggish rebuilding effort forward. There were no "armies of compassion" ready to be unleashed, although it should be said that many in the religious community responded to the disaster much quicker than the Bush Administration. In the State of the Union address, however, there was no "compassionate conservatism" for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The other item that didn't get any State of the Union play is a project that was once envisioned to be the centerpiece of the president's domestic agenda: his faith-based initiative. As Joseph Bottum, editor of the conservative publication First Things -- "The Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life" -- pointed out, Bush "didn't mention faith-based initiatives, which...[he] once claimed would be his great legacy."

The president's faith-based initiative is facing several tough court battles.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
February 10, 2007

Frank Luntz calls Republican leadership in Washington 'One giant whining windbag'

On the outs with the GOP, legendary degrader of discourse is moving to California

He doesn't make great art; nothing he does elevates the human spirit; he doesn't illuminate, he bamboozles. He has become expert in subterfuge, hidden meanings, word play and manipulation. Frank Luntz has been so good at what he does that those paying close attention gave it its own name: "Luntzspeak."

In a 10-page addendum to his new book ""Words that Work -- It's Not What You Say Its What People Hear," Luntz, formerly a top political pollster for the Republican Party, may have written so critically of the party's recent efforts that he has become persona non grata. Luntz used to be one of the party's go-to-guys for political guidance and strategy, a counselor to such GOP stalwarts as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former New York City Major Rudy Giuliani and Trent Lott.

"The Republican Party that lost those historic elections was a tired, cranky shell of the articulate reformist, forward-thinking movement that was swept into office in 1994 on a wave of positive change," Luntz wrote. According to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, Luntz went on to say that the Republicans of 2006 "were an ethical morass, more interested in protecting their jobs than protecting the people they served. The 1994 Republicans came to 'revolutionize' Washington. Washington won."

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
February 4, 2007

Spooked by MoveOn.org, conservative movement seeks to emulate liberal powerhouse

Fueled with Silicon Valley money, TheVanguard.org will have Richard Poe, former editor of David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine as its editorial and creative director

As Paul Weyrich, a founding father of the modern conservative movement and still a prominent actor in it, likes to say, he learned a great deal about movement building by closely observing what liberals were up to in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Flash forward some 30-plus years and an Internet entrepreneur believes that it is time for a new conservative movement. He too has seen an entity on the left he admires enough to want to emulate: MoveOn.org.

"The left has been brilliant at leveraging technology," said Rod Martin, founder of TheVanguard.org, "and so have we to a point: our bloggers and news sites are amazing, and the RNC's get-out-the-vote software is unparalleled. But no one on our side has even begun to create anything like MoveOn. And after 2006, if we want to survive, much less build a long-term conservative majority, we better start, and fast."

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
January 29, 2007

Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action jihad

Founder and Chair of the American Civil Rights Institute scouting five to nine states for new anti-affirmative action initiatives

Fresh from his most recent victory -- in Michigan this past November -- Ward Connerly, the Black California-based maven of anti-affirmative action initiatives, appears to be preparing to take his jihad on the road. According to a mid-December report in the San Francisco Chronicle, Connerly said that he was "exploring moves into nine other states."

During a mid-December conference call Connerly allowed that he had scheduled visits to Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Wyoming and Utah during the upcoming months to get a handle on how many campaigns he might launch.

"Twenty-three states have systems for putting laws directly before voters in the form of ballot initiatives," the Chronicle pointed out. "Three down and 20 to go," Connerly boasted. "We don't need to do them all, but if we do a significant number, we will have demonstrated that race preferences are antithetical to the popular will of the American people."

"The people of California, Washington and Michigan have shown that institutions that implement these [affirmative action] programs are living on borrowed time," Connerly said.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
January 25, 2007

Tom Tancredo's mission

The Republican congressman from Colorado will try to woo GOP voters with anti-immigration rhetoric and a boatload of Christian right politics

These days, probably the most recognizable name in anti-immigration politics is Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo. Over the past year, Tancredo has gone from a little known congressman to a highly visible anti-immigration spokesperson. "Tancredo has thoroughly enmeshed himself in the anti-immigration movement and with the help of CNN talk show host Lou Dobbs, he has been given a national megaphone," Devin Burghart, the program director of the Building Democracy Initiative at the Center for New Community, a Chicago-based civil rights group, told Media Transparency.

Now, Tancredo, who has represented the state's Sixth District since 1999, has joined the long list of candidates contending for the GOP's 2008 presidential nomination. In mid-January Tancredo announced the formation of an exploratory committee -- Tom Tancredo for a Secure America -- the first step to formally declaring his candidacy. While his announcement didn't cause quite the stir as the announcement by Illinois Democratic Senator Barak Obama that he too was forming an exploratory committee, nevertheless Tancredo's move did not go completely unnoticed.

While voters' concerns over the war in Iraq and the GOP's "culture of corruption" predominated in the 2006 midterms, Tancredo will be doing his best to make immigration an issue for the presidential campaign of 2008.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
January 18, 2007

Institute on Religion and Democracy slams 'Leftist' National Council of Churches

New report from conservative foundation-funded IRD charges the NCC with being a political surrogate for MoveOn.org, People for the American Way and other liberal organizations

If you prefer your religious battles sprinkled with demagoguery, sanctimoniousness, and simplistic attacks, the Institute on Religion and Democracy's (IRD) latest broadside against the National Council of Churches (NCC) certainly fits the bill.

For those who remember a similar IRD-led attack on the World Council of Churches two decades ago the IRD's latest blast appears to be -- to borrow a phrase from New York Yankee great Yogi Berra -- "déjà vu all over again."

The IRD excoriated the World Council of Churches (WCC) for allegedly being tools of the anti-American left over its support of the Nelson Mandela-led African National Congress in South Africa, and its opposition to President Ronald Reagan's contra wars in Central America; wars that destabilized governments and were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. And now it is doing a similar job on the NCC.

"The institute, a Washington-based think tank, is allied with conservative groups on issues such as same-sex marriage. From its founding in 1981, its primary effort has been to challenge what it calls the 'leftist' political positions of mainline Protestant denominations, such as the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)," the Washington Post recently reported.

Author and longtime right wing watcher Frederick Clarkson recently described the IRD as an "inside the beltway, neoconservative agency [that] has waged a war of attrition against the historic mainline protestant churches in the U.S."

Read the full report >

View All Original Reseach >