search forgrantsrecipientsfunderspeoplewebsite
researcharound the webhot topicsissuesconservative philanthropyresources

RELATED LINKS

Internal Links

Grants to:

Capital Research Center
Catholic University of America
Heritage Foundation
Media Research Center

Profiles:

Profile of Person L. Brent Bozell
Heritage Foundation
Media Research Center

Related stories:

Original MT Report Capital Research Center

External Links

Code Pink vigil page

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
August 25, 2005

The Politics of Slander

With the president's poll numbers dropping and anti-Iraq war sentiment rising, the Heritage Foundation is sponsoring an event built around the premise that the anti-war movement is anti-American

Late in the evening of Wednesday, August 24, the Drudge Report featured the headline -- "ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS TARGET WOUNDED AT ARMY HOSPITAL" -- followed by this text:

"Anti-war protestors besieged wounded and disabled soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C, a new web report will claim!

"CNSNews.com (Cybercast News Service) is planning to run an expose on Thursday featuring interviews with both protestors and veterans, as well as shots of protest signs with slogans like 'Maimed for a Lie.'

"The conservative outlet will post video evidence of the wounded veterans being taunted by protesters, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. (Anti-war Protesters Target Wounded at Army Hospital)"

The following day, Cybercast News Service issued its report stating that, "Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well."

It is ridiculous to characterize United for Peace and Justice as anti-American. This is an organization that is comprised of more than 1,000 local organizations, and whose membership includes a fair share of religious leaders, military families, and veterans.

According to CNSNews.com, supporters of Bush's War on Iraq "call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, 'shameless' and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed."

"The [anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com told CNSNew.com. "I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.

CNS.com also pointed out that, "Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations...Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas."

According to the website of Code Pink, their weekly vigils at Walter Reed Hospital -- which began in March -- actually bring together peace activists, soldiers, military families and neighbors," and are aimed at "remind[ing the public] that physically and psychologically wounded soldiers are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan every night."

Seriously wounded soldiers arrive at the hospital "under the cover of darkness," and Code Pink maintains that it believes that "the nighttime arrivals are scheduled on purpose so as to prevent the public from knowing about the numbers of soldiers wounded and the severity of their injuries."

On March 31, Stars and Stripes, which describes itself as a Department of Defense-authorized daily newspaper distributed overseas for the U.S. military community, reported on a Code Pink vigil: "When we first heard about this [the night-time return of injured soliders], we were appalled," Code Pink organizer Gael Murphy, told the newspaper. "Why are they bringing them in only at night? Is it because they don't want the media to cover it? Is it because they don't want Americans to see the real cost of this war?"

The Stars and Stripes story makes no mention of the wounded being "taunted" or "besieged."

"These are not protests, they are vigils calling for more support for the veterans. We always do them with military families and we get extremely positive responses from the families of the wounded soldiers. In my first DC vigil, the wife of a wounded soldier took me inside to meet her husband," Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of Code Pink, told MediaTransparency.

"In the past few weeks, however, new people have shown up and have tried to change the tone and be more confrontational. We asked them to remove signs that we found objectionable. While we aren't certain as to who these people are, we think they may be related to the FreeRepublic people who are demonstrating across the street."

"They are trying to create a confrontation and make us look as if we are not supporting the soldiers. It is a smear tactic and is totally untrue. We are only there to say that these soldiers deserve the best possible treatment when they come home."

For the full report by CNSNews.com, see here.

Cybercast News Service (originally called Conservative News Service) is a subsidiary of the Media Research Center (MRC - website) -- whose website bills itself as “America’s Media Watchdog.” MRC is a right wing group monitoring the media, headed by L. Brent Bozell III. According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, “CNS was launched on July 16, 1998... as an ‘alternative news service’ to mainstream news sources which reports by MRC claim have a ‘liberal bias.’"

On August 22, CNSNews.com featured a story headlined "Backlash Against Cindy Sheehan Gains Momentum," which reported that Move America Forward, the right wing group that led the recent so-called Truth Tour to Iraq, was set to begin a "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" tour to counter Sheehan's vigil at President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch.

"For the past few weeks, this nation has heard from those voices in America who advocate surrender in the war against terrorism," Melanie Morgan, the host of a morning talk show on KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco who also serves as chairman of Move America Forward, told CNSNews.com. "Now, it's time to hear from the other side of this debate.

"We are going to rally Americans together to show the terrorists overseas that our nation has not lost its resolve nor its nerve to prevail in the fight against their violent, extremist agenda," Morgan added.

According to CNSNews.com, the group is expected to “begin airing a 60-second television commercial promoting the ‘Support Our Troops & Their Mission' rally in Crawford, Tex. The ad [prepared by the Sacramento, California-based public relations firms Russo Marsh & Rogers] is expected to air nationwide on cable news networks or can see seen at the group's website [at moveamericaforward.org].”

(Complete SourceWatch profile of Cybercast News Service.)

Whatever one thinks about comparing the chaotic occupation of Iraq with the situation during the war in Vietnam one element is consistent: As the occupation of Iraq continues to slide into chaos, pro-war advocates are getting more vigorous and vituperative with their criticisms of the anti-war movement.

When the going gets tough for supporters of President Bush's war on Iraq, they go on the attack. Typical targets have been liberal academics on America's college campuses, Hollywood celebrities who have dared speak out against the war, liberal talk show hosts, and of course, the anti-war movement. Radical filmmaker Michael Moore was the right's whipping boy for most of 2004, and Cindy Sheehan has become its target of choice this summer.

In the months leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, millions of people in cities around the world demonstrated against the impending war. Despite that outpouring of sentiment, during the pre-invasion debate, Bush Administration supporters went after the anti-war movement with gusto. Moreover, after the invasion began, those who spoke out against the war were quickly labeled unpatriotic, anti-American or sympathizers of the brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein.

Now, shaken by the actions of and nationwide support for Sheehan, Bush Administration surrogates are once again focusing on the anti-war movement. As Sheehan has continued her vigil outside President Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch the president’s poll numbers related to Iraq have tumbled. The growing anti-war sentiment in this country is exemplified by the spirited crowd of more than 2,000 protesters who showed up in Salt Lake City, Utah, as a response to President Bush’s visit to the city to address the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

On Tuesday, August 30, 2005 the Washington, DC-based Heritage Foundation, the premier think tank of the conservative movement, will turn its sights toward the anti-war movement in an event entitled, “The Politics of Peace: What's Behind the Anti-War Movement?”

The main speaker at the event is John J. Tierney, whose book, The Politics of Peace, was published this year by the Capital Research Center. According to the Heritage Foundation’s promotional materials, the book is an examination of the “current anti-war protest” against the Iraq War, and the Bush Administration “reveals a pedigree going back at least to the Vietnam era and beyond to the ‘progressive’ and protest politics of earlier decades.” Tierney argues that, “The leaders of the ‘anti-war’ movement today are leftists in ideology,” and they “almost all oppose capitalism and believe in socialism.” In addition, “many are Communists.”

In the Introduction to the book, Tierney argues that "The irony of the modern 'peace' movement is that it has very little to do with peace -- either as a moral concept or as a political ideal ... The leaders of anti-war groups are modern-day Leninists ... street revolutionaries [attempting] to use reactions to the war on Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as a way to foment radical political change at home."

"This appears like a real attempt to smear the peace movement," Medea Benjamin, the co-founder of Global Exchange and Code Pink, told Media Transparency via telephone from her San Francisco office. "It is interesting that it is coming at a time when the peace movement is beginning to represent the feelings of the majority of the American people."

"In reality, this is the first time since the war began that the right is on the defensive. To claim that the anti-war movement is anti-American is a move fueled by desperation, and I don't think it is going to resonate with the American people who now feel that this war isn't worth fighting."

Benjamin also told Media Transparency that the attack on the anti-movement is coming at a time when more Republicans are seriously questioning the war.

John Tierney has a long and impressive resume. He is currently Faculty Chairman and Walter Kohler Professor of International Relations at The Institute of World Politics; he has served as Special Assistant and Foreign Affairs Officer at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1981 to 1993; he participated in various national security negotiations for the U.S. Government; was Executive Director of the Congressional Caucus on National Defense and the National Security Research Group at the U.S. House of Representatives; and he was Chairman of the Politics Department at the Catholic University of America.

Back in 1995, when Tierney was a Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, he wrote one Executive Memorandum entitled "Abolish the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency," and another entitled "The U.S. Still Needs Military Bases In Panama."

Founded in 1990, the Washington, DC-based Institute for World Politics describes itself as an "independent graduate school of statecraft and national security affairs." Between 1993 and 2003, the Institute received nearly $3 million from such conservative foundations as the Earhart Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation and the Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust.

It is significant that Tierney’s book was published by the Capital Research Center (CRC), a Washington, DC-based outfit, which for the past 20 years has steadfastly dedicated itself to defunding and disempowering the progressive non-profit sector and “exposing” the foundations that fund them. Through its four flagship publications: Organization Trends, a monthly analyzing the activities of advocacy organizations; Labor Watch, a monthly tracking “the increasing activism of labor unions that are trying to achieve through political coalition-building the goals they have failed to achieve at the bargaining table”; Foundation Watch, a monthly “examin[ing] the grantmaking of private foundations"; and Compassion & Culture, a monthly "highlighting the work of small, locally based charities that help the needy,” CRC staff does some of the research work of the right wing movement.

In an introduction to an excerpt of The Politics of Peace published in the March issue of Organization Trends, Robert Huberty, the Executive Vice President and Director of Research at CRC, maintained that, "Many leaders of the principal anti-war organizations today are members of Communist splinter groups. They have ties to North Korea, Cuba and Maoist China. Some have political roots in radical anti-Vietnam war groups like Students for a Democratic Society ... Others trace their origins to the heyday of the U.S. Communist Party. Huberty argues that these facts "have been obscured by in false media depictions of a grassroots and idealistic anti-war movement."

"On the face of it," Benjamin said, "it is ridiculous to characterize United for Peace and Justice as anti-American. This is an organization that is comprised of more than 1,000 local organizations, and whose membership includes a fair share of religious leaders, military families, and veterans."

"The way they tried to smear Cindy Sheehan was despicable and didn't work very well; the way they are trying to position politicians calling for an exit strategy also reflects that. We in the peace movement feel like we are turning a corner and that we have greater possibilities of reaching and convincing the American people."

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 >