What The Media Should Know About Gun Appreciation Day

ERIC HANANOKI/Media Matters For America

The media has devoted significant coverage to the upcoming Gun Appreciation Day, which is organized by a Republican consulting firm that is pocketing a portion of the contributions. The January 19 event, which asks people to support gun venues and show opposition to new gun laws, is sponsored by a white nationalist group, and groups that have pushed far-right claims about secession, Obama's birth certificate, members of the LGBT community, race relations, and government tyranny.

"Grassroots"? For-Profit Republican Consulting Firm Organized Day

Gun Appreciation Day Chairman Larry Ward On Slavery, Civil War, Sandy Hook, And Tyranny

Gun Appreciation Day Backs Republican's Impeachment Threat

Gun Appreciation Day Is Sponsored By A White Nationalist Party

Right-Wing Extremism From Gun Appreciation Day Sponsor Eagle Forum Of Sacramento

Right-Wing Extremism From Gun Appreciation Day Sponsor Oath Keepers

Right-Wing Extremism From Gun Appreciation Day Sponsor Tea Party Nation

Right-Wing Extremism From Gun Appreciation Day Sponsor Social Security Institute

Right-Wing Extremism From Gun Appreciation Day Sponsor RightMarch.com

"Grassroots"? For-Profit Republican Consulting Firm Organized Day

FoxNews.com Claim: "Grassroots Pro-Gun Groups Prepare To Battle Proposed Restrictions." A FoxNews.com headline referred to "grassroots pro-gun groups" in an article discussing the upcoming GunAppreciation Day. [FoxNews.com, 1/11/13]

Gun Appreciation Day Asks Supporters To Protest At Gun Venues In Opposition To New Gun Laws. A statement on GunAppreciationDay.com reads: "On 01.19.13 go to your local gun store, gun range or gun show with your Constitution, American flags and your 'Hands off my Guns' sign to send a loud and clear message to Congress and President Obama." [GunAppreciationDay.com, accessed 1/17/13]

Gun Appreciation Day "Organized By Political Media." A logo on the Gun Appreciation Day website notes that the event is "organized by Political Media." [GunAppreciationDay.com, accessed 1/17/13]

"Political Media, Inc. Is A Republican New Media Consulting Firm." The firm lists an office on Capitol Hill and a New York studio. [PoliticalMedia.com, accessed 1/17/13; PoliticalMedia.com, accessed 1/17/13]  

"Political Media, Inc. Is An Unashamed, Unabashed FOR PROFIT Corporation" That Is Keeping A Portion Of Gun Appreciation Day Contributions As An "Agency Fee." Political Media, Inc. asks for contributions on its Gun Appreciation Day website. The firm states that contributions are not tax deductible because it is a for-profit corporation. The firm claims that "every dollar you contribute to the Gun Appreciation Day project" will be spent on advertising and then adds "Political Media will only keep a standard 15% agency fee to cover our costs." From its contribution page:

Political Media, Inc. is a political advertising agency dedicated to promoting right of center causes, organizations, media and candidates. We usually work behind the scenes for many people and organizations you know and trust. For this historic event, we decided to organize Gun Appreciation Day under the Political Media banner - rather than one individual group - so that we could quickly create a broad coalition of organizations that may be competitors on most days and may not see eye to eye on some issues, yet will rally together when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Political Media, Inc. is an unashamed, unabashed FOR PROFIT corporation. We LOVE capitalism and firmly believe that the Second Amendment as written by our Founding Fathers is necessary for a capitalist America. We are going to spend every dollar you contribute to the Gun Appreciation Day project on advertising. Political Media will only keep a standard 15% agency fee to cover our costs. With your help we will drive the conversation about our Second Amendment rights. [GunAppreciationDay.com, accessed 1/17/13] 

Gun Appreciation Day Chairman Larry Ward On Slavery, Civil War, Sandy Hook, And Tyranny

Larry Ward Is The Chairman Of Gun Appreciation Day And The President And CEO Of Political Media. [GunAppreciationDay.com, accessed 1/17/13; PoliticalMedia.com, accessed 1/17/13]

Ward Worked On President Bush's 2004 Campaign. [SocialSecurityInstitute.com, accessed 1/17/13]

Ward: "It Looks Like We Might Be On The Brink Of" Government Tyranny. From a January 3 radio interview with Ward:  

WARD: How do we know when a government becomes a tyranny? When they come after your guns. That's when you know a government is intending to become a tyranny. And it looks like we might be on the brink of that now. I don't want to be an alarmist, but the truth is they're coming after our guns. [WGSO, Ringside Politics, 1/3/13]

Ward: "It May Come Down To Something Dramatic Like" "Civil War" If "They Do Come And Confiscate Our Weapons."

WARD: Look, you know, I'm not the first to say this. I mean Drudge had it on his page the other day when the Feinstein bill came out. You know, he dropped the term civil war, and you know what? It may come down to something dramatic like that if they do come and confiscate our weapons because then we're not living under freedom anymore. [WGSO, Ringside Politics, 1/3/13]

Ward: Teachers And Principals Should Be Armed; Sandy Hook Principal Could Have Stopped Gunman If She Had A Gun.  

WARD: You allow teachers who want to carry, who we trust with our children anyway. We trust teachers, we trust our principals, we send our kids there, without our supervision, every day for nine months in their care. You know, why not trust people who want and feel comfortable holding weapons to be able to carry and to have a gun in their classroom. You know, if the principal, who bravely confronted this gunman, you know, but she did so unarmed.

JEFF CROUERE (HOST): Right.

WARD: If she would have had a gun, maybe the only death there would have been the shooter's. Or perhaps we could have saved dozens of children and adults. [WGSO, Ringside Politics, 1/3/13]  

Ward: "Perhaps Slavery Might Not Have Been A Chapter In Our History" If Slaves Had Guns. During an interview on CNN, Ward claimed that "Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country's founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history." [Talking Points Memo, 1/11/13]

Gun Appreciation Day Backs Republican's Impeachment Threat

"Stand with Stockman" Over "Possible Impeachment." In response to Rep. Steve Stockman's (R-TX) threat to impeach President Obama over new gun laws, the Gun Appreciation Day's Facebook page posted an image asking supporters to "Stand with Stockman." From its Facebook page:

 [Facebook.com, 1/14/13] 

Gun Appreciation Day Is Sponsored By A White Nationalist Party

The American Third Position (A3P) Is Sponsoring Gun Appreciation Day. [Media Matters, 1/18/13]

A3P States It "Exists To Represent The Unique Political Interests Of White Americans." According to its mission statement, "The American Third Position Party believes that government policy in the United States discriminates against white Americans, the majority population, and that white Americans need their own political party to fight this discrimination." The group also states that it "exists to represent the unique political interests of white Americans. It exists to maintain the identity, culture, and way of life of the American people, whose forefathers, from a vast wilderness, carved out an awe-inspiring extension of Western civilization, in order that their progeny--us--might live in relative peace and prosperity." [Media Matters, 1/18/13]

A3P's West Virginia Chairman: "We Are White Nationalists." In an September 2011 interview with West Virginia Public Broadcasting, Harry Bertram, A3P West Virginia chairman and a failed gubernatorial candidate, explained that "we are white nationalists" who are speaking out against white "genocide." [Media Matters, 1/18/13]

Civil Rights Groups: A3P Is "White Nationalist," "White Supremacist." The Southern Poverty Law Center categorizes A3P as a white nationalist hate group, and states that it is a "political party initially established by racist Southern California skinheads that aims to deport immigrants and return the United States to white rule. The group is now led by a coterie of prominent white nationalists." The Anti-Defamation League calls A3P a "white supremacist political party." [Media Matters, 1/18/13]

UPDATE: Gun Appreciation Day Subsequently Removed White Nationalist Sponsorship. Gun Appreciation Day removed A3P from its list of sponsors after Media Matters published its January 18 story about the two organizations. [Media Matters, 1/18/13]

Right-Wing Extremism From Gun Appreciation Day Sponsor Eagle Forum Of Sacramento

Eagle Forum Of Sacramento Is Sponsoring Gun Appreciation Day. [GunAppreciationDay.com, accessed 1/14/13]

UPDATE: Gun Appreciation Day Removes Eagle Forum Of Sacramento Sponsorship. Gun Appreciation Day has since removed its listing of Eagle Forum of Sacramento as a sponsor. A screenshot of the original listing is available via Google cache. [GunAppreciationDay.com, accessed 1/18/13; Google.com, 1/15/13] 

Forum Plans To Teach Workshops About Dangers Of "Enforced Diversity," "The Homosexual Movement," Feminism, And "White Privilege Prejudice." A December 2012 Eagle Forum of Sacramento post states that it "will join forces with Diversity Reform USA to sponsor the below workshops, and or speaking engagements for your school, church, business, or in home get-togethers." [Eagle Forum of Sacramento, 12/23/12]

Forum: "America Has Changed And Not For The Better" If You "Are Judeo-Christian, White, Or An Authentic Patriot." From the group's description of its workshops:

1.Diversity Addiction: The Cause And The Cure

America has changed and not for the better. It's been taken over by a social narcotic that thrives on giving equal value to all ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles, religions, and personally held beliefs. That is unless you are Judeo-Christian, white, or an authentic patriot (The Big Three), for your beliefs are not accepted. When, where, and why did the addiction begin? How does the "all equal" principle influence changes in America, and encourage Agenda 21? Will enforced diversity continue to rule this nation, or can we break the cycle of endorphin highs and save some semblance of America? This class is lively and a must for all ages.

[...]

5.Jesus Was Not Diverse: No Debating Right And Wrong

Those who fear the truth of the Bible, interpret it wrongly. Instead they bend Jesus' words to support their diversity addiction and the secular movement in America. Learn how to "not debate" the truth of His word. This class will help develop boldness in every person who attends, so they can stand for unalienable rights that come from God alone. [Eagle Forum of Sacramento, 12/23/12]

Forum: "For Too Long The White Race Has Been Made To Feel Shame, Blame, And Guilt For Being Of European Descent." From the group's description of its workshops:

13.White Privilege Education: Does Shame, Blame, And Guilt Prevail?

For too long the white race has been made to feel shame, blame, and guilt for being of European descent. Fear has overcome common sense thinking, allowing the white race to accept abusive behavior toward them. The truth of prejudice in White Privilege education classes unfolds in this session. How citizens can combat White Privilege prejudice is beneficial for all ages and all races. [Eagle Forum of Sacramento, 12/23/12]

Forum: American Family On "Brink Of Destruction" Because Of Feminism. From the group's description of its workshops:

10.The Feminist Movement And Its Effect Upon The American Family

The last century saw a radical change in the American family unit. It is now on the brink of destruction. What influences supported the feminist movement and added to its success? Can women ever return to their rightful place in the family unit? Do they want to? This class takes a good look at what woman have truly done to the balance of society. [Eagle Forum of Sacramento, 12/23/12]

Forum: "Stages Of The Homosexual Movement: Manipulation Of The American Public." From the group's description of its workshops:

9.Stages Of The Homosexual Movement: Manipulation Of The American Public

Was the homosexual movement about tolerance, or about normality? The success of the homosexuals to reach "marriage" rights was due to hard work, dedication, methodology, and judges that legislate from the bench in order to manipulated the general public. This session will examine the techniques and strategies used to flip-flop right and wrong, and the effect this manipulation has on our culture, not only now, but also for generations to come. [Eagle Forum of Sacramento, 12/23/12]

Forum: "15 Tactics To Fight Homosexuality In The Classroom." The Eagle Forum Of Sacramento posted a list of ways "to object, question and expose the truth" about "homosexuality in the classroom." Among others, the group questions whether "'gay' students" are bullied more than others; claims that there's "no conclusive evidence that it's [being LBGT] genetic"; and asks, "Why are homosexuals so troubled in other ways?" [Eagle Forum of Sacramento, 2/6/06]

Right-Wing Extremism From Gun Appreciation Day Sponsor Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers Is Sponsoring Gun Appreciation Day. [GunAppreciationDay.com, accessed 1/14/13]

ADL: Oath Keepers "Part Of An Anti-Government Extremist Movement That Has Grown Since President Obama Took Office." The Anti-Defamation League wrote in an October 2009 report that the Oath Keepers are "part of an anti-government extremist movement that has grown since President Obama took office." ADL wrote that "the Oath Keepers encourage members of the military and law enforcement to pledge not to follow certain hypothetical 'orders' from the federal government. These 'orders,' including one 'to put American citizens in detention camps,' and another 'to disarm the American people,' echo longstanding conspiracy theories embraced by anti-government extremists, who claim that the U.S. government is creating a police state." [ADL.org, 10/26/09]

NY Times: Oath Keepers Are "A New Player In A Resurgent Militia Movement." The New York Times reported that the Oath Keepers are "a new player in a resurgent militia movement." The Times noted that the group "has been recruiting at Tea Party events around the country and forging informal ties with militia groups." [New York Times, 2/15/10]

Right-Wing Extremism From Gun Appreciation Day Sponsor Tea Party Nation

Tea Party Nation Is Sponsoring Gun Appreciation Day. [GunAppreciationDay.com, accessed 1/17/13]

Tea Party Nation Is A Hub For Conspiracy Theories About President Obama's Birth Certificate. Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips wrote an August 2012 "birther manifesto" promoting conspiracy-minded questions about President Obama's place of birth and claiming, "We should all be birthers." TeaPartyNation.com contains numerous pages with conspiracy theories and extreme rhetoric about President Obama's birth certificate. [TeaPartyNation.com, 8/15/12; TeaPartyNation.com, 7/19/12; TeaPartyNation.com, 4/27/11; TeaPartyNation.com, 11/1/10]

Tea Party Nation's Phillips Says He Would Be "Happy" To Consider "Breaking Up The Nation." From a January 13 post by Phillips in which he discussed his concerns about health care reform, taxes, and guns, among other issues:

Today, the Party of Treason controls the White House and the Senate.  They continue to push America towards statism.  The Republicans control the House but are more interested in their power and their Washington parties than they are in fighting for freedom and liberty.

If the Democrats continue to push statism and the Republicans continue to surrender on this issue, I'm happy with the idea of breaking up the nation.  I'd rather have half of a free America than a united America where we tell our children and our grandchildren what it was like to grow up in a nation that once was free. [TeaPartyNation.com, 1/13/13]

Tea Party Nation And Phillips Have A History Of Inflammatory Statements About President Obama, Race, Muslims, And The LGBT Community. For more on Tea Party Nation and Judson Phillips, go here. 

Right-Wing Extremism From Gun Appreciation Day Sponsor Social Security Institute

Social Security Institute (SSI) Is Sponsoring Gun Appreciation Day. [GunAppreciationDay.com, accessed 1/14/13]

MSNBC.com: SSI Promotes Warnings About World Government, "Armed Government Oppression." From MSNBC.com's Zachary Roth, who noted a SSI post promoting an article from The Independent about "world government":

One, the Social Security Institute, describes itself as a "nonpartisan seniors advocacy organization." But its website offers warnings about "world government"--a bête noire of the extreme right, which fears that a government gun grab could lead to a U.N. takeover, often referred to in extremist circles as a "New World Order." And SSI's president, Lawrence Hunter, wrote recently that "[a] heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression."

Ward, Gun Appreciation Day's chief organizer, is listed as a member of SSI's board, and as the group's "director of new media." [MSNBC.com, 1/9/13]

Ward Denies "World Government" Claim Is Fringe Issue. From an ABC News article quoting Ward responding to the criticism:

SSI believes "there are bills and there are laws, and the U.N. is moving very aggressively toward consolidating power, and I don't see that as a fringe issue," Ward said, referring to a U.N. arms treaty opposed by gun advocates.

"I don't think anyone's talking about Bildeberg meetings at SSI ... I think there are things to be concerned about. .. I don't think there's a conspiracy, I think it's pretty overt," he said. [ABCNews.com, 1/13/13]

Media Matters has previously noted baseless right-wing fear-mongering  about the UN allegedly posing a threat to private gun ownership in the United States. [Media Matters,11/20/12]

Right-Wing Extremism From Gun Appreciation Day Sponsor RightMarch.com

RightMarch.com Is Sponsoring Gun Appreciation Day. [GunAppreciationDay.com, accessed 1/17/13]

RightMarch.com Pushes Obama "Martial Law" Claims. From MSNBC.com's Zachary Roth:

Another listed sponsor of Gun Appreciation Day, RightMarch.com, urges supporters to "help STOP Barack Obama from grabbing unconstitutional powers to declare martial law through all of his new Presidential Executive Orders."  The notion that the federal government will confiscate guns as a precursor to a declaration of martial law is a feature of numerous far-right conspiracy theories. [MSNBC.com,1/9/13]

New West Point Study Highlights Threat Posed by Far Right-Wing Groups In U.S.

By Hayes Brown/Think Progress via Alternet

A new study [2] from a think tank connected to the West Point Military Academy highlights the threat of violent far-right movements in the United States, leading to the conclusion that, while diverse in in their causes, they are similar in their use of violence to achieve their aims.

West Point’s Combatting Terrorism Center was founded in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and has primarily focused its research on international terrorist threats. Titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right, [3]” this new report instead looks as the risk that domestic groups pose to the U.S. Breaking down these groups into three categories — the Racist/White Supremacy Movement, the Anti-Federalist Movement, and the Christian Fundamentalist Movement — allows the study to examine the background ideologies and methods of each subset thoroughly, opposed to lumping them all together as most studies have.

Each of the groupings in the study represent competing ideological views, with none of them likely to cooperate in achieving their aims. The chances that each of these groups will use violence also varies. What they share, however, is a use of violence against their chosen targets — be it minority races or abortion clinics — to draw attention to and emphasize their given ideology. After charting out the various instances of violence carried out by each of the categories, the paper offers up several policy recommendations on responding to their actions:

From a theoretical perspective, this constitutes a further indication of the perception among some parts of the academic community that terrorism is an instrument of symbolic discourse which is shared by violent groups and their adversaries. Target selection is thus not based just on operational considerations, but is one component, among others, which allows violent groups to shape their message using violent practices—timing, weapons used and target locations, are only a small measure of the other components which contribute to the shape of the symbolic message conveyed via the attack.
In this context, policy implications are clear. If the numerous far right groups are driven by different ideological sentiments, and are thus also engaged in distinguishing tactics, then the response in terms of counterterrorism policies must be flexible and group/movement oriented.

The study is already coming under attack [4] by Republicans for not properly defining what constitutes a member of the “far right.”

A Republican congressional staffer who served in the military told The Washington Times: “If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero.
“Shouldn’t the Combating Terrorism Center be combating radical Islam around the globe instead of perpetuating the left’s myth that right-wingers are terrorists?” the staffer said. “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”

This pushback is unsurprising, given the unwelcome response [5] a 2009 report on the same topic received. Titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment [6],” the Department of Homeland Security-commissioned report drew attention to the fact that right-wing groups have proved more of a threat[7] than Islamic extremists during a similar period. Secretary Janet Napolitano withdrew that report under harsh criticism from conservatives at the time, but there is no sign that the CTC will pull this study any time soon.

Conservative activists plotting to sabotage Scott Walker recall effort

By Muriel Kane/Raw Story

The campaign to recall Republican Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker will not officially kick off until next Tuesday, but conservative activists are already openly discussing plants to sabotage the petition drive.

The Politicscoop blog reported on Friday that it has been receiving screenshots of conservatives discussing how they might circulate false petitions of their own and later destroy them.

“I’d like to collect signatures of those who want to recall Walker…so I can have something to feed my shredder,” read one Facebook post from a user calling himself “Charles Atlas Shrugging.”

“I shall be heating my home with recall signature,” another replied. “As they sign, I’ll make sure to tell them not to sign another petition. I figure I can get a hundred to a few hundred signatures off the ballot. F*#&* (Word edited) Liberals.”

A third Facebook poster, Will R. Jenkins, appears to be upping the ante with a plan to infiltrate the genuine petition drive and destroy other participants’ petitions as well as his own. “From my estimation, I’ll be able to destroy 15-20K signatures,” he writes, “unless the guy above me gives me access to where he stories his own signatures so I can place mine in there. If this happens, I’ll be able to destroy upwards of 15-20% of the entire collected ballots [sic] in the state of Wisconsin.”

He later adds “I am a highly trusted member of a recall group who nobody would expect would do such a thing.”

Mother Jones has picked up on the story and has looked further into some of the posters. It notesthat Jenkins describes himself in his Facebook profile as a “UNION SLAVE LABORER” at the Kenosha Unified School District and complains, “Dealing with white trash, illegal immigrants, and criminal gang black kids isn’t fun and games.” He lists his interests as “Greeting A Liberal,” “Beating A Liberal,” Strangling A Liberal,” Burying a Dead Body,” and “Having a Few Beers.”

There is no proof, of course, that “Jenkins” is telling the truth about being associated with the petition drive or even about working for the Kenosha School District. Last August, other Facebook users were already drawing attention to his postings and profile and forwarding screenshots to the Kenosha superintendent — with no apparent effect on his Facebook activities.

Mother Jones showed the recent screenshots to an election law expert, who responded, “If a person fraudulently solicits recall petitions and then destroys those petitions, they will probably go to jail. The law is very clear on this.”

“The list of disgusting posts go on,” Politicscoop’s Paul I. Tascoupe observes, “even after a user reminded each and every one of them that their plans would violate Wisconsin statutes. It makes me wonder if the media will pick up on these plans and make it public knowledge.”

Tascoupe has contacted the Democratic Party of Wisconson, whose spokesperson replied, “Destroying petitions or engaging in the acts you describe are serious felonies. However, these threats are intended to sow confusion. We won’t let them win, especially not like this. Petitions will be clearly marked and the circulators will be identified by a lanyard.”

After Citizens United, Conservative Undisclosed Donors Spent 8 Times As Much As Liberal Ones In 2010 Election

By Zaid Jilani 

Last year, in perhaps the “most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades,” the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) invalidated a sixty-three year-oldban on corporate and union money directly funding individual candidates in federal elections. The SCOTUS decision sent shockwaves throughout our democracy, with many fearing that it would lead to an overwhelming amount of corporate money flooding out the voices of ordinary people.

Now, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has put out a comprehensive analysis to assess the flood of campaign money in last year’s election. One of the most shocking results of the analysis finds that the decision appeared to have a sharply partisan and ideological result. The group found that spending by Super PACs and all outside spending strongly tilted towards conservatives, and that spending by undisclosed donors actually was eight times higher for conservatives than liberals, with conservatives spending $119.6 million to liberals’ $15.7 million:

Not only did this money help elect a more conservative Congress, but it also is having a lingering effect on our campaign system. Last week, Democratic strategists announced that they will be forming Priorities USA Action, an Independent Expenditure PAC that will be relying on a strategy of collecting unlimited funds from undiclosed donors similar to the one that conservative groups used in 2010.

What this means is that federal elections in 2012 may include an unprecedented flurry of corporate and secret cash that would drown out the voices of Main Street America in a way never seen before in modern history. Ultimately, the only way to deal with this threat to our democracy is to enact a system of public financing, much like the one enshrined in the Fair Elections Now Act.

How John Birch Society Extremism Never Dies: The Fortune Behind Scott Walker’s Union-Busting Campaign

By Lee Fang

Over 68,000 people have mobilized in Madison and progressive organizers are planning solidarity efforts across the country to denounce Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-WI) radical attempt to bust Wisconsin’s public sector unions. So far, Walker has refused to compromise, even though Wisconsin labor leaders are already coming to the table with large concessions. How can Walker press on, even with public opinion beginning to turn against him? Much of Walker’s critical political support can be credited to a network of right-wing fronts and astroturf groups in Wisconsin supported largely by a single foundation in Milwaukee: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a $460 millionconservative honey pot dedicated to crushing the labor movement.

Walker has deeply entwined his administration with the Bradley Foundation. The Bradley Foundation’s CEO, former state GOP chairman Michele Grebe, chaired Walker’s campaign and headed his transition. But more importantly, the organizations lining up to support Walker are financed by Bradley cash:

– The MacIver Institute is a conservative nonprofit that has provided rapid-response attacks on those opposed to Walker’s power grab. MacIver staffers produced a series of videos attacking anti-Walker protesters, including one mocking children. Naturally, the videos have become grist for Fox News and conservative bloggers. In addition, MacIver created studies claiming that Wisconsin teachers and nurses are paid too “generously” and other reports claiming that collective bargaining rights hurt taxpayers. The Bradley Foundation has supported MacIver with over $300,000 in grants over the last three years alone.

– The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute is a major conservative think tank helping Walker win support from the media. The Institute has fundedpolls to bolster Walker’s position, and like MacIver, produced a flurry of attack videos against Walker’s political adversaries and a series of pieces supporting his drive against the state’s labor movement. Over the weekend, the Institute secured a pro-Walker item in the New York Times. The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute is supported with over $10 million in grants from the Bradley Foundation.

– As ThinkProgress has reported, the powerful astroturf group Americans for Prosperity not only helped to elect Walker, but bused in Tea Party supporters to hold a pro-Walker demonstration on Saturday. In 2005, the Bradley Foundation earmarked funds to help Koch Industries establish the Americans for Prosperity office in Wisconsin. From 2005-2009, the Bradley Foundation has given about $300,000 to Americans for Prosperity Wisconsin (also called Fight Back Wisconsin).

It should be no surprise that Walker’s radicalism is boosted by Bradley money. Today, the Bradley Foundation is controlled by a group of establishment Republicans, along with Washington Post columnist George Will. However, the Foundation’s agenda still reflects the extremist views of its founder, Harry Bradley. Although he passed away in 1965, Harry, a member of one Wisconsin’s most powerful families and a key financier of nationalist hate groups, would have eagerly applauded Walker’s union-busting agenda.

Harry, along with his older brother Lynde, started the Allen-Bradley company, a major manufacturer of electronics and engine parts. After a bitter strike in 1939, Harry became increasingly political. Although his company boomed because of World War 2-era contracts from the government, Harry abhorred any intrusions into his business: especially labor organizers (who he termed “communists” in his memoirs), as well as pressure to hire women and minorities in his plants, a move he resisted until his death. Responding to the civil rights movement and liberalism in society, Harry became obsessed with right-wing politics. According to scholar William Schambra, Harry even studied Lenin and Stalin for ideas on how to wage guerrilla warfare against the left. He joined candy manufacturer Robert Welch to be one of the charter members of the John Birch Society (along with JBS board member Fred Koch, the father of Koch Industries executives Charles and David Koch), and financed other right-wing firebrands. Media Transparency’s profile of the Bradley Foundation sheds light on its founder:

Robert Welch, who founded the Society in 1958, was a regular speaker at Allen-Bradley sales meetings. Harry distributed Birchite literature, as did Fred Loock, another key figure at the company. They also supported the Australian doctor Fred Schwarz, founder of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade; William F. Buckley, Jr.’s National Review; and a right-wing Midwest radio program produced by anti-communist producer Bob Siegrist. Harry’s main political targets were “World Communism” and the U.S. federal government, not necessarily in that order. His political philosophy was laissez-faire capitalism, and he was strongly opposed to anything that might restrict his freedom to conduct his business as he saw fit. His promotion of “freedom”, however, did not extend to his own workers. While women had worked at the plant since 1918, and made up nearly a third of the workforce during World War II, they weren’t paid the same as men. They finally sued in 1966, charging the company paid less to women than male workers operating the same machines. A federal judge ruled in their favor. Allen-Bradley was one of the last major Milwaukee employers to racially integrate, and then only through public and legal pressure. By 1968, when the company’s workforce had grown to more than 7,000, Allen-Bradley employed only 32 Blacks and 14 Latinos.

After the Allen-Bradley company was purchased by Rockwell International in 1985, the Bradley Foundation surged with an additional $290 million in funds. The money has gone on to finance ideas held strongly by Harry Bradley: anti-affirmative action scholars, anti-multiculturalism books (the Bradley Foundation underwrote the notoriously racist book The Bell Curve), anti-welfare campaigns, privatization efforts, neoconservative fronts, and tens of millions for groups opposed to public and private sector unions, particular in the field of education. As conservative writer Al Regnery hasobserved, conservatives have relied on the Bradley Foundation to finance the backbone of radical policy ideas that first take root in Wisconsin but are then championed by Republicans around the country. Gov. Scott Walker’s current fight to crush labor rights in Wisconsin is the fulfillment of Harry Bradley’s John Birch Society dream.

Obama Ridicules Conservative Disinformation On Health Reform: ‘Granny Is Safe!’

By Alex Seitz-Wald

The conservative campaign against President Obama’s health care reform law hasbeen built around baseless distortions and fabrications about the policy, such as its mythical “death panels” that would “pull the plug on grandma,” the false claim that the law is “job killing,” and the equally false claim that the law will “explode the deficit.” President Obama has largely avoided taking on this disinformation directly, but in a speech today sponsored by the pro-reform Families USA, the president lambasted these conservative falsehoods, saying the fear mongering “just doesn’t match up to reality.” And noting that conservatives tried to claim the law is “granny-threatening,” Obama joked, “I can report that granny is safe!”:

OBAMA: Now as important as what is happening right now, is what isn’t happening right now. You may have heard once or twice that this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, budget-busting monstrosity. That’s how it’s been portrayed by opponents. But that just doesn’t match up toreality. [...]

And I can report that granny is safe! In fact, grandma’s Medicare is stronger than ever. And if she was one of the millions who fell into the donut hole last year, she’ll received a $250 check, or soon will, to help her afford her medicine, and a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs, as part of the affordable care act.

Watch it:

Conservatives are forced to resort to deception on health care because Americansoverwhelming don’t want the Affordable Care Act repealed and favor most of its components. Meanwhile, Republicans have no clear plan to address health care on their own, should their doomed repeal bid actually succeed.

Secretive Right-Wing Plutocrats Use Front Groups To Attack New Campaign Finance Disclosure Bill

By Lee Fang On Thursday, Senate Democrats, along with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), unveiled sweeping campaign

finance reform aimed at curbing campaign abuses in the wake of the conservative Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, which struck down decades of campaign finance law. The main focus of the DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) is to increase disclosure requirements on corporations, labor unions, trade associations, and nonprofit advocacy groups that spend money on ads to influence federal elections. The DISCLOSE Act forces the CEO of a corporation or head of an advocacy group to personally appear in the organization’s ads and take responsibility, and for the top funder of the ad to appear in the ad and take responsibility.

The status quo of electioneering allows corporate powers, billionaires, and even domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations to essentially manipulate American elections without ever revealing themselves. The DISCLOSE Act is a tremendous start at addressing this crisis of open democracy. But predictably, secretive right-wing power brokers are pushing back. As soon as Van Hollen’s bill was introduced, front groups funded by the most elusive conservative elite fired back, swiftly criticizing the new transparency requirements as a so-called threat to their First Amendment rights:

– U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The DISCLOSE Act “stifles free speech.” Chamber President Tom Donohue quickly issued a statement condemning the bill as an attempt to “silence constitutionally protected speech and abridge First Amendment rights.” Donohue may feel threatened because the DISCLOSE Act undermines the very purpose of the Chamber: to attack progressive reforms while concealing the corporate money behind those attacks. For instance, the Chamber is running millions of dollars of ads against Wall Street reform, but the ads only say they are paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In fact, some of the nation’s largest financial conglomerates, including banks bailed out by taxpayers like CitiGroup, are funding the Chamber and in doing so, are underwriting these ads. Last year, the Chamber ran nearly $100 million dollars in advertising against health reform, dwarfing any other group for or against the bills in Congress. However, the Chamber never revealed that health insurance companies were secretly paying for much of those ads.

– Howie Rich’s Front Group: The DISCLOSE Act is “disclosure overkill.” The Center for Competitive Politics, one of real estate tycoon Howie Rich’s many anti-government front groups, quickly slammed the bill and absurdly argued that the “stand by your ad” mandate “provid[es] no informational benefit and reduc[es] the amount of available political speech” in an ad. This laughable claim that more disclosure gives less information is a cynical cover to help Rich stay behind closed doors as he operates a massive political machine from the perch of his SoHo apartment. Rich funds the right-wing attack group, Club for Growth, as well as the Sam Adams Alliance, the libertarian group that helped Eric Odom mastermind the very first tea party protests. A PBS expose on Rich found that he had funneled $7 million dollars into anti-government state initiatives throughout the country, while carefully hiding his identity and relationship to the “movement.”

– David and Charles Koch’s Front Group: The DISCLOSE Act is a “gambit to chill speech.” John Samples, a staffer at the Cato Institute — an anti-government think-tank founded by Charles Koch and funded still by David Koch — wrote an op-ed decrying the bill for curbing the speech of foreign-owned companies and for exposing the corporate backers of ads. David Koch funds Americans for Prosperity, which runs millions of dollars of attack ads against clean energy and health reform. But Americans for Prosperity bills itself as a grassroots citizens group, and never reveals that the Kochs founded the group and continues to finance it. The Koch brothers also fund a network of other secretive front groups and think tanks, but almost none of these right-wing groups openly bare the Koch name.

Notably, the Cato Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Center for Competitive Politics filed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court to help knock down campaign finance laws in the Citizens United case.

The legislation also bars foreign corporations with domestic subsidiaries, federal contractors, and TARP recipients who have not repaid their funds from spending their money on politics.