Connect with us

IRS Complaint Filed Against NOM And Witherspoon In Regnerus Anti-Gay Study Scandal

Published

on

We have been reporting on an invalid sociological study on gay parenting carried out by researcher Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, Austin.

Regnerus’s known total of $785,000 for the study was arranged by The Witherspoon Institute and The Bradley Foundation, where Robert P. George — head of the anti-gay-rights, scientifically disreputable National Organization for Marriage (NOM) — holds positions of authority. Witherspoon president Luis Tellez is a NOM board member.

Bradley and Witherspoon are organized as 501(c)3 tax exempt entities.

One arm of NOM, by contrast, is a 501(c)4 organization. NOM apparently would not have been legally able to fund the Regnerus study and to use it subsequently as a political weapon in the 2012 elections. Likewise, Bradley and Witherspoon as 501(c)3s charities are limited in the  extent of political involvement legally allowed them.

There thus is some appearance that the Regnerus study money could have been political money, laundered for NOM through Bradley and Witherspoon — (with the money perhaps laundered coming from as-yet-unidentified donors) — even though the Regnerus study was schemed up above all for NOM and Republican Party uses as a political weapon in the 2012 elections.

The appearance is that as a NOM proxy — and as a loophole in the differences between what is legally allowed to 501(c)3s and to 501(c)4s — Bradley/Witherspoon funded the Regnerus study for NOM — with laundered money — for a known minimum of $785,000.

Accordingly, a 501(c)3 tax exempt laws violations COMPLAINT has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), against Bradley, Witherspoon and NOM.

The IRS handles such complaints, firstly, by sending the complainant a letter acknowledging receipt of the COMPLAINT.

The body of the COMPLAINT text appears below. The actual communication sent to the IRS included such information as NOM’s and Witherspoon’s addresses. The COMPLAINT noted that NOM and Witherspoon formerly shared the address of 20 Nassau Street, Suite 242, Princeton, New Jersey 08542.  The COMPLAINT text below is identical to the actual COMPLAINT text sent to the IRS, though hyperlinks have been inserted for online readers’ ease of reference.

NATURE OF VIOLATION(S)

1)       Organization is involved in a political campaign
2)      Organization is engaged in excessive lobbying activities
3)      Organization engaged in deceptive or improper fundraising practices
4)      Income/assets are being used to support illegal or terrorist activities

The central allegation is that The Bradley Foundation (“Bradley”)  and The Witherspoon Institute (“Witherspoon”), both 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations, laundered money for political projects for — and/or of — The National Organization for Marriage, which is a 501(c)4 political advocacy organization subject to tax laws different from those pertaining for 501(c)3 organizations.

The central alleged tax law violation involves The Bradley Foundation’s and the Witherspoon Institute’s financing of the “New Family Structures Study” (“the Study”), a sociological study carried out by the University of Texas at Austin’s Mark Regnerus, who made use of  publicly-funded UT facilities in carrying out his study.

The Study could apparently not legally have been funded by NOM, and then later used by NOM as a political weapon in the 2012 elections. Furthermore, Bradley and Witherspoon apparently could not legally have funded such a study and then subsequently have promoted it as heavily as NOM is doing, in political contexts in the 2012 elections.

There is an appearance that NOM officials who also have official positions with Bradley and Witherspoon knowingly subverted the letter and spirit of tax laws applying to 501(c)3 organizations compared to 501(c)4 organizations, in order to further political goals shared by those same NOM, Bradley and Witherspoon officials and their corresponding, common organizations. The appearance is that as a NOM proxy — and as a loophole in the differences between what is legally allowed to 501(c)3s and to 501(c)4s — Bradley/Witherspoon funded the Regnerus study for NOM — with laundered money — for a known minimum of $785,000.

The Study, as happens, has been very heavily, politically weaponized and promoted by both the Study funder Witherspoon and NOM jointly, and in political contexts. Witherspoon created a stand-alone website for the Study. Most all propagandistic and weaponized political articles involving the Study and published on one of Witherspoon’s various websites are rapidly cross-posted to NOM’s blog. NOM and Witherspoon officials have been using various media venues to promote the weaponized Study. The National Review is one example of a venue being used that way by NOM and/or Witherspoon officials as well as by Regnerus himself. An article about Regnerus in The Weekly Standard described Witherspoon as having orchestrated a “careful rollout” of the study. Whereas the study was not made available to the public pre-publication — (though it had for months already been approved for publication) – articles and editorials supporting it notably appeared early in print in The Deseret News, where Witherspoon/Bradley/NOM’s Robert George is on the editorial advisory board.

The Bradley Foundation is known to have provided general financial support to The Witherspoon Institute in the past. Robert George, a NOM founder and its current mastermind, is a Bradley Foundation board member. Robert George also is a senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute. Witherspoon president Luis Tellez is a NOM board member.

The Bradley Foundation gave a known minimum grant of $90,000 for the Regnerus study. The Witherspoon Institute gave a known minimum $55,000 “planning grant” for the Regnerus study. It is presumed that Witherspoon had an option not to fund the full Study upon consideration of Regnerus’s presented study plan. Total known minimum funding for the Regnerus study is $785,000.

NOM is very heavily invested, and involved in the 2012 elections nationwide. NOM and/or its various state affiliates are involved in 1) the 2012 presidential campaign; 2) congressional and senatorial campaigns on both the national and state levels; 3) campaigns involving candidates for other elected offices and; 4) campaigns involving state ballot initiatives.

Most of NOM’s political campaigns rely to no small extent on demonizing homosexuals based on known falsifications of scientific records. NOM, for example, demonizes homosexuals by quoting works by Paul Cameron, who in the 1980s was expelled from multiple professional organizations because of his documented falsifications of scientific records.

The Regnerus study is widely considered a falsified scientific record. Though the Study has the form of a test-group, control-group comparison study, it makes no apparently valid comparison between its test-group/control-group, yet is said by Regnerus and its funders to have “proved” that gay parents have worse child outcomes than do heterosexual parents.

The study was published by Elsevier’s journal Social Science Research, through an apparently corrupt peer review process, in which none of the peer reviewers were topic experts. Some of the peer reviewers had conflicts of interest, including that some were paid Regnerus study consultants, while others had long-standing personal associations with Regnerus.

A group of over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s sent a letter to Social Science Research, complaining of the Study’s lack of intellectual integrity and expressing concerns about the suspicious circumstances of the Study’s publication. The signers of that letter noted: “there are substantial concerns about the merits of this paper, and these concerns should have been identified through a thorough and rigorous peer review process.”

Additionally, a group of eight major professional associations including the American Medical Association filed an amicus brief in the Golinski-DOMA case, analyzing the Regnerus study as scientifically invalid.

Moreover, Witherspoon officials with conflicts of interest in commenting publicly about the Regnerus study have been making attempted defenses of the Study without disclosing their conflicts of interest. For example, Witherspoon senior fellow Byron Johnson is Director of the Baylor Institute for Religious Studies. Johnson organized a group of 18 to sign an attempted public defense of the Regnerus study. The attempted defense, however, does not even attempt to rebut the coherent and decisive scientific criticisms of the Study. And, Johnson does not disclose that he is senior fellow of Witherspoon, which funded the Regnerus study and is busy heavily promoting it politically, jointly with NOM.  Johnson furthermore did not disclose that Regnerus himself has a Baylor affiliation.

NOM’s main — (but hardly sole) — purposes are to bar LGBT Americans from being treated as legal equals, and not only in marriage law, despite NOM’s name. NOM’s Maggie Gallagher, for example, has published articles saying that she is “unwilling” to live in a country that grants anti-discrimination protections of any sort to homosexuals. NOM issued a “pledge” signed by all major Republican presidential candidates including Mitt Romney. Romney made a secret $10,000 donation to NOM through an Alabama PAC; that secret donation now is the subject of an ethics investigation being undertaken by the State of California.

In March, 2012, NOM earned public condemnation and revulsion when some of its internal strategy documents were released through court order. Those documents described plots to get children raised by gay parents to denounce their parents on camera, as well as plots to “drive a wedge” and to “fan hostility” between various minority groups, including between African-Americans and gays. NOM also is known to fan hostility against Muslims and Jews; the Bradley Foundation has a reputation for funding extremist anti-Muslim bigots. NOM sponsors hate rallies where NOM-approved speakers yell at crowds through megaphones that homosexuals are “worthy to death.” NOM’s William Duncan leads hateful seminars with titles such as “Homosexuals or Homo Sapiens: Who Deserves Protected Class Status?”

Witherspoon and NOM have been using the Regnerus study in association with their fund raising, and political fund raising campaigns. They appear to be using at least some of the money thus raised for terroristic activities.

NOM, for example, launched a boycott of Starbucks because of that company’s support for gay rights. NOM had its Starbucks boycott materials with anti-gay hate speech translated into foreign languages including Arabic, and languages of other countries where gay people face overt hostility and even death, merely for being found out as homosexual. With depraved indifference to the plight of homosexual people in such countries, NOM published its anti-gay hate speech and Starbucks boycott materials, along with detailed Starbucks location maps for such countries as Saudi Arabia. Additionally, in its Starbucks boycott materials, NOM overtly highlights that the Starbucks CEO has a conspicuously and readily identifiably Jewish surname; Howard Schultz. There is some appearance that NOM is attempting to associate Jews, gay rights and Starbucks in the minds of people in Saudi Arabia, to build resentment. The resulting heightened danger to both gay people in Saudi Arabia, and Starbucks physical plants as well as employees there should be obvious. In this connection, it should be noted that the Regnerus study has been translated into many foreign languages and published online. The scientifically invalid Regnerus study’s bottom line – that homosexuals are dangerous to children – echoes other falsified scientific records that Witherspoon/NOM previously have used to demonize homosexuals in political contexts. Note that the SPLC’s 2012 Intelligence Report on NOM is titled National Organization for Marriage Continues to Spread Lies About Gays.

Moreover, Witherspoon and NOM officials have known connections to American evangelicals and others who travel abroad, including to Africa, to hate-monger against homosexuals. One place where such NOM-linked anti-homosexual hate mongering is connected to terrorism is Uganda, whose government proposed a “Kill the gays” law in reaction to the American evangelical-led anti-gay hate mongering. Ugandan tabloids began publishing names and addresses of known homosexuals and calling for their executions. Executions of homosexuals were carried out. Alarmed by that situation, California Congressman Brad Sherman proposed a congressional resolution against Uganda’s violation of its homosexual citizens’ human rights.

Bradley/Witherspoon/NOM’s Robert George was involved with an attempt to block Congressman Sherman’s proposed humane congressional resolution. Here is how:

George is a board member of the Family Research Council, a Southern Poverty Law Center-certified anti-gay hate group. The SPLC classifies a group as a hate group when it repeatedly disseminates known falsehoods against a minority.

Bradley/Witherspoon/NOM’s Robert George’s Family Research Council spent a known minimum of $35,000 lobbying against the proposed congressional resolution against Uganda’s inhumane treatment of its homosexual citizens, on grounds that the congressional resolution constituted “pro-homosexual promotions.” Thus it is clear that these hate groups would rather see innocent gay people killed than to speak up in the gay victims’ defense. That demonstrated, depraved attitude should be kept in mind by those evaluating NOM’s intent in translating its Starbucks boycott materials into such languages as Arabic and publishing them together with detailed online maps of every Starbucks location in Saudi Arabia.

In various states, NOM is in the courts fighting charges of campaign finance law violations. In California, where NOM has connections to —  among other political entities — “ProtectMarriage.com” and “Yes on 8” — campaign finance law violation complaints were filed by Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger, with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission. The aforementioned NOM-linked entities admitted to 18 counts of violating campaign finance laws, and want to settle by paying $49,000 in fines. The Fair Political Practices Commission has not yet decided whether to accept a settlement.

The central allegation of this 501(c)3 tax exempt organization tax laws violation is now reiterated:

1)       The Bradley Foundation and the Witherspoon Institute are both 501(c)3s;
2)      The National Organization for Marriage is a 501(c)4;
3)      Robert George is; i) a Bradley board member; ii) a Witherspoon senior fellow; and iii) founder and mastermind of NOM;
4)      NOM had demonstrated 2012 election year political uses for a study that demonizes homosexuals;
5)      NOM as a 501(c)4 would not legally have been able to fund a study demonizing homosexuals and thereafter to use it as a political weapon in the 2012 elections;
6)      Bradley and NOM as 501(c)3s would not legally be able to fund a study demonizing homosexuals and thereafter to use it as a political weapon in the 2012 elections;
6)      As a NOM proxy — and as a loophole in the differences between what is legally allowed to 501(c)3s and to 501(c)4s — Bradley/Witherspoon funded the Regnerus study with laundered money for a known minimum of $785,000;
7)      Witherspoon/NOM and Regnerus himself are busily promoting the weaponized Study in political terms, and in political and election year contexts

Various journalists have made Freedom of Information Act requests for documentation pertaining to the funding of the Regnerus study. All involved entities have refused to comply with those FOIA requests.

 

New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

Noem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’

Published

on

Republican Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota, a top potential Trump vice presidential running mate pick, revealed in a forthcoming book she “hated” her 14-month old puppy and shot it to death. Massive online outrage ensued, including accusations of “animal cruelty” and “cold-blooded murder,” but the pro-life former member of Congress is defending her actions and bragging she had the media “gasping.”

“Cricket was a wirehair pointer, about 14 months old,” Noem writes in her soon-to-be released book, according to The Guardian which reports “the dog, a female, had an ‘aggressive personality’ and needed to be trained to be used for hunting pheasant.”

“By taking Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs, Noem says, she hoped to calm the young dog down and begin to teach her how to behave. Unfortunately, Cricket ruined the hunt, going ‘out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life’.”

“Then, on the way home after the hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family, Cricket escaped Noem’s truck and attacked the family’s chickens, ‘grabb[ing] one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another’.”

READ MORE: President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

“Cricket the untrainable dog, Noem writes, behaved like ‘a trained assassin’.”

Except Cricket wasn’t trained. Online several people with experience training dogs have said Noem did everything wrong.

“I hated that dog,” Noem wrote, calling the young girl pup “untrainable,” “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with,” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog.”

“At that moment,” Noem wrote, “I realized I had to put her down.”

“It was not a pleasant job,” she added, “but it had to be done. And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job needed to be done.”

The Guardian reports Noem went on that day to slaughter a goat that “smelled ‘disgusting, musky, rancid’ and ‘loved to chase’ Noem’s children, knocking them down and ruining their clothes.”

She dragged both animals separately into a gravel pit and shot them one at a time. The puppy died after one shell, but the goat took two.

On social media Noem expressed no regret, no sadness, no empathy for the animals others say did not need to die, and certainly did not need to die so cruelly.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

But she did use the opportunity to promote her book.

Attorney and legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold says Governor Noem’s actions might have violated state law.

“You slaughtered a 14-month-old puppy because it wasn’t good at the ‘job’ you chose for it?” he asked. “SD § 40-1-2.3. ‘No person owning or responsible for the care of an animal may neglect, abandon, or mistreat the animal.'”

The Democratic National Committee released a statement saying, “Kristi Noem’s extreme record goes beyond bizarre rants about killing her pets – she also previously said a 10-year-old rape victim should be forced to carry out her pregnancy, does not support exceptions for rape or incest, and has threatened to throw pharmacists in jail for providing medication abortions.”

Former Trump White House Director of Strategic Communications Alyssa Farah Griffin, now a co-host on “The View” wrote, “There are countless organizations that re-home dogs from owners who are incapable of properly training and caring for them.”

The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson blasted the South Dakota governor.

“Kristi Noem is trash,” he began. “Decades with hunting- and bird-dogs, and the number I’ve killed because they were chicken-sharp or had too much prey drive is ZERO. Puppies need slow exposure to birds, and bird-scent.”

“She killed a puppy because she was lazy at training bird dogs, not because it was a bad dog,” he added. “Not every dog is for the field, but 99.9% of them are trainable or re-homeable. We have one now who was never going in the field, but I didn’t kill her. She’s sleeping on the couch. You down old dogs, hurt dogs, and sick dogs humanely, not by shooting them and tossing them in a gravel pit. Unsporting and deliberately cruel…but she wrote this to prove the cruelty is the point.”

Melissa Jo Peltier, a writer and producer of the “Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan” series, also heaped strong criticism on Noem.

“After 10+ years working with Cesar Millan & other highly specialized trainers, I believe NO dog should be put down just because they can’t or won’t do what we decide WE want them to,” Peltier said in a lengthy statement. “Dogs MUST be who they are. Sadly, that’s often who WE teach them to be. And our species is a hot mess. I would have happily taken Kristi Noem’s puppy & rehomed it. What she did is animal cruelty & cold blooded murder in my book.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

OPINION

President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

Published

on

President Joe Biden gave an nearly-unannounced, last-minute, live exclusive interview Friday morning to Howard Stern, the SiriusXM radio host who for decades, from the mid-1990s to about 2015, was a top Trump friend, fan, and aficionado. But the impetus behind the President’s move appears to be a rare and unsigned statement from the The New York Times Company, defending the “paper of record” after months of anger from the public over what some say is its biased negative coverage of the Biden presidency and, especially, a Thursday report by Politico claiming Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger is furious the President has refused to give the “Grey Lady” an in-person  interview.

“The Times’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau,” Politico reported. “Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview.”

“In Sulzberger’s view,” Politico explained, “only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.”

But it was this statement that made Politico’s scoop go viral.

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“’All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,’ one Times journalist said. ‘It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.'”

Popular Information founder Judd Legum in March documented The New York Times’ (and other top papers’) obsession with Biden’s age after the Hur Report.

Thursday evening the Times put out a “scorching” statement, as Politico later reported, not on the newspaper’s website but on the company’s corporate website, not addressing the Politico piece directly but calling it “troubling” that President Biden “has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term.”

Media watchers and critics pushed back on the Times’ statement.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“NYT issues an unprecedented statement slamming Biden for ‘actively and effectively avoid[ing] questions from independent journalists during his term’ and claiming it’s their ‘independence’ that Biden dislikes, when it’s actually that they’re dying to trip him up,” wrote media critic Dan Froomkin, editor of Press Watch.

Froomkin also pointed to a 2017 report from Poynter, a top journalism site published by The Poynter Institute, that pointed out the poor job the Times did of interviewing then-President Trump.

Others, including former Biden Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon, debunked the Times’ claim President Biden hasn’t given interviews to independent journalists by pointing to Biden’s interviews with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and a 20-minute sit-down interview with veteran journalist John Harwood for ProPublica.

Former Chicago Sun-Times editor Mark Jacob, now a media critic who publishes Stop the Presses, offered a more colorful take of Biden’s decision to go on Howard Stern.

The Times itself just last month reported on a “wide-ranging interview” President Biden gave to The New Yorker.

Watch the video and read the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

 

 

Continue Reading

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

on

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.