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.

News

Why Dick Cheney Will Be Voting for Kamala Harris, According to Liz Cheney

Published

on

Republican former Vice President Dick Cheney will cast his ballot in November for the current Democratic Vice President, Kamala Harris, according to his daughter, Republican former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney.

Dick Cheney, now 83, is also a former U.S. Secretary of Defense, U.S. Congressman, White House Chief of Staff, and the first-ever White House Deputy Chief of Staff. (To put that in perspective, that was exactly 50 years ago. There are currently now three Deputy Chiefs of Staff.) He is from a generation ago and possibly not well-known to many Americans. A hard-core Republican, during his time in the public eye and behind the scenes in the White House as President George W. Bush’s Vice President, Cheney was reviled by many Democrats, especially for his role in what the Bush administration would come to call “the Global War on Terrorism.”

But Friday, at the annual Texas Tribune Festival, The Atlantic’s Mark Lebovitz interviewed the former Vice President’s daughter (full video), who also served as Vice Chair for the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.

“Dick Cheney, your father, a beloved figure among Democrats for many, many years,” Lebovitz said, joking (video below). “Do you, if you know, who he will be supporting or who will be voting for? Do you care to share with us who he will be voting for?”

READ MORE: ‘Traitor’ Trump Trashed for Response to DOJ Kremlin Cash and Russia Disinfo Indictments

“Dick Cheney will be voting for Kamala Harris,” Liz Cheney replied, to howls and cheers from the audience. She had endorsed Harris for President earlier this week, and became one of hundreds of prominent Republicans who publicly have said they will not just not vote for  Donald Trump, but will vote for Harris for President.

“If you think about the moment we’re in, and you think about how serious this moment is, my dad believes — and he said publicly — there has never been an individual in our country who is as grave a threat to our democracy as Donald Trump is,” Cheney explained, as The Texas Tribune reported.

Two years ago Liz Cheney posted video of her father endorsing her bid for re-election, and denouncing Donald Trump.

She continued her remarks on Friday, explaining that, “obviously Vice President Harris and I have had and have policy disagreements on some issues, but I have been really impressed watching, for example, the Democratic Convention, listening to her speech at that convention, learning about her life story, learning about, you know, the story of her success, and the the extent to which it’s an American story and and I think we all have to walk ourselves back from this abyss that we’ve looked over in our politics and and work together to build a better future for this country.”

The former Congresswoman lost her seat over her opposition to Donald Trump and her participation and leadership on the January 6 Committee. On Friday she went even further in announcing her endorsements.

“One of the most important things we need to do as a country as we begin to rebuild our politics is we need to elect serious people,” Cheney continued. “Here in Texas, you guys do have a tremendous, serious candidate running for U.S. Senate.”

READ MORE: ‘Incoherent Gibberish’: Experts Trash Trump’s ‘Incomprehensible’ Answer to Policy Question

“It’s not Ted Cruz,” she said, announcing her support for Texas Democratic U.S. Rep. Colin Allred for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by the GOP Senator.

Imagine telling yourself in the early oughts that Dick Cheney would one day endorse the Democratic candidate for president because the GOP’s 2024 nominee poses an existential threat to American democracy,” remarked Democratic strategist DJ Koessler. “The stakes in this election are truly historic.”

Political scientist David Darmofal commented, Kamala Harris’s “coalition now extends from AOC to Dick Cheney. She’s a uniter, not a divider.”

Watch Cheney’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Something’s in Play Here’ Says Ex-Trump NatSec Official on DOJ Russian Disinfo Indictment

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

‘Traitor’ Trump Trashed for Response to DOJ Kremlin Cash and Russia Disinfo Indictments

Published

on

Donald Trump’s latest attack on American rule of law and the U.S. Dept. of Justice is facing condemnation. The GOP presidential nominee and convicted felon awaiting sentencing, while speaking at a courthouse press conference on his efforts to appeal a $5 million judgment in a New York sexual abuse and defamation civil case, called the DOJ’s bombshell indictments in the Kremlin cash and Russian disinformation case a “scam.”

“It’s always the same,” observed foreign policy, national security, and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf. “Defend Putin. Defend Russia. Defend corruption. Accuse those who are enforcing the law of being engaged in a scam. Why does he sound this way? Because he is a traitor and a criminal.”

Trump told reporters Friday, “This is a long and complicated web and story, but it all goes back to the DOJ and Kamala and sleepy Joe and all the rest of them.”

“We have a whole rigged election system,” he declared, as he often does, promoting his “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was stolen while appearing to be paving the ground for the same response should he lose in November.

READ MORE: ‘Incoherent Gibberish’: Experts Trash Trump’s ‘Incomprehensible’ Answer to Policy Question

“Nobody’s ever seen anything like what’s happening now. I understand yesterday, they’re bringing up Russia, Russia, Russia again, that they’ve done for years. Never found anything,” Trump falsely claimed. “But they should be looking at China, China, China, Iran, Iran, Iran, lots of other places.”

“I haven’t spoken to anybody from Russia in years. They know that, but it’s a scam,” he claimed. “But, it all goes back to the DOJ because we had a trial today. It’s an appeal of a ridiculous –.”

Trump was referring to this week’s indictments that reveal a U.S. media outlet that platformed several far-right pro-Trump influencers was funded with millions of dollars from Russia in a scheme to help Trump.

“The allegations,” NBC News reported on the indictments, “came as part of a wide-ranging move by the Departments of Justice, State and Treasury to target what the Biden administration says are Russian government-sponsored attempts to manipulate U.S. public opinion ahead of the November election.” In a separate report NBC News calls the influencers, “paid messengers for Russian propaganda.”

The Atlantic’s David Frum, a former White House speechwriter for Republican President George W. Bush, responded to Trump’s remarks, saying: “The only topic on which Trump never flip flops.”

READ MORE: ‘Something’s in Play Here’ Says Ex-Trump NatSec Official on DOJ Russian Disinfo Indictment

The liberal super PAC American Bridge responded to Trump’s comments by pointing to an Associated Press article and writing: “YESTERDAY Trump’s former senior campaign aide was charged for accepting $1 million to spew Kremlin talking points.”

Podcaster Fred Wellman remarked: “I’m a bit of a news hound and I didn’t see anyone saying that Trump had been talking to Russia yesterday. He is incapable of not blurting out confessions.”

Watch Trump’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Can’t Even Find a Complete Sentence’: Trump’s ‘Gobbldygook’ Childcare ‘Solution’ Slammed

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Incoherent Gibberish’: Experts Trash Trump’s ‘Incomprehensible’ Answer to Policy Question

Published

on

The fallout continues over Donald Trump’s remarks during what was billed as a “major economic speech” Thursday, now with business and economics experts blasting the ex-president’s “incoherent” answer when asked at The Economic Club of New York to explain what he would do to lower childcare costs for parents.

“Word Salad was served at the Economic Club of New York this afternoon. Despite the audience knowing it was a plate full of empty calories that may cause food poisoning… they ate it up,” MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle remarked on social media. An NBC News senior business analyst, Ruhle worked in the finance industry for 14 years.

“Calling Trump’s remarks at the NY Economics Club incoherent gibberish is not a biased attack. It is a completely rational observation. He did not speak in coherent or complete sentences. And when he did, proposals like (tarriffs – childcare) do not make sense,” Ruhle added on X overnight.

RELATED: ‘Can’t Even Find a Complete Sentence’: Trump’s ‘Gobbldygook’ Childcare ‘Solution’ Slammed

“The 11th Hour,” the MSNBC show Ruhle hosts, called Trump’s remarks “economically illiterate.”

Ruhle was far from the only expert to blast Trump’s comments.

Reshma Saujani is the founder of the nonprofits Moms First and Girls Who Code. her bio says she “has spent more than a decade building movements to fight for women and girls’ economic empowerment, working to close the gender gap in the tech sector, and most recently advocating for policies to support moms impacted by the pandemic.”

Saujani is also the person on stage who asked Trump the childcare question.

“Incomprehensible at best,” is how she later characterized his response, “at worst, outrageously offensive to the millions of families drowning in costs.”

READ MORE: ‘Something’s in Play Here’ Says Ex-Trump NatSec Official on DOJ Russian Disinfo Indictment

Professor of economics and public policy Justin Wolfers, who often has appeared on MSNBC and CNN, posted a transcript of Trump’s remarks but deleted what policy issue he was actually discussing.

“With the context of his entire answer, can you guess what that issue is?” he asked.

Wolfers adds: “This policy analysis yields two substantive claims that relate to the topic:
1. “childcare is childcare” (fact check: true)
2. childcare is inexpensive relatively to his proposed tariffs (fact check: clearly false for many families with kids)”

New York Times financial columnist and CNBC anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin on MSNBC Friday said Trump’s remarks “seemed incoherent,” while warning that “the Republicans and the Trump machine have become really good at trying to bully people into submission, to some degree. To believe something that they don’t even believe because they’re seeing with their lying eyes and they’re unwilling to recognize what’s in front of them.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

RELATED: ‘Absolutely Bombing’: Trump Makes Pre-Inauguration Ukraine War Vow in Economic Club Speech

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.