Who is Mark Regnerus?
Mark Regnerus is a University of Texas at Austin Associate Professor of Sociology.
His professional integrity was cast into doubt in June, 2012 after the appearance of his The New Family Structures Study, on the basis of which Regnerus published a paper in which he falsely claimed to have scientifically revealed that parents who have ever had a same-sex romantic relationship are more dangerous to children than are heterosexual married parents.
Quickly, it was noted that Regnerus had not actually surveyed young adult children raised by gay or lesbian parents between the 1970s and the 1990s, as he had alleged he aimed to do for his study. Regnerus essentially has admitted that those critical observations are accurate; but he has been inventing alibis for why he proceeded with his study, though he had not actually been able to survey young adult children raised by gay or lesbian parents.
What Regnerus did, was to disingenuously cherry-pick his control groups to seek to justify, unscientifically, his prejudices against gay and lesbian parents. Regnerus worked with an invalid sample. Such practicesÂ seriously deviate from ethical standards for proposing, conducting and reporting research. The complaint filed against Regnerus does not regard ordinary errors, good faith differences in interpretations or judgments of data, scholarly or political disagreements, good faith personal or professional opinions, or private moral or ethical behavior.Â In the matter of the Scientific Misconduct Inquiry into the behavior of Mark Regnerus, the University of Texas, Austin’s honor and reputation could be at the stake.
The sum and substance of Regnerus’s alibis are 1) that he used the best available population survey method to survey a tiny population, and that;Â 2) because he did not survey an adequate number of young adult children raised by gay parents, but;Â 3) wanted to carry out a study on such persons anyway, he;Â 4) decided to make stuff up about gay parents and children, and hope for the best for himself.
Notwithstanding that Regnerus made stuff up about gay parents, Regnerus further misrepresented the results of his study when he told The National Review that “This study definitely affirms that there is a gold standard” for parenting, and that the gold standard is the “intact biological heterosexual-headed family.” Regnerus’s study affirmed no such thing. Regnerus did notÂ compare young adult children raised in stable gay-headed households with young adult children raised in heterosexual-headed households. He did notÂ do that in his study, but is talking to the public as though he had, in a way that unjustly demonizes gay parents. As stated above: what Regnerus did, was to disingenuously cherry-pick his control groups to seek to justify, unscientifically, his prejudices against gay and lesbian parents.Â Such practicesÂ seriously deviate from ethical standards for proposing, conducting and reporting research. The University of Texas, Austin, should be extremely concerned that their Associate Professor Regnerus is cherry-picking study control groups to seek to justify his prejudices, and then adding insult to injury by telling the public false things about what his study demonstrated.
Regnerus’s claims that he used the best available population sampling method for his study are false. One of the most troubling factors of his willingness to make stuff up about gay parents, and hope for the best for himself, is that, those portions of his study funding, so far to be revealed to the public came from The Witherspoon Institute, where Robert P. George, mastermind of the National Organization for MarriageÂ (NOM) is a Senior Fellow, and The Bradley Foundation, where Robert George is a Board member. Robert George and NOM are notorious for making stuff up about — and that is to say — telling negative lies about — gay people.
Before Regnerus obtained full study funding from Robert George’s groups, he received a “planning grant” from Witherspoon. Witherspoon had to approve of his study design before he would receive the study grant. A UTA Director of Public Affairs told this reporter that the planning grant was for $35,000, but the CV document viewable on Regnerus’s own website says that the planning grant was for $55,000. UTA officials, asked for complete records of disbursements of study funds, including how much Regnerus was paid, at first told this reporter that they had already gotten to work on assembling the documentation, but later said that an open records act request would have to be filed.
Regnerus’s funding fixer, NOM’s Robert George, is an author of the NOM pledge signed by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The pledge intends to see created a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages throughout the country. Regnerus’s study introduction notes the importance of child-rearing studies to “the legal boundaries of marriage.”
Regnerus’s personal background suggests that he harbors anti-gay prejudices. This would not be an issue, were his science sound. It is possible that the generous funding dangled in front of him clouded his judgement. As an adult, Regnerus converted to Catholicism, led by a Pope whom Catholics consider “infallible” and who has stated that stopping same-sex marriages is necessary for the future of humanity. The most powerful Catholic Church employee in America, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, threatened President Obama with “a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions” if he did not stop liberalizing in his attitudes and actions on gay rights matters. Many of Regnerus’s published papers, meanwhile, appear to reveal his personal concern with strengthening obedience to churches known to oppose gay rights. For example, in his articleÂ How Corrosive Is College to Religious Faith and Practice?,Â he described college professors “antagonistic” towards religious students (instead of acknowledging, for instance, that it is not appropriate for a college-level religious student to insist on a creationism argument in the middle of a lecture on Darwin), and he wrote that “evangelical efforts tend to connect best with the dormant faith and inactive-but-intact belief systems of previously religious youth.” In that last phrase, had Regnerus written “connect most readily with” instead of “connect best with,” he might have avoided an appearance that he was injecting his opinion into his research finding.
What is the National Organization for Marriage’s Expert Witness Project?
In March, 2012, NOM internal strategy documents were released through court order. Those NOM documents revealed shocking disregard for the well-being of children by, for example, plotting to drive a wedge and to fan hostility between African-Americans, Latinos and gays. No reputable psychologist has ever said that fanning hostilities between minority groups is a net positive for children in the society. NOM also was scheming to get children of gay parents to denounce their parents on camera. Again, exacerbating animosities between parents and children, where animosities exist, does not promote child well-being.
Here is how the NOM documents describe the goals of NOM’s Expert Witness Project:
“identify and nurture a worldwide community of highly credentialed intellectuals and professional scholars, physicians, psychiatrists, social workers, and writers to credential our concerns and to interrupt the silencing that takes place in the academy around gay marriage and related family issues. Marriage as the union of husband and wife has deep grounding in human nature, and is supported by serious social science.”
NOM wasted no time in using Regnerus’s study as an anti-gay-rights political cudgel; the appearance is strong that Regnerus could be in cahoots with Robert George in anti-gay-rights promotions of the study. For example, Regnerus claimed that his study “affirmed” that the “intact biological family” is “the gold standard,” superior in child-rearing results to anything that Â gay or lesbian couples are able to achieve in raising children. His study affirmed no such thing; that is exactly the type of misleading statement that NOM’s Robert George would have Regnerus make, if he were paying him to do study-related public relations for NOM.
How Has Regnerus Been Promoting His Study?
In both his written study and the mass media, Regnerus has been trumpeting his study as a breakthrough in gay parenting research. He portrays himself as a NOM-pipe dream, knight in shining armor, saving the day for the heterosexual-only legal boundaries of marriage by proving that gay parents are dangerous to children. All research on gay parenting carried out in the last ten years and showing good child outcomes, Regnerus describes as being scientifically unsound, in contrast to his study, which he falsely portrays as being scientifically sound.
Firstly, there is nothing new about Regnerusâ€™s methods of helping his funders to demonize gay people in a political context.
Regnerus is promoting his work as though this method of attempting to discredit gay parents were some new invention of his, when as a matter of documented fact, his work is a tired old dirty trick.
In 2006, Gregory M. Herek, a University of California, Davis professor surveyed the literature of gay parenting studies.Â Herekâ€™s criticism of people relying on studies to demonize gay and lesbian parents is, in essence, identical to the criticisms now being made of Regnerusâ€™s methodology; namely, cherry-picking of control groups to seek to justify anti-gay prejudices. This is where the observer can confirm that Regnerus’s practices seriously deviate from ethical standards for proposing, conducting and reporting research.
According to Herekâ€™s extensive review of the literature in 2006; 1) the research on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples rely looks at the functioning of children in intact families with heterosexual parents, and compares that to 2) those children raised by a single parent following divorce or death of a spouse. Additionally, according to Herek, it must be understood that; 3) those efforts to discredit gay parents never include any studies that compare the functioning of children raised by heterosexual couples, with the functioning of children raised by same-sex couples. And, 4)Â in the group of studies Herek was criticizing, any differences observed are more accurately attributable to the effects of death or divorce, and/or to the effectsÂ of living with a single parent, rather than to parentsâ€™ sexual orientation. Â Herek concluded that those studies that were being used to attempt to demonize gay parents; 5) do not tell us that the children of same-sex parents in an intact relationship fair worse than the children of opposite-sex parents in an intact relationship.
Regnerus’s study does not tell us that either, but in his promotions of it — which have some appearance of being coordinated with those of his funders — he behaves as though it had. Regnerus did not compare children raised by stable heterosexual couples with those raised by stable homosexual couples, yet he says that his study “affirmed” that married heterosexual couples are the “gold standard” for child rearing.
The Lie at the Heart of NOM’s Expert Witness Project
NOM’s strategy documents stated that an aim of the Expert Witness Project is “to interrupt the silencing that takes place in the academy around gay marriage and related family issues.”
As Herek’s 2006 survey of the literature of gay parenting studies showed, however, there is no “silencing” taking place in the academy around gay marriage and related family issues. Rather, there is accurate, evidence-based criticism of underhanded attempts to discredit gay parents, attempts that like Regnerus’s study, are not evidence based, and are ideology-driven.
It must be mentioned that there is no child-bearing requirement attached to a marriage license, nor must one be married to have children. Foster care children have been either abandoned or abused by their heterosexual parents. The number of foster care children in the last 15 years has dramatically declined because of gay parent adoptions. NOM’s goals of stigmatizing such families and seeing them legally disadvantaged stems wholly from anti-gay bigotry, and has nothing to do with a genuine interest in child welfare.
Regnerus knew, or should have known, that his funding fixer, NOM’s Robert George, has sponsored anti-gay-rights rallies where NOM speakers have told crowds that homosexuals are “worthy to death” and that Robert George was certain to make dishonorable uses of the anti-gay-rights political propaganda he commissioned from Regnerus. Regnerus, moreover, has admitted that had he gotten funding for a gay parenting child outcomes study from the National Institutes of Health, the standards they would have required from him in his planning, carrying out and reporting of the study would have worked to the long-term best-interests of science, but that “some scholars don’t feel like going that route.”
The Regnerus Study Has Already Been Used in a DOMA Case Brief
Regnerus’s study became available online late on Sunday, June 10, 2012. Barely two days later, on June 12, 2012, an amicus brief submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Golinski DOMA-related case was based almost entirely on the Regnerus study. The brief relies heavily on Regnerus’s study to allege that homosexuals are dangerous to children and that therefore, the judge must decide against gay rights.
That amicus brief was filed by the American College of Pediatricians. The Southern Poverty Law Center designates the ACP as an Anti-Gay GroupÂ and describes it as “a tiny, explicitly religious-right breakaway group from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 60,000 member association of the profession.” Umpteen scientists have issued countless declarations complaining that the ACP hasÂ distorted their scientific observationsÂ in order to make a point against homosexuality. A typical headline reporting on the ACP’s anti-gay distortions of real science is:Â UniversityÂ of Minnesota Professor’s Research Hijacked. The National Association of Social Workers has described the ACP as a “small and marginal group,” “out of step with the research-based position of the” far larger and more widely respected “American Academy of Pediatricians and other medical and child welfare authorities.”
NOM’s Expert Witness Project and the Scientific Misconduct Inquiry Regarding UTA’s Mark Regnerus
Below are enumerated some of the factors that the University of Texas, Austin, must take into consideration during its inquiry into Associate Professor Mark Regnerus’s behavior.
The public should understand that in UTA procedures and parlance, an Inquiry precedes an Investigation of a complaint. Nonetheless, during a UTA Inquiry, university authorities are actually conducting an investigation of sorts. Here is how UTA defines “Inquiry;” “InquiryÂ means gathering information and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of scientific misconduct warrants an investigation.”
Another definition to keep in mind is that UTA gives for “Conflict of Interest;” “Conflict of InterestÂ means the real or apparent interference of one person’s interests with the interests of another person or entity, where the potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.”
Furthermore, UTA policy states that: “As a part of an inquiry, the Research Integrity Officer must ensure that all original research records and materials, and all documents relevant to the allegation are immediately secured.”
I have asked Dr. Robert Peterson, UTA’s Research Integrity Officer, for a complete list of relevant documents that he has secured; Dr. Peterson has not yet provided that list.
1)Â In his written study, and in his public statements about the study, Regnerus has made claims documented as untrue; 2)Â Regnerus took a study planning grant from The Witherspoon Institute, where the anti-gay-rights National Organization for Marriage’s head Robert George is a Senior Fellow; 3)Â A majority of top-rated sociologists consider that Regnerus’s study plan is shoddy, fixed so as to guarantee that gay parents will be unjustly defamed through it, and that it was an unscientific plan rigged for use in anti-gay-rights political argumentation, similar to many criticized for those same reasons by U.C. Davis’s Dr. Gregory M. Herek, when he surveyed the literature of gay parenting studies, back in 2006. Nonetheless; 4)Â Robert George’s Witherspoon Institute, and Robert George’s Bradley Foundation, approved funding for Regnerus’s study; 5) Many of Regnerus’s practices seriously deviate from ethical standards for proposing, conducting and reporting research; 6)Â Regnerus’s written study introduction makes plain his desire to appear to provide expert testimony that works to limit the legal boundaries of marriage to heterosexual couples only, a goal consistent with; 7)Â the National Organization for Marriage’s head Robert George, who is known to be trying to advance NOM’s Expert Witness Project; 8)Â NOM’s Robert George has authority within The Witherspoon Institute, which gave Regnerus his planning grant, as well as within both organizations so far known to have funded Regnerus’s study; 9)Â a sampling method exists, through which Regnerus would have been able to survey young adult offspring raised by gay parents, but Regnerus used an inferior sampling method that did not allow him to survey actual young adult children of gay parents. Regnerus nevertheless; 10)Â is alleging that his study revealed bad child outcomes for gay parents. In that, he is like; 11)Â a particle physicist who can not afford to use a particle accelerator, so carries out his study in a Dixie cup but then reports on the study as though he had carried it out in a particle accelerator.
The University of Texas, Austin must leave no stone unturned in its inquiry into whether Regnerus is in cahoots with the National Organization for Marriage in its Expert Witness Project, as an appearance exists that Regnerus has been scheming and collaborating with his funders, in ways indicative of practices that seriously deviate from ethical standards for proposing, conducting and reporting research. It is to be hoped that UTA officials have already sequestered evidence of Regnerus’s communications with the Witherspoon Institute, which gave him his study “planning grant” and then approved him for actual study funding. Regnerus’s personal thoughts and feelings about same-sex marriage and related family issues would not be of consequence in this, were his science sound. It is not irrelevant, however, to note that Regnerus’s thoughts and beliefs do appear to align with those of his study’s funders. He is, moreover, promoting his study in ways that the study’s funding organizations and those associated with those funding organizations then showcase on their website dedicated to his study, as well as in many additional places, including in DOMA-related court cases.
UTA Sociology Professor Debra Umberson, together with three additional UTA Family Sociologists, published an article assessing the scientific merits of Regnerus’s study. Umberson wrote: “As a family sociologist at the University of Texas, I am disturbed by his irresponsible and reckless representation of social science research, and furious that he is besmirching my university to lend credibility to his ‘findings.'” Something else Umberson wrote creates an impression that Regnerus worked more closely with the known anti-gay-rights crusaders who gave him his study planning grant than with sociologists knowledgeable about gay-headed families: “the first I learned of this study was when it hit the press. Had Regnerus walked down the hall and knocked on my door, I would have been happy to explain that stress and instability harm children in any family context. Love and support help children to thrive and succeed. Pseudo-science that demonizes gay and lesbian families contributes to stress, and is not good for children.”
New York City-based novelist and freelance writerÂ Scott Roseâ€™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 â€œMr. David Cooperâ€™s Happy Suicideâ€ is about aÂ New York City advertising executive assigned to aÂ condom account.
We repeat; In the matter of the Scientific Misconduct Inquiry into the behavior of Mark Regnerus, the University of Texas, Austin’s honor and reputation could be at the stake.
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.
Republicans suggest defunding Veteran Affairs even though it helps 9 million vets
Republican legislators are starting to suggest defunding the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), the office founded in 1989 to assist with veteran needs. The VA assists with getting veterans mental and physical healthcare, educational opportunities, community support, and other everyday housing and living needs.
An Arizona legislator, captured on video participating in a mock congressional hearing, said he supported shutting down the department.
“That’s sort of what I’m thinking because … I hear no good stories. I had zero in my district,” the legislator said in a video posted by the far-right watchdog group Patriot Takes. “So I guess it’s a matter of us leading the fight to defund it.”
Republicans held an offsite, mock Congressional hearing where they plotted to defund and shutdown the VA.
Healthcare for veterans is on the midterms ballot. pic.twitter.com/PAKFCQZk7Y
— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) September 30, 2022
A second video, posted by the same account, showed Republican Florida Representative Matt Gaetz advocating for defunding the VA while speaking at an event held by FreedomWorks, a conservative and libertarian advocacy group.
“This is my question to the group. Is it savable? Why not abolish the VA, take all of the money that we are otherwise spending and go to an any willing provider system inside of our communities?” Gaetz says in the video. “And then, if people get bad care, they can vote with their feet and you don’t have a two-tier system of healthcare in this country with our veterans and then with everyone else.”
Generally speaking, Republican policies favor the privatization of all government functions, thinking that a “small government,” “free-market,” “for-profit” privatization provided by a corporation can solve any market ill.
In reality, if entire communities are deprived of VA access, U.S. military veterans will be left largely on their own to get their life needs met after militaries service. Those who lack money or transportation won’t be able to “vote with their feet” and find a local care provider to handle their specific issues… they’ll either have to spend massive amounts to get such essential care or just go without.
Republican leaders are now floating abolishing the VA and stealing veterans’ health care. And if you think that’s unlikely remember that 84% of republicans in Congress voted against veterans’ cancer care this year. https://t.co/BV1msdniP5
— Bill Pascrell, Jr. 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@BillPascrell) September 30, 2022
In late July, 41 Senate Republicans voted against a bill aimed at protecting veterans exposed to toxic materials during their military service. The legislation would have expanded care to 3.5 million veterans exposed to toxic burn pits. It would have also added 23 toxic and burn pit exposure-related illnesses to the VA database, Newsweek reported.
After massive blowback, Senate Republicans re-voted on the bill and helped it pass.
Patriot Takes posted the video hoping that it would encourage veterans and military members to vote in the upcoming mid-term elections.
Red states are lining up to stop Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan
Six red states — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina — are suing the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden over Biden’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for individuals making less than $125,000 a year.
The Biden administration based its plan on a 2003 law. According to the Justice Department, the law, initially meant to help military members, says that Biden can reduce or erase student loan debts during times of national emergency.
The red states’ lawsuit, filed Thursday in Missouri, said that Biden’s plan was “not remotely tailored to address the effects of the pandemic on federal student loan borrowers.” The lawsuit adds that, since Biden recently declared the COVID-19 pandemic as over, he can’t use it as a justification for his wide-scale debt relief plan, ABC News reported.
“It’s patently unfair to saddle hard-working Americans with the loan debt of those who chose to go to college,” Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said of her state’s lawsuit. “The Department of Education is required, under the law, to collect the balance due on loans. And President Biden does not have the authority to override that.”
The states argued that Biden’s plan inflicted a “number of ongoing financial harms” to student loan providers and also “will ultimately disrupt revenue to state coffers.” They also argued that Biden’s plan violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a law regulating how federal agencies ensure that presidential policies are well-reasoned and explained, the aforementioned publication reported.
Despite these claims, the White House has said it will continue with its plan, confident it can survive a court challenge.
“Republican officials from these six states are standing with special interests, and fighting to stop relief for borrowers buried under mountains of debt,” White House spokesman Abdullah Hasan said Thursday. “The president and his administration are lawfully giving working and middle class families breathing room as they recover from the pandemic and prepare to resume loan payments in January.”
Alex Jones declares that he’s Hitler and a child murderer in unhinged interview
Alex Jones, the host of the conspiracy theory show InfoWars declared that he himself is Hitler and that he shot kids to death in an interview on Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan.
When Callaghan asked Jones if he felt responsible for what happened to the Sandy Hook parents, meaning the harassment and death threats they faced after Jones told his millions of viewers that they were “crisis actors” who helped fake a 2012 school shooting in order to help the government confiscate people’s guns.
Jones responded, “I went to that school. I pulled the gun out. I shot every one of myself. I mean, I’m guilty.” Later on, he repeats over and over again, “I killed them. I’ll admit it. I did it. I’m the bad guy…. I murdered those children. I did. I did it myself.”
The December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting left 26 people dead, including 20 children ages 6 and 7. Jones was not the shooter.
“We should bow five times a day to New Haven, Connecticut for the kids that died,” Jones said, before saying that people have been hypnotized into believing that they should give their guns to George Soros, a Jewish billionaire that anti-Semites think controls left-wing politics.
“I was actually Hitler. It wasn’t actually Hitler,” Jones said. “I did it. I was in a time machine in Germany. I did all that.”
Later in the interview, Jones said, “I was being sarcastic earlier. I didn’t kill the children. I’m not Jeffrey Dahmer. I didn’t invent hemorrhoids. I simply questioned things and they’re trying to demonize me to say questioning things is a bad deal.”
That’s a lie though. Jones himself said the shooting was fake, and he has said in court that he believed it was, though he now believes otherwise. He has also claimed that his company is broke, despite raking in millions in online sales.
“Nobody thinks you killed the kids,” Callaghan told Jones during their interview. “Nobody thinks that oh, it’s what you did. What you killed is [the parents’] ability to get over the death of children.”
Jones responded, “Everyone’s like yeah, ‘We’re gonna get him immediately.’ Like, they’ve built me up and like I’m this giant creature like all-powerful, like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, and none of it’s real. So it’s like it’s funny, actually. It’s actually comical. I mean, it’s, it’s actually hilarious.”
Jones is being sued for defamation by several parents of Sandy Hook victims who said they experienced hardship stemming from his claims. In court, Jones said he was tired of apologizing for his statements about the shooting being a hoax.
In August 2018, Jones and InfoWars were both banned from YouTube, Apple, Facebook and Instagram (which is owned by Facebook) for repeatedly violating their policies forbidding hate speech and glorifying violence. Twitter banned him a month later for “abusive behavior.”
Jones said his banning was political censorship because the mainstream is afraid of “the truth.”
Jones has claimed on InfoWars that the government is controlling the weather; Democratic politician Hillary Clinton runs a child sex ring out of a gay-owned D.C.-area pizza restaurant (something known as Pizzagate); that the transgender rights movement is a plot to allow people to have sex with their cars; and that millions of undocumented immigrants illegally voted in the 2016 presidential election (echoing a baseless claim repeated by then-President Donald Trump).
In a child custody case, Jones’ lawyer said that he is an actor whose words shouldn’t be taken seriously.
- News3 days ago
Watch: Cruz Only ‘No’ Vote After Railing Against Bipartisan Bill to Prevent Another Coup
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM2 days ago
Don’t Call Us ‘Fascists’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasts News Media After Criticism Over Her Feral Hog Hunting Stunt
- News2 days ago
Trump Uses Crude Anti-LGBTQ Language – Aides Stunned by Obsession With Staffers’ Sexuality: New Book
- CRIME2 days ago
Watchdog Reports Trump ‘Credibly Accused’ of ‘Staggering’ List of 55 Criminal Offenses – Urges DOJ to Prosecute
- News1 day ago
Former GOP Congressman Has ‘Legitimate Concerns’ Clarence Thomas Was Involved in ‘Push to Overturn the Election’
- RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM2 days ago
‘Doesn’t Get to Tell the County What They Can Read’: Lawmaker Blasts Christian in Viral Video Attacking LGBTQ Library Books
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM1 day ago
Watch: Democrat Delivers Fiery Rebuke to House Republicans Trying to Deprive Veterans of Abortion Rights
- COMMENTARY1 day ago
‘Tarnished Image’: Gallup Releases Devastating SCOTUS Poll – as Conservative Justices Snipe at Kagan’s Warning