Connect with us

NOM-Linked Regnerus Funders Caught Deleting Incriminating Evidence

Published

on

BRIEF STORY BACKGROUND

A hoax study designed to demonize gays was 1) funded by the NOM-linked Witherspoon Institute; 2) carried out by the University of Texas at Austin’s Mark Regnerus and; 3) now is being deployed as an anti-gay-rights weapon in DOMA cases as well as in the 2012 elections.

In their early days, the National Organization for Marriage and the Witherspoon Institute shared an office in Princeton, New Jersey. Witherspoon president Luis Tellez has been a NOM board member for as long as NOM has existed.

Furthermore, having Robert George — a notorious anti-gay bigot — in common in their leaderships, NOM and Witherspoon also share long histories of telling demonizing lies against gays.

Some suspect NOM and Witherspoon of having played an IRS shell game to get the Regnerus study funded. In August, NOM in California admitted to 18 violations of campaign finance laws and paid a fine to the California Fair Political Practices Commisison.

REGNERUS ANTI-GAY STUDY PUBLISHED THROUGH CORRUPT PEER REVIEW

The Regnerus study is documented as having been published through corrupt peer review, with the corruption involving officials of Regnerus’s chief funding agency, the Witherspoon Institute.

Regnerus himself tells untruths to the public, attempting to cover up his unethical relationships with his Witherspoon funders. For example, in his published study — as well as in an upcoming document of Additional Analyses — Regnerus states that none of his funding agency representatives have participated in his data analyses. In reality, though, a Regnerus funding agency representative — Witherspoon’s Brad Wilcox — was paid $2,000 to assist Regnerus with data analysis on his study.

Regnerus has not replied to e-mails asking for explanations of why he continues to claim that his funders have not participated in data analyses on his study, even though the world sees that his funder Brad Wilcox got paid $2,000 for data analysis on his study.

Another character who has ignored e-mail questions about that false statement in Regnerus’s study is Regnerus’s Social Science Journal journal editor James Wright.

An ever-accumulating weight of evidence, meanwhile, more than merely suggests that the publication of Regnerus’s hoax study was orchestrated through old boy network Witherspoon connections with James Wright.

REGNERUS’S WITHERSPOON FUNDERS HOLD OLD BOY NETWORK LEVERS OF POWER AND INFLUENCE AT THE JOURNAL THAT PUBLISHED THE REGNERUS STUDY

The Witherspoon old boy network kingpin of those connections to Wright is W. Bradford Wilcox. Wilcox — besides being Director of the Witherspoon program that funds Regnerus — is an editorial board member of Wright’s journal Social Science Research that published Regnerus’s study. Wilcox speaks at events sponsored by NOM, along with figures such as NOM’s William Duncan, who calls homosexuals sub-human.

Wright, Wilcox and Regnerus are linked through a shadow figure in the Regnerus study scandal; the late Dr. Steven Nock.

DR. STEVEN NOCK’S CONNECTION TO THE ANTI-GAY REGNERUS SCANDAL

Nock was Director of The Marriage Matters Project at the University of Virginia, where today, Regnerus’s funder Witherspoon’s Brad Wilcox is Director of The National Marriage Project.

In Halpern v. Canada — a marriage case — Nock was asked to submit an affidavit for the anti-equality side, which at that time was the Canadian government.

Nock’s affidavit has two parts. The first part gives rules for carrying out a large national random sample study of gay parents’ child outcomes — the type of study Regnerus alleges he did. The second part of Nock’s affidavit alleges that every gay parenting study ever to show results favorable to gay parents had a fatal flaw.  (An affidavit from Dr. Judith Stacey and Dr. Timothy Biblarz told the same court about the fatal errors in Nock’s reasoning; the Court decided in favor of marriage equality).

The structure of Nock’s affidavit — and that is to say, Nock’s tactic for arguing against gay rights to a court — got imitated when the Regnerus study — purportedly a large, national random sample study —  got propagandistically paired in publication with a study by Loren Marks, who casts aspersions on gay parenting studies that either 1) are not the Regnerus study or; 2) are favorable to gay parents.

Witherspoon created a stand-alone site that promotes the Regnerus and Marks studies in tandem, and with an anti-gay-rights slant.

There is a Nock connection to that Witherspoon site, even though Nock is dead.

First we will review Nock’s connections to Social Science Research editorial board members James Wright and Brad Wilcox, who directs the Witherspoon program that funded Regnerus.

Wright and Nock were long-time friends and associates. Wright co-authored a book on covenant marriage with Nock. Their covenant marriage book is subtitled The Movement to Reclaim Tradition in America.

After Nock’s premature death, Wright dedicated a marriage-themed issue of Social Science Research to Nock. Wright’s issue dedicated to Nock includes a paper by Wilcox.

Nock and Wilcox frequently collaborated at the University of Virginia.

REGNERUS WANTED TO FULFILL NOCK’S AMBITIONS

The Witherspoon stand-alone site to promote the Marks and Regnerus studies said that Regnerus, wanting to realize Nock’s ambition of carrying out a large random sample study of gay parents, approached Witherspoon to ask if it would fund the study.

Two things are striking about that Witherspoon claim.

For one, Regnerus did not follow any of Nock’s main rules for carrying out a large random sample study of same-sex parents’ child outcomes.

To provide a first example of that, Nock said that a researcher would need to include at least 800 gay parents; Regnerus only included 236 children of parents he spuriously mislabeled as lesbian or gay. For another example; Nock said that if a researcher did not assemble an appropriate comparison group, that researcher’s study of same-sex parents would be invalid. Regnerus did not assemble an appropriate comparison group, something that has been a mainstay of science-based criticism of the Regnerus study.

The other striking thing about Witherspoon’s claim that Regnerus approached Witherspoon about doing a gay parenting study, is that Witherspoon president Tellez and Regnerus both have told the Austin American-Statesman the opposite thing; that Witherspoon had the idea for the study, and then approached Regnerus about doing it.

To repeat for emphasis: Nock was a close and long-time collaborator of Social Science Research editor James Wright. Witherspoon says that Regnerus’s goal with his study was to fulfill Nock‘s ambition of doing a gay parenting study. Regnerus’s study was published in the journal where Nock‘s friend Wright is editor-in-chief and Regnerus’s funder Witherspoon’s Wilcox — a Nock associate — is on the editorial board.

No author of a scientific paper should ever get their paper published through old boy connections for business and political reasons without having their paper properly vetted by topic experts.

Yet, that is what happened with the Regnerus submission to Social Science Research; without valid scientific peer review of the Regnerus study, Nock’s old boy network of James Wright and Regnerus funder Brad Wilcox arranged for the Regnerus hoax to be published for business and political reasons.

WHY DOES IT MATTER WHETHER WITHERSPOON APPROACHED REGNERUS FIRST?

If Regnerus had the idea for the study, sought funding from different sources, and then just happened to get funded mainly by Witherspoon, that would be one thing, though that circumstance would not change that Regnerus got published through corrupt peer review.

However, if Witherspoon had the idea for a gay parenting study, and then approached Regnerus — who has no training in the science of homosexuality — that would bring even better into focus how Witherspoon orchestrated the hoax through its old boy network connections to the Elsevier journal Social Science Research.

There is, indeed, a certain compelling appearance that Witherspoon 1) got its ducks lined up with Social Science Research to get the twinned Marks and Regnerus studies published; 2) even before Regnerus began work on his study. Bolstering that appearance is the fact that a third party scholar told us that he attended a Witherspoon conference about a desired gay parenting study in the fall of 2010. Our source says that the meeting  was headed by Witherspoon president and NOM board member Luis Tellez. At that time, it had not yet been determined, who would carry out Witherspoon’s desired study on gay parenting.  Regnerus and Wilcox were present at the meeting, as was David Eggebeen, a virulently anti-gay-rights figure and member of the Witherspoon old boy network who was later permitted to write one of the commentaries accompanying the Regnerus and Marks studies.

REGNERUS PUBLISHED THANKS ONLY TO AN OLD BOY NETWORK

The conflagration of circumstances that go against science publishing ethics but in favor of anti-gay-rights political promotions of the twinned Marks and Regnerus studies is in any event simply too meaningful to be ignored. When Regnerus’s funders delete incriminating evidence from their websites, this conflagration of circumstances is what they are trying to prevent the public from understanding.

To review those circumstances, now:

1)  Regnerus’s funding agency representative Witherspoon’s Brad Wilcox is on the editorial board of the journal that simultaneously published the Marks and Regnerus studies. The Marks study devalues smaller studies of gay parenting that in truth are valid as smaller studies; the Marks study has an evident propagandistic intent of building up the public image of the Regnerus study for being, supposedly, valid as a large random sample study. However, the Regnerus study is not valid as a large random sample study. Both the Marks and Regnerus studies are of abysmal quality from a scientific point of view. Social Science Research editor James Wright receives more than 325 submissions yearly. In that flood of submissions — some of them almost doubtless scientifically valid — how did the lousy Marks and Regnerus studies get to the top of editor James Wright’s pile, if not by an intervention from Wright’s and Nock’s old friend — and his editorial board member, and Regnerus’s funder — Witherspoon’s Brad Wilcox?

2) Wright processed the Regnerus study from submission to acceptance in just 42 days without giving it to any gay parenting topic experts for peer review. The Social Science Research Peer Review Policy, meanwhile, says that authors should expect to wait months just for the editor to find appropriate peer reviewers. It appears that virtually no other featured studies have ever been processed from submission to acceptance so quickly and without benefit of valid peer review at Social Science Research.  Many of the peer reviewers had conflicts of interest, including that they had gotten money from Regnerus’s funder Witherspoon; one person was allowed to peer review both the Marks and Regnerus papers. That is to say, the shocking and irresponsible rush process through which the scientifically invalid Regnerus submission got accepted for publication occurred only due to the Wright-Wilcox old boy network.

3) Ordinarily, when commentaries about new studies are published alongside those new studies, a science journal editor will — of course — seek out topic experts with no conflicts of interest. By contrast, the three people Social Science Research editor James Wright had do the commentaries on the Regnerus and Marks studies — Cynthia Osborne, Paul Amato, and David Eggebeen — were non-topic experts with inappropriate connections to the Witherspoon Institute, including that some had gotten money from Witherspoon on the Regnerus study. Each of the three commentary writers created “golden nugget promotional quotes” for the Regnerus study that Witherspoon, NOM and other associated groups have been using aggressively in anti-gay-rights campaigns.

4) For having let the methodologically invalid Regnerus study through into publication, Wright quickly was publicly humiliated when over 200 leading scholars in fields relevant to gay parenting sent him a letter expressing concerns about the validity of the Regnerus study and the suspicious rush process through which it was published. Anti-gay bigots of course consider James Wright a hero, but had Wright allowed similarly invalid garbage to be published on a topic without bigots hanging their hateful hopes on the garbage, he would be isolated with nobody supporting him. The garbage he published would not be bringing right wing anti-gay bigots in droves to his journal site, and therefore, his journal’s publisher Elsevier would not be backing him up for publishing the garbage, either. The only reason that Elsevier and Wright can continue to benefit from Wright’s having published unscientific garbage is that hoards of anti-gay bigots are hugely enthusiastic about the garbage that Wright published. Hoping to shut his critics up, Wright had Social Science Research editorial board member Darren Sherkat conduct a sham audit of the publication of the Marks and Regnerus studies. In line with publisher Elsevier’s ongoing business goals for the Regnerus study, but not in line with science publishing ethics, Sherkat reported that almost nobody acted with professionalism in the publication of the Regnerus study — he even wrote in his audit that scholars with conflicts of interest who should have known better failed to recuse themselves from the peer review process — yet Sherkat held nobody accountable for the mountainous dereliction of science publishing duty involved in the publication of the Marks study along with the Regnerus study. As a sociologist whose position on the Social Science Research editorial board is a building block for his career, Sherkat had a conflict of interest in carrying out the audit. To put it another way, a disinterested third party should have carried out the audit, and Sherkat is not a disinterested third party.

5) Had Regnerus submitted his study to a science journal without one of his funders on the journal’s editorial board, he never would have gotten his study published in one such journal through ethical and appropriate, professional peer review done by gay parenting topic experts without conflicts of interest. He never would have been allowed three Witherspoon-connected, non-topic experts writing the commentaries about his study, in the process providing him and his funders with “gold nugget promotional quotes” for his study, with its invalid methodology booby-trapped against gays. The only way that Regnerus got this astonishing, and otherwise impossible promotional packaging for his scientifically invalid study, was through Wright’s and Wilcox’s old boy network business partnership in the deal. Wright, Wilcox and Regnerus thought the public could be told that none of Regnerus’s funding agency representatives participated in his study’s data analyses, and that no journalist would ever subsequently discover Wilcox’s Regnerus study consulting contract for data analysis. Confronted with the evidence of Wilcox’s contract, and asked why Wright published Regnerus’s false claim that none of his funding agency representatives participated in his data analysis, Wright, Wilcox and Regnerus have refused to answer that question.

HOW ELSE HAVE REGNERUS’S FUNDERS INCRIMINATED THEMSELVES?

This reporter sent e-mails to each of Tellez, Wright, Wilcox and Regnerus, questioning the information on Witherspoon’s stand-alone site promoting the Marks and Regnerus studies.

Those e-mails asked why the Witherspoon site claimed that Regnerus, inspired by Nock, approached Witherspoon about doing a study on gay parenting. The e-mails noted that Witherspoon’s president Tellez and Regnerus elsewhere said that Witherspoon approached Regnerus about a study on gay parenting. Additionally, the e-mails inquired about the apparent Nock-Wright-Wilcox old boy axis connected to the publication of the Marks and Regnerus studies. And moreover, the e-mails asked why Regnerus did not follow any of Nock’s most important rules for carrying out a large random sample study on same-sex parents’ child outcomes.

Tellez, Wright, Wilcox and Regnerus did not respond.

However, Witherspoon subsequently scrubbed all of the references to Nock — and to Regnerus approaching Witherspoon about doing a study —  off of the “About” page on its stand-alone site promoting the Marks and Regnerus studies.

Seemingly, Witherspoon understood it had been caught with its pants down, having told one thing to the Austin Statesman — namely, that Witherspoon approached Regnerus about doing the study — while its own site was saying the opposite thing — that Regnerus had approached Witherspoon first, inspired to carry out the study that Nock wanted to do, before Nock died prematurely.

Witherspoon, however, did not scrub the Nock references from the Spanish-version language of its site for the Marks and Regnerus studies, where the About page is called “Sobre.”

Whoopsie!

In case Witherspoon now tries to scrub the Nock references from its “Sobre” page, we have saved a screen shot of it (image, top). Here is part of the relevant copy from Witherspoon’s Sobre page, followed by an English translation:

“Deseando seguir las huellas del Dr. Nock y realizar esa investigación, el Dr. Regnerus y otros, acudieron al Instituto Witherspoon, un centro independiente de investigación, localizado en Princeton, NJ—y autor de este sitio web—con objeto de buscar ayuda para financiar el estudio que vino a resultar en el NFSS.”

(English translation by Scott Rose): Wanting to follow in the footprints of Dr. Nock and to carry out this study, Dr. Regnerus and others approached the Witherspoon Institute, an independent research center in Princeton, N.J. — and the publisher of this web site — with the aim of seeking funding for the study that eventually was called the NFSS (New Family Structures Study).

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?

It is long, long past time for Regnerus, the Witherspoon Institute, James Wright and other parties involved to give the public full documentation of the genesis, design, funding, carrying out, publication and promotions of the Marks and Regnerus studies. Where Freedom of Information Act requests have been filed, those parties largely are seeking to keep their communications about the studies hidden through stonewalling tactics. Elsevier and Social Science Research, as a private business, are beyond the reach of FOIA requests. Nonetheless, they should start to make amends for having undermined the trust on which science is based, by giving the public a full and truthful accounting of how the Marks and Regnerus studies came to be published in Social Science Research. Clearly, when the Regnerus paper was submitted to Social Science Research on February 1, 2012, that was not the first date that Witherspoon’s Wilcox and James Wright knew that the paper would be submitted to Social Science Research. It is beyond all question that a responsible science journal editor would retract the Regnerus study from publication, given that the study received no valid peer review. Elsevier, Wright, Wilcox and Sherkat have played the public for suckers, by carrying out a sham “audit” that never once mentions the Social Science Research editorial board member who also is a Regnerus funder, Witherspoon’s Brad Wilcox. Obviously, any full, truthful accounting of how the Marks and Regnerus studies came to be published in the journal where Regnerus’s funder Wilcox sits on the editorial board would have to report all details of Wilcox’s involvement in the publication of the two studies. At present, the publication not only is not telling the public what role Wilcox played; it is actually lying by saying that Wilcox did not participate in Regnerus study data analysis, though Wilcox signed a contract and was paid $2,000 for Regnerus study data analysis.

To sign a petition telling Elsevier to retract the Regnerus study from publication, go here.

 

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

Musk Complying With Federal Laws White House Says — Will Not Release Disclosure

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insists President Donald Trump’s Director of the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, is complying with all federal laws. The Trump administration is under growing pressure to release Musk’s financial disclosure form and any conflict of interest waiver the President may have signed, if there is one.

The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, who wrote the best-selling book, “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America,” made a rare appearance inside the White House Press Briefing Room on Wednesday to challenge Musk’s actions.

“You talked about the transparency with DOGE and Elon Musk,” Haberman reminded Leavitt. “There is a conflict of interest law in place that says that people who have personal interests can’t interact with government entities that could touch on those. Has President Trump signed a waiver for Elon Musk, does such a thing and exist, if it does, will you guys release it in the interest of transparency that he’s committed to?”

READ MORE: ‘Demolition Plan’: Dems Warn DOGE Guts Government to Empower Billionaires, Harm Americans

“I have not seen the law that you are referring to,” Leavitt was quick to respond. “What I can tell you is that Elon Musk is, I’ve confirmed before, is a special government employee. He is filing the proper financial disclosure. And he is complying with all applicable federal laws.”

“As you also heard, Elon addressed this directly yesterday in the alleged conflict of interest, and he said everything he’s doing is very public, and if you all perceive a conflict of interest, you’re welcome to bring that up.”

“And as the president said, if he feels like Elon is engaging in something that’s a conflict of interest, he will tell Elon not to do that,” she claimed. “Elon also said yesterday that before he moves forward with anything, he consults with the president of the United States. So, um, we’re very confident with the ethics and the guardrails that have been put in place here.”

On Tuesday during his Oval Office press conference, Elon Musk told reporters that there is no conflict of interest.

Musk’s SpaceX reportedly received a $38.8 million contract from NASA this week.

CNN on Tuesday reported that Musk has not filed and will not file a public financial disclosure form.

“Musk, speaking in the Oval Office, sought to underscore his belief that ‘transparency is what builds trust,’ and insisted that all of his team’s efforts were being made public on DOGE’s social media accounts and website,” CNN reported. “But he also seemed to chafe at some of the scrutiny he was receiving, likening it to a ‘daily proctology exam.'”

READ MORE: ‘Trumpflation’: Blaming Biden, Trump Slammed for Breaking ‘Day One’ Promise as Prices Jump

“Earlier in the day, a White House official said Musk would not need to file a public financial disclosure, allowing the world’s richest man to skirt public scrutiny of his potential conflicts. Musk’s various companies have billions of dollars in government contracts.”

“As an unpaid special government employee who is not a commission officer, he will file a confidential financial disclosure report per the norm,” a White House official told CNN, the news outlet reported.

“We wouldn’t let him” have a conflict of interest or a lack of transparency, President Trump assured reporters Tuesday.

But The New York Times on Tuesday reported that the White House had not responded to its request “for a copy of the waiver, a document that is required under federal law to be released. Ethics waivers are typically drafted based on conflicts identified through a financial disclosure filing, so it is possible that no waiver has been prepared yet.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

RELATED: ‘Not Legal’: Trump May Dissolve Dept. of Education in Days, Democrat Warns

Continue Reading

News

‘Demolition Plan’: Dems Warn DOGE Guts Government to Empower Billionaires, Harm Americans

Published

on

During Wednesday’s DOGE Subcommittee Hearing on Government Waste, House Democrats slammed President Donald Trump’s Director of the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, and DOGE, which they accused of being a “demolition plan” for the federal government designed to empower billionaires while harming everyday Americans, and especially those who rely on social safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare.

In a damning display, U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia detailed what he said were Musk’s plans to launch a “power grab” inside the federal government, hurt “the American social safety net” and destroy “our institutions.” The California Democrat also made a few mocking remarks about the billionaire he called “President Musk.”

“I find it ironic, of course, that our chairwoman, Congresswoman Greene, is in charge of running this committee,” Rep. Garcia said of far-right Republican U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. “Now, in the last Congress, Chairwoman Greene literally showed a dick pic in our oversight congressional hearing, so I thought I’d bring one as well.”

“Now, this, of course, we know is President Elon Musk,” Garcia joked, as a staffer put up a huge photo of the billionaire in white tie and tails, to laughter from the gallery. “He’s also the world’s richest man. He was the biggest political donor in the last election. He has billions of dollars in conflicts of interest, and we know that he is leading a power grab, also abided by and encouraged by Donald Trump and of course, the chairwoman, Congresswoman Greene.”

READ MORE: ‘Trumpflation’: Blaming Biden, Trump Slammed for Breaking ‘Day One’ Promise as Prices Jump

Garcia pointed to a large board listing several federal agencies he suggested DOGE is trying to destroy.

He called DOGE “a demolition plan that’s going to run through our government,” and said that “DOGE is trying to abolish the Department of Education. That means opportunities denied to kids. It means you’re ripping away opportunities for children with disabilities, who are dependent on this money.”

“You’re also halting medical research, which is also critical, which we have to also stop. The idea that we are going to eliminate or destroy the National Institutes of Health, the NIH, is crazy.”

“Let’s talk about the Department of Labor. We’re talking about protections for working people across this country, where people can actually complain about abuses their companies are making against them and their coworkers. Workers are now going to be in danger,” he warned.

“And let’s also talk about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Another huge issue for us. Think about the scammers and fraudsters that’ll be empowered across this country, because Elon Musk,” he alleged, “wants — essentially, these companies [to] have more power over consumers and over people across this country.”

“Look at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,” Garcia continued. “That is actually what’s being discussed partly today. Healthcare, we’re talking about being denied to millions of poor people, working-class people across this country. And now, of course, they’re onto their largest target: The U.S. Social Security Administration. We’re talking about this the destruction of the actual social safety net in this country. We know that one in five Americans collect Social Security — seniors, disabled people. This entire plan is about hurting the American social safety net and destroying our institutions.”

The California Democrat continued to attack DOGE.

“This committee wants to empower the richest person in the world to hurt people so they can take all of this money that they so-call want to save and then give it to themselves, their companies, and their billionaire friends,” he charged. “That is the attack that is happening in this committee and across this country, and it’s important that we call it out.”

“We also know, of course, that Elon Musk is sending his unqualified DOGE staff to carry out this agenda across all these agencies. And in some cases, actually teenage staffers. No accountability, no experience, and problematic records. They’re trying to rob you and they’re probably a minor.”

U.S. Rep. Greg Casar also attacked Musk and President Trump, for firing numerous Inspectors General while ignoring what he says is the $8 million per day the federal government gives to Musk and his companies.

RELATED: ‘Not Legal’: Trump May Dissolve Dept. of Education in Days, Democrat Warns

“Five Inspector Generals that were looking into Elon Musk’s companies were fired by the Trump-Musk administration,” the Democrat from Texas charged. “TheseInspector Generals who are independent, protected by law, they are the people that find the waste, fraud, and abuse and found many of the cases of waste, fraud, and abuse that have been brought up today — fired because they were looking into Elon Musk at the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board, which is supposed to protect workers from getting their unions busted by folks like Elon Musk — made functionally broken by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency that really is the Department of Government Efficiency for Elon Musk, not for you.”

“They are trying to shut down the Department of Education, the Department of Labor,” he continued. “You know what he doesn’t seem to be looking into? His own contracts.”

“Just last year, Elon Musk was promised three billion from close to 100 contracts with the federal government,” Casar alleged.

He also said that “the average person in this country who survives on Social Security, one of our seniors who’s worked their entire life,” gets $65 a day from Social Security.

“We’re not looking into Elon Musk’s eight million dollars a day. This subcommittee, chaired by Marjorie Taylor Greene and the House Republicans, is looking into your grandmother’s $65 a day.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Serious Injuries to Public Health’: Judge Scorches Trump Removal of Health Websites

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Trumpflation’: Blaming Biden, Trump Slammed for Breaking ‘Day One’ Promise as Prices Jump

Published

on

President Donald Trump is blaming his predecessor, President Joe Biden, after inflation jumped far more than expected.

“Biden inflation up!” Trump wrote on social media Wednesday, taking no responsibility for breaking his campaign promise to lower prices “on day one.”

On Wednesday the U.S. Department of Labor reported inflation jumped to levels not seen since last June, and Americans are being forced to pay far higher prices at the supermarket, especially for basic staples like eggs.

“Consumer prices roared higher in January, driving inflation up to 3%,” CNN reported, calling it “the fastest monthly pace since September 2023.” Economists had expected inflation to come in at an annual rate of 2.9%.

“Egg prices shot up 15.2% from December to January, the fastest increase that index has seen since 2015, according to the report,” CNN added. “They’re up 53% year over year.”

READ MORE: ‘Not Legal’: Trump May Dissolve Dept. of Education in Days, Democrat Warns

The jump in inflation makes it far less likely the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates, which remain high as they try to battle inflation. The Associated Press reported on Wednesday, “the cost of groceries, gasoline and rents rose, a disappointment for families and businesses struggling with higher costs and likely underscoring the Federal Reserve’s resolve to delay further interest rate cuts.”

“Grocery prices have skyrocketed,” candidate Trump said back in August on the campaign trail. Trump has bragged that he won the election on his promise to lower the cost of “groceries.”

“When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on day one,” Trump said, as multiple news outlets, including The New York Post and CNN, have reported.

After the election, Trump acknowledged his pledge to reduce the price of groceries.

“I won on groceries,” Trump told NBC News’ Kristen Welker in December.“Very simple word, groceries. Like almost — you know, who uses the word? I started using the word — the groceries. When you buy apples, when you buy bacon, when you buy eggs, they would double and triple the price over a short period of time, and I won an election based on that. We’re going to bring those prices way down.”

But Trump appears to have done little to even try to bring down prices, including the cost of food.

“Now, maybe Americans did send Trump back to the White House to lower prices,” MSNBC‘s Jen Psaki wrote late last month, “but during his first week in office — a period of time when presidents typically use their power to make clear what their priorities are — he focused on anything but.

The one step he did appear to take to lower prices was to sign an executive order telling agencies in the executive branch to “take actions that lower prices.”

READ MORE: ‘Serious Injuries to Public Health’: Judge Scorches Trump Removal of Health Websites

“President Trump, who while campaigning vowed to end the ‘inflation nightmare,'” CBS News reported last month, on Inauguration Day “signaled his focus on the high cost of living in the U.S. by signing an executive order that requires ‘all executive departments and agencies to deliver emergency price relief’ to Americans.”

“It is critical to restore purchasing power to the American family and improve our quality of life,” the executive order stated.

“To accomplish that, Mr. Trump is ordering the departments and agencies that fall under the executive branch, including the departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Labor, and Energy, to take actions that lower prices for everything from housing and health costs to food and fuel,” CBS added. It is unclear what steps they were supposed to take, or if any did.

Meanwhile, consumers appear to be growing angry, and Wednesday’s inflation news — coupled with Trump’s imposition of a new tariff on all aluminum and steel coming into the United States — is not making it easier for average Americans.

On social media, critics were quick to blame and blast the President.

“Meat prices up 0.6 percent in January, egg prices up 15.2 percent. Too bad Trump is so busy doing corrupt deals with Musk and planning to take over Greenland and Gaza that he can’t pay attention to food prices,” remarked Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Former Biden White House Senior Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates posted video of Trump’s interview with NBC’s Welker.

“The thing is,” Democratic strategist and Kamala Harris alum Mike Nellis wrote, “Trump didn’t just promise to cool inflation—he said prices would go down. And they aren’t. His tariff threats are already driving prices up everywhere, from groceries to housing, cars, and appliances.”

“Trump took office and inflation immediately went UP. But instead of fixing the economy, he spent his time banning DEI, renaming water, going to the Super Bowl and trying to put hotels on the Gaza strip,” observed frequent commentator Alex Cole, who has nearly 275,000 followers on X.

“They’re calling it TRUMPFLATION. Beautiful word, maybe the best word. The most luxurious inflation—nobody does inflation better than me!” Cole also wrote, mocking Trump and his speaking style.

“Wow,” remarked Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett. “Inflation in the US rose 3% in January, higher than experts predicted for Trump’s first month report.”

After noting increases in the cost of groceries, energy, and eggs, he snarked, “Renaming the Gulf of America should help…”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: General Slams Pentagon’s ‘Racist’ Decision to Drop Key Black Engineers Recruitment Event

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.