Connect with us

News

Anti-LGBT ‘Study’ Continues Long, Dark Legacy of Right-Wing Junk Science

Published

on

‘New Atlantis’ Authors Follow in Fraudulent Footsteps of Paul Cameron, George Rekers, Mark Regnerus

The New Civil Rights Movement’s Robbie Medwed recently called attention to a new anti-LGBT “study” that appeared in The New Atlantis, which describes itself as a “Journal of Technology and Society,” and which is published by the anti-gay Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative Roman Catholic organization.

As Medwed reported, the “study” — “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” by Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh (pictured) — purports to show that there is no evidence that people are born gay, or that transgender kids are more successful when treated with compassionate and inclusive care.

After documenting the long record of anti-gay activism of its authors and publishers, Medwed points out that the new “study” comes with a slick video, which suggests that “far right-wing monied interests are behind it.”

Indeed, the “study” has already been widely publicized in right-wing circles, from The Federalist and The National Review to The Daily Signal and Breitbart, and has been acclaimed by homophobic ideologues such as Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel, who sent out an email promoting it, absurdly proclaiming that, “Scientific Research Debunks LGBT Propaganda.”

Actually, the “study” has little to do with real scientific research. Rather, it is a prime example of anti-LGBT pseudoscience.

The purpose of the “study” is not to further knowledge or advance scientific understanding. It would never have been accepted by a respectable academic journal.

This kind of publication has no influence on real science, for despite its accoutrements of scholarship — graphs, footnotes, bibliography, etc. — it is actually a parody of real research. Its conclusions were reached before the investigation even began. The researchers cherry-picked evidence, which they then assembled to support the preordained conclusions.

The purpose of this kind of junk science is not to persuade the scholarly community, which will immediately note its sloppy methodology and dismiss it out of hand. Instead, it is produced to provide naïve readers some quasi-respectable justifications for their prejudices and to fuel social conservative political chatter. (Any “study” that is simultaneously acclaimed by the likes of Matt Staver, Ryan Anderson, Austin Ruse and Maggie Gallagher may safely be presumed to be dishonest.)

The pseudoscience produced by right-wing ideologues is targeted toward people who are more interested in the confirmation of their biases than in the truth. They live in a fact-free world and lack the willingness or ability to distinguish real science from propaganda dressed up to look like science.

This kind of junk science also serves the purpose of providing other producers of junk science something to quote and cite as they also manufacture facsimiles of scholarship.

Thus, the Mayer-McHugh “study” will soon be quoted with approval on the National Organization for Marriage blog and the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) website (which has recently and cynically been renamed the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity), as well as by the “experts” at such hate groups as the American Family Association, Focus on the Family and Family Research Council as they prepare their own anti-LGBT pseudoscience to be circulated in the same echo chamber that is the conservative blogosphere.

The Status of Anti-LGBT Pseudoscience

Traffic in anti-LGBT pseudoscience has a long and ignoble history, but it has existed in a curious and increasingly defensive position since the work of UCLA psychologist Evelyn Hooker in the 1950s and 1960s challenged the assumption that homosexuals are necessarily psychiatrically disordered. Her research demonstrated that the patterns of homosexuality are as varied and as complex as those of heterosexuality and that one cannot distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals on the basis of emotional and psychological adjustment.

Although the research studies by Hooker and colleagues who reached similar conclusions were fiercely contested by those who had a great deal invested in the sickness theories of homosexuality, her position prevailed and eventually became the accepted scientific view. It ultimately led to the rescinding of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders in 1973.

Since then a host of other scientific studies have replicated Hooker’s conclusions and extended them in a variety of areas. For example, numerous studies have verified that same-sex couples are as capable parents as opposite-sex couples. They have also documented the failure and dangers of attempts to change sexual orientation.

In reaction to the scientific consensus that emerged in the 1970s and has solidified ever since, anti-LGBT professionals retreated from mainstream scientific organizations and formed their own groups, such as NARTH and the deceitfully named American College of Pediatricians (as distinguished from the American Academy of Pediatrics, a major professional organization).

In addition, in response to the modest political gains made by the early gay liberation movement, an entire industry of anti-LGBT hate groups emerged. Often affiliated with the Christian right or with particular religious denominations, they often cloak their anti-LGBT agenda by adopting names that include “Christian” or “family” or “children” or “marriage.” They raise money by defaming LGBT people and are often aligned with more established and well-financed right-wing groups such as the Heritage Foundation.

These organizations are the principal purveyors of anti-LGBT pseudoscience in the United States. They perpetuate myths and stereotypes and lies in the name of religion, the preservation of “traditional values,” and conservative politics.

Three producers of pseudoscience — Paul Cameron, George Rekers, and Mark Regnerus — are profiled below. Their modi operandi help illuminate how this genre of deceit is manufactured and the obstacles posed by pseudoscience to the pursuit of equality.

Paul Cameron

One of the leading practitioners of anti-LGBT pseudoscience is the charlatan Paul Cameron, who has made a career of gay-bashing. Not only does he campaign against LGBT rights and call for the criminalization of homosexual acts, but he also attempts to buttress his dark view of homosexuality with “studies” that link homosexuality with child abuse and a reduced life expectancy.

Cameron has the distinction of having his work condemned by the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association and the Canadian Psychological Association, among others.

Cameron’s Family Research Institute, located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, takes as its mission the generation of “empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality,” though its research is merely the repackaging of his prejudices.

A number of real scholars have demonstrated how Cameron has manipulated his data in various ways to reach the dubious conclusions that he asserts.

Because of Cameron’s “continued demonization of LGBT people and the shoddy and suspect research methods he uses to advance his claims,” the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the Family Research Institute an “anti-gay hate group.” 

In 2012, Cameron appeared on David Pakman’s talk show to discuss President Barack Obama’s support for same-sex marriage and to spew a great deal of misinformation.

Despite its having been condemned by mainstream academic associations, and thoroughly discredited by legitimate researchers, Cameron’s junk science is routinely cited by anti-gay authors and crusaders as they compile their own pseudoscience. It has even been cited in court decisions, as in a dissent in the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in 2003, and in the majority decision by the Florida Supreme Court that upheld the state’s prohibition on adoption by same-sex couples in 2004.

George Rekers

Another practitioner of pseudoscience who has recently been exposed is George Rekers, who was one of the founders of Focus on the Family, a viciously anti-gay activist group, and a former officer of the ex-gay organization, NARTH.

Rekers has published a number of books extolling reparative therapy and received large funds for his anti-gay testimony as an “expert witness” in a number of high-profile court cases in which he testified that homosexuality is destructive and that gay people are unfit parents.

Rekers’ fall came in 2010, when he was discovered to have employed a male escort as a traveling companion on a trip to Europe. Although he protested that the escort was his “baggage handler,” when it was revealed that the young man was hired from the Rentboy website, Rekers’ reputation was destroyed. An ordained Southern Baptist minister, Rekers was exposed as a hypocrite. His fellow bigots in the anti-gay and ex-gay movement quickly distanced themselves from him.

But the biggest exposure of Rekers as a purveyor of pseudoscience (rather than merely a hypocrite) came later that year.

In a riveting example of investigative journalism, Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin excavated the heartbreaking real story of Kirk Murphy, who as a 5-year-old effeminate boy was subjected to treatment by Rekers when he was a graduate student at UCLA.

Rekers later used the story of his “successful” treatment of Murphy as the basis of his doctoral dissertation and, indeed, of his career. He frequently cited it as proof that homosexuality can be “cured” and used it to justify the practice of reparative therapy.

The story of “Kraig,” as Kirk Murphy was referred to in Rekers’ publications, was offered again and again as an example of how early intervention with “sissy boys” could prevent the development of homosexuality in them.

Burroway, however, discovered that Murphy had committed suicide in 2003 at the age of 38 after a life-long struggle with his sexuality. Far from having been “cured” of homosexuality, as Rekers and other reparative therapists had repeatedly claimed, Murphy was tormented by the treatment he received as a child.

A homosexual who was never able to form a lasting relationship with anyone, Murphy suffered depression and anxiety as a result of his experience.

The story of Murphy not only exposed the fraudulent claims made by Rekers and other therapists who profess to cure homosexuality, but it also graphically illustrated the lasting damage inflicted by such dangerous therapy.

Burroway’s investigation was the inspiration for a story featured on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 called “Sissy Boy Experiments,” which reached a large audience and served to discredit the ex-gay movement.

Mark Regnerus

One of the most audacious examples of anti-LGBT pseudoscience is sociologist Mark Regnerus’ 2012 “study” titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings of the New Families Structure Study,” which was published in Social Science Research and purported to prove that the children of gay and lesbian parents have adverse outcomes.

Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas, had achieved something that most purveyors of pseudoscience these days do not. He managed to place his work in a supposedly peer-reviewed journal.

The “study” was immediately embraced by opponents of same-sex marriage, but serious scholars noted its flawed methodology and quickly dismissed its conclusions.

They also became suspicious that the “study” was not just poor scholarship, but, rather, a desperate and deliberate attempt to smear gay and lesbian parents and thereby provide a “rational” justification for courts to deny equal marriage rights.

That suspicion was stoked not only by the obvious methodological problems but also by the article’s unusually quick acceptance by the journal — five weeks from submission to acceptance, while submissions typically take over a year to be accepted — and by its unusually generous funding by anti-gay sources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIKGXz5CIPw

The “study” was funded to the tune of almost $800,000 by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, both organizations actively opposed to marriage equality. The notorious Princeton philosophy professor Robert P. George, who drafted the Manhattan Declaration and is a founder of the National Organization for Marriage, sits on the boards of both institutions.

As a result of loud protests by social scientists, some 200 of whom signed a letter alleging that the paper could not have survived a rigorous review process, the editor of Social Science Research, James D. Wright, was pressured to appoint an auditor to review the way the paper was handled before being accepted for publication.

The auditor, Darren E. Sherkat, a member of the journal’s editorial board, found that “the peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems” with the paper. He also found conflicts of interest among the reviewers; stated that “scholars who should have known better failed to recuse themselves from the review process”; and criticized the author’s use of scholarship to push a political agenda.

In an interview, Sherkat described the paper succinctly: “It’s bullshit,” he said.

Documents obtained by The American Independent and NCRM contributor Scott Rose through the Freedom of Information Act later confirmed that Regnerus was funded in order to impugn the parenting skills of same-sex couples in judicial proceedings. The documents revealed that the Witherspoon Institute enlisted Regnerus to undertake the “study” in order to influence anticipated Supreme Court deliberations on same-sex marriage.

The documents also revealed that Regnerus had consistently lied about the participation of Witherspoon Institute officials in the “study.”

Regnerus’s “study” was indeed cited in briefs filed in the judicial proceedings that ultimately culminated in the Supreme Court landmark Obergefell ruling of June 26, 2015 that led to marriage equality throughout the nation, but by then attorneys for marriage equality could cite the denunciations of the “study” by leading academics and even the American Sociological Association and the Sociology Department of the University of Texas, where Regnerus teaches.

Regnerus himself testified in the Michigan marriage trial, DeBoer v. Snyder, the first full-length trial of fact on the subject of same-sex marriage after Judge Vaughn Walker’s historic Proposition 8 trial in 2010.

During the trial, Regnerus was forced to admit on cross-examination that his “study” actually said nothing cogent about the parenting abilities of same-sex couples. He also was forced to admit that his opposition to same-sex marriage was “faith-based” and had nothing to do with whether same-sex couples were good parents.

Moreover, Regnerus’s testimony was countered by such leading scholars as Harvard historian Nancy Cott, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld, UCLA demographer Gary Gates and University of Michigan law professor Vivek Sankaran, scholars who pursue real reseach not pseudoscience.

In his opinion, handed down on March 21, 2014, invalidating Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage, Judge Bernard Friedman eviscerated the testimony of Regnerus, which he found “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.” The judge not only found Regnerus’s fraudulent “study” flawed on its face, but he also correctly perceived it as hack work intended to deceive rather than to contribute to science. “The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged,” Friedman observed dryly.

A Dangerous, Ongoing Assault

Pseudoscience is dangerous for many reasons. While it may be tempting to dismiss someone like Cameron as a crackpot, his work, as absurd as it is, has been repeatedly used to confuse and manipulate the naïve and to reassure the bigoted. It is routinely cited in other works of pseudoscience and even in legal briefs. Indeed, as the Southern Poverty Law Center reports, Cameron’s “ludicrous statistics are frequently referenced in sermons, news broadcasts, politicians’ speeches and even court decisions.”

Although now discredited as the hypocrite and fraud that he is, Rekers managed to build a prosperous career on the backs of vulnerable children. As a highly paid “expert witness” in court cases involving the neediest of children—those seeking families to adopt them — Rekers was willing for a price to argue that prospective same-sex parents were necessarily unfit.

The exposure of the tragic consequences of Rekers’ “treatment” of “sissy boy” Kirk Murphy should remind us of the real-life consequences of pseudoscience for LGBT people. The number of people who have been driven to depression and even suicide as a result of reparative therapy can only be imagined.

The academic fraud perpetuated by Regnerus and his paymasters may not have succeeded in the way they hoped, but they managed to corrupt the system of scholarly publication, including the peer review process itself. Luckily, Regnerus’s “study” was quickly debunked, but neither he nor the editor of Social Sciences Review or those who colluded in the fraud have been held to account for their disgraceful actions.

Moreover, even though the Regnerus “study” has been debunked, it has nevertheless been used to justify discriminatory legislation both in the United States and abroad, including Russia, where it inspired laws prohibiting adoption by LGBT people and a bill mandating the removal of children from the custody of homosexual parents.

Opponents of equality have shown little scruple as they have resorted to behavior that is unethical and disgusting. Their penchant for lying about our lives says far more about them than about us.

It is sad but necessary to observe that many — perhaps most — of the groups and individuals who so regularly produce or promote anti-LGBT pseudoscience are religious. They seem to think that they have a special dispensation to lie about and defame us in the name of their religious beliefs. Quite apart from the fact that “bearing false witness” violates the tenets of their religion, their strategy is self-defeating, for their unethical behavior alienates not only LGBT people but many of their co-religionists as well.

We need to be suspicious of so-called “studies” of homosexuality and LGBT people. We need to ask hard questions about publishers and authors and funding agencies before accepting scholarship as legitimate. As David Hart has observed in his blog The Slowly Boiled Egg, “Research is published to double-blind peer reviewed scholarly journals. Everything else is bullshit.”

The dissemination of anti-LGBT pseudoscience also needs to be seen as part of the larger assault on science that has occurred in the country recently. Corporations routinely attempt to buy influence in the hiring of university faculty and in shaping research agendas by funding pet projects and preventing research in areas like climate change or industrial pollution. Truth itself has increasingly become negotiable as conspiracy theories abound and a gullible public seems willing to believe the most outrageous assertions.

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

‘What Fascism Looks Like’: Bondi’s War on Judiciary Is ‘Red Line’ for Democrats

Published

on

House and Senate Democrats are drawing a red line after agents from President Donald Trump’s FBI arrested a sitting judge—whom Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested is “deranged” and implied believes she is “above the law.”

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan is “accused of escorting the man and his lawyer out of her courtroom through the jury door last week after learning that immigration authorities were seeking his arrest,” according to the Associated Press. “FBI Director Kash Patel said Dugan ‘increased danger to the public’ by letting Mexico native Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer leave her courtroom through a jury door April 18 to help avert his arrest, according to an FBI affidavit.”

Shaking her head, Attorney General Bondi, a frequent Fox News guest, hours after the arrest on Friday said (video below): “What’s happened to our judiciary is beyond me.”

Asked what motivates these “once upstanding people in their communities and their professions” to “put it all on the line for this,” Bondi responded, “They’re deranged.”

“I cannot believe—I think some of these judges think they are beyond and above the law, and they are not,” she continued. “And we’re sending a very strong message today, if you are harboring a fugitive, we don’t care who you are , if you are helping hide one, if you are giving a TdA member guns, anyone who is illegally in this country, we will come after you, and we will prosecute you. We will find you.”

READ MORE: ‘Pure, Unadulterated, Evil’: Trump Envoy’s Putin Meeting Triggers Outrage

“Crucially,” The New Republic noted, Judge Dugan “is not accused of supplying a member of Tren de Aragua with guns. She is charged with two federal counts of obstruction, one for concealing a person from discovery and arrest, and another for obstruction of federal government proceedings.”

“Bondi, who has been a fierce defender of the president’s immigration agenda—including its wrongful deportation of immigrants—has now taken up the mantle of antagonizing state and federal judges on behalf of the increasingly hostile executive branch,” TNR added.

The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser, commenting on Bondi’s remarks, wrote simply: “AG Declares War on ‘Deranged’ Judiciary. #2025”

“The fact that she’s connecting this to the broader judiciary is the most striking thing here,” observed Washington Post senior political reporter Aaron Blake, who called it “a significant escalation of the administration’s efforts.”

Democrats are calling it something else: fascism.

“This is not normal,” wrote U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). “The Administration’s arrest of a sitting judge in Wisconsin is a drastic move that threatens the rule of law. While we don’t have all the details, this is a grave step and undermines our system of checks and balances.”

“Pam Bondi is not the President’s personal lawyer and DOJ is not a cudgel to target whoever the President doesn’t like,” wrote U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). “This is a democracy and We The People will not let this President trample over our constitution. I’m not afraid of Donald Trump and you shouldn’t be either.”

“There are no kings in America,” Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared. “Trump and Bondi can’t just decide to arrest sitting judges at will and threaten judges into submission. This is a dangerous escalation, an attack on the separation of powers, and we will fight this with everything we have.”

“First, Trump ignored the Supreme Court,” said U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). “Now, his FBI arrested a judge. This administration is threatening our country’s judicial system. This rings serious alarm bells.”

“Understand what this is: If Kash Patel and Donald Trump don’t like a judge, they think they can arrest them,” wrote U.S. Senator Tina Smith (D-MN). “This is stunning — we must stand up to this blatant power grab. Republicans: How is this not a red line for you?”

“They arrested a judge?! They can no longer claim to be a party of law and order,” wrote U.S. Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH). “This will have to be a red line for congressional Republicans. Unbelievable.”

“In the United States, we have a system of checks and balances and separations of power for damn good reasons,” U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, said in a statement. “The president’s administration arresting a sitting judge is a gravely serious and drastic move, and it threatens to breach those very separations of power. Make no mistake, we do not have kings in this country, and we are a democracy governed by laws that everyone must abide by. By relentlessly attacking the judicial system, flouting court orders, and arresting a sitting judge, this president is putting those basic Democratic values that Wisconsinites hold dear on the line.”

READ MORE: ‘Reeks of Eugenics’: RFK Jr.’s Autism ‘Registry’ Draws Nazi Germany Comparisons

“This is what fascism looks like,” wrote U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). “Attorney General Bondi threatening judges she claims are not cooperating with Trump immigration policies and saying ‘we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you.’”

U.S. Senator Andy Kim (D-NJ) wrote: “Kash Patel has long bragged about using acts of intimidation as FBI Director to appease Donald Trump. This extreme use of federal law enforcement is another example of this intimidation being used to stoke fear in immigrant communities and create chaos in our legal system.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a former constitutional law professor, issued this statement:

“Americans are watching with outrage the stunning news that Trump’s FBI has arrested a sitting judge in Milwaukee for alleged obstruction of an immigration arrest. While all the facts are not yet in, the implications of this arrest are chilling. This is a drastic escalation and dangerous new front in Trump’s authoritarian campaign of trying to bully, intimidate, and impeach judges who won’t follow his dictates. We must do whatever we can to defend the independent judiciary in America.

“As Judge Wilkinson, a conservative Reagan appointee to the Fourth Circuit reminded us last week, this Administration has shown brazen contempt for the judiciary. They are flouting court orders on a daily basis and trying to impeach judges who have entered injunctions against their lawlessness. This contempt for the judicial function is now being weaponized, with the Administration literally arresting a judge over alleged defiance.

“Every American should be deeply troubled by this massive escalation, and Judiciary Democrats are standing strong for judicial independence. This is an unmistakable descent further into authoritarian chaos.”

Watch the video of Attorney General Bondi below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Incompetent. Irresponsible. Negligent’: Calls Mount for Hegseth’s Ouster or Prosecution

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Pure, Unadulterated, Evil’: Trump Envoy’s Putin Meeting Triggers Outrage

Published

on

Political, foreign policy, and national security experts are expressing shock and outrage after President Donald Trump’s special envoy, real estate billionaire Steve Witkoff, met with Vladimir Putin on Friday at the Kremlin for the fourth time—entirely unaccompanied by any senior State Department officials, administration representatives, or policy experts—reportedly to discuss ending Russia’s unlawful war against the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

The Financial Times on Friday reported that critics describe Witkoff “as an innocent abroad, unskilled and unlettered in diplomacy. His fans say experience is overrated.”

“Being relatively uninformed about the issues, [Witkoff] took on board everything that a very charming Vladimir Putin told him,” former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer told FT. Witkoff has “fallen into a trap,” Pifer also said, describing the Trump administration’s proposal to end Putin’s war against Ukraine as “blatantly pro-Russian.”

FT also notes that Ukraine has “long suspected Witkoff of pro-Russian sympathies.”

On Friday, FT’s Moscow bureau chief Max Seddon posted video of a smiling President Putin warmly greeting Witkoff, “in English, in the Kremlin.”

READ MORE: Marjorie Taylor Greene Tops List of Ultra MAGA Hardliners Pursuing Promotions — and Power

“Putin,” Seddon noted, “is flanked by his top foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov and Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund.”

Witkoff, as numerous experts pointed out, was accompanied by no one except an interpreter.

“Their side is helmed by a former KGB officer who’s negotiated with every U.S. President since Bill Clinton, along with his most trusted, experienced foreign policy and economic aides,” noted diplomat, political advisor, and former intelligence officer Ned Price. “Our side consists of a Manhattan real estate developer and his interpreter. What could go wrong?”

CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Alex Marquardt appeared to echo Price’s concerns.

“Yet again, Witkoff meets with Putin with no other senior US officials. While Putin has two of his closest aides. This is the 4th Witkoff-Putin meeting this year and Witkoff doesn’t appear to have taken a senior diplomat/intel/expert with him to any of them.”

Former Obama National Security Council official Tommy Vietor concurred, adding, “seems like quite a bad idea that someone as inexperienced as Witkoff takes these meetings with no staff present.”

But it was Fox News’ Chief National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin who blasted the Trump administration:

“Where are the subject matter experts with Witkoff? Putin, the KGB officer, is laughing,” Griffin noted. “Meanwhile the instability at the Pentagon is not helping project strength during these delicate negotiations. There is still no confirmed NSA [National Security Agency] (Cyber Command) director after Defense Secretary Hegseth fired Gen Hauck and his deputy for no reason, not even a nominee yet for the person overseeing the crown jewel of US intelligence and SIGINT, which might come into handy when you are negotiating with Putin and Xi.”

Meanwhile, historian Mike Coté, responding to the video, lamented, “By the end of this, we’re going to have ceded Alaska back to Russia.”

Christopher Steele, the British former intelligence officer and Russia expert, on Thursday had warned: “It’s hard to imagine a more dangerous approach to Moscow than that being pursued by Trump/Witkoff. Putin’s a murderous thug with imperial ambitions and totally untrustworthy. By selling out Ukraine, Trump will simply encourage further Russian aggression rather than secure peace.”

Paula Chertok, who writes about Russia and Ukraine at East/West Blog, responded to video of Witkoff walking on the streets of Moscow with his Russian friends.

“Witkoff is shopping in Moscow with Putin’s pals… while Ukraine is observing a Day of Mourning for Ukrainians massacred in Kyiv by Russia,” Chertok noted.

READ MORE: ‘Reeks of Eugenics’: RFK Jr.’s Autism ‘Registry’ Draws Nazi Germany Comparisons

Foreign policy expert and journalist Laura Rozen, added: “Looks like Witkoff with his girlfriend, and Dmitriev with his wife, strolling around Moscow with bodyguards.”

Veteran journalist and author Craig Unger, who has alleged President Trump is a Russian asset, accused him on Thursday of “throwing Ukraine under the bus so he can build Trump Tower Moscow. Witkoff has no experience in diplomacy but plenty when it comes to real estate.”

John Hardie, the Deputy Director of the Russia Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a non-partisan institution focusing on national security and foreign policy, also posted those videos.

Republican former U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger responded, writing: “I absolutely am ashamed of my government today. This is pure, unadulterated, evil.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Incompetent. Irresponsible. Negligent’: Calls Mount for Hegseth’s Ouster or Prosecution

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Marjorie Taylor Greene Tops List of Ultra MAGA Hardliners Pursuing Promotions — and Power

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s top loyalists are angling to climb the political ladder to help secure the future for his ultra-MAGA movement—and position themselves for greater influence. House members like far-right U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) are looking at the U.S. Senate, and far-right U.S. senators like Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) reportedly see hope in governors’ mansions.

Some critical U.S. senators on both sides of the aisle are retiring, like Republican former Majority and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and the second-highest-ranking Democrat senator, Dick Durbin of Illinois.

“Democrats anxious to deny Donald Trump and his Republican Party a governing trifecta as soon as possible are feeling pretty good about their prospects for flipping the House in 2026, given the GOP’s fragile margin of control and the historical pattern of sizable midterm losses for the president’s party,” New York magazine’s “Intelligencer” reported last month.

“But the Senate, which has the power to confirm Trump’s executive branch and judicial nominations, is really going to be a reach. Democrats would need to flip four Senate seats to win control of the chamber. And an already difficult landscape is being made even tougher by the retirements of Democratic incumbents Gary Peters of Michigan, Tina Smith of Minnesota, and now Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. All three of these open seats could potentially trigger competitive races in 2026.”

READ MORE: ‘Reeks of Eugenics’: RFK Jr.’s Autism ‘Registry’ Draws Nazi Germany Comparisons

Enter Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who went from a freshman stripped of all of her committee assignments over incendiary language, to becoming chair of the Delivering on Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.) subcommittee. She also sits on the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Congresswoman Greene is now thinking about becoming Senator Greene. If successful, her controversial tactics could have a dramatic impact on what is supposed to be the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”

Rep. Greene is reportedly eyeing a run to unseat Democratic U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff, and believes she would “crush” any GOP primary opponent—except Governor Brian Kemp, should he choose to enter the race—according to the right-wing website Daily Caller.

“Republicans are laser-focused on defeating Ossoff, whose narrow victory over former Republican Georgia Sen. David Perdue in a January 2021 runoff election was partly responsible for costing Senate Republicans their majority during the 2020 cycle,” Daily Caller notes, adding, “Ossoff is the only Senate Democrat running for reelection in a state that Trump won last November.”

Could Greene beat Ossoff?

READ MORE: Trump’s SignalGate Sit-Down Mocked as a ‘Him in a Nutshell’ Moment

“This would be a dream for Dems in Georgia,” should Greene run, observed veteran journalist Lydia Polgreen.

“Somewhere at the DSCC [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] some operative is frantically wondering if there is anything they can do to ensure this happens,” wrote University of Pennsylvania political and media historian Brian Rosenwald.

A Daily Caller source also suggested Ossoff would retain his Senate seat, especially should the election move into a runoff. And Ossoff “has been taunting Greene to jump into the race.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville is reportedly mapping out a run for the Alabama Governor’s mansion.

“Tuberville told a group of donors at a private event on Wednesday night that his mind is officially made up,” the conservative website Yellowhammer News reported. “Rather than seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate, he is ready to run his next race in Alabama, and serve the people of the state in Montgomery instead of Washington.
An official campaign announcement is imminent in the coming weeks, but latest reports offer insight into a finalized decision by Tuberville, who has been privately discussing jumping into the 2026 gubernatorial race for quite some time.”

Senator Tuberville reportedly is “furious” at the leak, according to an opinion column at Alabama Political Reporter.

“Tuberville melted down like a plastic lawn chair in July. By Thursday morning, the whispers had turned into headlines. Then Tuberville took to Facebook — and things got weird.”

“While I appreciate all the interest,” Tuberville wrote, “Suzanne and I are still praying about how to best serve the people of Alabama. When I have an official announcement about my future, you’ll hear it directly from me.”

U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn, a top “Trump loyalist,” is “strongly looking” at a run for the Tennessee governor’s mansion.

The Tennessean reports that “early polling suggests she would likely be the Republican frontrunner. Some politicos across the state consider her success a foregone conclusion: at a Tennessee Chamber of Commerce event in January, attendees called her ‘Gov. Blackburn.'”

And U.S. Rep. Jim Comer (R-KY), the chair of the powerful House Oversight Committee, has also said he would be interested in running for governor.

READ MORE: ‘Incompetent. Irresponsible. Negligent’: Calls Mount for Hegseth’s Ouster or Prosecution

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.