One of the first laws passed by the Tennessee General Assembly this year regulates drag show performances, criminalizing “adult cabaret entertainment” that takes place in public or in front of minors. Conservatives backing the legislation believe the performances expose minors to inappropriate sexual themes — a claim that advocates reject. Republican state Sen. Jack Johnson, who sponsored the Tennessee legislation, said the legislation was meant to “ensure that children are not present at sexually explicit performances.”
In response, Memphis-based theater company Friends of George’s filed a federal lawsuit claiming the law violates First Amendment rights. A federal judge agreed the law is “vague and overly-broad” in an order that temporarily blocked it from taking effect. Tennessee’s law has drag performers “eat the proverbial mushroom to find out whether it is poisonous,” wrote U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker in the order issued March 31, the day before the law was set to take effect.
For now, drag performances can evade the law’s scrutiny due to an extension of the order. Once that extension expires May 26, however, first-offenders would face a misdemeanor, while any subsequent violations would be a felony. Although the law doesn’t explicitly ban drag shows, its broad language could leave performers like DuBalle at risk.
And yet there is a touch of irony in the way a law attempting to quash drag has brought the art to the forefront, DuBalle said. While the law itself hasn’t packed the house — Atomic Rose is already standing-room only for brunch — it has tripled the number of youth attendees each Sunday, according to Charlie Barnett, the general manager.
Attendees gushed over the drag queens, eager to tip before performances were really underway.
“This is what the world needs more of,” said Jennifer Iverson, explaining why she brought her young daughter to the show Sunday. “Everybody is so nice, and people are so friendly, and I can’t see anything wrong with it all, in any way, shape or form.”
[ad_2]
#Drag #Brunch #Tennessee #Ban #Photos
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
“It is maddening and it is sad to see the continuous attack of people who are quote unquote, other,” state Rep. Michell Raynor-Goolsby, a Democrat from St. Petersburg and the state’s first Black female queer legislator, said in an interview. “And that is what we’re seeing in this legislature, in this body, through the different types of legislation that is passed by the majority.”
Florida’s Legislature is known for fulfilling DeSantis’ big priorities, such as approving last year’s redistricting maps that gave the GOP a 20-8 congressional seat advantage over Democrats. But legislators are now in overdrive ahead of DeSantis’ expected 2024 presidential announcement — just four weeks into the 60-day annual session, lawmakers already sent a handful of bills to the governor. And the culture war focused bills on gender identity and sexual identity will give DeSantis a list of legislative victories he can use while campaigning for the conservative base.
A spokesperson said the DeSantis administration doesn’t typically comment on pending legislation, but in general stated that the governor “is a staunch defender of a parent’s right to be informed about and involved in their child’s education; believes that sexually explicit content is not appropriate to display to children; and believes that children should not be encouraged to physically or chemically alter their bodies for life.”
Republican lawmakers in the supermajority claim their intent is to protect kids and improve education, not discriminate. Members of LGBTQ community, however, contend they’re being slighted and disenfranchised by the legislation that GOP lawmakers are rapidly advancing in the Capitol.
GOP Florida House Speaker Paul Renner said that lawmakers are legislating issues that children should not have to face in the first place.
“We need to stop all of this stuff, whether it’s these crazy books that are on library shelves, and just focus on reading, math and core knowledge to succeed in life,” Renner said in an interview. “That is a bipartisan issue — something we all agree with.”
Gender identity and sexual orientation
One of the bills lawmakers are considering would expand Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, labeled by critics as “Don’t Say Gay.” This proposal is set to broaden the state’s prohibition on teaching about sexual identity and gender orientation to pre-k through eighth grade. It also targets how school staff and students can use pronouns on K-12 campuses, stipulating that it would be “false to ascribe” someone with a pronoun that “does not correspond to such person’s sex.”
Florida’s Department of Education is also looking to broaden “Don’t Say Gay” to 12th grade, a proposal that doesn’t need legislative approval and has drawn objections from Democrats and LGBTQ advocates.
Opponents of the legislation, such as advocacy groups Equality Florida and PRISM, claim it is effectively expanding the “censorship and attacks” on LGBTQ families in the state from last year’s law. They point to “sweeping censorship” that followed in 2022, like schools asking teachers to hide pictures of same-sex spouses from their desks.
“You have the choice to uplift students, to let them feel seen or heard, to learn about the reality of our world, or … to erase 25 percent of students in schools today from their classrooms,” Maxx Fenning, a University of Florida student and president of PRISM, and LGBTQ advocacy group, recently told lawmakers.
Republican legislators, however, argue that the intent of the parental rights law has been misinterpreted. Instead, they blame local school districts for “abusing” last year’s legislation that was meant to regulate classroom instruction by misinterpreting and politicizing the issue.
“What many school districts have done with that bill is terrible,” state GOP Rep. Randy Fine said during a bill hearing Thursday. “Because they have acted in bad faith to take a bill that they knew did not do those things. And, in order to try to score political points, they have actually done what they say they’re trying to stop to hurt people.”
Florida conservatives also are criticizing advocacy groups, claiming they are helping “blow out of proportion” the effects of the legislation by also politicizing the issue. As a result, Republican lawmakers claim naysayers are only hearing one side of the debate, maintaining that the proposal “doesn’t do anything to hurt children, but to protect children.”
“Opponents of this bill, especially the media, they want you to believe a manufactured narrative, one that they created, one that contradicts the substance and the purpose of this good bill,” said state Rep. Adam Anderson (R-Palm Harbor), a cosponsor of the House’s parental rights expansion.
But many Democrats disagree and see it as an attempt by DeSantis to excite the conservative base and, ultimately, win the GOP 2024 presidential nomination.
“The governor will be filing for president soon,” Florida House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell told reporters Monday. “Our suspicion is that he wants to get as many of his priorities out of the way so that they will already be passed, and perhaps he can even sign them into law before he makes his announcement.”
Drag shows
Republican lawmakers are also pushing legislation that will ban children from attending drag shows with “lewd” performances, an effort that comes after DeSantis called for tighter regulations and said such events “sexualize” kids.
In February, the DeSantis administration filed a complaint against the Orlando Philharmonic Plaza Foundation for hosting “A Drag Queen Christmas,” a performance advertised for all ages that the state alleged was explicit and inappropriate for children. But the Miami Herald found that undercover state agents attending the event reported that they saw nothing indecent at the show.
Democrats contend the legislation aims to scare drag performers and the LGBTQ community while performers testified that the bill was an all-out attack on the drag community.
Renner said the efforts by Republicans on gender dysphoria and drag shows were in response to what he claimed are adults pushing their lifestyles on children.
“I think the point of our members, and our side of the aisle, is let kids be kids,” Renner said. “There’s a time for them to make decisions about sexual issues, and they will do so and we will support whatever their decision is when they become adults.”
During a Friday House committee meeting, Fine, the sponsor of the drag show bill, said he would fight for drag performers even if he isn’t interested in watching them. “I don’t want to go, but I will fight like hell to make sure you can do it,” Fine said. “But leave the children out of it.”
In fighting against bills advancing through the Legislature, Democrats say that conservatives are slighting the LGBTQ community in an attempt to increase the rights for parents. Policies like restricting the use of pronouns are ostracizing students, making them feel like refugees in their own country, said state Rep. Marie Woodson (D-Hollywood).
“I’m from Haiti, I know what it feels like,” Woodson said. “I know how it feels to be disrespected, I know how it feels not be acknowledged, I know how it feels to … feel different than anybody else. And this is how those kids are feeling, they cannot be themselves. Who am I to judge them?”
[ad_2]
#drag #shows #pronouns #Florida #GOP #takes #aim #LGBTQ #issues
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
If this all seems unhinged, it’s not unprecedented. In the 1960s and ’70s, conservative opponents of school integration, women’s rights and LGBTQ rights coalesced around a similar narrative. They wrapped concerns about social and cultural change in a grim warning that America’s children were the target of gay people who aimed to “recruit” and abuse them. In many cases, it worked. It set back LGBTQ rights in many states and localities and effectively stalled efforts to pass an Equal Rights Amendment.
It’s a cautionary tale. Some conservative politicians and pundits surely know that they’re spinning fantasies in the service of scoring wins. But as the Comet Pizza shooting demonstrates, too many people believe those fantasies and are willing to act on them.
When conservatives targeted LGBTQ Americans in the 1970s, their intended target, ironically, was not always or necessarily gay people. The debate over the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970s is a case in point. Originally proposed by the National Women’s Party in the 1920s, the ERA cleared through Congress in March 1972, whereupon it was sent to the states for ratification. In its final version the amendment read simply that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Within hours, Hawaii became the first state to ratify the amendment, followed by Delaware, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Idaho and Iowa over the next two days. It seemed likely if not inevitable that the ERA would quickly win approval by the requisite 38 states and become a permanent fixture of American jurisprudence — until Phyllis Schlafly intervened.
Born and raised in St. Louis, Schlafly was a devout Catholic and prominent conservative activist with degrees from Washington University and Radcliffe College. In 1972 she founded STOP ERA (Stop Taking Our Privileges), a national organization that opposed ratification on a state-by-state level. A powerful speaker and talented political organizer, Schlafly found a sympathetic reception among millions of women who agreed that the traditional family was “the basic unit of society, which is ingrained in the laws and customs of Judeo-Christian civilization [and] is the greatest single achievement of women’s rights,” and that the ERA was “anti-family, anti-children, and pro-abortion.”
ERA opponents warned that the amendment would have far-reaching consequences, denying divorced women the right to alimony or subjecting women to the draft. But in language that seems eerily familiar today, they also claimed the law would compel schoolgirls and schoolboys to use the same restrooms — a charge that many feminists suspected of appealing to fears that white schoolgirls would be forced to use the same toilets as Black schoolboys. They claimed that women prisoners would be “put in the cells with Black men,” a situation that would inevitably lead to “the negro accost[ing] the white woman in the cell.”
Critically, children — and alleged dangers to children — lay at the heart of the anti-ERA movement. By making the amendment synonymous with LGBTQ rights, STOP ERA struck at fears of mixed bathrooms and “homosexual teachers.” The amendment would “legalize homosexual marriages and open the door to the adoption of children by legally married homosexual couples,” according to literature distributed by a state-level affiliate in Florida.
To the modern reader, the connection between equal gender rights and sexual predation in schools and prisons might seem an improbable leap. But opponents of the ERA knew what they were doing. They were creating a problem that did not exist to resist social changes that many white conservatives deeply resented.
Take, for instance, racial integration. In Florida, where the movement gained early traction, many activists associated with Women For Responsible Legislation (WFRL), the state’s leading anti-ERA organization, were veteran organizers against school desegregation and, in the 1970s, active participants in the anti-busing movement. In one breath, they warned that the ERA would create gender mixing in “gym classes,” “college dormitories” and “rest rooms.” In another breath, they portended grave consequences if Black and white children were bused between neighborhood schools in an effort to achieve desegregation. As Reubin Askew, Florida’s moderate Democratic governor, and a proponent of both busing and the ERA, observed, “Many critics of the Equal Rights Amendment have used the idea of ‘integrated’ restrooms to illustrate their fear of the proposed Amendment. The idea comes from the Brown v. Board of Education case of 1954.”
The anti-ERA forces continued to build on this well-established nexus between LGBTQ rights and school desegregation. In 1956, two years after Brown v. Board, the Florida legislature created the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee to stymie efforts to desegregate public schools. By the early 1960s the committee broadened its scope to probe the purported dangers that school children faced from gay men and, to a lesser degree, gay women. In 1964 the panel issued a lurid report, “Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida,” complete with a glossary of gay slang and terminology, and photos of half-naked men kissing or bound up in ropes.
The report focused largely on schools, where closeted gay teachers supposedly harbored a “desire to recruit” young boys, as “homosexuals are made by training rather than born.” It described an unnamed “athletically-built little league coach in West Florida” who “lived at home with his mother” and “systematically seduced the members of the baseball team into the performance of homosexual acts.” Taking care not to “lump together the homosexual who seeks out youth and … child molesters,” the committee explained that “the child molester attacks, but seldom kills or physically cripples his victim. … The homosexual, on the other hand, prefers to reach out for the child at the time of normal sexual awakening and to conduct a psychological preliminary to the physical contact. The homosexual’s goal is to ‘bring over’ the young person, to hook him for homosexuality.”
In much the same way that conservatives today see a far-reaching conspiracy to groom and traffic schoolchildren, a special investigator who cooperated with the committee lamented that “the homosexuals are organized. The persons whose responsibility it is to protect the public, and especially our kids, are not organized in the direction of combatting homosexual recruitment of youth.”
Ten years later, as they organized against the ERA, conservative activists in Florida and elsewhere well understood how to crystalize opposition against school integration and LGBTQ rights into grassroots opposition to women’s equality. They understood it because so many of them were pioneer organizers in all three efforts.
Florida was hardly the only state to give rise to anti-integration, anti-ERA or anti-LGBTQ activism. Boston, the cradle of liberty, was arguably the poster child for the anti-busing movement, and in 1978 California nearly passed a ballot initiative that would have barred gay teachers from employment in public schools. On a visit to raise support for the referendum, the conservative evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell informed his followers that “homosexuals often prey on the young. Since they cannot reproduce, they proselyte [sic].” It was only when former Governor Ronald Reagan — a conservative Republican, but also a former Hollywood actor who had more than a few gay friends and business associates — spoke out against the initiative that support for it began to collapse.
But Florida seemed always at the center of the fight. In 1977, country and western singer Anita Bryant, a resident of Miami, Florida, spearheaded a successful effort to pass a referendum overturning a city ordinance extending standard civil rights protections to gays and lesbians. In just one month, Bryant, a devout Southern Baptist and mother of four, managed to gain 60,000 signatures to place her referendum question on the ballot. Thus began several months of ugly provocation. “If homosexuality were the normal way,” she told supporters, “God would have made Adam and Bruce.” Enjoying support from prominent Christian televangelists like Jim and Tammy Bakker of the PTL Club, Pat Robertson of the 700 Club and Jerry Falwell of the Old-Time Gospel Hour, Bryant denounced a “life style that is both perverse and dangerous” and won plaudits from other conservative Christian leaders for her efforts to “stop the homosexuals in their campaign for equal rights.”
Critically, children — and made-up threats to their safety — were at the heart of Bryant’s campaign. Her organization, after all, was named Save Our Children (SOC). Claiming a fundamental threat to her right to dictate “the moral atmosphere in which my children grow up,” she presaged today’s activists in portraying schools as the front line of the era’s culture wars. “God gave mothers the divine right … and a divine commission to protect our children, in our homes, business and especially our schools.” Unsurprisingly, many of SOC’s leaders were veterans of the state’s anti-busing and anti-school desegregation movement.
SOC played heavily into nationwide fears of a child pornography epidemic. The hype was purely fanciful, but it proved resonant. “SCAN THESE HEADLINES FROM THE NATION’S NEWSPAPERS,” a typical leaflet urged. “—THEN DECIDE: ARE HOMOSEXUALS TRYING TO RECRUIT OUR CHILDREN?” The organization denied any intention to discriminate against gay people, as long as they lived their lives quietly, and out of public view. “Homosexuals do not suffer discrimination when they keep their perversions in the privacy of their own homes,” it insisted. As for Bryant, she held that gay people “can hold any job, transact any business, join any organization — As long as they do not flaunt their homosexuality.”
In the end, Bryant’s referendum passed with overwhelming support. And the Florida legislature declined on several occasions in the 1970s to pass the ERA.
Americans in the 1970s experienced profound social and cultural change, as women and people of color came to enjoy greater freedoms and opportunities, the LGBTQ community more actively asserted its fundamental right to live equally and to be left alone by the state, and traditional hierarchies began to give way to a less certain societal order. It’s little wonder that conservative activists, most of whom were probably sincere in their beliefs, were successful at creating a bogeyman that focused the fears of many middle-of-the-road voters. That bogeyman was the child predator — gay, prurient and dangerous. He turned schools and libraries into recruitment (aka, “grooming”) forums. And he had to be stopped.
That’s roughly where we are today, as local and state governments from Tennessee and Idaho, to New Jersey and Pennsylvania, to Ohio and New York, seek to ban or restrict public drag shows, remove books addressing LGBTQ-related topics from schools or restrict what teachers can say about sexuality or race in the classroom. As in the 1960s and 1970s, the voices warning of predatory grooming are often the same ones opposing other bogeymen, like “Critical Race Theory.” Then as now, the opposition nexus unifies broader concerns about the pace and nature of social change.
History does not inevitably repeat itself. This moment could prove fleeting. But conservative success in the 1970s in fabricating threats to children, then rallying people to organize around them, offers cold comfort to those who view this form of retrenchment with a worried eye. And as Comet Pizza should have taught us, when you play with fire, people can get hurt.
[ad_2]
#Opinion #Pizzagate #Drag #Bills #Groomer #Myth #Die
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
“We’re not trying to be anti-anybody, anti-trans, anti-anything, we’re just trying to protect our kids,” said Bentley, who acknowledged at the hearing that schools expressed concerns that student performances might be targeted if costumes had exaggerated anatomical features or had certain types of singing and dancing. “We’re not trying to stop plays. We’re not trying to stop Peter Pan, or Tootsie, or any of those things.”
Drag show restrictions have become a leading cultural issue during this year’s legislative sessions for the right and prominent Republicans like Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is set to deliver her party’s response to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address on Tuesday.
Lawmakers in at least eight states — including Arizona, South Carolina and Texas — introduced measures to block children from drag shows at the start of this year, according to PEN America, a free speech advocacy group. Many of the measures would subject educators, business owners, performers and parents to criminal prosecution and professional sanctions for allowing children to view performances, many of which have been the focus of recent armed demonstrations.
Drag performers are not a regular presence at school events, despite GOP uproar. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, reportedly petitioned the state school board association for help this week after middle school students attended an event that featured a drag performance.
The bills often seek to categorize drag shows the same way as explicit adult entertainment, and sometimes include language saying restrictions only apply to “prurient” exhibitions with erotic intentions, or include nudity or explicit material. Several proposals would prohibit drag performances or appearances in schools, while other bills further regulate shows on public property and in private businesses.
Opponents argue that signing these measures into law might not only violate constitutional protections, but also provoke a broader cultural suppression of LGBTQ people.
“The goal for many of these lawmakers has been to frighten people about what drag performances are, and what kids are actually being exposed to,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign.
“Many of these bills essentially allow private individuals to report a performance to be investigated oftentimes for violations of criminal law,” Warbelow said in an interview. “That’s going to have a chilling effect on drag performances from Pride parades, to the drag queen story hour at the local library, to college campuses that might have a drag performance as part of a Pride celebration.”
North Dakota’s House of Representatives last week approved a drag show ban that would categorize repeated performances in front of children as a felony offense, sending the measure to the state Senate for consideration.
Bentley’s measure in the Arkansas House was approved by a committee on Wednesday, one week after the state Senate signed off. Lawmakers backtracked on Thursday, however, by filing an amendment that scrubs all “drag performance” mentions from the proposal.
Sanders appeared eager to sign the original measure into law.
“This is not about banning anything; it is about protecting kids,” Sanders spokesperson Alexa Henning told POLITICO in a statement, before the legislation was amended. “We don’t let kids smoke, drink alcohol, go to strip clubs, or access sexually explicit material, and the Governor believes sexually explicit drag shows are no different. Only in the radical left’s woke dystopia is it not appropriate to protect kids.”
North Dakota Republican Gov. Doug Burgum’s office declined to comment on the proposal moving through his state’s legislature, but one of its top Democrats is livid.
“It pisses me off,” state House Minority Leader Josh Boschee said of the bill.
“There aren’t parents coming forward to say there are all these drag performances happening on Main Street and we need to be protected from them,” Boschee, who is gay, said in an interview. “These are all concepts and ideas that are being taken from the dark sides of the internet.”
State Rep. Brandon Prichard, a newly elected Republican lawmaker who introduced North Dakota’s bill, is still confident the measure will win Senate approval.
“There is a clear path to victory for the bill,” Prichard said in an interview. “The Senate is more conservative than it has ever been in North Dakota. And I think that there is a natural tendency in North Dakota to agree with this bill.”
In South Carolina, the proposed “Defense of Children’s Innocence Act” explicitly bars schools and publicly funded entities from using taxpayer dollars to provide a drag show, and would allow the prosecution of anyone who allows a minor to view a drag show with a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison and a maximum $5,000 fine.
“I don’t know when drag shows became the devil,” said Sherry East, president of the South Carolina Education Association, in an interview. “To my knowledge, I don’t know that schools are doing this. I’ve never known of a school to do this. The homophobic attitude from some of our elected officials is quite concerning and disappointing.”
A Montana bill would prohibit state-funded schools and libraries from hosting drag performances during school hours or at school-sanctioned extracurricular activities. Librarians or educators convicted of violating the law would face $5,000 fines and the potential suspension and revocation of their teaching license.
Nearly two dozen South Dakota lawmakers have co-sponsored a proposed change to state education law that would prohibit university systems and public schools from using public money and facilities to “develop, implement, facilitate, host, promote, or fund any lewd or lascivious content” including drag performances.
Arizona Republicans have proposed a trio of drag restrictions including a bill that would classify drag performers, their shows, and establishments that host them as “adult-oriented businesses” — under existing law that regulates strip clubs, erotic massage parlors and movie theaters. Approval would prohibit cross-dressing performances within a quarter-mile of schools, playgrounds, and child care facilities.
“The tactics and the angle that these bills are taking are very different,” Warbelow, of the Human Rights Campaign, said. “But the goal really feels the same, which is to ensure that young people have no exposure to the LGBTQ community.”
[ad_2]
#Republican #states #fuming #legislating #drag #performances
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The Wiki biography was last edited on April 29, 2011. It contains basic information that matches up with the newly sworn-in congressman, including Devolder being born on July 22, 1988, to a Brazilian family with a European background.
Santos has used the name Anthony Devolder elsewhere for online accounts.
His office referred calls for comment to an outside aide, who did not immediately respond. But if the person who created the Anthony Devolder Wiki bio was anyone other than Santos, it would mean someone used the same alias and same biographical details as him a dozen years ago, all for a user page no one else would see.
The surfacing of the Wiki biography is another twist in a weeks-long saga of lies and embellishments. The New York Republican has been caught fabricating his own resume on everything from his business career, educational achievements and the nature of his mother’s death. He has admitted that he misled about critical parts of his biography, but has also insisted that other politicians have done the same.
The Wiki bio for Anthony Devolder, which is full of spelling and grammatical errors, appears to contain fantastical descriptions of his supposed career in show business. It claims that he had a part in Disney’s “Hannah Montana,” among other examples.
It was, it appears, just the first in several attempts by Santos to edit his bio on the internet encyclopedia — steps that further show the degree to which he has gone to curate his life story.
In November, a Wiki user named Devmaster88 edited the Wikipedia page for then congressman-elect George Santos (a page separate from the Wiki bio for Anthony Devolder). The user changed the section about Santos’ personal life and made edits to his middle name. Around that time another account, georgedevolder22, also made edits to Santos’ public Wikipedia page, removing the entire middle name, Anthony Devolder, so that the biography was shortened to George Santos.
The identity of the users is not revealed by Wikipedia. But both accounts have subsequently been blocked from the site. Moderators, as part of the ban, wrote that Devmaster88 was “abusing multiple accounts” and that it was likely an extension of Georgedevolder22.
Santos, a Republican, has pushed back on relatively few accusations that he has lied about his past. But he did deny the drag performances that were first revealed by MSNBC reporter Marisa Kabas, who posted a photo she alleges to be of Santos dressed in drag in 2008. Kabas also spoke with a Brazilian drag queen who allegedly was friends with Santos when he lived near Rio de Janeiro and used the stage name Kitara.
On Thursday, the New York Post translated a video from Portuguese in which a person who appears to be Santos discusses performing in drag. The video was later posted online by the Daily Mail.
Santos has rebuffed repeated calls from fellow Republicans to resign his seat over the fabrications, even as he has come under investigation over his finances. In recent days he denied separate allegations from New Jersey veterans claiming that he absconded with thousands of dollars earmarked for life-saving surgery for one of their sick dogs.
In the 2011 Wiki bio, the user Anthony Devolder sprinkles show business credits that ring similarly untrue. He describes his Hollywood career as taking off after a meeting with a producer of the 1996 blockbuster “Independence Day.” He name drops the director Steven Spielberg (he misspelled his last name as “Spilberg”), and claims to have starred in “a few T.V shows and DISNEY Channel shows such as ‘the suite life of Zack and Cody” and the hit “Hanna[h] Montana.”
The Wiki bio concludes with Santos writing that, two years prior, he “taped his very first movie startting [sp] Uma Turman, [sp] Chris Odanald, [sp] Melllisa George, [sp] and Alicia Silver Stone [sp] in the movie “THE INVASION.”
“The Invasion” is a 2007 sci-fi/thriller with roots in the “Body Snatchers” storyline and stars Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig.
[ad_2]
#George #Santos #appears #admit #drag #queen #Wiki #post
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
