Drug Overdoses Killed More Americans Than Car Crashes or Guns

Susan Jones from CNS News reports:

“Drug overdose deaths are the leading cause of injury death in the United States, ahead of motor vehicle deaths and firearms (deaths),” the Drug Enforcement Agency announced on Wednesday.

In 2013, the most recent year for which data is available, 46,471 people in the United States died from drug overdoses, and more than half of those deaths were caused by prescription painkillers and heroin.

That compares with the 35,369 who died in motor vehicle crashes and 33,636 who died from firearms, as tallied by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Sadly this report confirms what we’ve known for some time: drug abuse is ending too many lives while destroying families and communities,” Acting DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg said as he released the 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment.

“We must stop drug abuse before it begins by teaching young people at an even earlier age about its many dangers and horrors.”

Read more.

Social Science and the Nuclear Family by Steven Horwitz

The question of the importance of family structure, specifically marriage, is back in the limelight. Conservatives are promoting three papers that provide some strong evidence that children raised by married parents do better along a number of dimensions than those raised in other household forms.

For many commentators, this makes for a strong case against those who appear to claim that family structure has either a minimal effect or doesn’t matter at all. As someone who might well fall into that group, or at least appear to, I think there are several responses to these new studies, all of which can acknowledge the empirical evidence that being raised by two loving parents is better for kids than alternative family structures.

One side note: conservatives might wish to not use the term “family structure denialists” as Wilcox does in the link above.

Comparing a legitimate disagreement over empirical evidence and public policy to those who would deny the overwhelming evidence of the Holocaust is an unacceptable rhetorical move whether it comes from leftists speaking of “climate change deniers” or conservatives speaking of “family structure deniers.” The disagreements in both case are legitimate objects of intellectual discussion and the language of “denier” indicates a refusal to engage in good faith debate.

On the substance of this issue, the conservatives cheering these recent studies don’t always note that there are differences among single-parent households formed through: 1) the choice to have and raise a child by oneself; 2) death of a spouse; and 3) divorce. Each of these presents a different set of circumstances and tradeoffs that we might wish to consider when we think about the role of family structure.

The conservative defenders of the superiority of the two-parent family (and it’s presumably not just “two parents” but two parents of the opposite sex, which raises a whole other set of questions), might wish to disentangle the multiple reasons such a family structure might not be present. For example, the children of widows do better than those of women who choose not to marry the fathers of their children, and the children of widows have outcomes that look more like those of kids from two-parent families.

The empirical evidence under discussion has to be understood with an “all else equal” condition. A healthy marriage will indeed produce better outcomes than, say, single motherhood. But there is equally strong social scientific evidence about the harm done to children who are raised in high-conflict households. Those children may well be better off if their parents get divorced and they are raised in two single-parent households with less conflict.

When parents in high-conflict marriages split up, the reduction in their stress levels, especially for women, leads to improved relationships with their children and better outcomes for the kids. In general, comparisons of different types of family structures must avoid the “Nirvana Fallacy” by not comparing an idealized vision of married parenthood with a more realistic perspective on single parenthood. The choices facing couples in the real world are always about comparing imperfect alternatives.

In addition, to say that married parents create “better” outcomes for kids does not mean that other family forms don’t produce “acceptable” outcomes for kids. It’s not as if every child raised by a single mother, whether through divorce, widowhood, or simply not marrying the father, is condemned to poverty or a life of crime.

Averages are averages. Though these three recent studies do continue to confirm the existing literature’s consensus that marriage is “better” for kids, there is still much debate over how much better those outcomes are, and especially whether other family structures are or are not sufficient to raise functional adults.

And this leads to the next point, which is that parents matter too.

The focus of the “family structure matters” crowd is almost exclusively on the outcomes for kids. That parents matter too is most obvious with divorce, where leaving a bad marriage may be extremely valuable for mom and/or dad, even if it leads to worse outcomes for the kids. The evidence from Stevenson and Wolfers that no-fault divorce has led to a decline in intimate partner violence, as well as suicides of married women, makes the importance of this point clear.

We can acknowledge that higher divorce rates have not been good for kids, but we can’t do single-entry moral bookkeeping. We have to include the effects of divorce on the married couple, because adults matter too. When we add this to the idea that conflict in marriage is bad for kids, the increased ease with which adults can get out of marriages, and the resulting single parenthood, is not so clearly a net problem when we consider the well-being of both children and adults.

These calculations are complicated and idiosyncratic, which seems to suggest that they should be left to those with the best knowledge of the situation and not artificially encouraged or discouraged by public policy.

This last point raises the final question, which is what do these studies mean for public policy?

If two-parent families are better than the alternatives, what does this imply? Are conservatives suggesting that we subsidize couples who have kids? Should that apply to only biological parents and not adoptive ones? Isn’t this a case for same-sex marriage? Should we make divorce more difficult, and if so, what about the probable result that doing so would reduce the number of marriages by increasing the cost of exit?

I would certainly agree that we should stop subsidizing single-parenthood through various government programs, but I’d make the same argument about two-parent families as well. In any case, what’s not clear is what the conservatives trumpeting these studies think they mean for public policy.

Perhaps, though, they think the solutions are cultural. If conservatives wish to argue that these studies mean that we should use moral suasion and intermediary institutions such as houses of worship to encourage people to marry and stay married if they wish to have kids, or that we should encourage young people to use contraception and think more carefully about when and with whom they have sex, that’s fine. And in fact, teen pregnancies are down.

But if intermediary institutions can do all of that, then they can also play a key role in helping single parents who make the difficult decision to divorce or continue a pregnancy in the complicated circumstances of their lives. Such institutions will also likely do that more effectively than can the state.

So if we are genuinely concerned about single parenthood, we should be asking what are the best ways to deal with it. Libertarians like me might well agree with such conservatives if they think the solutions are cultural or should rest in the hands of such intermediate institutions. But if they think there are public policy solutions, particularly ones that limit or penalize the choices facing couples, I wish they would spell them out explicitly in the context of their discussions of these studies.

One last thought: It ill-serves libertarians to deny the results of good science and social science, whether it’s climate change from the left or family structure from the right. We should, of course, critically interrogate that work to make sure that it is, in fact, good. But if it is good, we should welcome it as we should first be concerned with the truth and not our ideological priors.

The next questions we should ask, however, are about the implications. In the case of these recent studies on family structure, it is incumbent upon us to assess both the quality of the work and its implications, and we should pay particular attention to what is not being seen and what questions are not being asked.

Just because one family structure is better for children all else equal means neither that other family structures aren’t good enough for kids, nor that all else is always equal, nor that we shouldn’t consider the well-being of adults when we discuss the consequences of alternative family structures.

This post first appeared at the excellent philosophy blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

Steven Horwitz
Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

Presidential Scorecard on Marijuana

Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) evaluates the positions of 18 candidates—15 Republicans and 3 Democrats—on their support of an evidence-based marijuana policy:

  • Opposition to marijuana legalization for recreational purposes
  • Support of prevention, intervention, and treatment for marijuana use
  • Regulated, FDA-approved approach to the legitimate medical use of marijuana components

marijuana score card candidates

Some candidates are still formulating a position (e.g., John Kasich). SAM will be sending a questionnaire to the candidates to clarify their stance.

Best Candidates:
Marco Rubio
Chris Christie
Ben Carson

Worst Candidates:
Bernie Sanders
Rand Paul

Read SAM’s Scorecard of 2016 Presidential Candidates here.

One-Third of Obamacare Co-Ops Shut Down by Charles Hughes

Hundreds of thousands people will lose their insurance plans as a raft of health insurance cooperatives (CO-OPs) created by the Affordable Care Act will cease operations.

Just last week, CO-OPs in Oregon, Colorado, Tennessee and Kentucky announced that they would be winding down operations due to lower than expected enrollment and solvency concerns (although the one in Colorado issuing the state over the shutdown order). They join four other CO-OPs that have announced that they would be closing their doors.

In total, only 15 out of the 23 CO-OPs created by the law remain. These closures reveal how ill-advised this aspect of the ACA was both in terms of lost money and the turmoil for the people who enrolled in them. The eight that have failed have received almost $1 billion in loans, and overall CO-OPs received loans totaling $2.4 billion that might never get paid back.

In addition, roughly 400,000 people will lose their plans.

Proponents of the CO-OPs believed that they would be able to offer lower premiums than for-profit insurers because they did not have the same profit motive, but even non-profit insurers cannot operate at a financial loss indefinitely.

When they were created, these CO-OPs had no customers, no experience in setting premiums, no networks and limited capital. The government tried to subsidize the early period of uncertainty by disbursing loans to help with startup and solvency issues, and money from other provisions like risk corridors would dampen losses in the initial years.

Lower than expected payments from the risk corridors have exacerbated the issues facing some of these CO-OPs, who were counting on substantial payments to stay afloat. But this is hardly the only factor contributing to their struggles, some of them the product of other government policies like delaying employer mandate penalties and giving states the option to allow transitional policies through 2017.

Some of these later developments could not have been anticipated, but many analysts, including Cato scholars, were skeptical about the prospects of CO-OPs from the beginning.  Even some ACA supporters recognized the flaws inherent in the CO-OP design: Paul Krugman derided them as a “sham” and in a 2009 interview Professor Timothy Jost said could not see how a CO-OP “does anything to control costs.”

There have been multiple warning signs that many CO-OPs were in trouble.  Earlier this year The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent letters to 11 CO-OPs placing them on “enhanced oversight” due to financial concerns, and a 2014 report from the HHS Office of Inspector General found that “most of the 23 CO-OPs we reviewed had not met their initial program enrollment and profitability projections,” and that the government “had not established guidance or criteria to assess whether a CO-OP was viable or sustainable.”

These CO-OPs were not a good idea at inception and were always going to face many obstacles to success.  Multiple changes to the law since they were established have exacerbated these problems, and already struggling CO-OPs have folded. Competition is indeed vital in health insurance markets, but the CO-OPs were a bad way to try to foster this competition.

With these closures, billions of taxpayer dollars could be lost and hundreds of thousands of people will discover that the “if you like your plan, you can keep it” promise does not apply to them.

This post first appeared at Cato.org.

Florida State University Grad Student leading the fight for campus concealed carry

Lee Williams, reporter for The Gun Writer, in his column: Colleges students who support campus carry want their voices heard reported:

During most discussions about concealed carry on colleges campuses, the voices of students who support gun rights and want a means to defend themselves are usually missing, according to Rebekah Hargrove a graduate student at Florida State University.

Hargrove is president of the Students For Concealed Carry at Florida State University.

Once she earns her Master’s degree, she plans to continue at FSU toward a PhD in a public health-related field, such as bio-terrorism, and then go to work for the Centers for Disease Control.

Yep, she’s sharp as a tack.

Born in Connecticut but raised in Sarasota, the 22-year-old grew up with guns, shooting with her family.

Hargrove and her friends who support the Second Amendment, “Just want to be treated like everyone else around town,” she said.

“We want the right to defend ourselves,” she said. “The instant we decided to go and get an education, we lost that right.”

Her Students for Concealed Carry at FSU has around 100 members, including some who are under 21 and not yet old enough for a Florida Concealed Carry License.

Read more.

An article was published on October 11th, 2015 in the Tallahassee Democrat by James Call titled Rebekah Hargrove, an unexpected gun advocate about this incredibly savvy young woman who is leading the fight among college students in Florida to restore the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the right of self-defense.  Her dedication and help on this issue is enormously valuable to us all.

We have written that guns have gone mainstream because women are buying them for self-defense. This trend is continuing with women on Florida’s campuses who are concerned about their safety.

As the saying goes, better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Rebekah Hargrove who is the president of Students for Concealed Carry at Florida State University. Facebook photo.

Planned Parenthood Sex Education and the ‘Dental Dams’ Lie

We apologize for this information, but as we allow our children to be assaulted this way in school we cannot expect to be too sensitive ourselves. We have “sanitized” the article. – Judith Gelernter Reisman and Thomas R. Hampson

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves,” Matthew 10:16

The Kinsey Cult

Ira Reiss, a Sociologist and Professor Emeritus at Minnesota University was a charter member of Kinsey’s Sex Cult. His papers, articles, and audio and video recordings already are housed at the Kinsey Institute, 57 years of his work so far.  Reiss, like other Kinsey disciples, advocated the production of pornography and its display for “training” purposes to prepare students entering the new sexuality fields spawned by Kinsey’s supposed revelations on sex.  Kinsey gleefully directed the development of these training materials, which during the late 60’s, started to be called Sexuality Attitude Restructuring (later re-named Reassessment) (SAR) sessions.

These training sessions are promoted as sexual desensitization seminars, pornographic extravaganzas of all manner of enthusiastic sexual activities presented to groups of men and women as training to become certified therapists, counselors, educators or researchers, etc, in matters of sex and sexuality. Viewing these images triggers sexual arousal, (blush) actually changing their brains, minds and memories. Even the New York Times, quoting the science on brain change and plasticity noted, “the vicarious thrill of watching sex, it turns out, is not so vicarious after all.”[1] In addition to desensitizing sexologists to the images of heterosexual activities, sado-masochism, group sex, sodomy, the use of sex “toys” (apparatus) and other unmentionables, the sex leaders also hold small group discussions to explore the participants’ attitudes and biases in order to neutralize any ‘negative’ views.

But the stated purpose of these sessions is not the whole story, or even the real story.

Early on, these sessions were not used to merely desensitize, and encourage acceptance of all sex acts but as indoctrination into a “sex positive” mindset.  Such training has been a requirement for certification by the American Association of Sex Educators and Counselors (AASEC) which later became the American Association of Sex Educators Counselors and Therapists (AASECT).  Indeed, leaders often pressured participants into sexual experimentation with each other.

Reiss revealed this in his book, An Insider’s View of Sexual Science since Kinsey, recounting his experience at an 8 day SAR session in San Francisco in 1972.  At the time, Reiss already was a professor at the University of Minnesota where its medical school was one the first in the country to offer SAR training to medical students.  But it was a new, untested program.

The director of U of M’s SAR program had secured a grant from the Playboy Foundation to send 25 couples from the University, all expenses paid, to San Francisco to receive training from the group that had followed on Kinsey’s practices, the National Sex Forum (NSF) (aka: the National Sex and Drug Forum).  The purpose was to improve the programming at Minnesota.  Reiss and wife were among the volunteers for the Playboy sponsored training of future national sex education. Reiss reports:

“The view presented by many of the staff was supportive of people trying out the full variety of sexual acts that exist (S and M, gay, extramarital, group sex, etc.).  The supposed purpose was to allow people to break through their old restrictive sexual attitudes.  I had no objection to offering such options.  However, as they elaborated, it became clear that this support of broad experimentation was more than just permission giving—it was presented as a demand to experiment.”[2]

When Reiss resisted, the SAR leaders ridiculed him, one of them saying, “Are you hostile to group sex or gay sex, and is that why [you are] so cautious about trying something new?  Are you biased?”[3]

Reiss explained that he did not object to the idea of such activity, or even to promoting such experimentation.  Rather, he objected to making it a demand instead of merely encouraging it.

And promoting and demanding and forcing freewheeling sexual libertinism, SAR trainers have been doing for over 40 years now.

While AASECT requires SAR training as an element in their certification standards, the Kinsey Institute is still involved and Planned Parenthood has joined in.  In 2007 Planned Parenthood of Indiana, the Kinsey Institute and AASECT cooperated in staging a SAR training at an Episcopal Retreat Center (of all places).  SAR trainings take place continually all over the country every year.  Those attending become the “experts” who write the sex education materials, who teach the teachers who put on the programs that “inform” our children about healthy sexuality.

Mentally and emotionally corrupted graduates of the SAR training become the “experts” who design sex-ed courses and teach our children. Thus, they have “determined” that the body’s solid waste exit is a “genital” as it is described in the currently used sex education program in Hawaii; that sexual excitement from urine is just normal sex play, endorsed by a Massachusetts Department of Public Health book distributed to Massachusetts children; that orgies are natural entertainment, that pornographic sex addiction is a myth; that it’s normal for children to have sex and that they have the right to choose whatever sexual activity they may think to try; and that sodomy (legalized 6-3 in 2003) is healthy sexual practice for all sexual orientations.

The whole purpose of these “sex positive” programs is not to liberate adults from their Victorian moral prisons but to indoctrinate children into an unrestrained, sexually available lifestyle. Even if such “programs” are not being taught in all schools yet, this material is available on multiple websites and widely promoted to all comers, regardless of age.  The Kinsey Institute, SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, AASECT, and others all provide sites that extoll the virtues of unrestrained sexual experimentation.

Is it any wonder that youthful STD’s, pregnancies, abortions and abuse are pandemic?

Which brings us to one of the big lies spread by these organizations: safe/safer sex.

dental dams pamphletNow: The Dental Dam Lie

After telling children that they must use the condom properly; unroll it, check carefully for any holes, full directions for putting on, etc., Minnesota AIDS Project experts (SAR graduates) tell youngsters they can cut and use plastic wrap as a “barrier” when a child has oral contact with “the opening at the end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste matter leaves the body,”[4] known by other cruder jargons.

What?

After all the care telling children to assure the condom is in perfect condition, sex experts endorse plastic wrap!?  A child asked me once “if we don’t have plastic wrap, can we use tin foil?”

This Minnesota AIDS Project advertisement teaches children how to make their own dental dam.

Proper Use for Dental Dams

“A rubber dam and accessories is a device composed of a thin sheet of latex with a hole in the center intended to isolate a tooth from fluids in the mouth during dental procedures … The device includes the rubber dam, rubber dam clamp, rubber dam frame, and forceps for a rubber dam clamp. This classification does not include devices intended for use in preventing transmission of sexually transmitted diseases through oral sex…”[5] (Italics added)

sheer dental dam“We know of no other latex dam cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for protection against STDs[6] for” oral sodomy, or oral contact with that opening at the end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste matter leaves the body.” “*NOTE: Unlike Sheer Glyde Dams, dental dams were never intended for, tested or proven to be an effective barrier for the prevention of the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). (Italics added)[7]  And there is the warning:

“Warning: Do not use during penetrating penile/vaginal or penile/anal intercourse.”[8]

Requests for documentation from sales@glydehealth.com for all three approvals await.  So far, weeks have passed and we’ve heard nothing.  And we probably won’t either.  Documentation we obtained from the FDA specifically states that the dams are NOT to be used for oral/anal sex.

Which brings us back to Reiss, Planned Parenthood, the Kinsey Institute, and AASECT at their Retreat on Sexuality at the Episcopal Retreat Center. For Planned Parenthood has brainwashed thousands of teachers, counselors, educators, lawyers, judges, doctors for five or six decades.

“If you choose to have vaginal or anal intercourse, use condoms every time. They can reduce the risk of HPV. They are not as effective against HPV as they are against other infections such as chlamydia and HIV. But they greatly reduce the risk of HPV infection. You can use condoms, Sheer Glyde dams, dental dams, or plastic wrap during oral sex to further reduce the risk.”[9]

Now, it is time to bring this into the courtroom. Do “condoms” and homemade, mislabeled “dental dams” give the protection Planned Parenthood claims, or are they just an excuse to hypersexualize younger and younger children, groom them, and leave them increasingly vulnerable to disease, even death, and sexual abuse by peers and adults?  Let us hear from you if you have been victimized by believing the lies that were told in school about condoms, never approved by the FDA for sodomy, and so-called “dental dam” safety.

RELATED VIDEO:

REFERENCES:

[1] Cells That Read Minds, Jan. 10, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10mirr.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

[2] Ira Reiss, An Insider’s View of Sexual Science since Kinsey, Roman and Littlefield, Inc., New York, p. 64.

[3] Ibid.

[4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/anus?q=anus.

[5] http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=872.6300.

[6] http://www.gamelink.com/display_product.jhtml?id=294017. Sites for general “health” aids as well as school health claiming safety: www.nakedtruth.idaho.gov/dental-dams.aspx‎ brown.edu/…/sexual…sex_and…/dental_dams.php‎  www.gc.cuny.edu/…/What-are-Dental-Dams…‎ studenthealth.oregonstate.edu/…/dental_dam. https://www.rochester.edu/…/SexualHealth/ https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/sexual…/sexually…/oral-dams‎, etc., etc.

[7] http://www.gamelink.com/display_product.jhtml?id=294017. Sites for general “health” aids as well as school health claiming safety: www.nakedtruth.idaho.gov/dental-dams.aspx‎ brown.edu/…/sexual…sex_and…/dental_dams.php‎  www.gc.cuny.edu/…/What-are-Dental-Dams…‎ studenthealth.oregonstate.edu/…/dental_dam. https://www.rochester.edu/…/SexualHealth/ https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/sexual…/sexually…/oral-dams‎, etc., etc.

[8] http://www.drugstore.com/sheer-glyde-dams-protective-barrier-creme-vanilla-flavor/qxp55546

[9] http://m.plannedparenthood.org/mt/www.plannedparenthood.org/hudsonpeconic/cervical-cancer-38430.htm.

Calling all young Patriots! Build large families to save American culture!

I’m so sick of hearing that as the population ages we have to tolerate more and more immigration from the third world.  Heck, that thinking is what is destroying Europe. And, I am sick of us being on the defense.

How about a national campaign to encourage young American couples to have more babies!  Why not!

If you are my age, you know we college students were beaten over the head with the idea that we dare not over-populate the earth and we dutifully (many of us!) did what we were told, all the while, the whole system was geared for people with lower educations to have MORE babies (encouraged by the welfare system).

Let’s stop the madness.  How about rewards for the well-educated to have large families!  (Oh, I can hear the screaming and gnashing of teeth from the Left now!).

Maybe there is some (brave!) private foundation out there willing to promote such a campaign!

This post is archived in a rarely used category here called ‘creating a movementwhich I would like to use more often!

Oops!  Should have reminded readers about this recent post—Death by Demography—when I initially posted this one.

RELATED ARTICLES:

It is official! Fiscal year 2015 Syrian resettlement: 97% Muslim

Sec. of State John Kerry: Climate refugees our next move to erase borders

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) advances bill to bring in MORE Syrian refugees, more quickly

FBI Director confirms (again) that they can’t thoroughly screen Syrians entering the U.S.

Planned Parenthood talks only to Womyn’s Studies Professors and Students

Alas, my requests for more information from Planned Parenthood regarding how such activities as the one I observed on September 17, 2015, at Hamilton College, as well as their national “Pink Out” Day on September 29, fit into their own or educational institutions’ missions, were ignored by Beth LeGere, Director of Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood Mohawk Hudson, for a long time.  She finally responded to my two email messages, a telephone message, and a cell phone message with a refusal to speak to me.  As I reported last week, she demanded a retraction to a statement that was not directly attributed to her.  She admitted to encouraging students to vote, but denied encouraging them to vote for pro-choice candidates.  One of my questions to her in my email concerned how encouraging students to vote was part of the mission of an organization that is purportedly for “women’s health.” Certainly, a lecture about voting, its history, patterns, and historical origins would be an appropriate topic for a college campus event, especially one that requires student attendance by the professor as the September 17 Hamilton College event did (as I’ve recently learned).

In her original email to Accuracy in Academia, where she read my post, Ms. LeGere implied that I should have identified myself at the event as a journalist.  LeGere wrote, “I would have welcomed the opportunity to be interviewed and quoted correctly. I encouraged students to register to vote but I DID NOT encourage anyone to vote for pro-choice candidates.  In incorrectly asserting that I made such an inappropriate statement, Ms. Grabar calls into question her own objectivity as a journalist and competency as an accurate reporter.”

She further stated, “Any responsible journalist should print a public retraction based on the above,” and “I am available to speak to Ms. Grabar should she like the opportunity to get the facts.”

Yet, she will not answer my question about the appropriateness of a health organization representative encouraging students to vote.  Apparently, the “facts” go out only to those already inclined to believe her version without question.  These are the students whose professors require that they attend one-sided presentations of advocacy groups engaged in very controversial practices (like trading in fetal body parts) and funded by taxpayers.  Certainly, a debate between this group and a pro-life group would have been an appropriate campus event.  But as I described in my previous posts, Planned Parenthood was provided an exclusive forum for disseminating their views under the guise of an academic activity.

Here is the timeline and exchange. I made initial contact on October 1, writing her an email:

Dear Ms. LeGere:

Thank you for reading my article about your visit on September 17 to Hamilton College. . . .

Thank you for confirming that you had encouraged students to register to vote.

I went to your website and found the mission statement, which I quote in full:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Mission Statement: A Reason for Being Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual’s income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual’s right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.

Based on these beliefs, and reflecting the diverse communities within which we operate, the mission of Planned Parenthood is

to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual

to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services

to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality

to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications

“My question concerns how your visit to Hamilton College, especially your encouraging students to register to vote and to call Congressman Richard Hanna and ask him to vote in a way to help Planned Parenthood fits this mission statement.”

I then quoted the mission statement from Hamilton College’s website.

I continued: “Your visit was part of an event that was sponsored by various academic departments, such as Comparative Literature and Philosophy.  The event with Rhodessa Jones was billed as being related to the ancient Greek drama, ‘Medea.’  I do not see any reference to such topics under Planned Parenthood’s educational mission.

“Please explain where encouraging students to vote fits into the mission statement.

“Please send me a list of schools, K-12 and college, which you have visited.”

I left her a message on her office phone on the mornings of October 5, and on her cell phone October 6.  I sent her a second email on October 6 in the afternoon.  I had additional questions:

Planned parenthood supportersPlanned parenthood supporters“In addition to questions in my previous email, I would like to know about Planned Parenthood’s ‘Pink Out’day  events on college campuses, especially public colleges and in New York State.  I noticed that there was a Pink Out day event at S.U.N.Y. Geneseo.

“Would you let me know how much Planned Parenthood spent for these college campus activities (including salaries, travel expenses, materials, etc.)?”

These were all very polite.

I finally heard back from her on October 7, with a terse email message reading,

“Thank you for following up. Unfortunately, it appears we can’t rely on accurate reporting from your site and must decline an interview.

“Our apologies for any misunderstanding.”

Such a response confirms what I oberved on September 17: Planned Parenthood targets the most vulnerable through their allies.  In the case of Hamilton College it was through professors abusing their positions to indoctrinate students.  Once again, parents, alumni, trustees, and citizens ought to be demanding that such academic travesties stop.

EDITORS NOTE: Part 1 of the series is here; part 2 here.

In 1996 Playboy warned of ‘Sexual Attitude Restructuring’ in America

Even Playboy said May 1996, that; “most of us would define as sexual harassment” (p. 42) what goes on at meetings of the “Society for the Scientific Study Of Sexuality.”  President of the SSSS, Naomi McCormic warned the sexpert attendees they should not really do certain things publicly. (There also used to be a warning that sex activity had to be done in a private setting)

Saying “the list is far from exhaustive” folks should please refrain from: nasty, hostile remarks about women (and men), belittling (straights?), calling people sex prudes, nipple comments, crotch comments, fondling, touching, sexual advances that had been rejected, and so on.

These are our human sexuality experts, credentialed, having passed the SAR (Sexual Attitude Restructuring) “Fu*karama” days, weeks, months of pornography viewing, and practica that most must take to be sexperts. These are the authors of the sex books we read, sex “studies” they conduct, school sex ed curricula and  sex guides.  These are colleagues in the sexuality field, many like Kinsey, sex addicts, pornography addicts, pedophiles, pederasts, expert witnesses in courtrooms, teachers, professors, judges, and many on the editorial board of Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia.

RELATED VIDEO: The Kinsey Effect: How One Man Destroyed the Morality of America

sex ed experts article

Could Americans Face Nuclear Attack Because of Syria?

TUCSON, Ariz. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — U.S. and Russian aircraft could literally be on a collision course in Syria, as the two countries have not agreed on flight safety rules in Syrian airspace. U.S. pilots are under orders to change their flight path if a Russian plane is within 20 nautical miles, according to a CNN report.

Americans who lived through the Cold War may recall the novel Alas, Babylon, in which a worldwide nuclear conflagration resulted from an accident caused by a low-level military officer. At that time, people were knowledgeable about nuclear weapons effects, and the U.S. had a civil defense program, notes Physicians for Civil Defense president Jane M. Orient, M.D. Today, there would be millions of avoidable casualties.

What will happen if there is an accident in Syria? During the decades of Mutual Assured Destruction, nuclear-armed states were cautious about provocations, confining their interference and bombing to nonnuclear states. But now, the U.S. and Russia are at odds in Syria. Both claim to be fighting ISIS; however, aggressive Russian air attacks, plus missile attacks from warships in the Caspian Sea, are also claimed to be directed against U.S. supported “moderates” who are trying to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Russia supports Assad.

Russia is apparently seeking to replace the U.S. as the dominant force in the Middle East. And tensions are also growing outside Syria. Russian president Putin states that Moscow may boost its western forces in response to NATO’s moving troops and storing heavy equipment along the Russian border. He announced thatRussia will be deploying more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles in 2015.

These are very dangerous times, Orient states. Yet the presidential candidates are mostly ignoring the strategic circumstances.

GOP candidate Ben Carson emphasized the importance of understanding the geopolitical situation. That is complex and obscure to most Americans. However, the state of the vulnerability of American civilians, Orient emphasizes, is simple and undeniable. As threats grow and proliferate, the only civil defense in today’s America is self-help.

Probably the most important measure is to drop to the ground and take the best available cover if you see a bright flash. This and other information on a 60-second training card could save millions.

Physicians for Civil Defense distributes information to help to save lives in the event of war or other disaster.

The Pink Swastika: Hijacking the Holocaust

The greatest sacrilege to the millions of innocent infant and aged Nazi victims, would be allow these dead to be exploited as political fodder to re-arm the same ideologues who ushered in Germany’s “final solution.”

Are The Victimizers Co-Opting the Holocaust?

Under the banner of The Pink Triangle (a Nazi symbol for incarcerated homosexuals), a mass media campaign by the major broadcasters, press, educators and now by the legal system, has been awarding Nazi victim status to homosexuals. Claiming to have been victimized by the Nazis just like the Jews, and Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups murdered by the Nazis, pink triangles have swept the land, embossed on fancy stationary, upscale check books, flags, posters, stickers, shirts, pins, and on classroom doors as a “safe space” for “Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning Youth,” and the like. After losing nearly all of my Jewish family in the gas chambers during World War II, and being old enough to remember that war, I was deeply disconcerted when Holocaust museums world-wide advertised new exhibits alleging the Nazi mass murder of homosexuals.

One of the complaints of museum curators has been the dearth of evidence with which to document museum assertions of a Nazi animus toward homosexuals. Now, here come the authors of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, charging that there is a reason why evidence of a fatal form of Nazi “homophobia” has been uniformly lacking.

For Lively and Abrams instead document the homosexual movement as the agents that ensconced National Socialism (the Nazi party) and Adolf Hitler, thus triggering a holocaust which engulfed all of Europe.

Hitler’s Silence on Homosexuality in Mein Kampf

Writing of those days in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, radical German sexologist and Hitler contemporary, Wilhelm Reich, warned that Nazi leadership was both ideologically and actually homosexual. Almost as an aside, Reich noted Nazi leaders such as “Bluher, Roehm…. Rosenberg” represented Hitler’s fascism, which was, Reich said, “a male state organized on a homosexual basis.” 2

But, the confirmation of a Nazi homosexual bias are found in the formal writings of Adolf Hitler himself, in the bible of the Nazi movement, Mein Kampf [My Struggle].

Here the reader meets up with page after page of Hitler’s outspoken hatred of Jews, Marxists, Negroes, Chinese, Arabs, women, and all Eastern Europeans along with his overwhelming worship of power and disdain for Judeo-Christian morality alongside his strategy for world domination.

In his introduction to Mein Kampf, 4 Konrad Heiden reconfirms Hitler’s hatred for Christianity, as he viewed the “belief in human equality” to be a Jewish plot, made popular due to “Christian churches”.

Hitler here outlines who he and Germany should hate. He hid nothing. Jews and the like were subhuman, they were “parasites” “vampires,” “liars” “cowards,” “traitors,” among other adjectives.

However, search the Nazi manifesto for any animosity, contempt, much less disgust of homosexuals. To do so is to search in vain. In point of fact, as Reich knew personally, Hitler eulogized and venerated the archetypal super macho Aryan male, for whom women were seen to serve the role of breeders for the race of supermen.

The Furher’s contempt for women is made vivid by the abnormal way in which he used his niece and the few other women close to him, including Eva Braun.

Contemporary Homosexual Nazi Fashion

nazi with man tied upHitler outlined in Mein Kampf who would live and who would die: He stated who would be slave and who would be master. The Pink Swastika opens his fascist bible to the prototypical Nazi macho homosexual male best expressed today in the widely popular “Tom of Finland” fantasy drawings sold in all homosexual book stores, magazines, as well as in general advertisements for “gay” films and phone sex.

Common are the blond, square jawed, youngish muscle men wearing Luftwaffe caps, skin tight black pants, high black polished boots. This ‘macho male’ sports a black leather strap going from the shoulder diagonally across a hairless, bare, Aryan chest, a whip swishing alongside the hero’s slender hips.  He will often dominate a dark haired male who cowers near or under his Nazi style boots.  All in imitation of the Nazi uniform, careful to avoid the actual uniform and thus to reveal even to the most naïve, how fascistic, sadistic is the glorification of macho male homosexuality.

nazi boot on naked manThe authors recall the 1920s post WW I Weimar Republic, the near starvation and wild currency fluctuations in Germany against the backdrop of the sex and drug “Cabaret” scene of Europe and Gay Berlin. They point to Berlin’s world famous coterie of Bohemian artists, sadosexual transvestites, lesbians and homosexual nightclubs and baths, as well as the rampant control of Berlin by pornographers, organized crime and drug dealers. In this milieu, reports Elson in Time-Life Books, Prelude to War, thousands of young female prostitutes walked Berlin’s city streets half nude, dressed as “dominatrixes” and school girls, while transvestites and “powered and rouged young men” everywhere sold their wares to financiers and military men alike. 5

Magnus Hirshfeld

Magnus Hirshfeld

The infamous German Jewish homosexual sex “scientist” Magnus Hirshfeld reported that roughly 20,000 boys and youths6 were prostituted to Germany’s flourishing “gay” population. The British, qua-American homosexual icon, Christopher Isherwood blissfully said of Berlin’s 1920’s boy brothels, “Berlin is for boys…The German Boy….the Blond”). 7

In the midst of such pansexual revelry it could be argued that were Hitler a shy, retiring sort of bookworm, he might not notice the dominating homosexual sensibility and the erotic mix of sexes. However, Lively and Abrams conclude that as a young aspiring Viennese artist, Hitler would be especially familiar with the artistic homosexual fraternity for Vienna was the hub of Bohemian culture.

Hitler claims to have been destitute, and in the midst of the Cabaret era, he was reduced to living in a men’s hostel for down-and outers. Both male and female prostitution were rife, the younger the better. Such a poor young artist would have met many “different” and adventurous people whose celebrity. like today, was gilded by an intimacy with homosexuality. The authors present a reasonable body of evidence to the jury of public opinion, including the possibility that Hitler earned extra cash as a youthful Viennese prostitute, serving a male clientele.

Rohm Had A “Taste For Young Boys.”

In a fascinating read of 204 well documented pages, the authors of The Pink Swastika track down the facts behind the homosexual movement’s current claims for Nazi-victim status. Divided into seven parts, the story opens as the new Nazi party is founded in the smoky din of the Bratwurstglockl, “a tavern frequented by homosexual roughnecks and bully-boys….a gay bar,” favored by Hitler’s closest comrade, Captain Ernst Roehm.

Almost every biography of Hitler reports that Roehm was a flagrant homosexual and the only man Hitler called by the familiar “du.”

Hitler’s beloved Storm Trooper Chief and founder of the Brown Shirts, the authors note, had a “taste for young boys.” Almost as close to Hitler as Roehm was Rudolph Hess, known for his dress-up attire as “‘Black Bertha’” in the gay bars of pre- war Berlin”. 8

In fact, Mein Kampf was dedicated to Hess while Hitler was in prison. The Pink Swastika reports that Hitler was given power by a homosexual gang. It was this gang of Brown Shirts, under homosexual Roehm, says Dr. Carroll Quigley, President Bill Clinton’s college teacher and mentor, that subverted Germany’s free elections by brutal and underhanded strategies.

Quigley: The Reichstag Burned by Homosexuals?

According to liberal historian and Clinton’s college mentor, Caroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope (1966) Hitler’s intimate friend, Captain Roehm and his trusted homosexual cadre of Storm Troopers staged the famed burning of the Reichstag. Along with other bully-boy tactics, this would frighten people into supporting the Nazi party and Hitler.  For our purposes here it is useful to see what Quigley says about homosexual Nazi Storm Troopers:

Accordingly….a plot was worked out to burn the Reichstag building and blame the Communists. Most of the plotters were homosexuals and were able to persuade a degenerate moron from Holland named Van der Lubbe to go with them. After the building was set on fire, Van der Lubbe was left wandering about in it and was arrested. 9

This is especially interesting. There are many myths surrounding “The Night of the Long Knives” or the “blood purge” when supposedly only homosexuals such as Rohm were murdered by Hitler. Quigley offers another interesting insight, saying that “Most of the plotters were homosexual”.

Burning the Records of Nazi Sex Criminals

nazi book burning

May 10, 1933 Institute book burning.

He adds that many of those who knew the truth were murdered in March and April while “Most of the Nazis who were in on the plot were murdered by Goring during the “blood purge” of June 30, 1934” (emphasis added). 10

Also it was under Roehm and his Storm Troopers that the records and books of “the Sex Research Institute,” were burned. The authors reveal that Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, the homosexual director of the Institute, maintained detailed records of his many court-referred sex offenders, including important Nazi rapists, and homosexual child offenders, pederasts. Naturedly such incriminating documents would have to be burned.

Quigley confirmed that Roehm and other key Nazis who knew too much about Hitler’s criminal activities were killed for allegedly plotting against Hitler.

Lively and Abrams track the role of Roehm in 1933 11 recruiting and training a total of roughly 2.5 to 4.5 million Storm Troopers (SA) and Gestapo (SS) compared to about 100,000 men in the regular German army. Once the SA was disbanded after the June 1934 blood purge, most of these experienced SA homosexual leaders moved into other power positions in the German military.

Pederasts Running The Hitler Youth?

The authors raise many questions in The Pink Swastika. If he feared homosexual influence on boys, why did Hitler chose known homosexuals to serve as key youth leaders? Karl Fischer, a homosexual teacher, began the Wandervogel (a German version of the boy Scouts), which became “The Hitler Youth” in 1933, under a well known pederast, Hans Blueher, who wrote of man-boy “love.” Gerhard Rossbach, homosexual Nazi leader of the Freikorps gave over leadership of the Schill Youth to Edmund Heines, a convicted Nazi pederast, and murder, all under the watchful eye of Adolf Hitler.

The Pink Swastika reports that while Hitler and his Gestapo chief, Heinrich Himmler methodologically annihilated all German and European Jews via mass deportations to death camps, beyond political homophobic rhetoric after the Rohm murders, and a demand that men produce children for the Aryan race, Hitler refused to attack “homosexuals.”

Goering Dressed “In Drag And Wore Camp Make-Up”

Adolf Brand

Adolf Brand

Adolf Brand, a pederast-child pornographer was one of many prominent “butch” advocate homosexuals who continued to live, write and entertain in Germany, untouched by the Nazis.

Other homosexual and bisexual leaders cited by these and other authors included Bladur von Schirach, Hitler Youth Leader; Hans Frank, Hitler’s Minister of Justice; Wilhelm Bruckner, Hitler’s adjutant; Walther Funk, Hitler’s Minister of Economics; friend and advisor Hermann Goering, Hitler’s second in command (who dressed “in drag and wore camp make-up”).

Also, Hans Kahnert founded Germany’s largest “Gay rights organization (Society for Human Rights) which counted “SA Chief Ernst Roehm among its members,” (below left, sitting) Edmund Heines, a pederast sadist (below left standing next to his alleged lover Roehm), Dr. Karl Gunther Heimsoth, a homosexual Nazi who coined the term “homophile,” and Julius Streicher, an infamous pornographer and pederast who was very close to Hitler.

Bladur von Schirach (left)

Bladur von Schirach (left), Hitler Youth Leader.

The question of homosexuality versus anti-Semitism come together most profoundly in a man named Emil Maurice, Hitler’s close Jewish personal secretary and chauffeur. One of the Roehm purge assassins, apparently Maurice, lived as a member of the SS, until the war’s end. Lively and Abrams cite Maurice as homosexual. Mollo, in his history of the SS, identifies Maurice as Jewish in an infamous photograph below:

hitler with homosexual friends

Hitler and four of his first SS men (a fifth has been erased). L to R: Schaubk, Schreck, Hitler, Maurer and Schneider.  The fifth man was Emil Maurice who was thrown out of the SS in 1935 when found to be a Jew, but later allowed to retain his appointment and privileges, and wear [sic] SS uniform. 12

hitler maurice

Hitler with Emil Maurice, his chauffeur.

It is absolutely inconceivable that Maurice was not known as Jewish. Beyond his appearance, his family and the very high probability of his circumcision, it is reasonable now to consider whether Hitler had a sexual relationship with his handsome young chauffeur (a not uncommon arrangement as identified in reports of the time).

So, How To Explain Maurice

Maurice is the man erased in the SS photograph, his two shoes still quite visible in the picture.  These other photos reveal Maurice to be a rather Semitic looking young man, always close behind Hitler. Now that Lothar Machtan, a reputable German historian, confirmed Hitler’s homosexuality, it is highly likely that Maurice was indeed one of Hitler’s lovers. At any rate, whatever Hitler’s relationship with Maurice, who remained a member of the SS during the war, suggests that the homosexual lust easily overpowered anti-Semitic hate. As politically uncomfortable as it has become to face the role of macho homosexual men in establishing Nazism, Dr. Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former clinical director of Kingsboro Psychiatric Center in Brooklyn, N.Y., wrote:

“Adolf Hitler’s homosexuality has been demonstrated beyond question by German historian Lothar Machtan’s massively researched new book, The Hidden Hitler….But the crucial role within the Nazi movement of the most vicious and lawless types of homosexuality, which Machtan also shows, is even more important than Hitler’s personal preference.

In 1933, six months after Hitler took power, the distinguished Jewish author Ludwig Lewisohn described what Machtan confirms, that “the entire [Nazi] movement is in fact and by certain aspects of its avowed ideology drenched through and through with homoerotic feeling and practice.” And those homosexual currents inextricably were connected with vicious German militarism long before the Nazis.” 13

hitler with followersThe intimacy of Maurice and Hitler is important in terms of what it tells us about the power of the homosexual drive. The captions read:

[Picture #1] “Hitler in prison with Maurice, Kriebel, Hess and Dr. Fredrich.” [Picture #2] “Common room of Nazi prisoners at Landsberg. Behind Hitler, Emil Maurice, early companion and chauffeur.” 14

Most histories of World War II (see especially Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) report Hitler’s ties to the “notorious” homosexual, Ernst Rohm and other males within his coterie. The Pink Swastika notes, if anything, that sex laws under Hitler’s Reich Minister of the Interior Henrich Himmler were largely tolerant toward the “2 million” Germans Himmler said were registered in homosexual organizations in 1933, for “only repeat offenders can be incarcerated.”

Homosexual Artists and Actors Were Also Safe

But, “repeat offenders” meant a fourth public sex offense, or someone who had already served six months in jail for repeated offenses. In 1940, Himmler reiterated that only “multiple offenders” (largely engaged in sex in a public forum) might be jailed.

However, wrote Himmler, “artists and actors” might escape any penalty, despite how often they were found in compromising situations.15

During the Hitler era, of roughly 70 million Germans16, “less than 1%” “hardly one hundredth of all the country’s inhabitants” were Jewish, said Hitler.17 Morris Ernst, in his book on Kinsey, discussed Hirschfeld’s findings:

Germany….with a population of 62,000,000, there were nearly a million and a half men and women [said Hirschfeld]  “whose constitutional predisposition is largely or completely homosexual” Just how big a proportion of his estimated million and a half German homosexuals found their way into Nazi uniforms is not known, of course.  But a good many of them were attracted by the Nazi principles and the society of their fellows in a bond which excluded all women (p. 169-170).

Historical records suggest Germany had perhaps 700,000 Jews 18 versus 2-3 million “registered” homosexuals, according to Himmler. Whether there were 1 and a half million (Hirschfeld) or 2to 3 million (Himmler), at most 10,000 German homosexuals were sent to work camps, 6,000 died and 4,000 were released. The 6,000 homosexual deaths are a minimum of Germans who would have been “fems,” despised by the homosexual powered elite as well as collections of homosexuals who were also Jewish, Italian, Asian, Black, Communist, Marxist and the like.

Out of 2-3 Million Homosexuals, 6,000 “Fems” or Reds Killed

This still leaves estimates of 20,000 male prostitutes unaccounted for with the under 1% of homosexuals largely interned in “work camps,” not, the authors note, the “death” camps for Jews and other outcasts. Lively and Abrams point to the nearly 100% extermination effort by the Nazis toward all captured Jews of all nationalities, gassed or interned in death camps. The especial concern of Hitler that all good Germans reproduce in order to create an Aryan nation must not be forgotten.

Aryan Germans were expected to breed and it is well known that German breeding farms were established for that purpose. Non-German homosexuals appear to have been of no interest to the Nazis, for there is no record of any attempts to hunt, arrest or harm foreign homosexuals, for any reason.

The evidence strongly suggests these selected German homosexuals were killed for political reasons, versus 566,000 of roughly 700,000 German Jews (85%), 23.5% of all gypsies, 10% of Poles, 12% of Ukrainians, 13.5% of Belorussians.19. The German military plot to kill Hitler resulted in the murder of the few men responsible, as well as 7,000 of their family members. The authors raise some interesting questions, such as where is the record of retaliation for those who hid, hired, nursed and fed persecuted homosexuals? The author’s discussions of the “butch” versus “fems” battle raging between German homosexuals and the effect of this internal war on alleged “book burning: and the like, answer many critical questions.

Elie Weisel:  Homosexual Guards Trafficked in Jewish Boys

In the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Shirer said Hitler welcomed “Murderers, pimps homosexual perverts, drug addicts or just plain rowdies.”20 In fact, even Shirer sidestepped the brazenly homosexual nature of Nazi party pioneers–a critical body of knowledge for any society contending for a civil existence. The authors cite several million “Butch” type Roehm homosexual Nazis who worked as guards and directors of women’s and men’s death camps and work camps. Elie Weisel, the world famous Holocaust survivor, reported witnessing homosexual guards and administrators who “kept” and raped young Jewish boys at will, “there was a considerable traffic in children among homosexuals here, I learned later.”21

Lively and Abrams report that basic mathematics refute the idea that homosexuals were killed for being homosexual. For were homosexuals treated like Jews, 2-3 million out of 2-3 million German homosexuals should have lost their businesses, their jobs, their property, their possessions and most should have lost their lives.

Homosexuals would have been forced to wear pink triangles on their clothing in the streets, they would have had their passports stamped with an “H,” barred from travel, work, shopping, public appearances without their armbands, and we would have thousands of pictures of pink triangle graffiti saying “kill the faggots,” and the like.

Where Did 2 Million German Homosexuals Go?

If German homosexuals were not Nazis, these 2-3 million men would have been homeless, walled into ghettos, worked as a mass labor pool, then gassed and their abuse recorded in graphic detail, as were millions of Jews. And, if Germany’s several million “gays” were not Nazi victims, they were Nazi soldiers, collaborators or murderers.

Interviewing SS General Jurgen Stroop and a German policeman, Moczarski, Kazimiers22 reports on the continued presence of homosexuals in the Nazi hierarchy.

A policeman well acquainted “with Germany’s homosexual element [spoke up and said they] kept files on all known and potential pederasts. He remarked that very few homosexuals in the NSDAP were as “indelicately” treated as was Roehm…”So maybe a few of the fags in the party did get knocked off.

There were plenty of others who made out just fine. They remained active party members…..got promotions…..[and were] protected by the top NSDAP brass.”

The Storm Troopers and the Gestapo were schooled in what the authors call the “Hellenistic” Greek ideal of man-youth-pedagogy. Concerned about the man-boy aspect of homosexuality, The Pink Swastika connects-the-dots for readers from the homosexual power structure in Germany to the current social debate in the United States. The naked, copulatory San Francisco “gay rights” parades, the violent homosexual burning of buildings when Governor Pete Wilson originally refused gay minority rights, the bullying attacks on Cardinal O’Conner and former HHS Secretary Louis Sullivan and scores of others, note the authors, are a replay of the homoerotic Nazis.

Our own research on Heterosexual v. Homosexual Partner Solicitation Language (The Advocate v. The Washingtonian), as noted earlier, regularly finds men and boys pictured in naked Fascist chic, strutting the black Luftwaffe cap, boots, whips and black leather–Fascist sadism.. While Lively and Abrams cite at least 160 ex-gay organizations nationwide which identify sex abuse, neglect and authoritarian trauma as triggering homosexual conduct, on the evidence, a post-World War II Fascist model is afoot in American schools under the protective cover of “AIDS Prevention” and “gay youth” protection, controlled largely by adult homosexual activists.

Parallel with these subversive activities is the effort to divorce children from their parents, by painting the fatal and lonely life of homosexuality with a patina of heroism and martyrdom, via mass media, institutional education and law (the privilege of marriage being a recent assault) undermining America’s survival as the international standard-barer of a Judeo-Christian moral order.

German School Children: Taught to Ignore Old Fashioned Parents

Lively and Abrams are concerned, and I would conceded properly so, that idealistic “gay youth” groups are being formed and staffed in classrooms nationwide by recruiters too similar to those who formed the original “Hitler youth,” The Pink Swastika authors draw our attention to the need to forcefully reverse the flood of “gay rights” legislation or face a massive increase in children dedicated to the exploitive and heartbreaking “gay life” with all that implies for the child and society.

The Pink Swastika finds that serious “Judeo-Christians” are the likely targets of this resurgent homosexual movement. In 1934, all German school children were receiving textual, verbal and cinematic classroom indoctrination into Fascism. The libraries purged anti-Nazi books and teachers, just as our libraries are purging anti- homosexuality books and teachers. And, like our current status, by 1936, sexuality advocate, Wilheim Reich warned that the wide availability and juvenile use of pornography was creating heterophobic German children–boys and girls who feared and distrusted the opposite sex.23

The homosexual fight for Nazi victim status comes directly on the heels of our exposé of forty years of corrupt and cynical manipulation of the fraudulent “10%” of homosexuality data established by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and Co. (Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Reisman and Eichel). Recently, Newsweek challenged the fraudulent Kinsey data, asking, “How Many Gays Are There?” while the Wall Street Journal faced up to “Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy.”

Using Kinsey’s 10% Fraud to Seduce School Children

Recent admissions by Dr. John Bancroft, the new Kinsey Institute Director24 of Kinsey’s reliance and use of a homosexual pederast[s] to obtain Kinsey’s child sex data raises the specter that a homosexual/pederast biased male research base has become the foundation of current sexual attitudes, education, conduct, law and public policy. As no other sex researcher has ever reported his or her laboratory experiments on children to determine their sexual capacity, Kinsey remains the citation for all such scientific claims.

abusing child pamphletTo that end, H.R. 2749, “The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act of 1995” was introduced by Congressman Steve Stockman, December 1995, to begin to investigate that possibility. The price we now are paying for decades of Kinsey’s claims of infant and child sexuality and his 10% homosexuality data, can never be calculated.

At left is an advertisement in The Washington Post, circa 1997, designed to frighten and intimidate parents into accepting the notion that homosexuality is genetic, and may include their son. In the book, Coming Out of the Classroom (1991), “out” lesbian Virginia Uribe, the originator of “Project 10,” describes the way in which the homosexual movement used Kinsey’s fraudulent homosexual “data” to enter the classroom.

“PROJECT 10, named after Kinsey’s (1948) estimate that 10% of the population is exclusively homosexual, originally envisioned as an in-school counseling program…. has become a district-wide and nation-wide forum for the articulation of the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual teenagers.”25

Some closeted percentage of the lesbians and homosexual male counselors and teachers entering these classroom counseling programs are also child molesters.   Homosexual “volunteers” in schools and at the “Gay and Lesbian and Bisexual and Transgendered” youth clubs to “aid” children need to be seen in concert with old fashioned wariness about “bachelors,” in general and homosexual bachelors in particular. As we have seen, sexual predators use the classroom to gain access to a vulnerable pool of child victims. Sexually victimizing children is more smoothly accomplished if the “academic” subject matter is not math or science but sex– when sexual ideas, issues, acts, pictures, seem to be a natural part of the educator’s mission.

Gay & Lesbian “Youth” School Clubs a “Hitler Youth” Spin Off

gay lesbian youthWriting in Gay and Lesbian Youth (1989) Herdt explained why homosexual youth recruitment increased:

“We had not foreseen that….gay youth would also have to contend with the new horrors of AIDS [that]…teenage gays and lesbians would shun older gays as role models or even as friends26…[To meet this challenge, said Herdt] only now has gay culture begun to institutionalize “socialization” techniques for the transmission of its cultural knowledge to a younger generation27… [as] local “gay” movements provide their own infrastructural support for the coming out process in teens.28 (Emphasis added)

Douglas Feldman, a medical anthropologist claimed, “these kids are our [the gay community’s] future and we must invest in them.”29 Yet, he adds that gay and lesbian 0organizations discourage having “gay” boys tested for HIV.30 Why? “Teenagers tend to be very susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases,”31 observed Feldman. In any event, Feldman says these boys “have about a one in four chance of developing AIDS in 32 approximately 5 years.”

Adult sex with “consenting” minors is still statutory rape. Yet, the March 1992 Advocate magazine cover story blames boy victims, not their adult male victimizers, for the disease, saying; “Teen Sex: They’re Doing it—And AIDS Is Killing Them By the Thousands.”33

Now the homosexual press regularly reports that scores of “closet” lesbians and homosexuals are in place to resurrect homosexuality, reshaping the nation’s ideals of child, marriage, justice, research, law, health, sexuality, crime and public policy from the old bi/homosexual sensibility. And establishing homosexual enclaves in private, public and even some parochial schools everywhere based on the idea that children are born homosexual, bisexual, transsexual and so on and on.

If it is true that institutional Judaism capitulated to homosexual pressure in Holocaust museums worldwide, awarding Nazi victim status to the macho male ideology which launched the Holocaust,34 what does growing homosexual power mean to their memory, and to the way homosexual power will exert itself in the future?

Historical research on Nazi homosexual power should be pouring out from our institutions of higher learning. That universities are captured by “politically correct” homosexual/feminism only proves how dangerous fraud in science has been and continues to be for our nation.

The Pink Swastika should be studied in all our schools, primary to university, for woe unto our nation should we ignore the warning of James Madison in 1832: “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both.”35

END NOTES

1  Circa February, 1998.

2   Wilhelm Reich (1970), The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Penguin: New York, pp. 123, 127.

3   The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (1992) Houghton Mifflin.

4   The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. (1991), Columbia University Press.

5   Robert Elson (1976), Prelude to War. Time-Life Books, New York, pp. 70-83.

6 Havelock Ellis (1934), Psychology of Sex, Ray Long & Richard R. Smith, Inc., New York, p. 221-222, Ellis cites Magnus Hirschfeld’s research on boy prostitution.

7   Christopher Isherwood (1953), Christopher And His Kind, Farrar, Straus, Giroux, New York, pp. 4-5.

8   The Washington Blade, August 11, 1985, p. 47 (a homosexual press).

9   Carroll Quigley (1966) Tragedy and Hope, Macmillan Company, New York, p. 437.

10   Ibid.

11 Pictures taken under fair use from the U.S. National Archives

12  Andrew Mollo, A Pictorial History of the SS, 1923-1945. Stein and Day, New York, p. 19.

13 Nathaniel S. Lehrman The Hidden Hitler, “Insight on the News,” Feb 25, 2002, Website: http://www.thirdreich.net/Was_Hitler_Gay.html. http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=7968553.

14   John Toland (1976) Adolf Hitler, New York.  Ballantine books, p.131.

15 See: Eldon R. James, Ed., “The Statutory Criminal Law of Germany,” Washington, The Library of Congress, 1947, pp. 114-115, and Timothy Kearley “Charles Szladits’ Guide to Foreign Legal Materials: German,” published by the Baker School of Foreign and Comparative Law, Columbia University, 1990.

16  Morris Ernst, American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report, The Greystone Press, NY, NY, 1948.

17 Mein Kampf translated by Ralph Manheim, Boston: Sentry Edition: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Also see Ingo Muller, Hitler’s Justice: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass: The Courts of the Third Reich, 1991, where Muller writes “Accounts of the power and invluence wielded by Jews in the Weimar Republic have usually been grossly misleading. In actual fact the percentage of Jews in the population of Germany declined steadily from the late nineteenth century onward, shrinking from 1.2 percent in 1871 to 0.76 percent in 1930….0.16 percent of all government employees. p. 59.

18   The People’s Chronology, Henry Holt and Company, Inc. 1992.

19 Katz, Steven. (1989). “Genocide in the 20th Century”: Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol 4, No 2. Great Britain: Pergamnom Press, pp. 127-148.

20   William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, New York,

21   Elie Wisel (1982) Night, New York, Bantam Books, p. 46.

22   Moczarski, Kazimiers (1977). Conversations With An Executioner.  New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 38-

23   Reich, supra, pp. 123, 127.

24   The Washington Post, December 8, 1995, p. B1, and December 28, 1995 Letter to the Editor.

25 Karen Harbeck, Ed., COMING OUT OF THE CLASSROOM CLOSET: GAY AND LESBIAN STUDENTS, TEACHERS AND CURRICULA,

Harrington Park Press, New York, 1991, at 11. At a Beaverton Oregon conference Uribe said, “When you want to start something with gay and lesbian groups, just do it without asking. Its easier to say “I’m sorry” than “May I.” April 23, 1992.

26 Herdt, GAY AND LESBIAN YOUTH, Harrington Park Press, New York, 1989, at 3.

27  Id, at 4.

28  Id., at 29.

29  Id., Feldman in Herdt at 192.

30  Id., at 188.

31  Id., at 189.

32  Id., at 188.

33  The Advocate, “Teen Sex: They’re Doing it—And AIDS Is Killing Them By the Thousands,” March 24, 1992.

34   John Toland (1976) Adolf Hitler, New York.  Ballantine books, p.131.

35 Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1832), reprinted in The Complete Madison, S. Padower, ed. 1953, p. 337.

Planned Parenthood’s Campus Empire

As reported last week, Planned Parenthood’s lobbying efforts against the vote to deny them federal funds was assisted by Hamilton College, which hosted “performance artist” Rhodessa Jones, along with about a dozen representatives from the local Planned Parenthood Mohawk Hudson, to give students a Planned Parenthood-positive message.

The college continued the push by participating in the nationwide “Pink Out” day on September 29.  In a campus-wide email Hamilton students were asked to “show appreciation for Planned Parenthood by wearing pink.”  They were invited to stop by a booth to have their pictures taken holding messages of support. These are posted on Planned Parenthood Mohawk Hudson’s Facebook page here.  The event was organized by the Womyn’s Center at the Days-Massolo Center, whose official advisor is women’s studies professor Vivyan Adair.

800px-Planned_parenthood_supporters

“Planned parenthood supporters” by S. MiRK – Flickr: planned parenthood supporters. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Commons.

Hamilton College was one of many campuses participating in the event, which was also sponsored by MoveOn.org, the ACLU, CREDO Action, People for the American Way, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, National Council of Jewish Women, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and Alliance for Justice.  Planned Parenthood offered free screening for sexually transmitted diseases in 28 cities to take attention off abortion.

The email sent to Hamilton students claimed “Planned Parenthood provides necessary health care for millions of people across this country.”  At the two presentations by Rhodessa Jones, no mention was made about the undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood executives haggling over prices for fetal body parts (body parts were also shown being handled callously by technicians).

The claim of “necessary health care” is false.  According to the just-released Capital Research Center report, “Planned Parenthood Under Fire,” by Jeanne Mancini, Planned Parenthood “isn’t a benevolent healthcare provider.”  Even the Washington Post “called its bluff” on the claim that abortions represent only 3 percent of the services provided.  “In reality, it is estimated that Planned Parenthood makes $150 million a year performing abortions,” writes Mancini. Abortions make up 94 percent of services provided to pregnant women.  Data from the nonprofit group, Democrats for Life, showed that Community Health Centers are more accessible and provide more services for women’s health needs.

This is not the kind of information that Hamilton students received.  The professors who sponsored the visit by Planned Parenthood and Rhodessa Jones avoided any mention of alternative views.

Abortion Advocacy 101: Abortion advocacy is one of many leftist causes that Hamilton College presents as settled academic opinion, thanks to efforts of professors like Nancy Rabinowitz who teaches Comparative Literature and began inviting Planned Parenthood-promoter Rhodessa Jones for recurring gigs as far back as 2004.

Rabinowitz’s collaboration with Planned Parenthood goes back even farther, to her tenure as president of the college’s former Kirkland Project, when Rabinowitz coordinated student internships at Planned Parenthood.  The Kirkland Project was initially funded by the Kirkland Endowment, which consisted of contributions from sympathetic individuals and leftover funds from Kirkland College, the former women’s college that merged with Hamilton men’s college in 1978.  The Spring 2000 newsletter announced that student Service Associateships were available for students “proposing summer work at an institution dedicated to working toward social justice”; it listed Planned Parenthood and the Hetrick Martin Institute, an LGBT youth organization, as places where students had recently interned.  Students received $3,000 stipends from the Kirkland Project for their “volunteer” work at Planned Parenthood.

Rabinowitz and the Kirkland Project: Rabinowitz was forced to resign as president of the Kirkland Project in 2005 after she had invited as speaker Ethnic Studies professor Ward Churchill, who had called victims of 9/11 “little Eichmanns,” after Adolph Eichmann, one of the major organizers of the Nazi Holocaust.  She had invited Susan Rosenberg, convicted felon in the 1981 Brinks Armored Car Robbery, to teach as an “artist/activist-in-residence,” beginning with a course in 2004 called “Resistance Memoirs.”  Rabinowitz was quoted as saying, “We are trying to train [students] to be critical thinkers and to respond intelligently to what they hear.  I think the students should hear [Ward Churchill’s] whole argument before they boil it down to a few sound bites.”  She then claimed that she was resigning because the media reaction had been “destructive.”  Ward Churchill was fired from the University of Colorado Boulder for plagiarism in 2007.  Susan Rosenberg’s 58-year prison term on weapons and explosives charges was commuted after 16 years by President Bill Clinton.  Since her release she has worked as a prisoners’ rights activist and college lecturer.

The Medea Project: In Service to Planned Parenthood and Abortion: After Rabinowitz’s resignation, the Kirkland Project was renamed the Diversity and Social Justice Project.  Rabinowitz, however, chaired the Kirkland Endowment Advisory Committee from 2007 to 2010.  She currently serves on the Committee on Academic Policy.

Although Rabinowitz said she had learned about Jones’s work, the Medea Project: Theater for Incarcerated Women, while teaching Medea, there was no discussion about the tragedy by Euripides or about literary, historical, or dramatic topics.  For the last several years, the Medea Project, a program of Jones’s and her partner’s performance company, Idris Ackamoor and Cultural Odyssey, has received grants from the National Endowment for the Arts.  Jones’s work is evidence that the NEA is still being used to advance political causes, as a recent NEA post, “The Medea Project: Where Art and Social Activism Meet,” shows. The theater company also receives funds from the San Francisco Arts Commission and the California Arts Council, as well as several foundations.

prison lookout

prison lookout

The film shown on September 17, Birthright, was produced by Cultural Odyssey, in collaboration with Planned Parenthood Northern California.  The film clips showed amateurish writing and acting.  For example, it was not clear why women seated on fold-out chairs were pulling their hair or jerking their heads, in depictions of madness.  We learned later during the discussion that the scene was supposed to represent a Planned Parenthood waiting room.  Presumably, women were relieved of their distress after they had received services.  One woman did a monologue about women’s oppression, and others discussed their abortions and getting HIV diagnoses.  All were testimonials to Planned Parenthood.

Jones’s agenda already became clear at the beginning of her first presentation on September 15.  Rabinowitz introduced her as “no stranger to Hamilton” and cited her awards from various organizations, including one from the mayor of San Francisco, where she is based.  Although she jaunts from campus to campus, Jones does not appear to have any academic credentials. She has been invited to work in prisons here and in Russia and South Africa.

The first day Jones spent more than an hour performing, reciting, questioning, yelling, and rambling on about diversity, abortion, the Hamilton College campus police, the upcoming Black Lives Matter event, and slavery, as well giving dramatic recitations of “spoken word” poetry and showing clips from her earlier film, Open the Gate.

That film showed women in orange prison garb reenacting their horrific experiences.  One felt that these were amateur therapy sessions, about “getting real,” as Jones put it, and best left to professionals.  There was a lot of screaming and crying, with Jones yelling at the prisoners, “Things are happening to you!”  There were some horror stories to be sure: one woman tearfully described how she was raped, while other female prisoners reenacted the gruesome scene on the floor.  In the film, Jones enlightens the women, telling them that men run the world and that women need to take back their power.  This is where Planned Parenthood fits in, presumably.

Rhodessa Jones’s Credentials? But Jones does not seem to have any counseling credentials either.  “I come into jails as an artist . . . as a sister,” she explained. She was inspired to begin working in jails by one of her eight brothers who was imprisoned in Attica during the 1971 riots when, as she said, “it was taken over by the Rockefeller goons.”  She gave few details about her brother’s crimes other than to say that he was good-looking and “incorrigible,” but had robbed an “important” person.  He was sent to a chain gang in the South at the age of 16, and afterward had difficulty staying out of prison. He died at the age of 50 after he was beaten up by 16- and 17 year-olds over a pot deal.

"Aerobic exercise - public demonstration01" by myself - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Commons

“Aerobic exercise – public demonstration01” by myself – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Commons.

Jones’s work began in 1989 when she was asked to teach aerobics.  But she did not get a good response from inmates, who skeptically asked, “Who is this bitch?”

“I said, ‘spell “bitch,”’” Jones said to laughter.   Seeing that they had no interest in aerobics, she told the inmates her own story, about becoming a mother at the age of 16.  The women suspected she might be a police officer because she was telling them her “business.”

Her presentation jumped from topic to topic, interspersed with Planned Parenthood promotions.  To all those who presumably have a problem with the latest videos showing Planned Parenthood employees bartering body parts, she said, “I say just trust women. We need to know we’re trusted.”

Spoken Word about Slavery: Jones recited a poem about a “girl-child” kidnapped by “white slavers,” then raped by sailors, and thrown into the bottom of a slave ship.  Very dramatically she said, “I see the white islanders chasing the birds.”  Sailors were “destroying the African girl-child with fists and semen.”  She screamed, “We are thrown down into the dark hole covered with semen.”  Shouting “freedom,” she described a dream about flying back to Africa.  (The events are historically inaccurate because overwhelmingly it was Africans who captured and enslaved other Africans and then sold them to the white slave traders.)  Perhaps attuned to the fact that many in her audience were blonde, she added a vision of multicultural redemption, “blonde-haired children singing songs of a new world.”  She interspersed her performance with references to “the Irish, the Jewish, the Mexicans,” etc.

"100 Pigeons" by Augustus Binu/ www.dreamsparrow.net/ facebook - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons

“100 Pigeons” by Augustus Binu/ www.dreamsparrow.net/ facebook – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons.

Students Cooing Like Pigeons: Jones also recited a poem about the homeless, drug addicts, and “we who have been in a maximum security prison.”  It was a litany of misery (“fucking in an HIV sweat”).  The recitations about street life were interspersed with the refrain, “We will eat you.”  I was surprised to hear the students readily follow her instructions to coo on cue like pigeons as she recited certain lines. It was a depressingly surreal experience.

Jones also described her encounter with campus police that day when she was standing outside a building waiting for someone to pick her up.  One of the officers slowed down the car and looked at her.  She made a face to show how she stared back at him tauntingly, inviting knowing laughter from the students.  Jones encouraged students to attend the lecture later in the week by one of the Black Lives Matter founders and gave a plug for the (historically inaccurate) movie Selma.  She told them that there are children ages 12 and 13 who are in lock-down.

Encouraging Courageous Activism: The session was clearly intended to give students a glimpse into the underbelly of life, arouse their pity, and get them to be activists.  In fact, she asked how many of them wanted to be activists.  A good number raised their hands.  She bragged about student activists she has worked with: a girl who disappeared in Syria 18 months ago and one who adopted an African baby orphaned by HIV.

She then asked students the questions she said she uses in her prison workshops. Questions ranged from name and age, to “hidden talents” and whether “you write,” “who did you leave home with?” and “what were you told by your parents?”  The last was the one she asked students. Some responded with typical bits of parental advice about avoiding drugs and studying hard.  She discussed the added burdens of “black, brown, red, and yellow parents.” More questions came, such as “did you escape death?” and “what would you do if you could turn back time?”  One student said she would have “come out” in high school. One young woman holding her two-month-old baby said she would have finished school before getting pregnant.  Jones repeated that she would not have had a child at 16.  Her father had advised her that the Lord would provide, but she thought of how much better her life would have been had she aborted her now 50-year-old daughter. It was clear that students should learn from her mistake and exercise that choice.

Before she ended, Jones stated, “These are things that make up the mythology of our existence.”

The entire exercise was an emotionally manipulative promotion of abortion by the mother of a 50-year-old woman as a two-month-old baby was cradled in his mother’s arms.  It had nothing to do with higher education.

Academic Malpractice: A longtime, outspoken critic of such academic malpractice is Hamilton History Professor Robert Paquette, who is one of the three founders of the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization.  Paquette observes, “You would have thought that Hamilton’s president Joan Hinde Stewart and its board of trustees would have learned something from the Susan Rosenberg–Ward Churchill fiascoes.  Well they did, and here it is:  Few campus stories have legs in the public press these days, and with a multimillion dollar developmental office and public relations arm you can sweep things out of sight under the rug when you are not spinning them into fantastic fairy tales for public consumption.”

Planned Parenthood is enjoying free publicity on campuses with faculty members who are complicit in hiding their real work: in recent years, Planned Parenthood has reduced the number of cancer screenings by 50% while increasing the number of abortions, and paying for lavish salaries and expense accounts of executives.

Paquette notes that these left-wing activists and their academic allies are funded lavishly.  He hopes that conservative parents “take note of the current state of things so they can make more informed choices.”

Hearing from Planned Parenthood: Beth LeGere, Director of Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood Mohawk Hudson, noted our post, which was linked in Accuracy in Academia.  In a September 30 email she identified herself as the person who on September 17 encouraged students to register to vote.  She denied, however, that she had encouraged them to vote for pro-choice candidates.  She also is the one who encouraged students to call Congressman Richard Hanna and urge him to vote against defunding Planned Parenthood.  Internal Revenue Service rules for social welfare organizations, such as Planned Parenthood’s 501(c)(4) arm, allow for promoting certain legislation but not “intervention in political campaigns.”

LeGere demanded a retraction.  Of course, students were urged to vote for “pro-choice” candidates, as I stated.  I replied by asking how Planned Parenthood’s involvement at Hamilton College fits in with their mission statement or with the mission statement of an educational institution.

Her response will be reported in the next installment.

The Left’s Planned Parenthood Dilemma

In yet another political surrender, Republican leadership is signaling that they aren’t willing to stand up against the butchery of unborn children for profit and follow through with efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.

I have followed politics for a long time, but I have never seen an abdication of morals, ethics, leadership and strategy as misguided as the decision to duck the fight against Planned Parenthood’s butchery. This is such a crystal clear case of right and wrong that even the power-obsessed, DC insider class should be able to choose wisely. But sadly, many haven’t.

The decision to duck the Planned Parenthood fight is not only a tragic moral failure but a failure of strategy as well. If President Obama chooses to shut down the government because he insists on using your money to fund infant organ harvesting and trafficking at Planned Parenthood, then the media coverage will not be a strategic bonus. The media will not be his ally in that selfish fight because the Left desperately wants to avoid having any conversation about abortion that exposes what the abortion procedure actually entails.

Even the biased, left-wing media cannot avoid some extremely uncomfortable language if they are forced to talk about what President Obama is defending in order to shut down the government. Using terms like “alleged” in front of “organ harvesting” or “organ trafficking” will not lend the moral “cover” the media typically provides for Democrats during a government shutdown, because the public isn’t stupid. When tens of thousands of people who have never heard of the Planned Parenthood organ trafficking horror (because the media has refused to cover it), start Googling the story, this will be a messaging disaster for Democrats. This is an unusual position for the Democratic Party to be in because, during any government shutdown, the mainstream media will do its best to cover for their political allies in the Democratic Party, and lay blame with the GOP.

Have doubts about this? Don’t believe me? Here’s some historical evidence to back up my claims.

Back in 1990, in the deep blue state of Maryland, the topic of abortion came up during a legislative session in the form of a bill that would have dramatically expanded abortion in the state. In a bold move, pro-life Democrats and Republicans in the Maryland Senate decided to fight back and began an epic filibuster that lasted eight days. Our current class of “surrender first” politicians would have been horrified by this act of political bravery and would surely have declared it “political suicide” in the overwhelmingly Democratic state of Maryland.

But, what these political cowards do not understand is that the horrors of abortion are not easily disguised when it becomes a daily media topic in the event of a shutdown. Many people are pro-abortion because they have had the horrors of abortion hidden from them by a compliant media, or because they hide themselves behind the faux messaging patina: “It’s just a clump of cells.” Watching a fully-formed child squirming on a table as an abortion industry employee discusses how he or she harvested the aborted child’s brain by cutting through its face makes it difficult for even the morally corrupt to parrot the “clump of cells” lie.

The Maryland filibuster destroyed the careers of a number of pro-abortion Democrats in Maryland, and the extended debate forced by pro-life Maryland Senators put pro-abortion legislators in an uncomfortable spot, where they had to repeatedly defend the real life horror of abortion. Declarations such as “Eight blurry days and nights of hell” and “It was ugly” were used by Democrats to describe the filibuster. This was such as disaster for the Maryland Democratic Party that the abortion filibuster by the pro-life portion of the Maryland Senate was a factor in the Democratic Senate leadership’s later decision to change the filibuster rules to make it easier for the Democrats to squash debate.

How is it that, in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1, and in a statewide media environment dominated by liberal influence and with no significant conservative alternative, brave, pro-life legislators gathered the guts to fight back, and take ground from the pro-abortion Left in the process? All the while, the current crop of gutless, ineffective D.C. insiders have already ceded the battle…

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Forensic Analysis: Planned Parenthood Videos Are ‘Authentic’

Lawmakers Are Saying They Can’t Defund Planned Parenthood. Here’s How to Respond to 8 of Their Claims.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Jim Mone | AP Photo.

The Pill Whose Price Went Up 5000%? It Costs 5 Cents in India by Alex Tabarrok

The drug Daraprim was increased in price from $13.60 to $750, creating social outrage. I’ve been busy, but a few points are worth mentioning.

The drug is a generic and not under patent so this isn’t a case of IP protectionism. The story as I read it is that Martin Shkreli, the controversial CEO of Turing pharmaceuticals, noticed that there was only one producer of Daraprim in the United States and, knowing that it’s costly to obtain even an abbreviated FDA approval to sell a generic drug, saw that he could greatly increase the price.

It’s easy to see that this issue is almost entirely about the difficulty of obtaining generic drug approval in the United States because there are many suppliers in India, and prices are incredibly cheap.

The prices in this list (right) are in India rupees. 7 rupees is about 10 cents so the list is telling us that a single pill costs about 5 cents in India compared to $750 in the United States!

It is true that there are real issues with the quality of Indian generics. But Pyrimethamine is also widely available in Europe. I’ve long argued for reciprocity: if a drug is approved in Europe it ought to be approved here. In this case, the logic is absurdly strong. The drug is already approved here!

All that we would be doing is allowing import of any generic approved as such in Europe to be sold in the United States.

Note that this in not a case of reimportation of a patented pharmaceutical for which there are real questions about the effect on innovation.

Allowing importation of any generic approved for sale in Europe would also solve the issue of so-called closed distribution.

There is no reason why the United States cannot have as vigorous a market in generic pharmaceuticals as does India.

Hat tip: Gordon Hanson.

Crossposted from Marginal Revolution.

Alex Tabarrok
Alex Tabarrok

Alex Tabarrok is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He blogs at Marginal Revolution with Tyler Cowen.

Planned Parenthood Lobbying as College ‘Classics’ Education

After the series of undercover films by the Center for Medical Progress showing high-ranking Planned Parenthood executives negotiating the sale of fetal body parts, the House had no trouble passing a bill freezing funding for Planned Parenthood for a year.  This was in spite of efforts on college campuses by performance artist Rhodessa Jones, sympathetic professors, and, at Hamilton College, about a dozen representatives from the Planned Parenthood Mohawk Hudson.

Jones specializes in working with women in prison and with HIV across the country and in Russia and South Africa.  She has also enjoyed lucrative gigs on college campuses, such as at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  She was recently appointed a visiting professor at St. Mary’s College.

But she has enjoyed regular visits to Hamilton College since at least 2004, when she performed “Big Butt Girls, Hard-Headed Women.”  In addition to getting funding from campus social justice programs and various academic departments, Jones receives grants from the National Endowment for the Arts, private foundations, and local and state arts programs.  She also collaborates with Planned Parenthood.

Her visit last week came just in time to encourage students to call Congressman Richard Hanna and encourage him to vote against the bill to defund Planned Parenthood.  He was one of three Republicans to do so on September 18.  The Senate is trying to fast-track the bill.

On Constitution Day, September 17, Jones gave the second of her two talks on campus.  Among the students and professors in the Kennedy Auditorium were about a dozen representatives from Planned Parenthood.  Jones had shown previews of her film called “Birthright,” which she told students was about “honoring” and “standing with Planned Parenthood.”  Near the end of the long question-and-answer session, Professor of Comparative Literature Nancy Rabinowitz encouraged the largely female audience to present any question that would challenge what had been said.  She implied that free debate was encouraged. “If you have an objection, please speak up,” she said, reminding the students that the campus event was intended to be “educational.”

Two days previously, during her introduction to Jones’s first talk, Rabinowitz had encouraged students to participate in all the activities offered during the week related to Jones’s residency: drama workshops, meals, and the September 17 showing of “Birthright” with “open discussion” afterward.  Until the last few minutes of the “open discussion” period at the end of the second lecture no mention had been made of a possible alternative view.  In fact, Rabinowitz had launched off the first day by ominously warning that “the right to choose” is “under attack right now.”

Jones herself had opened her first lecture by reaffirming Rabinowitz and dramatically declaring that we must “trust women” to make their own choices.  The women “acting” in her films repeated the message.  The clips that were shown on September 17 were testimonials to Planned Parenthood.  That should not be surprising because the film was a joint project of Jones’s non-profit performance company, Cultural Odyssey, and Planned Parenthood of Northern California.  The topic of selling of fetal body parts by Planned Parenthood was never mentioned.  The upcoming vote by Congress to defund Planned Parenthood was simply presented as unjustified.

"MargaretSanger-Underwood.LOC" by Underwood & Underwood - Library of Congress Prints and Photographs division

MargaretSanger-Underwood.LOC” by Underwood & Underwood – Library of Congress Prints and Photographs division

On a campus where many professors insult dissenting students in class or punish them with low grades it would take an extreme amount of self-confidence to accept Rabinowitz’s invitation.  Such a student was surrounded by about a hundred of her peers, several professors, and representatives from Planned Parenthood.  The film clips had shown testimonials by women who had undergone horrific experiences of childhood rape, addiction, and abuse.  Several board members and employees of the local Planned Parenthood had stood up to present the benefits of Planned Parenthood.  One who is involved in public affairs urged students to call “longtime supporter and wonderful advocate” Congressman Richard Hanna, whose number she wrote on the blackboard from memory. Hanna, she said, was hearing from “anti-woman, anti-choice” constituents, so needed to hear from them.  She urged students to call the next day, reciting a script for them.  Students were also encouraged to register to vote and vote for pro-choice candidates.  The next day Hanna went against his party that had voted for the bill to defund Planned Parenthood.

One student did accept Rabinowitz’s invitation to question the points made, but only in the meekest form possible.  She presented a question in the form of a hypothetical.  What about the claims that “some people” make about the “potential for life?” she asked.  This was a counter to the preceding steady message about women’s choices, the decades-old slogan about having control over one’s future, not having a baby until one is “ready,” and so forth.  In fact, it had been presented as crueler to subject a child to a life of potential poverty, hunger, and abuse than to abort it.  The student tentatively presented a counter-argument: the “other side” said that in spite of not having all the advantages, an unplanned child could still enjoy life.

The student had plenty of people to answer her question.

A biology professor repeated what he said he told his classes: that the same standard as the biological standard for death could be applied to preborn life.  Death is determined by the end of brainwaves, he said.  Brainwaves and “consciousness” do not appear until the third trimester, so the fetus was not really alive until the third trimester.

Philosophy professor Katheryn Doran, who had introduced Jones that day and who is also vice chair of the local board of directors of Planned Parenthood Mohawk Hudson, responded by implying that this was similar to the “faux feminist” argument that claims that the real oppression occurs when women are put into the position of having an abortion.  It’s about “choice,” she asserted to a lot of head-nodding in the audience.

A man in the audience then stood up and introduced himself as the CEO of Planned Parenthood.  This was Kim Atkins.  He stated that Planned Parenthood was in the position of preventing the “situations” that require abortion.  That means making contraception readily available.  “We share the vision to reduce abortion,” he said, while adding that everybody should have the right to make the “choice” for herself of whether or not to have an abortion.

More testimony came as a few women admitted to having had abortions and having no regrets.  A student who had interned at Planned Parenthood gave a plug.  A Planned Parenthood representative testified that the abortion pill made a first trimester abortion a private and relatively easy procedure.  Some repeated the advice given by Planned Parenthood counselors to young women with unplanned pregnancies: that this is the best choice that you can make now and that you are being a “good mother” by having an abortion.  Any “regrets” result from hormonal changes, which are temporary.

"Black Lives Matter protest, Mall of America, December 2014" by Nicholas Upton.

Black Lives Matter protest, Mall of America, December 2014.

 by Nicholas Upton.The presentation ended at 6:00 p.m., right before a dinner for the attendees.  Rabinowitz closed out by telling the audience that she had forgotten to mention that the event was funded by the Literature and Creative Writing Department, in addition to the other departments, such as Classics and Philosophy (as well as the Levitt Center and other offices).  Rabinowitz also encouraged students to attend the Black Lives Matter event the following day, stating that they were privileged to have one of the founders, Alicia Garza, speak.

Jones’s visit had been billed as an exploration of the role of myth.  Indeed, Rabinowitz had stated that it was during the teaching of Medea that she had discovered Jones’s work. Medea, Euripides’s tragedy about a woman who murders her two children in revenge for her husband’s philandering, has become a signature play for feminists because of the sympathetic portrayal of Medea.

But even that much was not mentioned during Jones’s talks.  Nor was there anything remotely related to literature or philosophy.  Instead, students received a lot of indoctrination, while being subjected to amateurish theater.  A large part of the credit goes to Nancy Rabinowitz, who continues to use her position to bring radical friends to the college, even after her attempts to bring Ward Churchill and Susan Rosenberg were stymied.  But Rhodessa Jones served the purpose just as well, as will be revealed in the next installment.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Forensic Analysis: Planned Parenthood Videos Are ‘Authentic’

Lawmakers Are Saying They Can’t Defund Planned Parenthood. Here’s How to Respond to 8 of Their Claims.