EXPOSED: The U.S. and British “Sex Industrial Complex”

Former KGB spy and Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE) member Geoffrey Prime (left) and PIE Chairman Tom O’Carroll

The United Kingdom has been rocked by a scandal of major proportions involving government support for pedophilia & pederasty. Child rape has been going on for decades at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) offices. “The BBC will be plunged into a major crisis with the publication of a damning review, expected next month, that will reveal its staff turned a blind eye to the rape and sexual assault of up to 1,000 girls and boys by Jimmy Savile in the corporation’s changing rooms and studios,” reports Daniel Boffey from The Guardian.

The Daily Mail reported,”A vile paedophile group with links to senior Labour politicians was funded with huge amounts of taxpayers’ money, it has emerged. The Paedophile Information Exchange was allegedly given £70,000 by the Home Office between 1977 and 1980 – the equivalent today of about £400,000. The astonishing claims made by a whistleblower are now being investigated by the police and the government.”

Before It’s News reported in January 2013 how PIE became a ‘legal’ paedophile ring:

“This history must start in 1967 when the Sexual Offences Act decriminalised homosexual acts in private between two men, both of whom had to have attained the age of 21, in England and Wales. It is important to note that  Homosexuality was not decriminalised in Scotland until 1980, and in Northern Ireland until 1982.

Following the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, homosexuals in parts of the UK other than England and Wales organised in an effort to attain equality in law. One such organisation, founded in 1969, was the Scottish Minorities Group (SMG). The SMG, which was based in Glasgow, was a self-help organisation working for the rights of homosexual men and women, and had the aims of providing counselling, working for law reform and providing meeting places for lesbians and gay men.

PIE, originally chaired by Michael Hanson,  began as a special interest group in 1974 under the SMG umbrella organisation. Note that paedophilia was no less illegal than homosexuality in Scotland at this time. PIE relocated to London in 1975 under a new chairman Keith Hose.

Read more.

Dr. Judith Reisman states, “‘The Sex Industrial Complex’ is an economic and attitudinal merger of pedophile and pederast crusaders with ‘sexology’ and its allies in other academic fields, along with commercial pornographers.  The pharmaceutical and abortion industries–both obviously profit from sexual promiscuity–are satellite players in the SIC. It was the academic pedophile/pederasty crusaders, largely employed by the pornography industry, with whom I locked horns in Wales when I presented my research on child pornography at the ‘British Psychological Association Conference on Love and Attraction’ in 1976.”

“Chasing down [Alfred] Kinsey and his closeted sexual revisionists is one of the most mesmerizing detective sagas in social history.  For, tracking the path of brazen clues left by liberal left ‘social scientists,’ we can learn a great deal about how and why our national moral philosophy was overturned,” notes Reisman.

Tom O’Carroll, the head of PIE, Pedophile Information Exchange, a pedophile supported by radical British political leaders, explained in his child molester’s handbook, Paedophilia, The Radical Case: “erotica had a powerful influence on my own attitudes, an influence almost as powerful and revolutionary as the impact on me of Ford and Beach and Kinsey.”  O’Carroll, the pioneering organizer of the English and European academic pedophile movement, nicely links together for us three key agents of “The Sex Industrial Complex” (SIC) discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of Reisman’s book Kinseyan Anthropology as relying upon three-key bodies of change agents:

a)  The pedophile/pederasty crusaders, (heterosexual and homosexual child molesters)
b)  Kinsey’s disciples in sexology and allied disciplines and
c)   The pornography industry.

We are seeing the same thing happen in the United States. Peter Bella in an August 2011 Washington Times article stated, “The modern age has been hailed as post-gender and post-racial. Meaning that we’ve grown as a society beyond petty discrimination against people on the basis of race or gender identity, and such discrimination is met with the entire wrath our legal and social institutions can muster. If some people have their way, this modern age will soon be post-pedophilia.   And playgrounds will be empty.”

According to Bella, “B4U-ACT is a Maryland-based group of mental health professionals, psychiatrists and pedophiles who want to normalize pedophilia. Instead of pejoratively calling them ‘pedophiles,’ ‘fiends,’ ‘deviants,’ ‘freaks,’ ‘perverts,’ ‘degenerates,’ ‘predators’ or ‘pedophiles,’ they would prefer that society refer to them by the sensitive and socially-accepting term: minor attracted persons.” (Daily Caller)

The target of pedophiles and pederasts remain our children. Call it what you may, it is wrong in so very many ways.


1977 Guardian article with Reisman quotes
How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?
Pensioner backed Paedophile Information Exchange and may hold key to links with left wing groups
Home Office ‘gave Paedophile Information Exchange £70,000′: Group allegedly given taxpayers’ money between 1977 and 1980

Divided We Stand: A Traditionalist Manifesto

Conservatives are generally very nice people — who never saw a culture war they couldn’t lose. That is to say, we often hear cracks about how Barack Obama and his ilk may “evolve” on issues, but conservatives exhibit that tendency, too, and their evolution goes something like this:

“Marriage is between one man and one woman, period!”

Five years later…

“I can accept civil unions, but marriage should not be redefined.”

After five years more:

“The states can do whatever they want, just keep the feds out of it.”

And 10 years further on:

“People can do what they want. How does faux marriage affect me, anyway?” (This is the point British “conservatives” have reached.)

And at an even later juncture it’s, “Why shouldn’t homosexuals have the right to ‘marry’? It’s a matter of equality.” (Just ask some “conservatives” in Sweden.)

Oh, this isn’t limited to marriage or anything else some dismiss as “social issues.” Conservatives were against Social Security (in FDR’s time) before they tolerated it before they were for it before they demanded it. And they are against socialized medicine. But should it endure for 15 years, their children will tolerate it and then accept it and then expect it — as today’s conservatives do in Western Europe.

This gets at the only consistent definition of conservatism: a desire to “conserve,” to preserve the status quo. This is why while 1950s conservatives in the US were staunchly anti-communist, conservatives in the USSR were communist. As the status quo changes, so does the nature of the prevailing conservatism. And it is liberals, as the agents of change (without the hope), who shape tomorrow’s status quo.

Here’s how it works: the liberals come to the bargaining table demanding a change. The conservatives don’t like it, but being “reasonable” they give the other side some part of what they want. And it doesn’t matter if it amounts to 50 percent, 30, 15 or just 1 percent.

Because the libs will be back, next year, next election cycle, next decade.

Again and again and again.

And each time the cons will get conned, giving the libs a few more slices, until the left has the whole loaf and those ideological loafers, conservatives, are left with crumbs and a crumbled culture.

In a word, today’s conservatives are generally people who have assimilated into yesterday’s liberals’ culture. And every time we compromise — on civil unions, big-government programs or whatever it may be — we assimilate further. And what is the nature of this evolution?
It is nothing less than a superior culture being subsumed by an inferior one.

Now, all this perhaps sounds hopeless. Are we damned to inexorable and irrevocable movement toward the “left,” at least until the complete collapse of civilization is wrought? Well, there is an alternative to assimilation.


There has been some talk of secession lately. But note that there is a prerequisite for political separation: cultural separation. Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Slovenia didn’t become their own nations because they suddenly thought the name Yugoslavia was no longer cool, but because of profound cultural differences. And Catalans in Spain some time back empowered parties that have called for an independence referendum this year because of cultural differences. Make the cultural differences great enough, and separation (assuming you can avoid bondage via a governmental iron fist, which is the other possibility) is a natural by-product.

But a key to increasing that cultural divide is avoiding assimilation. Did you ever hear of an Ainu (Japan’s original people) independence movement in Japan? No, because they’ve been largely absorbed by the wider culture, sort of how traditionalists get absorbed by our modernistic culture and end up having, at best, children who’ll reflect today’s liberals and be called tomorrow’s conservatives. So how can further assimilation be avoided?

We only need to look at how it’s done all over the world. And there are two ways. To illustrate the first, consider how ardent Muslims avoid being subsumed. They don’t view fellow citizens in a host nation as national brothers.

But as the “other.”

Oh, the others may occupy the same borders, but they are as alien as anyone outside them. Their culture is to be rejected not just because it’s decadent and despicable — and our liberal-created variety is certainly those things — but because it is of the other. So it is with the others’ laws, social codes, and traditions, too: they are born of an infidel, alien culture and are to be viewed with extreme suspicion if not hostility.

And this is precisely how leftists should be viewed.

For this to work, our instincts must be thus: If liberals say left, we go right. If they say down, we say up. If they scream “Change!” we shout all the louder “Tradition!” and then push for our own change — tradition’s restoration.

Note here that I’m not speaking of a cold intellectual understanding of the issues, which, don’t get me wrong, is important. But just as it is passion that makes a man fight for a woman, it is passion that makes you fight for a cause. Loathe what the liberals stand for, meet their agenda with animosity, cultivate a visceral desire to wipe it from the face of the Earth. Hate, hate, hate it with the fires of a thousand burning suns.

One drawback to this tactic for division, however, is that it constitutes a blind defiance that could conceivably reject virtue along with vice. An example of this is when elements of the black community dismiss education, Christianity and higher culture because they view embracing them as “acting white.” Yet since liberals are right only about 0.4 percent of the time (and I’m perhaps being generous), this isn’t the greatest of dangers at the moment. Nonetheless, this brings us to the ideal method for separation.

G.K. Chesterton once said, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” A good example of love-driven separation is the Amish. They do try to avoid hating anyone (although I suspect they hate certain ideas), yet their love for their culture is so great that they remain a people apart. Of course, where they fall short is that they won’t fight at all, even politically. And this philosophy will not yield separation on a wide scale because the left simply won’t allow millions of people to live “off the grid.” Someone has to fund the nanny state, after all.

But the proper combination is obvious. We need sort of an Amish jihad, a deep love of the good and hatred of the evil that translates into action. But there is a prerequisite for this, and it brings us to something both the Amish and Muslim jihadists have in common.

They believe in Truth.

Sure, the Muslims may call it the will of Allah; the Amish, God’s law. But the point is that they aren’t awash in a relativism that, amounting to the Protagorean notion that “man is the measure of all things,” is unduly influenced by man. They don’t see a large number of people lobbying for some loony social innovation and figure that, with man as arbiter, they have to “get with the times.” Rooted to what they see as eternal, they don’t bend to the ephemeral.

Quite the opposite of G.W. Bush, I’m a divider — not a uniter. If this sounds bad, note that Jesus himself said He had not come to unite the world but as a sword to divide brother against brother. And while I certainly don’t claim to be God or even godly, I do know that tolerance of evil in unity’s name is a vice — and blessed division a virtue.

We can hate what is in front of us, love what is behind us, or both. But if we’re sheep and not soldiers, compromisers and not crusaders, Western civilization’s days will be behind us — and in front, perhaps, a thousand years of darkness.

England Goes Back to the 17th Century: The Insane Wood Bonfire

The Brits have decided to Save the Planet by going back to burning wood instead of coal. The giant DRAX power plant in Yorkshire, which provides about 6% of Britain’s electricity – you know, heat, lights, telly – is being converted from burning coal to burning wood, 100 year-old hardwood, the kind prized for making furniture. American wood, from North Carolina.

No, I’m not making this up. No sane person could make this up. I know because I’ve read it in a British newspaper by a proper Brit reporter.

MoS2 Template Master

The Daily Mail is a rather skeptical Brit newspaper, meaning they don’t seem to uncritically accept what the Brit upper class tells them is good for them, like Charles, Prince of …let’s not go there.

I’m telling you this because the people who support the claims of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) are so world class stupid that explaining the science to them does no good. Perhaps pointing out the idiocy of their remedies for the non-existent “global warming crisis” will make an impression. The reductio ad absurdum works in math and logic; perhaps it will rouse our voters to get rid of these morons.

Secretary of State John Kerry confuses carbon dioxide, equally diffused through the atmosphere, with ozone, mostly in the stratosphere. Senator Nelson believes sea level will rise enough by 2100 to put 28 million Floridians under water. These are people who believe their highest priority – yes, that’s what Kerry said – is stopping – totally – the increase of “carbon pollution” in Earth’s atmosphere. We all exhale “carbon pollution” with every breath; it’s really carbon dioxide, invisible, odorless, and essential to all life on this planet. I really wish Kerry and Nelson would walk their talk – but, these are politicians – and stop exhaling their “carbon pollution.”

So, what did the Brit fishwrap say? A few quotes:

On a perfect spring day in the coastal forest of North Carolina I hike along a nature trail – a thread of dry gravel between the pools of the Roanoke river backwaters. A glistening otter dives for lunch just a few feet away.

Majestic trees soar straight and tall, their roots sunk deep in the swampland: maples, sweetgums and several kinds of oak. A pileated woodpecker – the world’s largest species, with a wingspan of almost 2ft – whistles as it flutters across the canopy. There the leaves are starting to bud, 100ft above the ground.
The trees seem to stretch to the horizon: a serene and timeless landscape.

Sounds pleasant. Not fast-growing trash trees, like pines for pulp. What else?

The UK is committed by law to a radical shift to renewable energy. By 2020, the proportion of Britain’s electricity generated from ‘renewable’ sources is supposed to almost triple to 30 per cent, with more than a third of that from what is called ‘biomass’.

The only large-scale way to do this is by burning wood, man’s oldest fuel – because EU rules have determined it is ‘carbon-neutral’.
So our biggest power station, the leviathan Drax plant near Selby in North Yorkshire, is switching from dirty, non-renewable coal. Biomass is far more expensive, but the consumer helps the process by paying subsidies via levies on energy bills.

So this “renewable biomass” (from America) will cost much more than coal. It also costs much more than natural gas – of which Britain still has a fair amount. They could have far more, of course, if they began fracking, but the EU disapproves of fracking. But, surely, this will save the planet by reducing carbon dioxide emission, right? No!

In fact, Burdett admits, Drax’s wood-fuelled furnaces actually produce three per cent more carbon dioxide (CO2) than coal – and well over twice as much as gas: 870g per megawatt hour (MW/hr) is belched out by wood, compared to just 400g for gas.

Then there’s the extra CO2 produced by manufacturing the pellets and transporting them 3,800 miles. According to Burdett, when all that is taken into account, using biomass for generating power produces 20 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than coal.

There are additional reasons to believe this is insanity run amok, but why belabor the obvious? These are rules from the European Union. Now you understand why Vladimir Putin can take over Crimea without objection from the EU. Angela Merkel and Germany get 40% of their energy from Russian gas. The BMW production line will not shut down for Crimea.

Surely, the British voters will rise up and sweep out of power the government that fosters such policies? No; there are three major parties in Britain (Labour, Liberal, and Conservatives), who all support this green stupidity. No hope there.

But, no doubt OUR Environmental Protection Agency will step in to protect the home of the pileated woodpecker? No; American wind farms have been given a license to kill bald eagles, golden eagles, other raptors, bats… EPA works for the Marxist thug in the White House, who’s been sitting on the Keystone XL decision for five years. Three more years of stupid.

The word “bonfire” comes from “bonfire”, in the years when the Black Death created dead bodies faster than they could be buried. Now the Green Death is sweeping across Europe – and America. Goodbye, pileated woodpecker.


New Study: President Obama a “member of the Flat Earth Society” on Climate Change

Climate Truth and US Government Climate Policy

Even a child could understand climate change

EDITORS NOTE: The feature image of a bonfire is by Janne Karaste. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

Ought Implies Can by Steven Horwitz

Ethical Pronouncements without Economics Lead to Disastrous Public Policies.

One of the most common objections to free markets is that they ignore ethical considerations. In particular, critics argue that there are many things we “ought” to do that they believe will make people’s lives better off. We ought to “redistribute” income to the poor, they say. We ought to make health care a right. We ought to fix the economy by bailing out the financial industry.

The problem with all these “oughts” is that they eventually confront the principle ought implies can. Can the desired end (improving the welfare of the poor, for example) be achieved by the chosen means (income “redistribution”)? If not, then what does the “ought” really mean? “Oughts” without “cans”–ethical pronouncements without economics–are likely to lead to disastrous public policies.

In exploring the relationship between economics and ethics, we can start with two definitions that seem relevant here. The economist David Prychitko once defined economics as “the art of putting parameters on our utopias.” And in a particularly insightful definition, Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek wrote that “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” What both definitions suggest is that economics deals with the realm of the possibleand in doing so demarcates the limits to what should be imaginable. Before we say we “ought” to do something, perhaps we should be sure we can do it, in the sense that the action is likely to achieve the intended ends. Put differently: ought implies can.

Ethicists can imagine all kinds of schemes to remedy perceived social ills, but none of the aspiring benefactors can afford to ignore economic analysis. Being able to dream something doesn’t guarantee it is possible. Too often ethical pronouncements have an air of hubris about them, as the pronouncer simply assumes we can do what he says we ought to do. By contrast, economics demands some humility. We always have to ask whether it’s humanly possible to do what the ethicists say we ought. To say we ought to do something we cannot do, in the sense that it won’t achieve our end, is to engage in a pointless exercise. If we cannot do it, to say that we ought to is to command the impossible.

So contrary to the commonly heard complaint, it is not that economists ignore ethical issues. Rather we attempt to describe the likely results of putting particular ethical rules into practice. For example, someone can argue that a living wage is an ethical imperative, but that doesn’t change the economic analysis of minimum-wage laws. Those laws increase unemployment and/or lead to reductions in nonmonetary forms of compensation among all unskilled workers, but especially the young, male, and nonwhite. No matter how much we think we ought to pass such legislation as a way of helping the poor, the reality remains that economics shows us that we cannot help them that way. Those who argue we ought to have such a law can still pass it if they want, but they should do it with eyes wide open to the fact that it will not achieve the result they wish, no matter how much they think we ought to have it.

It might be more accurate to say that ethicists ignore economics than that economists ignore ethics. To the extent that good economics shows what we can and cannot do with social policy, it is engaged with ethics. After all, if the point of saying we ought to do X is that we think it will achieve some set of morally desirable goals, then knowing whether or not doing X will actually achieve those goals is, or at least should be, a key part of moral inquiry. One of the tasks that economists should set for themselves is to engage in this sort of dialogue with moral philosophers and others who argue from “oughts.” Economist Leland Yeager’s recent book Ethics as Social Science is a good example of how economics can inform ethical questions just this way.

Studying “Ought,” Ignoring “Can”

The more interesting question is the degree to which moral philosophers are engaged with economics as they develop their theories. It might be true that introductory economics courses do not consider moral questions as often as they might, but it would seem at least as true that courses in ethics and religious studies are unlikely to confront either economic arguments or economic data that relate to their subjects. Exploring the “ought” without broaching the “can” will not get one far in designing policies that will achieve the intended results. One exception to this neglect of economics is the philosopher Daniel Shapiro’s Is the Welfare State Justified? In that book he brings to bear a good deal of empirical data and economic theory on the question of whether the welfare state can do what its proponents claim for it. From the philosophy side, this is the kind of work that needs to be done.

Can Doesn’t Imply Ought

Once we recognize the insight behind “ought implies can,” we can see that the reverse is true as well. Just as we cannot do everything people say we ought, we ought not do everything we can. We see this in the frequent calls for political actors to “do something” in the face of a crisis. There are many things politicians can actually do in a crisis, and doing them is often fairly easy, especially if the politicians can generate a climate of fear to help make the “ought” seem more pressing. But the fact that they can do something does not always mean they ought to. Even if it is true that “yes we can,” understanding the unseen and unintended consequences of what politicians are able to do should help us to decide whether they ought to do it.

Both ways of looking at “ought implies can” put economists in the position of throwing cold water on the plans and designs of social engineers left and right. This is what Prychitko and Hayek mean. Economists are thus often seen as only knocking down the ideas of others without coming up with solutions of their own. There is some truth to this claim. That is how economists spend much of their time. But it’s an important function: showing why a proposed solution would only make matters worse is a valuable contribution to the broader process of solving the problem.

More relevant, however, is that economics teaches us that solutions are much more often found in the actions of individuals and organizations responding entrepreneurially to the situations they face. The notion of a top-down solution to any social problem is going to attract the economist’s critical eye. In terms of “ought implies can,” economists are often reluctant to say what everyone ought to do because no one person or group knows what people can do. If ought implies can, and “can” is particular people in particular contexts developing solutions to their problems, then it is difficult to say what we all ought to do, especially in a crisis. This is the way that Prychitko’s and Hayek’s definitions cash out in the real world.

All the themes above have been on display in the current economic crisis. The bailout of the financial sector is a classic example of both letting the “ought” blot out the “can” and of assuming we ought to do whatever apparently can be done. The original promise of the bailout was that government would buy up the bad assets of troubled financial institutions then later resell the assets, making the real cost substantially less than the original $700 billion. Many critics, including many economists, suggested not only that this plan was counterproductive–because it only enhanced the likelihood that other firms would take unwise risks in the future–but also that the availability of those funds would lead to demands for the government to use them in other equally unproductive ways. That is more or less what has happened, as the bailout expanded to partial government ownership of banks and then demands from the auto and insurance companies to get in on the goodies. The plan changed again when the government announced it wouldn’t purchase troubled assets but instead would inject money directly into banks and other kinds of businesses. But soon all the “oughts” were crashing against the limits of what can be done via government intervention. Meanwhile, the machinery of government did many things it can do–borrow and create money, for example–without the planners thinking very much about whether they ought to do any of those things.

Social scientists who disregard ethical issues abandon one of their central roles in bettering the human condition, and ethicists who ignore social science in formulating their moral prescriptions are negligent for not asking whether those solutions will achieve their stated ends. Only when both realize that ought implies can will we get public policies based on an accurate understanding of human interaction.


Contributing editor and Freeman Online columnist 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. This summer, he will be lecturing for FEE at Rebels with a Cause.

EDITORS NOTE: The feature image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

University of Michigan: Pro-“Palestinian” activists violently threaten pro-Israel students

SAFESitIn-300x210We see this again and again: Leftists and Islamic supremacists increasingly imitate Hitler’s Brownshirts, violently menacing anyone who dares stand up against their support for jihad terror, oppression and hatred. It is a tacit admission of abject intellectual bankruptcy, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t potentially lethal.

“Palestinian Activists Violently Threaten Pro-Israel Students,” by Adam Kredo for the Washington Free Beacon, March 21:

Pro-Palestinian activists on the University of Michigan campus have had the cops called on them for threatening pro-Israel students and staging a sit-in over the student government’s refusal to back an anti-Israel initiative to divest from the Jewish state.

University of Michigan police were contacted Wednesday evening after two pro-Palestinian activists allegedly threatened a student who refused to support their boycott initiative.

The threatening rhetoric used by these pro-Palestinian activists is part of wider campaign by the University of Michigan’s pro-Palestine group Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE), which is part of the virulently anti-Israel Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement (BDS).

The pro-Palestinian faction’s violent rhetoric has sparked an atmosphere of fear among pro-Israel students and led at least one to ask that the police launch an investigation into these threats.

SAFE, which describes itself as “a Palestinian solidarity group at the University of Michigan,” has beenstaging sit-ins at the university’s student government chambers and elsewhere, according to insiders and the group’s Facebook page.

On Wednesday of this week, SAFE apparently staged one of its sit-ins in the university’s student government chambers. That is when SAFE activists started shouting threats at those who do not support BDS, according to a police report and University of Michigan Police official.

“A student reported that around 6:30 p.m., two males yelled threats at him while they were in the Central Student Government chambers,” states a “threat of violence” police report from that evening. “They are described as Arabic males, approximately 20 years old and wearing white scarves. One reportedly had light brown skin, black hair, and a trimmed beard. The other was described as shorter than the other subject and thinner hair.”

An official with the university police told the Washington Free Beacon that the past week has been rife with tension following “an effort by a pro-Palestinian group” to promote divestment from Israel.

“There have been sit-ins conducted in those chambers by both students and non-students who are supporting a pro-Palestinian perspective,” said the police official.

“This report we took Wednesday evening was a student who was in the chambers and he alleges that two unknown men described in the incident [report] had yelled at him some threats and he left the area.”

While the official could not reveal the name of the individual who was threatened, she told the Free Beacon that these pro-Palestinian activists have been staging these BDS events for several days.

The university student involved in the incident stated on his Facebook page Thursday that police are looking into multiple threats leveled over a 48-hour period this week.

“I am immensely thankful to the University of Michigan’s Department of Public Safety for continuing to investigate all the threats against me over the last forty-eight hours,” the student stated in a posting obtained by the Free Beacon, which is withholding the individual’s name….

Campus insiders said the Michigan incident is just the latest heavy-handed campaign by anti-Israel activists bent on using U.S. college campuses as a means to foment hate for the Jewish state….


Massachusetts: Convicted jihad terrorist appeals to Supreme Court

New Jersey: Muslims appeal ruling that NYPD surveillance was legal

Obamacare Victims: 50 States, 50 Stories

David Rutz from the Washington Free Beacon reports, “Whether it’s been soaring premiums, insurance cancellations, frustrations with the state and federal exchanges, cutting employee hours or even day care centers closing down, the Affordable Care Act’s negative effects have touched all 50 states. Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.) saw it a different way in a strange outburst on the floor Feb. 26, calling all Obamacare horror stories ‘lies’ and ‘stories made up from whole cloth.’”

Here are 50 states worth of Harry Reid’s liars.



RELATED STORY: John Goodman: ObamaCare’s Fourth Anniversary—A Costly Failed Experiment – Wall Street Journal

Florida House: Resident In-state Tuition for Illegal Aliens passes by vote of 81-33! Did they read the bill?

Floridians for Immigration Enforcement (FLIMEN) states, “When immigration is viewed only racially and culturally, limits and legality will never be imposed.  The debate must focus on limitations and lawfulness, otherwise open borders will make the United States a marketplace and not a country.”

Florida resident Tad MacKie was perplexed at the overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives to grant illegal aliens resident in-state tuition to Florida’s colleges and universities. In an email to his representatives and senators MacKie states:

Rep’s Pilon, Steube and Boyd,

Thank you all for your NO votes on HB 851… You each are part of the few who actually took your fiduciary duty to the citizens of Florida, in general, and to your constituents, in particular, seriously.

It is a shame that 70% of your “colleagues” do not, including two from the Sarasota/Manatee delegation.

Rep’s Rouson and Holder,

The two of you, on the other hand, apparently believe that $700/year, from EVERY legal household in Florida, is just, somehow, not enough to give to, or spend because of, those people who have seen fit to break into our Country and our State. You have chosen to completely ignore the rights of, and your fiduciary duty to, EVERY person in your respective districts and in Florida who is either a citizen or those more-than-welcomed immigrants who have been respective of our laws… How dare you?.. You have brought both dishonor and shame on yourselves and the office with which the LEGAL citizens and voters have entrusted you.

Senators Detert and Galvano,

It is my fervent hope and desire that both of you will show the wisdom, fortitude and respect for your office, your constituents and the rule of law, as Rep’s Pilon, Steube and Boyd have, when the same question is brought before you.

For the rest of my readers,

How did YOUR “Representative”, that is, the person who, supposedly, represents YOU, vote on the issue of granting tuition waivers to ILLEGAL aliens? By the way, that “in-state tuition”…? Well… It amounts to right about $13, 500, per year, per student, out of your tax money.

See the “Summary Analysis” and “Full Analysis” of the bill.

The Summary Analysis does not even mention that illegals will be given waivers and neither the Summary nor Full Analysis states what the fiscal impact will be on the state education budget.

If the Representatives only read the Summary Analysis, they didn’t even know what they were voting on.

The Full Analysis reads:

The bill provides that students, regardless of immigration status, who attend a Florida high school for 3 consecutive years and enroll in an institution of higher education within 24 months after graduation are not required to pay out-of-state fees, provided they submit their high school transcript as documentary evidence of attendance and graduation. While these students are not classified as residents for tuition purposes, they may be reported for purposes of state funding[Emphasis added]

MacKie points out the “Summary Analysis” exempts the following types of students from the payment of out-of-state fees:

Veterans of the United States Armed Forces, including reserve components, who physically reside in Florida while enrolled in a Florida postsecondary institution; and

Students who attend a Florida high school for 3 consecutive years and enroll in a postsecondary institution within 24 months after graduation, provided they submit their high school transcript as documentary evidence of attendance and graduation.”

“You’ll notice the Summary Analysis does NOT say “regardless of immigration status”, as does the actual bill and the Full Analysis [above]. The point being that IF the house member did not read the entire “Full Analysis”, he/she could have easily misinterpreted the meaning and intent of the bill,” writes MacKie.

Click here to view how each member of the Florida House of Representatives voted on HB 851.

FILMEN concludes, “The bottom line nationally is that illegal immigration continues to hurt American families, take away jobs and depress wages of fathers and mothers who desperately want to support their children without going on welfare. The bottom line here in Florida is HB851/SB1400 will cause an unknown number of legal students to be displaced from college by illegal alien students. There is absolutely no estimate of the fiscal cost of college tuition subsidy for illegal aliens.”

Many see this as Republicans pandering for votes among Florida’s Hispanic population. Dr. Larry Reed, President of the Foundation for Economic Education, wrote, “Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects and a few people. If you encourage something, you get more of it; if you discourage something, you get less of it.”

The short term effect of Republican pandering to get Hispanic votes harms all Floridians in the long run. Rewarding lawlessness will cause more lawlessness. The floodgates to our colleges and universities are now wide open to illegal aliens. People who have broken the laws of this land will be sitting next to legal students thumbing their collective illegal noses at them.

Is this vote is just one step towards a vote for amnesty? That is the question.

RELATED STORY: Jeb Bush Praises Illegal Immigrants as ‘Risk Takers,’ Defends Common Core

Meet The Florida Citizen Lobbyists backing ALAC in the 2014 Legislative Session

The Florida version of the American Law for American Courts (ALAC) is up for its fourth try in the 2014 Legislative session in Tallahassee. In contrast to prior years, there is concerted effort by bill sponsors, Sen. Alan Hays (R- Umatilla) and Rep. Neil Combee in the House of Representatives to seek Senate and House leadership, as well as Committee commitments for passage of the bills. There is also  new message that was conveyed to Florida legislators on both House and Senate Committees; Senate Bill 0386/House Bill 903:  “acceptance of foreign law in certain cases”.  The message is that ALAC guards against the recognition of foreign laws in Florida Courts in violation of fundamental Constitutional rights of all citizens, especially women and children.

Professor Margaret McClain

Professor Margaret McClain at CFC 2014 Legislative Prayer Breakfast, Tallahassee

That message was communicated  at the March 13th  Florida Christian Family Coalition (CFC)   Annual Legislative Prayer Breakfast by Professor Margaret McClain , a retired Arkansas State University professor, whose  daughter Heidi  was kidnapped at the age of 5 and removed to Saudi Arabia by her ex-Husband..  See our New English Review article, An American Child Kidnapped in Accordance with Shariah.  Professor McClain’s experience was also  amplified  in a recent  Iconoclast  interview  with  Yasmeen Alexandria Davis, a Florida young woman, who at  13 years of age  was  rescued from  a kidnapping by her Saudi father through the resourcefulness and persistence of her mother and grandmother. Her Saudi father relentless keep tabs on her through a  US lawyers and an ex-FBI agent retained by him. See An American’s Rescue from Abduction to Saudi Arabia.

Both incidents were violations of state, federal and international conventions on parental kidnapping, but sanctioned under Sharia Islamic law. Professor McClain and Yasmeen Alexandria Davis testified about abduction of American children to  Saudi Arabia  in a panel of such women, children, and a father at a US House 2002 Government Reform Committee chaired by former Indian Republican Rep. Dan Burton. Professor McClain  gave proof f to the CFC lobbyists based on her personal experience why passage of ALA in Florida was needed to protect American women and children against alien laws that imperil their  fundamental Constitutional  and basic human rights. The CFC has made passage of ALAC a priority in the 2014 legislature.

Sen_ Alan Hays Sponsor of ALAC

Sen. Alan Hays, Sponsor of Florida ALAC, SB 0386 at CFC Legislative Prayer Breakfast, 2014.

The 75  trained men and women, members of the CFC who heard Professor McClain and ALAC Senate Bill sponsor, Sen. Alan Hays,  Rep. Larry Ahern, sponsor of  a bill, Offenses against the Unborn Children (OAUC), fanned out to meet legislators. They  were  equipped with FAQs sheet on why ALAC  is needed and a  list of nearly  two dozen Florida lower court and appellate cases in which foreign laws were recognized . How effective were they? According to a report by the CFC:

They met with a total of thirty-nine (39) lawmakers and secured thirty-two (32) co-sponsors/supporters on our legislative priorities. Nineteen (19) co-sponsors and supporters on American Laws for American Courts and thirteen (13) co-sponsors and supporters on the Offenses Against the Unborn Bill.

Neither they nor CFC’s executive director, Anthony Vertigo is resting on their laurels.  They are planning another Legislative Prayer Breakfast and Citizen Lobby Day in Tallahassee the week prior to the close of the Florida legislative session on May 2nd, to assure that those ALAC commitments and others are honored.

Anthony Verdugo  CFC executive director

Anthony Verdugo, executive director, CFC Annual Legislative Prayer Breakfast.

CFC, according to its executive director Verdugo has been going to Tallahassee for 10 years to lobby on issues like ALAC and OAUC.   CFC has more than 1,500 pastors and churches and over 16,000 members in Florida.  Its scorecard in conducting Citizen Lobbying on social issues of concern has been effective..  Verdugo said in an email that CFC’s among successes were the bi-partisan Stand for Israel resolution, Prayer Time in Schools, etc. – Parental Notification, Ultrasound Bill, Boy Scout Resolution, and Parental Rights Resolution. A so-called Anti-Bullying and Domestic Partnership bills were dropped.  “All told, we have made the difference on about [a] dozen bills over the last ten years”.

While it is too early to tell, the fourth try at passing ALAC is yielding some initial success, The House version of ALAC HB903 passed the House Civil Justice  Subcommittee on March 18th on a partisan vote of 8 Republicans to 4 Democrats.  The House version of ALAC has been also referred  to the Judiciary Committee for a hearing.  That  is the last Committee hearing  before a  Floor vote is  to be scheduled.  A looming first hearing on the Senate version, SB 0386, is scheduled for Tuesday, March 25th before the Senate Judiciary Committee..  SB0386 has  also been referred to  Government Oversight and Rules before a possible floor Vote.

ALAC in Florida may have better prospects than in the three previous sessions. The evidence  from research of   recognition  of foreign laws in a significant number of lower court and appellate level decisions  in Florida may answer legislators’ questions of why it is needed. Protection of Florida’s women and children from foreign laws appears to  put a human face on why ALAC should be passed.  Nonetheless,  political horse trading will be  crucial in navigating the legislative process to a possible successful conclusion in the 2014 session in Tallahassee.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

Russian president Putin defends Christian culture, Western values, condemns political correctness

Last year Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about the West. The Financial Times reported:

Vladimir Putin called on Russians to strengthen a new national identity based on conservative and traditional values such as the Orthodox church on Thursday, warning that the west was facing a moral crisis. ‘Sovereignty, independence, the integrity of Russia – those are red lines that no one is allowed to cross,’ the Russian president warned.

Mr Putin said Russia should avoid the example of European countries that were “going away from their roots”, by legalising gay marriage and excessive “political correctness”.

“A policy is being conducted of putting on the same level multi-child families and single-sex partnerships, belief in God and belief in Satan. The excesses of political correctness are leading to the point where people are talking seriously about registering parties whose goal is legalising the propaganda of paedophilia,” Mr Putin claimed.

Read more. 

Here is President Putin’s speech before the Duma:

EDITORS NOTE: According to Wikipedia here are the communities who’s citizens trace their lineage back to Russia.

Communities with high percentages of people of Russian ancestry

The top U.S. communities with the highest percentage of people claiming Russian ancestry are:

  1. Fox River, Alaska 80.9% 
  2. Aleneva, Alaska 72.5% 
  3. Nikolaevsk, Alaska 67.5% 
  4. Pikesville, Maryland 19.30%
  5. Roslyn Estates, New York 18.60%
  6. Hewlett Harbor, New York 18.40%
  7. East Hills, New York 18.00%
  8. Wishek, North Dakota 17.40%
  9. Eureka, South Dakota 17.30%
  10. Beachwood, Ohio 16.80%
  11. Penn Wynne, Pennsylvania 16.70%
  12. Kensington, New York and Mayfield, Pennsylvania 16.20%
  13. Napoleon, North Dakota 15.80%

U.S. communities with the most residents born in Russia

Top U.S. communities with the most residents born in Russia are:

  1. Millville, Delaware 8.5%
  2. South Windham, Maine 7.8%
  3. South Gull Lake, Michigan 7.6%
  4. Loveland Park, Ohio 6.8%
  5. Terramuggus, Connecticut 4.7%
  6. Harwich Port, Massachusetts 4.6%
  7. Brush Prairie, Washington 4.5%
  8. Feasterville, Pennsylvania 4.4%
  9. Colville, Washington 4.4%
  10. Mayfield, Ohio 4.0%
  11. Serenada, Texas 4.0%
  12. Orchards, Washington 3.6%
  13. Leavenworth, Washington 3.4%

LBJ: I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years

On March 20, 1854 the Republican Party was established in Ripon, Wisconsin. Referred to as the GOP or Grand Old Party, it established for one reason: to break the chains of slavery and ensure the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be for all Americans.

The Republican Party was created to achieve individual freedom. Then, as now, the antagonist to the Republican party has been the Democrats, the party of collective subjugation and individual enslavement — then physical, now economic.

The first black members of the US House and Senate were Republicans. The first civil rights legislation came from Republicans. Democrats gave us the KKK, Jim Crow, lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, and failed policies like the “Great Society.”

Republican President Eisenhower ordered troops to enforce school desegregation. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen enabled the 1964 civil rights legislation to pass, in opposition to Democrat Senators Robert Byrd (KKK Grand Wizard) and Al Gore, Sr.

As a matter of fact, it was Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs.

Yep, and who are the real racists? So far, thanks to a Republican Party that is ignorant of its own history and gave up on the black community, Democrats have 50 of those 200 years under their belt.

The problem with today’s Republican Party is that it has forgotten its own history and raison d’ etre: individual liberty. The Party must come to realize that GOP also stands for “Growth, Opportunity, Prosperity” and articulate how it stands, as its history and founding clearly demonstrate, for the individual pursuit of happiness as opposed to the progressive socialist (Democrat) lie of a collective guarantee of happiness.

So, happy 160th birthday to my Party, the Republican Party. I am a strong Conservative and I hope Republicans recommit to those fundamental principles which established this Party — the historical antithesis of the Democrats. Do I agree with every Republican on everything? Not always, but I doggone ain’t about to join up with the other liberal socialist rascals. And I do have a word of caution to my fellow Republicans, (wo)man up, or go the way of the Whigs.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on

I Can’t Believe We Made It

This video has been on YouTube and it deserves another listen. The audio and images are courtesy of WSRQ Radio FM 107.9.



According to today’s regulators and bureaucrats those of us who were kids in the ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70s or even early ‘80s, probably should not have survived.

Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids or locks on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets. And when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets.

We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle. We ate cupcakes, bread and butter and drink soda with lots of sugar in it. But we were rarely overweight because we were always outside playing. We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the street lights came on. No one was able to reach us all day.

Smartphones, we didn’t have cellphones at all, no PlayStations, Xboxes, limitless channels on cable, laptops or tablets. Facebook was an actual face and an actual book.

We had friends. We went outside and found them. We played dodgeball, and sometimes the ball would hurt. We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. No one was to blame but us. Remember accidents? we had fights and punched each other and got black and blue, and learned to get over it.

We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we didn’t put out any eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend’s home, knocked on the door, rang the bell or just walked right in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn’t had to learn to deal with disappointment.

Some students weren’t as smart as others, so they failed the grade and were held back to repeat the same grade. Tests were not adjusted for any reason.

Our actions were our own. Consequences were expected. The idea of parents bailing us out if we got in trouble in school or broke a law was unheard of. They actually sided with the school or the law, imagine that.

Now this generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers, and inventors ever. We had freedom, failure, success, and responsibility and we learnt how to deal with it.

If you’ve related to anything that we just said, you’re one of them. Congratulations. You made it!

Cruz: ‘Defend Life’ and ‘Defend Traditional Marriage’

Joe Miller from Restoring Liberty writes, “Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), a potential presidential contender in 2016, said the Republican Party needs a ‘big tent’ that embraces centuries-old ‘American values’ to succeed, adding that the GOP ‘should continue to defend life and that we should continue to defend traditional marriage.’”

Cruz made his remarks during a March 18th interview with the Des Moines Register, where he was asked about Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who recently said that for the Republican Party to grow and recruit more young people, it needed to “agree to disagree on social issues,” specifically homosexual “marriage”.


CDC: 94 to 95 Percent of HIV Cases among Boys and Young Men Linked to Homosexual Sex

White Paper: Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement

What did Reverend Martin Luther King think about homosexuality?

Debunking 5 Common Arguments for Homosexuality

A VERY BAD IDEA: Transferring Control of the Internet to the UN

From an intelligence standpoint, it does not make sense to turn over control of the Internet to the UN. At a time when the US Armed Forces and the intelligence community are both trying to develop our national defenses against the threats of cyber warfare, to divest the nation of control of the Internet is not in the best interest of the nation. The Pentagon, White House, and other agencies of government have been signaling the onset of cyber warfare.

Obama’s transfer of the Internet to the UN is just another illustration of how he continues to weaken the Republic, his goal seems to move the nation to a post-modern utopian world. The Obama administration has been informing the world that Putin is on the wrong side of history, that Putin is living in the 19th Century of nationalism, not in Obama’s 21st Century vision of internationalism.

Obama believes anyone espousing nationalism in the United States is backwards, uneducated, and a danger to the “change” he envision for the United States. While Obama is degrading the strength of the US military to a level that existed before WWII, and is intent on seriously damaging the economic power of the nation, as he drives the Republic into unheard of levels of debt (soon the interest on the national debt will exceed the GNP).

Obama believes that the nation-state, and sovereignty must no longer be the basis for the foundation of the international system, in Obama’s new 21st Century world, he alleges Putin doesn’t understand, he wants to eliminate the US status as the only Superpower. It is rather apparent that Putin does understand Obama’s naive vision of the 21st Century and is taking full advantage of it, and of Obama’s leadership from behind. A destabilizing transfer of control of the Internet to the UN will not be in the best interest of the American people, the US Armed Forces, or for The Free Enterprise System. If control of the Internet is transferred to the UN, the American people can expect the UN to eventually levy taxes on use its use; the American public has been fortunate that ever since the US military created the Internet, it has been free for all Americans to use free of taxes.

Eventually the UN may allow certain restrictions to be imposed against certain member states that are not looked on favorably by the majority of member nations, like Israel, the United States, or any other nation the majority member states may disagree with. Internet privacy and computer security has always been protected by the United States, but can be abused by a new and unknown power structure at the UN.

The Republican leadership in the Congress that has done very little or nothing to oppose Obama’s transfer of the Internet to the UN, must take action to prevent the occupant of the Oval Office from effecting the transfer.

It appears Obama is transferring control of the Internet to the UN because he has had difficulty dealing with the open criticism of his administration on the Internet daily; that criticism, guaranteed by the freedom of speech, under provisions of the US Constitution has been difficult for him to accept.

It has been impossible for the Obama administration to control the American people’s freedom of expression, as they criticize the Obama administration’s multiple failures and scandals on Internet daily. Since the Internet would have to remain free and open if it were to remain under the control of the US Commerce Department, that must be changed. When the Obama administration turns control of the Internet over to the UN, he has full knowledge that a coalition of nations that restrict the freedom of expression of their own populations will endeavor to suppress the freedom of expression on the Internet.

Countries like China, Cuba, Iran, the Soviet Union, Syria, Sudan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Vietnam, Pakistan, Myanmar, Malaysia, Mozambique, Algeria, etc. will take aggressive action to change the Internet as we know it today. The American people will forced by the Obama administration to abide by new oppressive UN Internet regulations, and Americans will be forced to abide by new UN Internet restricted regulations be penalized if they do not, or even worse. The American people must be allowed to assert their freedom of expression on the Internet and their right to oppose any attempt to suppress their freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, regardless of what any new UN Internet regulations may require.

The transfer of the Internet to UN control is not a small issue, it is about basic freedoms guaranteed to all Americans by the US Constitution, and must be opposed by any and all means possible. We encourage you to contact your Congressional representatives and demand that they take whatever action is required to prevent the transfer of Internet control to the UN.


U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet – The Washington Post
Why is American internet so slow?

Huge pro-family victory in Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade

These days there aren’t too many big pro-family victories to celebrate. But Sunday’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade in South Boston was one of them!

It went wonderfully. The organizers stood up to the politicians and the rabid media who tried relentlessly to force them to include overt homosexual activist groups in their traditional Catholic, pro-family parade.

All photos courtesy of MassResistance

And in the end many others stood with them. Labor unions, small businesses, several politicians, and an almost endless procession of military, religious, school, and other groups proudly marched before huge, cheering crowds. But it was a nasty fight right up to the end. And the organizers personally thanked MassResistance for our support.

As we reported last week, the parade organizers had been pressured for over a month, and recently their sponsors were even contacted. As of last week, all of the major sponsors and politicians had announced they were boycotting the parade in solidarity with the homosexual groups according to statements that were released.

The vicious intimidation tactics lasted right up to the morning of the parade.

 Enormous parade – Largest event in New England

Many people don’t realize how enormous the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade is. This year the parade was nearly two hours long. There were groups marching from as far away as Florida. It typically attracts over ¾ million people, and this year there were at least that many.

It is not only a pro-family Catholic event but also a military celebration.Organized by the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, the parade celebrates Evacuation Day, the day the British were driven out of Boston during the Revolutionary War in 1776, which, like St. Patrick’s Day, is also March 17. Thus it includes dozens of US military contingents and veterans groups of all types.

The religious, festive, historical, and military aspects of the parade give it a special old-fashioned atmosphere that attracts families from all over New England.

The organizers simply don’t want to mix in the “gay pride parade” element. One need only look at photos from any “gay pride” parade (here or elsewhere) to see what you can eventually expect to have. But the politicians and the media decided that this year they would not take “no” for an answer.

Relentless and obsessive media attacks

During the weeks leading up to day of the parade, virtually all of the newspaper coverage focused on the exclusions of the homosexual activists. The Boston Globewas particularly relentless.

It went to some absurd extremes. At one point, the Globe surprised us by printing a strong letter by a Catholic school principal supporting the parade organizers. Then a few days later they published an editorial personally attacking the principal’s Catholic religious views, and of course, letters attacking him also.

The morning of the parade, the Globe’s only “parade news” was a full-page article(that began on Page 1) about two homosexual activists putting “rainbow” colors on one of the floats for the parade, in an effort to sneak in the homosexual message.

Also on the morning of the parade — not to be outdone — the Boston Herald’s columnist Margery Eagan, a tireless anti-Catholic, wrote a particularly venomous article naming and celebrating the sponsors who had dropped out of this “toxic parade.” In the article, Eagan admitted that the businesses were contacted “by the Boston Herald” to intimidate them and inform them that their names would be in the newspaper. Note to the Herald: For a newspaper that depends on advertisers for its livelihood, it’s would seem to be a rather unwise practice to harass someone’s advertisers.

It gets ugly: Mayor of Boston screams & curses at parade organizer

Newly elected Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, a longtime pro-homosexual advocate, put enormous effort to force, harass, and coerce the parade organizers to buckle under and let open homosexual activist floats and banners into the parade. But the organizers stood behind the 1995 US Supreme Court ruling that allows them to include or exclude anyone they choose.

The Friday night before the parade it got ugly. Mayor Walsh and parade organizer Philip Wuschke, Jr. were both on stage at the South Boston Citizens Association. According to an eyewitness we spoke to, Walsh approached Wuschke and began berating him. Walsh told him he’d better agree to include the homosexuals. When Wuschke said no, Mayor went up to his face and screamed “You’d better not f— me over on this. Do you hear me? Don’t f— with me.” And the Mayor continued a profanity laden diatribe until someone stepped in and separated them.

Walsh is a former union organizer and local union president and is probably used to getting his way. But Wuschke is also a union member, and had no trouble telling the Mayor what he could do with his threats.

Violation of 1995 US Supreme Court ruling

This kind of tactic by the Mayor is an obvious violation of the 1995 US Supreme Court ruling. It gave the parade organizers the First Amendment right to decide whom to allow in the parade. In the last paragraph, the Justices also stated that the State may not use its power to coerce them:

“Our holding today rests not on any particular view about the Council’s message but on the Nation’s commitment to protect freedom of speech. Disapproval of a private speaker’s statement does not legitimize use of the Commonwealth’s power to compel the speaker to alter the message by including one more acceptable to others.”

But Walsh apparently has no interest in that. According to a witness at one of the Mayor’s “negotiation” sessions between the parade organizers and the homosexual activists held earlier, the Mayor of Boston remarked, “I don’t give a sh– about the Supreme Court ruling that was 20 years ago.”

On Saturday morning Walsh told the press that he would keep pushing right up until the parade started. In fact, Wuschke and others were getting so many harassing phone calls from the Mayor’s people on Saturday that they had to turn off their cell phones.

Not surprisingly, none of this ever made it to the mainstream media in Boston.

The parade goes on!

Sunday was a chilly but very sunny day. The streets were already crowded an hour before it started. Everyone was excited. The parade began right on time!

The parade began with the City of Boston Police Department riding horses with green socks!

Politicians break ranks and march in parade

It had seemed that no prominent politician would march in the parade and risk the wrath of the homosexual lobby. But there was a LOT of outrage by local citizens over that, especially directed at politicians in South Boston. And apparently that made a big difference!

Left: Congressman Stephen Lynch. Right: State Rep. Nick Collins.
Both represent South Boston.
Boston City Councilor Michael Flaherty had a contingent. During the parade he was in the NECN-TV booth that was televising it!

Of the 10 announced candidates for Governor, only Scott Lively (right) with his running mate Shelly Saunders marched in the parade.

Labor unions abandon Mayor and march in parade

Labor unions were a noticeable presence in this year’s parade. Mayor Marty Walsh has deep labor roots in Boston. It was the unions that got him elected. It’s pretty clear he didn’t want them marching that day. But a principle was at stake — and some of the most powerful unions in the city made it a point to be in the parade.

Ironworkers union.
Carpenters union.

Painters and allied trades union.

Also well represented at the parade were the Teamsters union and thePipefitters union, among others.

Local businesses and more

The big “pro-gay” corporations may have pulled out. But local businesses stayed in the parade, and at least one national company, H&R Block, had a float.

H&R Block was passing out “tax packets” to the crowd.

Organizers call MassResistance office to thank us!

On Monday the parade organizers called the MassResistance office to thank us for our efforts last week getting the truth out — and helping people across the country come to their aid. In fact, people all over America — as far away as Hawaii — called and emailed their outrage to the politicians and cowardly advertisers and their support for the parade organizers. So we say: THANK YOU to all of YOU!

A great pro-family victory!

There is something profoundly wrong and un-American about presuming to dictate who one must include in one’s private parade. The US Supreme Court understood this by a vote of 9-0. But the Left ignores that, and strives to create a climate of fear and confusion in order to get their way.

This was perfectly illustrated in a Boston Globe article about the Mayor boycotting the parade, where they published a statement by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts followed by a statement by the Mayor of Boston.

As the Globe reported:

The Catholic Action League issued a statement after the parade congratulating the parade organizers “for their determined defense of their Faith, moral principles, and constitutional rights.”

“The homosexual group which tried to force its way into the parade cared nothing for Saint Patrick or Irish culture, and had nothing but contempt for the Catholic religion. MassEquality wanted to use the parade to promote its own agenda,” the League said in a statement.

In a statement issued this morning, Walsh drew parallels between the fight for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equality and earlier battles for liberty.

The parade organizers deserve everyone’s thanks for standing up to the “LGBT” juggernaut and the vicious intimidation by the politicians and the liberal press. How many people these days are willing to do that?

You can donate to the parade online HERE or mail to: South Boston Parade, P.O. Box 351, South Boston, MA 02127

But media focuses on so-called “diversity” float

The willingness of the Left to create disinformation never ceases to amaze us.

The organizers allowed two local non-profit “diversity” groups to march. Both had agreed to the rules regarding homosexual labels and signs. Nevertheless, both floats put on some rainbow-like decorations and told the Globe and Heraldbeforehand. Beyond both contingents were fairly non-descript and uninteresting.

Diversity float.

This was the  so-called “diversity float” with wooden cannons decorated in different colors, supposedly representing the “rainbow.” Most people had no idea what it was all about. But the Boston media swooned over it.

As the float passed by in the parade (according to our observation and others we spoke with) almost no one seemed to know what it represented.

Diversity nonprofit group.

This was the other “diversity” non-profit group. They had a banner that looked like the “pot of gold at the end of the rainbow” and other banners talking about “inclusion.” This was somehow supposed to signify “gay rights.” Most people didn’t seem to get it.

But the obsessed media treated them like the stars of the parade. These floats were the only ones pictured in the Globe and the Herald’s print coverage the next morning. Both papers claimed (falsely) that the groups “warmly” received by the crowd. Tuesday’s Globe even had featured a ridiculously distorted lead editorial  celebrating the pathetic float as though it were kind of great “progress.”

The Boston media almost completely ignored the wonderful totality of the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade. It was shameful, but unfortunately something we’ve all grown used to.

CONTACT the companies that boycotted after signing on as sponsors! 

Luckily, all of the sponsorship money had already been paid, and none of it was refunded! But their public solidarity with the radical homosexual activists over pro-family Catholics was extremely offensive to people everywhere.

We’ve been contacted by people across the country about getting local bars to stop serving Samuel Adams beer over this! Many remember last summer when a  Samuel Adams commercial quoting the Declaration of Independence left out the reference to God because, they later claimed, it might violate the beer industry advertising standards.

Samuel Adams Beer
Also known as “Boston Beer Co.”
Samuel Adams was fairly open about their boycott of the parade in solidarity of the homosexual movement.
Inquires/Complaints: 888-661-2337
Direct: 617-584-1175 ask for “Jennifer”
Contact form

The Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel
Michael Jorgensen, manager 617-532-4840
They claimed that they “were never sponsors.” That is untrue. They have given money to the parade for the last several years.

ClearChannel Communications
Radio stations: Evolution 101.7, KISS 108, and JAM’N 94.5 were all going to participate, but pulled out.
Contact: Athanafia Orphanos
Direct line: 617-763-3137

Radio Stations AMP 103.3 and Mix 104.1 were both going to participate, but pulled out.
Contact: RoDooley Webster, marketing dir.
Direct line: 617-787-7083

WEEI Radio Boston
Was going to participate but boycotted parade at last minute.
General manager: Kevin Graham
Direct line: 617-779-3541
Contact form

WAAF Radio Boston
Was going to participate but boycotted parade at last minute.
General manager: Ron Valere
Direct line: 617-779-5425

New England Coffee Company
Pulled out as a sponsor

(Note: We had earlier included Gillette in this list. It turns out that Gillette had never been an “official” sponsor, but had simply allowed the use of their parking lot for the parade stating area.)

As the Boston Heraldreported, one major bar in South Boston discontinued their contract with Sam Adams beer over their boycott of the parade. Yessss!

And turncoat politicians . . .

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh

State Senator Linda Dorcena-Forry
Represents South Boston but boycotted parade

An Open letter to Former FL Governor Jeb Bush

common core protestAs you entered the Governors Club in Tallahassee, Florida, you spoke to me as a small group of us held signs to get your attention to our serious concerns about your federal education program called Common Core.

Three grandmas drove 12 hours each to see you, face to face, and you turned and scoured at us as though we were naval lint…pond scum. As I stated “Stop Common Core,” Your disparaging retort was “it is a good thing there’s only 3 of you.” As you turned and disappeared into the exclusive club, $1,000 per plate event to celebrate the Foundation for Florida’s Future, I said, “There were lots more, but we weren’t invited.”

That’s the whole point. You, Jeb Bush and your corporate cronies, have decided what is good for the children of America and WE; parents, educators, and concerned taxpayers, were not invited.

We were not invited to create this National takeover of education under the guise of improving our competitive advantage with our kids who are termed by your group as “human capital.”

We were not a part of the plan to take over 400 data points of information on children and their families including medical records, disciplinary files, family status, religious affiliation, political affiliation and more intrusive facts and share this without parental consent, now that your friend, Barack Obama, weakened the FERPA Laws through executive orders.

common core protest 2We were not invited to participate in the development of the Common Core standards by nameless DC bureaucrats who copyrighted them to prevent their change or improvement. Experts are ringing the alarms now that these standards are devastating to our kids and our future.

Our legislators and school boards were not invited to vote on the adoption of these national standards, their effectiveness, the billions of dollars in costs imposed, and implementation. They did not vote to give all their power to determine our state’s education programs to the federal government.

Religious Schools, charter schools, home schools and your very own initiatives on school choice did not vote for, or ask for, and do not want the One Size Fits All Common Core State Standards.

So WHY are you supporting this unconstitutional federal takeover of education called Common Core? Looking at who else supports this raises even more questions:

President Barack Obama, Arnie Duncan, Bill Gates Foundation, Mike Huckabee, Center for American Progress (George Soros), Eli Broad Foundation, GE, Hewlett Foundation, Pearson PLC (Education conglomerate whose 3rd largest shareholder is the government of Libya) …..strange bedfellows for certain!

Could it be the confluence of money meets power? Could it be the platform for your candidacy for President of the USA in 2016 just as you used the Foundation for Florida’s Future to propel you into the Governor’s mansion?

You have some explaining to do Mr. Bush.

Your efforts to gain political power will have unacceptable collateral damage. Our children are NOW suffering from faulty Common Core standards and curriculum damaging their foundations knowledge. This is a link to hours of heart wrenching testimony at the last State Board of Education meeting in Orlando 2/18/14 by parents, educators and experts documenting the depth of concern and outrage only growing as more are exposed to the seriously flawed National Standards. Testimony starts after 1 hour 10 minutes.

Your collateral damage will soon include the politicians who have supported your flawed initiative. Governor Rick Scott has received a recent notice from the Republican base, the RPOF, Republican Party of Florida, demanding the removal of Common Core in no uncertain terms.

EDITORS NOTE: Joy Pullmann wrote in The Federalist, “Common Core: The Biggest Election Issue Washington Prefers to Ignore,” wrote about some bad behavior that has occurred among elected officials who have shown total and utter disregard of the electorate. Then she pointed out the political games being played in Florida:

Florida’s state board of education received 19,000 public comments on Common Core in October. Officials still have not formally reviewed those, and lawmakers including Gov. Rick Scott (R) told constituents the comments were part of lawmakers reconsidering Common Core after dropping its national tests. The day before the comment period closed, however, Florida Deputy K-12 Chancellor Mary Jane Tappen said on a webinar, “We are moving forward with the new more rigorous [Common Core] standards. So, if anyone is hesitating or worried about next year, the timeline has not changed.”