Release Huma Abedin’s Security File!

Michele Bachmann upset the press again. Strange. The news media love handsome movie stars who daringly expose government corruption; why does the press now circle the wagons to pretend that government corruption cannot really exist?

You see, Rep. Bachmann, R-Minn., along with her House colleagues Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Trent Franks, R-Ariz., Tom Rooney, R-Fla., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., wrote the inspectors general of the departments of State, Defense, Justice and Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to ask for a national security probe of possible Muslim Brotherhood ties in the administration.

The concerns about possible Muslim Brotherhood influences riled the news mavens, and not only them but Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who proceeded to censure Rep. Bachmann. Yet she and her allies questioned security procedures and levied no charges.

History shows it is entirely reasonable to be on guard against foreign influence in the U.S. government. After all, Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent, was FDR’s closest White House aide, Soviet agent Lauchlin Currie was another top FDR aide, while Soviet agent Harry Dexter White was a senior Treasury Department official. And not until the release of the Venona papers in 1995 was it certain that the Rosenbergs were indeed Soviet spies. In fact, our U.S. State Department has a track record of security malfeasance, for example, having given high security clearances in the post-World War II era not only to Nazi scientists, but to hundreds of brutal Communists and Nazis known to have massacred millions.

So, why the hate-Bachmann rants? Perhaps her reply to Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., documenting the naive governmental disregard for Islamic inroads holds a clue. There Rep. Bachmann quoted Hillary Clinton confiding to the secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” could restrain Americans who might protest the OIC’s planned “Islamophobia” speech censorship.

Yes, the public deserves real “whistleblower” history.

For example, Otto Otepka, the U.S. State Department’s deputy director of the office of security in the 1950s and 1960s, was pressured and shamed for denying clearances to Communist sympathizers. John Loftus, former U.S. government prosecutor and Army intelligence officer, was pressured and shamed for revealing the State Department’s clearance of key Nazis. And what government agency protected the 9/11 victims in 2001?

Three months before 9/11, FBI Agent Robert Wright Jr predicted that the FBI failure to investigate domestic terrorists would cause more American deaths. Earlier, veteran FBI Agent Gary Aldrich had exposed the Clinton White House staff’s sabotage of his assignment, which was to conduct background checks of those seeking top-level government jobs – and there are many more.

Yet now our managed media obstructs public access to national security issues by singling out Rep. Bachmann for daring to inquire into dangerous lapses in government agencies! The hate speech against Bachmann counts on our forgetting the blood-soaked jihad revelries throughout the Muslim world after the cowardly massacre of almost 3,000 unprotected civilian Americans on 9/11.

The press subverts their craft, by hiding the evidential substance of the five letters sent by Rep. Bachmann and her colleagues. Her 12-page response should be studied by anyone interested in truth and national security.

Bachmann says, “The letters my colleagues and I sent on June 13 to the inspectors general … and the follow-up letter I wrote to Rep. Ellison on July 13 – are unfortunately being distorted.” She identifies “serious national security concerns” regarding “the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical groups’ access to top Obama administration officials.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, incidentally, was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its motto reads, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

In their letter, Bachmann and her colleagues questioned the inspectors general about the direct influence within the intelligence community of Muslim Brotherhood operatives. They explained that the U.S. government in federal court has established that the group’s mission in the U.S. is “destroying the Western civilization from within.” The members went on to request that the respective offices of the inspectors general conduct a formal investigation of the extent to which Muslim Brotherhood-tied individuals or entities are involved.

“The national security of our country depends on getting straight answers from the inspectors general to the questions we posed in these letters,” explained Bachmann. “The Muslim Brotherhood is not shy about their call for jihad against the United States. We seek answers through these letters because we will not tolerate this group and its affiliates holding positions of power in our government or influencing our nation’s leaders.”

Said Rep. Gohmert, “Evidence indicates that this administration continues to bow before groups associated with the goal of ‘destroying Western civilization from within.’ … Our enemies have been identified; now we need to know what they have done to our ability to protect ourselves.”

Said Rooney, “The Muslim Brotherhood openly calls for violence against the United States, but we’re learning that this organization may be infiltrating our ranks, even within our military. We need our top security agencies to investigate … what impact that has on our national security.”

Said Westmoreland, “We must always stay vigilant when fighting against those who want to destroy our way of life. … [We] cannot ignore the Muslim Brotherhood and must look into their operations and membership with the seriousness that is necessary in order to root them out of our government.”

These “Free Five” serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Bachmann, Rooney and Westmoreland), the Armed Services Committee (Franks and Rooney) and the Judiciary Committee (Franks and Gohmert). Additionally, Gohmert is the vice chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

Instead of doing their investigative job, the press and certain GOP peers shame the congresswoman and then play the “damsel in distress” card about Ms. Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Clinton. This would deflect attention from the letters’ list of questionable people and agency fiascos. In their joint “Letter to the Deputy Inspector General,” June 13, 2012, the five legislators questioned Ms. Abedin connections to the Muslim Brotherhood because:

“… Huma Abedin, has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.

Why are some Republican peers and the press fixated on one name in one paragraph in one letter? A cynic might think the hysterical defense of Ms. Abedin was to dodge security issues raised by the legislators. Ms. Abedin is a practicing Muslim, wed to an “infidel,” an adulterous Jewish Democrat. As far as I understand Islam, such a union is still criminal, unless it meets some unusual conditions.

So a closer look at Ms. Abedin, who became a White House aide to the then-first lady Hillary Clinton in 1996 and now works for Ms. Clinton at the State Department, is warranted. In 2011 Abedin’s brand new X-rated husband, Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., caught sending pornography to a college lass, along with other treacheries, finally resigned. (In the real world, sinful politicians are sitting ducks for blackmail.) One New York Times comment about the Abedin/Weiner expose wrote their pregnancy announcement would “deflect attention, try for sympathy” for the “expectant mother and fetus.”

Now, headlines! WND reports Ms. Abedin “worked on the editorial board of a Saudi-financed Islamic think tank alongside a Muslim extremist [Abdullah Omar Naseef] accused of financing al-Qaida fronts.” Moreover, says WND, “Naseef is secretary-general of the Muslim World League, an Islamic charity known to have spawned terrorist groups, including one declared by the U.S. government to be an official al-Qaida front.”

Is that the reason Ms. Abedin’s “family connections” are forbidden territory? For my U.S. Department of Justice grant in 1983, my entire family was investigated. Did the press verify if this highly influential official was properly vetted prior to employment in a security position? If yes, clarify the entire debacle by publishing her security file. If not, this is another bait and switch; shielding a “lady” to deflect from administrative collusion – or indifference – to radical Islamic dangers within our government.

In “Questions about Huma Abedin,” Andrew C. McCarthy notes that inquiring about a State Department adviser’s possible ties to the Muslim Brotherhood “is neither contrived or weightless – like when the left wanted to keep Samuel Alito off the Supreme Court because, 40 years ago, he was a member of ‘Concerned Alumni of Princeton.’” So far, however, McCarthy adds, “no one is accusing Huma Abedin of a crime.”

No government official should be off-limits to inspection. It turns out that the Transportation Security Administration’s “Alien Flight Student Program” was training 25 aliens, most illegal. They received flight training at a Boston-area school without “necessarily getting a security background check.” This should remind every American, including the news media and certain senators and congressmen who should know better, that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on July 27, 2012.. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

One Nation Under Drugs

When a star promotes a product in a film, it’s called an “advertorial.” So is the film It’s Complicated an advertorial for smoking marijuana? Jason Silva notes in his review of this movie at the Huffington Post that it shows “successful, cosmopolitan adults enjoying a marijuana joint with no consequences.”[1] Upset that the film received an “R” rating merely because of its potheads, Silva protests, “We should all be proud of director Nancy Meyers, and actors Meryl Streep and Steve Martin for helping solidify marijuana’s entry into acceptable pop culture status.”

Apparently pot is acceptable these days, with starring celebrities toking in feature films such as It’s Complicated, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Even three years ago The Christian Science Monitor noticed a trend: “Films featuring characters using marijuana have mushroomed.” It is “cinema’s stoned age.”[2] (There’s even a list of the 20 best stoner movies.)[3] Silva happily notes, “Our 10,000-year relationship with cannabis can now exist without shame or rebellion.” (Our 10,000-year relationship with cannabis? The cannabis “relationship” here began in earnest in the 1960s.)

In GQ Mark Healy agrees: By all accounts this should be a golden age for stoners. Weed has never been stronger, more accessible, and less criminal—particularly if you’re wealthy, white, and living in one of the thirteen [now fifteen] states where it’s approved for medicinal purposes.[4]

How did this come about? Healy says, I guess it began the moment medical-marijuana advocates began equating pot with something healthful and people started actually believing them . . . to treat nausea and headaches. . . . You won’t likely hear of pot’s harms,[5] while millionaires like Hugh Hefner and billionaires like George Soros have helped finance marijuana legalization.[6]

Making it “healthy” has made pot seem no more dangerous “than a bottle of spirulina,” says Healy, who complains that pot is now so widespread, it’s no longer cool. How widespread? Silva crows, “There are now more marijuana dispensaries in L.A. than there are Starbucks.” And to date, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized “medical” marijuana. More states are likely on the way. A 2010 Franklin & Marshall poll “found that 81 percent of Pennsylvanians supported making medical marijuana legal—up from 76 percent in 2006,” noted Mackenzie Carpenter in the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette: They’re lighting up joints in Bryn Mawr and Squirrel Hill [Pennsylvania] after putting the kids to bed.

At [Ava Lounge] in East Liberty, pro-medical marijuana activists are recruiting and organizing new members over martinis.[7] What about those medical reasons for marijuana? In California, writes Mackenzie, “otherwise healthy young people with ‘back pain’ are wangling permission from unscrupulous doctors to obtain the drug.”

She quotes Lynn Abraham, Philadelphia’s former district attorney: “Why is it that in California most people using it are 20 to 35 years old? Give me a break. Is this what we want to become in Pennsylvania? . . . A pleasure palace? Yikes. We’re just going to turn into a bunch of spoiled, self-indulgent dope heads.”

Defenders of cannabis legalization, of course, would say Abraham is just wrong.


Yemen’s Woes


What might a society with widespread drug use over a few generations look like? My interest in this question began in 1978, when I read an article called “Qat’s Cradle” in Human Behavior. It recounted how the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare had paid two UCLA researchers to spend two years in Yemen to ascertain what life would be like “in a total drug culture.” Yemen was a good place for such a study because a large proportion of its population cultivated and used qat (pronounced “khat”), a so-called “mild” narcotic leaf, considered less addictive and less harmful than marijuana.

The researchers reported that Yemenis of all ages used qat: Students chew [the leaves] liberally. . . . Children chew qat starting at seven or eight years of age . . . women … have their own qat parties . . . taxi drivers chew. . . . Politicians chew with politicians; religious leaders and scholars chew with their groups. Qat chewing even plays a role in the highest government circles.[8]

This habit of qat chewing in Yemen is some 400 years old, the researchers reported, citing a 19th-century traveler to Yemen who tried it and commented, “The Yamini can go for several days without food, but not a single day without qat. Men and women and children, they all use it.”[9] The society that engaged in all this qat chewing was described as a lethargic population that endured widespread malnourishment, impoverishment, and infant mortality.

A World Bank report issued in 2007 corroborates the picture painted by the UCLA researchers. Titled “Yemen: Towards Qat Demand Reduction,” this report states that “until the 1960s, qat chewing was an occasional pastime, mainly for the rich,” but that in the last half-century, it has become much more widespread, with “trend” data showing increasing use by children as young as five years old. The report shows how qat use has been “linked to widespread child malnutrition and household food insecurity” and numerous other problems. It states:

The adverse health effects of qat . . . include high blood-pressure, underweight children (when pregnant women chew qat), cancer (from consuming pesticide residues), and dental diseases. Consumers spend, on average, nearly 10 percent of their income [on qat]. . . . [Qat is] inimical to the development of a productive work force, with as much as one-quarter of usable working hours allocated to qat chewing.[10]


A Universal Problem


Yemen is not unique. “Joints” and various hallucinogens have long been with us. In his book The War on Drugs, James Inciardi, an authority on drugs and crime, writes that references to marijuana appear in early Persian, Hindu, Greek, Arab and Chinese writings [and the] chewing of coca had already been in Inca mythology for centuries.[11]

Though surrounded by rich national resources, most indigenous peoples in Central Mexico, Costa Rica, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, Jamaica, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, and Fiji live in dire poverty with culturally accepted use of drugs filtering down to children.

Marijuana and betel nut are common in most of Egypt and Asia. The Cree Indians of North America brew and chew calamus or “rat root,” while farther south, from Central Mexico to Costa Rica, hashish and thle-pela-kano (“Leaf of God”) keep the inhabitants hooked. Opium, heroin, hash oil, and hashish are indigenously Asian. Hashish abounds in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Nepal. Like other Third World countries, Nepal’s life expectancy hovers at about 51 years of age, in sync with its annual per capita income of about $1,010.[12]

Widespread consumption of indigenous drugs often correlates with poverty, early mortality, and illiteracy, and it may explain a general condition of apathy or lethargy called amotivational syndrome.

Adult use often leaves children vulnerable to neglect or abuse, by their parents or others.


Kick it!


What do the people of Yemen think about their qat habit? The World Bank report states: Most users believe that qat is bad for them. More than 70 percent of the respondents describe qat chewing as a “bad habit” that is also bad for the economy and bad for the nation’s image. Users want to “kick the habit” but they cannot. Either because of social pressures, or because of the psychological dependency resulting from prolonged use, users do not feel that they can stop using qat on their own. Some 53 percent of all male and 61 percent of all female respondents declare that Government intervention is necessary to address the qat problem.[13]

They want government help to quit? Do any of the legislators from the fifteen U.S. states that have legalized marijuana know about Yemen? They should. Meanwhile, back at the Huffington Post, Jason Silva concludes his story about our new marijuana culture thus: One thing is certain. It’s Complicated does a good job of showing something not so complicated: marijuana can make you giggly, hungry and maybe even hyper-philosophical . . . but it doesn’t make you a couch-dwelling, pizza-eating sloth or criminal.

There probably is little danger that rich Hollywood elites like Meryl Streep and billionaires like George Soros will become sloths, whether or not they smoke pot or chew qat leaves. And even if they did, their wealth would mitigate the ensuing problems for themselves and their families. But what about poor and working-class citizens? Take Detroit, about which Matt Labash wrote last fall in the Weekly Standard: “[T]hat’s exactly what a city with 15 percent unemployment that’s as chronically crime-ridden and dysfunctional as Detroit needs: more drugs.”[14]

Michigan did approve “medical” marijuana, and up to 900 people a day were applying for marijuana use when Labash wrote: A state court of appeals judge recently lamented in a decision, “Michigan will soon have more registered marijuana users than we do unemployed—an incredible legacy for the Great Lakes State.”

The Yemenis might warn us about our grand experiment in medical marijuana. Are we in any state to listen?











[8] Kennedy, J. and R. Hurwit, “Qat’s cradle,” Human Behavior (October 1978),pp. 38–39.


[10] WDSP/IB/2007/06/26/000090341_20070626112355/Rendered/INDEX/397380YE.txt.

[11] James Inciardi, The War on Drugs (Mayfield Publishing, 1986).


[13] Op. cit.


6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on Salvo Magazine in the 17 Issue. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Tales From the Closet: A New Book Celebrates Another Sexual Outlaw and Kinsey Collaborator

Read here “Tales From the Closet: A New Book Celebrates Another Sexual Outlaw and Kinsey Collaborator” by Dr. Judith Reisman.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on Salvo Magazine in the 17 issue. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

They’re Mainstreaming Pedophilia

Alfred Kinsey’s ongoing sexual anarchy campaign has no end in sight.

Matt Barber, associate dean of the Liberty University School of Law, and I attended the “B4U-ACT” pedophile conference Aug. 17. To eliminate the “stigma” against pedophiles, this growing sexual anarchist lobby wants the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to redefine pedophilia as a normal sexual orientation of “Minor-Attracted Persons.”

Adhering to the Kinsey principle of lulling “straights” into a false sense of security, pedophile dress was largely conservative – short hair, jackets, some ties and few noticeable male ear piercings.

Matt Barber and I sat in the back of the meeting room among roughly 50 activists and their “mental health” attending female enablers. “Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM: Issues and Controversies,” keynoted “Fred Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., as founder, National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma; Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic.”

However, the sex clinic was initially founded by John Money, Ph.D., to give judges “leeway” to keep child molesters out of jail. Money (deceased), a pedophile advocate, also called for an end to all age-of-consent laws. Dr. Berlin was his disciple.

In 1973, our “post Kinsey era,” a small APA committee of psychiatrists, quite terrified by homosexist public harassment, agreed to rely on Kinsey’s fraudulent human sexuality “data” to redefine homosexuality as normal, removing it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of mental disorders.

The APA decision was hyped in college textbooks, law journal articles, judicial rulings, and by 1974 pitched as high-school sex education. Soon the homosexist lobby would sail into primary schools and kindergartens by agitating recurring AIDS “prevention,” “bullying” and “hate” panics.

To redefine homosexuality as a normal “orientation,” nature not nurture, researchers were told to ignore all data of early sex abuse or other trauma. This hoax was followed by the 1999 U.S. Department of Justice data that found 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims to be boys under age 12.

For after claiming 10 percent to 37 percent of men were sometime homosexual, Kinsey also said children are sexual from birth and so deserve to have sex with adults or youths (taught as a 1974 Planned Parenthood sex ed doctrine).

The APA path to pedophile norms follows the success of the homosexual anarchy campaign. Arguably, the pedophile media lobby directed the passionate boy-boy kisses on the TV series “Glee,” to enable fellow “Minor-Attracted Persons” to increasingly be seen as a boy’s sex “friend.”

B4U-ACT claims to “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma, and fear.” While the group claimed they want to teach pedophiles “how to live life fully and stay within the law,” no one suggested how to stop their child lust or molestation.

Barber asked what “age of consent” the group proposed and what role pornography plays as a causative factor in child sex abuse. No one would answer the first question, and all denied any harm from pornography.

Arguably, due to our presence, Dr. Berlin (who sat next to me during the entire event) admitted that occasionally pornography could trigger sexual acting out. He also expressed a personal belief that pre-pubescent children (that is, under about age 10) cannot consent, and that perhaps even teenagers might be sexually vulnerable.

All speakers focused on pedophiles as healthy, normal and unfairly victimized by stigma and mean words. Following repeated assertions that pedophiles never force children, are gentle and loving, one researcher did cite a child “victim” who was raped and sodomized.

One speaker laughingly compared doing an obscene act “on” a child to doing the same obscene act on a shoe. No one protested, and some chuckled. One young female suggested pedophiles might be helped by engaging in “sex play” using naked pictures of pseudo children, allied with some sadism, bridal gowns, etc. This Ph.D. social worker candidate proudly noted her objection to any “repression.”

For their attendance, the pedophile political activists could earn 6.0 units of continuing education credits by the “Maryland Board of Social Work Examiners.” These 12 board members credentialed this pedophile academic farce, giving higher education credits to allow felons and near-felons to advance their child sexual abuse agenda by using bogus and fraudulent research. I would encourage people to complain to the board at this link.




Committed to quietly monitoring this meeting, I offered a few unwelcome closing remarks. I noted the arrogance of this group’s conclusion that Americans’ fear for child safety is due to a puritanical “sex panic.” Since the Department of Justice found 58,200 children kidnapped by non-family members in 1999, such fear seems well-placed.

Before leaving the issue of stigma and hate speech, note a few excerpts from BOYCHAT April 15 by some of these “social worker” credentialed pedophiles:

“Judith Reisman” is “with the worst of them … dehumanizing hate speech … extreme christian [sic], right wing … alarmist … creating gross distrotions [sic] … no genuine integrity … a harlot. … Judith did, in fact, make [Kinsey’s sexual stimulation of infants and toddlers] sound like horrendously violent, child sexual assault … [she is a] horrible, wretched scumbag … pathetic, sorry excuse for a human being. … The world will become a less wretched place, the second Judith Reisman drops dead [from natural causes, of course, though I’d not complain if she got accidentally ran over by a semi]. … With Love, Stevie-D.”

Love? What was that about stigma and hate speech?

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on August 22, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Kinsey’s Kooky Shrinks

Has the clergy sex-abuse and cover-up scandal made you angry? Better save up some indignation for a more far-reaching scandal in other professions: Psychiatrists and professors are lobbying to normalize and decriminalize pedophilia (child rape and molestation).

You heard right. The movement to legitimize pedophiles has been gathering steam for some time. In the late 1980s, for example, during the two years I spent as principal investigator for a U.S. Department of Justice study on “Images of Children, Crime and Violence” in mainstream pornography, my research team encountered a stable of paid pornography agents we dubbed “Academic Pedophile Apologists.”

Like carnival hawkers, these Academic Pedophile Apologists – college professors, psychiatrists and other mental-health professionals – have served as advisers, writers and “expert” witnesses, telling medical, academic, public school, court and government authorities that the barbaric pedophile crimes of child sexual abuse are harmless and, some said, beneficial.

Now, things have gone so far downhill that this May, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) was walking the Academic Pedophile Apologist tightrope, actually publicly debating a proposal for “Lifting [The] Pedophilia Taboo.”

Several APA presenters “proposed removing … pedophilia, exhibitionism … voyeurism … from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).” The DSM – the bible of the mental-health field – tells psychiatrists, judges, juries and the rest of the world what is or is not abnormal human behavior, and what to criminally “punish” versus what to therapeutically “treat.”

Meanwhile, these sexperts on “treatment” are meeting at the University of Indiana’s Kinsey Institute (long seen as a circus side-show) July 11-19 for two big sex confabs. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development is lavishing $26,000 on a Kinsey “conference on sexual arousal” to develop “guidelines for … measurement of sexual response.” The NICHHD seems unconcerned that “measurement of sexual response” was Alfred Kinsey’s exact excuse for unleashing a gang of his favorite pedophiles to “measure” orgasms on “hysterically weeping,” convulsing and fainting children – who Kinsey argued, “enjoyed” the “experience.”

July 16, after the arousal sexperts wrap up, the International Academy of Sex Research (IASR) will gather, also emceed by Kinsey Institute director Dr. John Bancroft. Bancroft’s credentials include a British accent, employed to suavely bury the horrifying truth about the rapes and sexual torture of 317 to possibly 2,035 infants and children by Institute founder Alfred Kinsey’s sex “researchers” in the late 1940s.

Joining Bancroft on the podium will be Theo Sandfort, the IASR president and Scientific Program Committee chairman. Sandfort’s qualifications include having been a well-known member of the editorial board of Paidika, the Journal of Paedophila. Sandfort shares this dubious editorial honor with Kinsey Institute conference keynoter Verne Bullough, as well as Bill Andriette, the editor of The NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) Bulletin. The journal editors wrote in 1987, “The starting point of Paidika is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles.”

Paidika pledged to advance “paedophile … consciousness” as “a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience.” Paidika’s regular graphic ads for NAMBLA clearly illustrate the sexual component of what they euphemistically call “man-boy-love.”

Again, in his 1991 book “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” IASR President Sandfort maintained that neither he nor the other book authors view “man-boy relationships as necessarily pathological.” Now, just as sex guru Dr. Kinsey turns out to be a certifiable sexual psychopath, anyone who believes that sex professors are just objective, high-minded intellectuals has never attended a sex conference.

I recall the sex orgy reports among “sexperts” during the formal sex conferences I attended (after their “critiquing” of hours of pornographic films). At one sex conference in Wales, all of the attendees signed a letter of protest when our Welsh cleaning staff refused to work if child molesters were allowed to academically pontificate on “pedophile rights” and studies. If “sex arousal” research is funded by NICHHD, a federal child welfare agency, how many pedophiles at this Kinsey Institute sex bash will quietly imitate their founder and initiate similar studies of child “sexual response measurements”?

Every American parent and grandparent had best beware the sinister plans of leaders in the American Psychiatric Association, the Kinsey Institute and their many clones. This class of “sexperts” is transforming sexual fictions into crippling sexual “facts.” An international caravan of Academic Pedophile Apologists are on the march – and your children are their targets.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on July 7, 2003. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Institutions and Underworld Academics

Thanks to state legislator Woody Burton, the Indiana legislature is currently debating whether to defund its famous Kinsey Institute at Indiana University. It is becoming more embarrassing to the people of the great state of Indiana as more people understand that Kinsey’s fraudulent sex research was based on his team’s solicitation and use of child molesters as child sexuality “experts.” These “experts” founded and have largely shaped and directed the entire field of human sexuality since Kinsey and continue to do so.

Today the discredited Kinsey Institute staff and alumni, together with a cadre of admitted pedophiles and pederasts, control the field of sexology through the nation’s several human sexuality “accrediting” agencies. Kinsey’s bogus sex findings are increasingly spread by these disciples, yet on Jan. 30, the Kinsey Institute director, psychiatrist John Bancroft, announced to the Indianapolis Star: “We don’t have a monopoly on sex research” anymore.

True, the expose of the Institute’s history of child sex abuse and fraud has caused concern in the field and thus a shift of the sexology epicenter from Indiana University to less notorious universities. The power of the Kinsey Institute seems to be diffusing as two key new sex research “centers” are in the news more frequently. The first, a more “respectable” branch was the University of Chicago, where Robert Michael, Edward Laumann and former Kinsey Institute staffer and Bancroft buddy, John Gagnon, published their wobbly research, Sex in America (1994). These 1992 data were recycled and appeared in February 1999 as a puff piece on “sexual dysfunction.” The authors tipped their flag in praise of their indispensable cornerstone, Dr. Kinsey when the article on “sexual dysfunction” was published in the respectable Journal of the American Medical Association.

The second runner up to the Kinsey Institute crown is the unknown Center for Sex Research at California State University, Northridge, dubbed the “Kinsey Institute of the West.” The Northridge Center for Sex Research founder, Vern Bullough, a self-confessed pedophile and editor of the “academic” Journal of Paedophilia, is in the sexology mainstream seeking to legalize adult sex with infants and children.

Northridge University’s Center for Sex Research is continuing the example set by the Kinsey Institute as an academic institution in bed with pedophiles and pornographers. It is a scenario right out of the Godfather: Academics need money and have respectability. Pedophiles and pornographers of the underworld need respectability and have money. The Mafioso-like relationship between academic institutions and pornographers/pedophiles begun at Indiana University continues at Northridge.

To illustrate how this collegial arrangement works between respectable academics and the underworld of pedophiles and pornographers, Northridge University’s Center for Sex Research used its good state supported offices to boldly organize an annual “World Pornography Conference,” August 6-9, 1998. Led by the Center for Sex Research Director, James E. Ellias, pornography industry leaders and performers met together with their “academic” pornography colleagues to share and shape future national pornography and pedophile strategies. In addition to pedophile Bullough, the World Pornography Conference starred Bullough’s self-confessed pedophile colleagues John DeCecco, Daniel Tsang and Wayne Dynes, all professors at other major American colleges and editors of The Journal of Paedophilia.

Among the list of “unique” presenters was Ralph Underwager, Journal of Paedophilia interviewee and child custody “expert,” who insists “Pedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose … the best way to love,” for an appreciative and growing pedophile audience. Ted McIlvenna, another conference speaker and founder of the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in northern California, contributed an article back in 1977 on “child sexuality” to Hustler magazine urging legalization of incest and adult sex with children. McIlvenna’s Institute most generously supplied Hustler’s adult users with graphic nude child photographs published alongside the article. The child pornography is published again in an Institute publication entitled “Meditations on the Gift of Sexuality” and published in 1977. A nude professor McIlvenna appears in photographs alongside nude Institute faculty, staff and students in varied combinations of group sexual congress. These groupings, sans academic euphemisms, are more commonly known as orgies. Of the 180 reporters said to have covered the pornography conference, none mentioned the Northridge University’s Center for Sex Research ties to the underworld culture of child abuse associated with pedophiles and pornography.

There is nothing exceptional about the pornography industry’s financial ties to sex science academics. The Kinsey Institute took funds from pornographers for years and pornographers have funded sex research as well as sizable salaries to academicians to serve on their advisory boards or as expert witnesses in courtrooms and legislatures making law and setting dangerous precedents which injure children. Perjury is a stock event in sex “science” history. While quietly collecting pornography payola, Kinsey Institute members falsely told courts and legislatures that they used a “random” sample of Americans and found both pornography and adult sex with children harmless. But Kinsey’s 1,400 male sex offenders, 200 sexual psychopaths and hundreds of radical homosexuals hardly constituted a “random sample” of 1940s American men.

For decades the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, led by “academic dean,” Kinsey co-author and sex partner Wardell Pomeroy, made and sold pornography. Pomeroy publicly sought funds from the pornography industry to make child pornography himself. Pornography is part of the academic program of the sexologist. Coarsening and conditioning “Sexual Attitude Restructuring” pornographic films and videos were mandated as course work for sexology students since early 1980. The repetitious viewing of violent and degrading pornography (Sexual Attitude Restructuring), compulsory by 1982 for graduation and accreditation, had “desensitized” over 100,000 sexology students by 1988.

The Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality gives students course credit for class participation in “erotic massage,” “masturbation,” “fantasy,” and similar, uhhh, studies. The products of this grim brainwashing become the faculty who design and teach the sex education curricula for our children, the cultural, political and public policy leaders of our nation. With such sex “education” filtering down from the university to general society — post Kinsey 1948 — is it any wonder that our judges routinely give custody of children to known sexual abusing parents, as law and public policy become more accepting of what pedophiles call the “last taboo,” that is, adults having legal access to our children for sexual purposes?

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 5, 1999. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Classroom Prostitution for Fun and Profit?

On March 4, Laurie Higgens, the dauntless director of Illinois Family Institute wrote, “The burnished legacy of Alfred Kinsey and his cultural progeny, the sexual revolutionaries of the ’60s, burns bright at Northwestern University.”

In “Gettin’ Freaky at Northwestern University,” Higgens was reporting on Northwestern University’s professor Michael Bailey, who has a rather gloomy history of luring vulnerable youth into college-credit peeping!

Bordello Bailey and his work were lauded in the 2006 volume of “The Best American Science Writing.” A major sexual-orientation researcher, Bailey is lionized by academe and the controlled media (he is sure homosexuality is largely inherited).

Bailey inspires students to advance the Kinsey sexuality canon.

On point, March 7, Joseph Bernstein proclaimed Bailey’s class “the best” he ever took (identifying the key problem of higher education).

Joe says, “J. Michael Bailey is the person at the center of the controversy currently burning on the western shore of Lake Michigan, fed by gusts of air from every prurient corner of the Internet and every red-faced moralist who can sit through the Fox News or MSNBC or CNN makeup chair long enough to release his outrage.”

As does this “red-faced moralist” object to Northwestern indoctrinating naive youths like Joe to praise prostitution, a direct form of sex trafficking. Before discussing Northwestern’s “voluntary” curriculum, note three definitions:

Prostitution is the act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire.” A pimp is “one who arranges such sex acts for hire.” A voyeur is “one who enjoys seeing the sex acts or sex organs of others.” All three were (and are) psychosexual pathologies.

Each definition describes Old Bailey’s latest campus sex entertainment.

Child sex victims worldwide testify that their predators, like Bailey, commonly couched their sex abuse in “educational” terms.

“I am helping you learn about sex!”

“This is educational!”

“Only puritans see this as wrong!”

“I am teaching you how to have an orgasm.”

Professor Bailey “educated” 120 gasping students with wide-screen pornography while a naked, unbalanced woman was paid to have her reproductive organs assaulted with a mechanical device.

Bailey also asserted he was teaching them about “orgasm.”

Now, I have that bridge to sell you, cheap.

Bailey, Northwestern’s resident voyeur fits both the pimp and the voyeur profile.

One of the peepers, Bailey eagerly watched both the sex entertainment and his young students who were coping with their sexual discomfort, confusion and excitement.

Bailey’s students hoped for a good grade in his human sexuality course, so most accepted his “invitation” to watch the pitiable prostitute with the device, until, announced Bailey, she “reached sexual climax,” said The Daily Northwestern.


My, my, my.

Unfortunately, like “Harry Met Sally,” Bailey knows this isn’t science and that there is no evidence that the wretched woman had a “sexual climax.”

Oh, she said so.

Northwestern paid Weird Chicago Tours, a “Network for Kinky People,” for Bailey’s “extracurricular activity.”

This means a sex business was paid by Northwestern to indoctrinate students into prostitution.

So, will Bordello Bailey and Northwestern officials be arrested for suborning and pimping prostitution – and were all viewers of his illicit demo adults?

Northwestern has long supported Bailey’s barely legal sex activities. Dec. 23, 2002, then-Rep. Mark Souder seethed over one Bailey payout:

“Do I need a Ph.D. to understand why it is a sensible prioritization to spend hundreds of thousands of research dollars to pay women to watch porn, while countless Americans are suffering from debilitating diseases with no cures?”

In 2003 Bailey was “investigated” for describing his sex with a transvestite subject in his book, without her/his informed consent.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Anthropological Tourists: Mead & the Young Sex Mavens

Back in the Roaring Twenties, Columbia University’s Franz Boas (1858–1942), the “father of American anthropology,” was maneuvering to break what he called the “shackles that tradition has laid upon us.” To that end, Boas supported the “field work” of young anthropology students, including Margaret Mead, who set out to prove what Boas wanted her to prove: that happy primitive people had better sex, younger, than uptight Westerners.

In 1925, the 23-year-old Mead, recently married to the first of her three husbands, went to Samoa, stayed for less than a year, and returned to the U.S. claiming that Samoan society was an “uninhibited,” free-sex society with no jealousy, no rape, and great sex. On the basis of this exploit, she got her Ph.D. and eventually became one of the most celebrated of all anthropologists.

Mead described her sexual paradise in Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), a book that caught the attention of a young New Zealand-born anthropologist, Derek Freeman. Expecting to find the sexual utopia Mead had depicted, he went to Samoa in 1940 and lived there for three years, studying and working as a schoolteacher.

No Paradise

To his considerable disappointment, Freeman (later a professor at the Australian National University) found that Mead was wrong. After years of doing his own field research, he published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth in 1983. In the preface he admits:

In my early work I had, in my unquestioning acceptance of Mead’s writings, tended to dismiss all evidence that ran counter to her findings. By the end of 1942, however, it had become apparent to me that much of what she had written about the inhabitants of Manu’a in eastern Samoa did not apply to the people of western Samoa. . . . Many educated Samoans . . . had become familiar with Mead’s writings about their culture . . . [and] entreated me, as an anthropologist, to correct her mistaken depiction of the Samoan ethos.

A fierce storm erupted when Harvard University Press published the book, which many saw as attacking an anthropological icon. But Freeman persevered, and in 1999 published The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead, in which he retraced Mead’s brief time on the islands of Manu’a in the mid-1920s and revealed her fieldwork as an anthropological fantasy designed to confirm the theories of her mentors, Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict.

Mead had interviewed, at best, 68 girls through an interpreter, as she knew little Samoan. Freeman, who learned the language well, found that Samoans customarily joke and inflate talk of sexual behavior. On one particular occasion, in answer to Mead’s suggestive questions, two Christian Samoan young women laughingly said they had wild, uninhibited, and promiscuous sex. Mead took their facetious answers seriously, and used them as the basis for her depiction of their island as a paradise of free sex with no jealousy and no rape. But Freeman found that jealousy and rape were not uncommon and that a girl’s virginity was critical for marriage.

Even after the publication of Hoaxing, many refused to accept Freeman’s findings and still teach Mead’s bad research today. Yet Freeman’s obituary (he died in 2001) in the New York Times acknowledged: “His challenge was initially greeted with disbelief or anger, but gradually won wide—although not complete—acceptance.”

Ford & Beach

Margaret Mead was not the only source of suspect findings that made their way into mainstream anthropology, and from there into American society after World War II. Drs. Clellan Ford and Frank Beach were, like Boas and Mead, determined to rid the world of Western sexual mores.

Ford, who took his Ph.D. from Yale in sociology and later taught there, lived on the Fiji islands for one year in the mid-1930s; in 1940, he visited the Kwakiutl Indians of Vancouver Island in British Columbia, and later published a book about their leader. That is the extent of his fieldwork.

Frank Beach began his academic career by studying the sexual behavior of rats and later became a psycho-biologist. He was a grantee of the National Research Council’s Committee for Research in Problems of Sex, a Rockefeller agency that also funded Alfred Kinsey.

In 1951, Ford and Beach published Patterns of Sexual Behavior, a book that quoted Kinsey’s sex “findings” 28 times to shore up their claim that Americans are sexually prudish publicly but licentious privately. The Chicago Tribune’s blurb on the dust jacket claimed: “What Kinsey did for the American male, Ford and Beach have done for men and women the world over.”

But Beach and Ford didn’t depend entirely on Kinsey’s fraud; they also claimed that abundant anthropological studies proved that Judeo-Christian sexual “shackles” are abnormal and that early, undifferentiated sex is normal. It was largely assumed that these detailed island studies were Ford’s and Beach’s own research. Not exactly. Apart from Ford’s two brief stints in the field, neither man is recorded as having lived for any period of time outside the rarified ambiance of a well-heeled, urbane, university town.

No, the studies they relied upon have roots going back to 1937, when anthropologists at the Yale Institute of Human Relations attempted to catalogue 190 different exotic societies. The “research” for this catalogue came from unnamed young college students’ theses and dissertations on primitive societies in “Oceania, Eurasia; Africa; North America [largely Indians] and South America.” In the 1920s and 1930s, these student “anthropologist tourists” visited a locale, alone or with a friend, to fulfill a school assignment and satisfy their curiosity. Most would stay in the “field” for only a few months—at best up to a year. It does not appear that any of the students doing those “field studies” knew the native languages; thus, like Margaret Mead, they relied on paid and unpaid natives to translate some of the most sensitive information.

Who these Ivy League kids were—and exactly what they were doing and with whom while in these exotic climes—is not included in the “field reports,” but what they brought back was counted as solid scientific research and was used by many as the basis for books, articles, and university lectures preaching about the need to free ourselves from Western sexual inhibitions.

This stack of unverified social and sexual “research” was re-baptized as “evidence” by Ford and two others in 1937 as the Yale Cross-Cultural Survey, a project later incorporated into the Human Relations Area Files. At that point, Ford and Beach sat down and summarized the exotica. And by adding and making comparisons with Kinsey’s fraudulent data, they created the “classic” 1951 anthropological text we know as Patterns of Sexual Behavior, released three years after Kinsey’s Male volume was published.

A Dubious Classic

Ford and Beach’s book was a hit among the academic elite and has been mined as historical and ethnographic gold ever since. In 1996, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a “retrospective” of Patterns of Sexual Behavior in its journal, Contemporary Psychology. The article hailed Patterns as “A Classic in Every Sense of the Word”:

[Ford and Beach] accomplished the goal of comparing sexual behaviors in widely diverging societies by drawing on data from 190 different cultures, as well as from contemporary American society as it was known in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The cultures reported in this volume come from all corners of the globe, and in several instances, data from multiple cultures within a single society are presented.

Still today, almost sixty years after it was published, Patterns continues to be quoted as an authoritative work. Yet the “data” collected for this classic came from anonymous student “researchers” who were about as reliable as Margaret Mead. Her bias was obvious (“I think the nuclear family is an abomination”), and so was that of Boas, Beach, and Ford. And the APA.

It’s all bad data, not science, combined with wishful thinking. After all, according to Mead, Frank, Beach, Kinsey, and assorted larky student anthropological tourists, if we would just dump our old sexual taboos, we’d all be living in a sexual paradise.

It’s been sixty years; are we there yet?

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on in  the Winter 2010 issue. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.