Mob Of 30 Afghan Migrants Chase Teenage Girls Through German Shopping Mall, Fight Cops Who Try To Arrest Them

Mob Of 30 Afghan Men Chase Teenage Girls Through German Shopping Mall, Sparking Huge Confrontation With Police – Daily Mail

A mob of 30 migrants chased three teenage girls through a German mall before threatening police officers, local media has reported.

The men, thought to be from Afghanistan, are said to have used their smartphones to film the girls at the Sophienhof mall in Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein state.

Police officers were called out after several shoppers reported that 30 men of ‘immigrant background’ were following the girls, aged 15, 16 and 17.

.

.
The men ‘insulted, threatened and sometimes injured’ the policemen as they tried to arrest some of the alleged perpetrators, Bild reported.

Four men, including the two main culprits, were later arrested but three of them have since been released due to ‘lack of grounds for detention’.

They are said to have resisted arrest and became violent with officers.

Businesses in the shopping mall have reported an ‘increasing number of thefts’ and customers being ‘molested’ by migrants.

Several other young girls have told police they were harassed too since the incident received media attention.

.

.
Interior Minister Stefan Studt said the incident was ‘unacceptable’ and that Germans ‘need to be able to live freely in this country.’

He warned against drawing comparisons to the mass molestation of women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve.

But FDP leader Wolfgang Kubicki said the newest incident should act as a wake up call that the country’s open border immigration policy was failing.

He called it the ‘opposite of integration’ and an example of how ‘parallel societies’ are being created in Germany as a result of the migrant influx.

.

.

Regime Defeated In Yet Another Obamacare Legal Fight

Administration Defeated In Another Obamacare Fight – WorldNetDaily

Enough is enough, and it’s “time for government to stop going after religious colleges and ministries and start respecting religious liberty,” according to a spokesman for a legal team that on Tuesday won yet another case against the Obama administration over its Obamacare contraception mandate.

.

.
The comment came from Eric Baxter, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has been a key part of the battle against the Obamacare requirement that employers pay for birth control, including abortion-causing drugs.

This time a federal judge in Florida has ruled that the government’s latest revisions to the mandate still “don’t do enough to protect people of faith.”

The ruling came from Judge James Moody Jr. in a suit by Ave Maria University, which charged the Obamacare requirement violates the faith on which it operates.

The university was facing millions of dollars in fines, but won an injunction “protecting its right to stay true to its beliefs,” Becket said.

It was the first order preventing the government from enforcing its demands against religious organizations since it tried to solve the dispute in August with an”augmented rule.”

The judge explained the university wanted a preliminary injunction until the case is resolved.

“Defendants do not dispute that Ave Maria is a nonprofit Catholic university purposed with ‘educat[ing] students in the principles and truths of the Catholic faith.’ … One such element of the Catholic faith that Ave Maria holds and professes concerns the sanctity of life. Ave Maria ‘believes that each human being bears the image and likeness of God, and therefore any abortion – including through post-conception contraception – ends a human life and is a grave sin. Ave Maria also believes that sterilization and the use of contraception are morally wrong.’”

As it provides health coverage for workers, the problem arose with the adoption in 2010 of Obamacare, which demands “minimum essential coverage,” which it defines as including contraceptives.

The judge noted the 2013 “rule” allowing insurance companies to directly provide the benefits is not a satisfactory solution to objectors such as Ave Maria.

The Becket Fund has reported some 90 percent of all courts making related decisions have protected religious ministries from the heavy hand of a government.

“After dozens of court rulings, the government still doesn’t seem to get that it can’t force faith institutions to violate their beliefs,” Baxter said. “Fortunately, the courts continue to see through the government’s attempts to disguise the mandate’s religious coercion.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been active beside Becket in the dozens of cases against Obamacare, said there’s a close watch on the dispute.

Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman said: “Faith-based educational institutions should be free to live and operate according to the faith they teach and espouse. The court was right to uphold the religious freedom of institutions that value the sanctity of life. If the government can force Ave Maria School of Law to violate its faith in order to exist, then the government can do the same or worse to others.”

The Supreme Court has stepped in several times to suspend enforcement of the mandate provisions against a number of organizations.

WND reported on the summer’s 5-4 decision that a “closely held” for-profit business can opt out of Obamacare’s universal contraception requirement based on religious objections.

The case brought by Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based arts and crafts chain with about 13,000 employees, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Pennsylvania cabinet maker, challenged the Affordable Health Care Act requirement that employees provide free contraception coverage, including abortion-inducing drugs.

Hobby Lobby’s argument was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which protects the individual beliefs of citizens.

The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito dismissed the Department of Health and Human Services argument that the companies cannot sue because they are for-profit corporations and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations apply only to the companies. Alito said that “would leave merchants with a difficult choice: give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as corporations.”

The opinion said the RFRA’s text “shows that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice.”

Alito said “the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees.”

“Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of humans who own and control them.”

The question presented in the case was whether any law, such as a nationwide health-care management system imposed by the government, can be so important that Washington can order people to violate their religious faith, in contradiction to the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The religious objections to the contraception mandate raised by the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, and the Hahn family, owners of Conestoga Wood, have been raised in nearly 90 other cases.

Obamacare’s demands align with Obama’s longstanding support for abortion under any circumstances. He even argued, while a state senator in Illinois, against requiring doctors to provide live-saving help to babies who survive abortions.

A number of other cases challenge Obamacare on additional allegations of unconstitutionality.

In one, attorneys for Matt Sissel – a small-business owner who wants to pay medical expenses on his own and has financial, philosophical and constitutional objections to being ordered to purchase a health plan he does not need or want – charge the Obamacare bill was unconstitutionally launched in the U.S. Senate and is therefore invalid.

They noted that the Constitution requires all tax bills in Congress to begin in the House of Representatives. Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., they said, manipulated the legislation by taking the bill number for an innocuous veterans housing program that had been approved by the House, pasting it on the front of thousands of Obamacare pages and voting on it.

That means, they argued, that the entire law was adopted unconstitutionally and should be canceled, including its $800 billion in taxes.

The argument essentially makes the Constitution a silver bullet to kill Obamacare.

The case, brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation, is based on the Constitution’s Origination Clause.

.

.

Leftist Intolerance Update: Obama Regime Wins Fight To Have Christian Home-School Family Deported

Team Obama Wins Fight To Have Christian Home-School Family Deported – Weasel Zippers

The Romike family doesn’t have the values the Administration wants for legal immigration.

.

.
Via Fox News

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike came to the United States in 2008 seeking political asylum. They fled their German homeland in the face of religious persecution for homeschooling their children.

They wanted to live in a country where they could raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs.

The Romeikes were initially given asylum, but the Obama administration objected – claiming that German laws that outlaw homeschooling do not constitute persecution.

“The goal in Germany is for an open, pluralistic society,” the Justice Department wrote in a legal brief last year. “Teaching tolerance to children of all backgrounds helps to develop the ability to interact as a fully functioning citizen in Germany.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Romeike’s appeal – paving the way for the Christian family of eight to be deported.

“I think this is a part of the Obama administration’s overall campaign to crush religious freedom in this country,” said Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. His organization is representing family.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related article:

.
Christians Vow Civil Disobedience If Home-School Family is Deported – Townhall

Christians in an east Tennessee community are vowing to engage in civil disobedience if the Obama administration initiates deportation proceedings against a Southern Baptist family from Germany who sought asylum in the United States so that they could home school their children.

“It may require civil disobedience with this bunch,” said Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), who represents the congressional district where the Romeike family lives.

“I am furious about this,” the congressman told me. “You’ve got law-abiding people who did everything right who simply want to home school their kids. We used to be that great shining city on a hill. There’s some rust on that city if we are doing free people this way.”

Roe was among many Tennesseans outraged over the Supreme Court decision not to hear the Romeike’s appeal to stay in the United States. The Christian couple sought asylum in 2008 after they fled Germany so they could home school their children.

The family was initially granted asylum, but the Obama administration objected – claiming that German laws that outlaw homeschooling do not constitute persecution.

“The goal in Germany is for an open, pluralistic society,” The Justice Department wrote in a 2013 legal brief. “Teaching tolerance to children of all backgrounds helps to develop the ability to interact as a fully functioning citizen in Germany.”

Rep. Roe told me the Justice Department needs to “butt out.”

“I don’t know what the Germans are thinking, but we’re not Germany,” he said. “I don’t want to be Germany. I don’t want to be Europe. I want to be America. And right now we’re not acting very much like the America I know with the administration we have.”

Roe called Attorney General Eric Holder “one of the most dangerous people in the country” and called his department’s assault on the Romeike family “appalling and worrisome.”

“I don’t see this as a Democrat or Republican issue,” he said. “It’s an issue of religious freedom. By golly, if we don’t stand for what, what do we stand for?”

Michael Farris, the chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, is representing the family. He said their future in the United States rests with the Obama administration.

“President Obama has the ability to say they can stay,” Farris said. “He can take that pen and piece of paper and make this right today.”

But since that hasn’t happened there are two possible outcomes for the Romeikes and their six children.

Farris said the administration could just ignore the family and let them live in peace. But the government could also file an order of deportation. If that happens, Farris promised a vigorous fight.

“If they come after this family and seek deportation orders, we will be there with our litigation team fighting every step of the way,” he said. “It sounds like their friends and neighbors will be there in a show of solidarity and stand in the gate and prohibit the government from acting.”

And Farris isn’t speaking figuratively. A number of the Romeike’s neighbors in Morristown, Tenn. told me they are prepared to engage in civil disobedience should government agents try to deport the family.

“The Romeikes have become a part of our family,” said Dean Haun, the pastor of First Baptist Church of Morristown, where the family attends. “I don’t think there’s any question that there will be some people who will be willing to stand with them to the very end – even if it means our imprisonment.”

The Southern Baptist pastor said should that day come, he would be counted among the local residents willing to go to jail to save the family from deportation.

“If that’s what it took, yes,” the pastor said. “This is an assault in the face of Christianity in America.”

“This is one of those situations where we are just outraged,” he said. “We are angered.”

He said the Romeikes are beloved in the east Tennessee town – where Uwe is the church pianist as well as an ordained deacon.

“They are not on welfare,” he said. ‘They are not trying to live off our system. They are very productive, godly, Christian people.”

Roger “Sing” Oldham, a spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, told me he was deep distressed by the Obama administration’s actions.

“I’m not sure what’s more chilling – that this administration views their presence in rural east Tennessee as a threat to our nation’s economic and political well being or that this administration lobbied to deport this family to a nation determined to coercively indoctrinate the children in government sanctioned ‘tolerance’ training,” Oldham said.

Oldham said the case is simply perplexing.

“This family is the antithesis of this administration’s political agenda – a heterosexual married Christian couple desiring to teach their biblical values to well-grounded children,” he said. “For whatever reason, our government does not want them in our nation.”

State Rep. Tillman Goins told me the community is “up in arms.”

“Everybody in Morristown knows the Romeike family,” he said. “You have a family who is doing it the legal way, taking every legal step they can to ask to come to this country and to participate as citizens in this country – only to be persecuted by the United States.”

Goins introduced a resolution calling on Tennessee’s congressional delegation to defend the family.

“I don’t know if all religious liberty is under attack in this country,” he said. “It seems like Christian values are under attack more than any other religion.”

Should the day come when the immigration agents show up to take the family away, Goins said he would meet them at the front door.

“Let’s hope that it doesn’t get to that point,” he said. “(But) should it come down to it – absolutely.”

And Morristown Mayor Danny Thomas would be standing alongside the state lawmaker.

“I can tell you this – I would stand with them,” he said. “There has to be a way to work this out before it ever comes to that.”

The mayor said there are no finer folks in his town than the Romeikes.

“They are good citizens without a doubt,” he said. ‘I don’t think you’ll find anyone with a better work ethic – kind, gentle people. I know that he has deep religious beliefs and he wants to stay and so does his family. I would hope our country would be able to accommodate them. They are an asset to our country.”

Farris predicted that if the Romeikes are deported, it would spark a movement among religious liberty supporters.

“If they come for this family, it’s going to ignite a movement that’s going to be the same as when they told courageous Rosa Parks to go to the back of the bus and she wouldn’t go,” Farris said.

“I think we may be approaching a similar moment in our country.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*AUDIO* Mark Levin Explains The Senate Obamacare Fight


.

.

PLEASE SIGN THE CRUZ/LEE PETITION TO DEFUND OBAMACARE!

.
Dont Fund Obamacare
………………………Click on image above to sign petition.

.

Boobs On Parade! Topless Gals Fight ‘Repressive Laws’

Boobs On Parade! Topless Gals Fight ‘Repressive Laws’ – WorldNetDaily

Jugs. Tatas. Cans. Melons. Knockers. Hooters. Cha-chas. Rack.

If you find these slang words used to describe female breasts offensive, imagine your reaction to seeing naked women parading around in public, in full view of anyone nearby, including children.

.

Thousands of topless women in cities across America and around the world are hitting the streets Sunday in observance of “Go Topless Day,” a 24-hour period in which women are encouraged to walk around shirtless, exposing their naked breasts.

The protests are held each year in late August to commemorate the date in 1920 when women were given the right to vote in the U.S.

This year marks the sixth anniversary of “Go Topless Day,” which is organized by a group of UFO believers called the Raelians.

Members believe humans were created by advanced scientists known as the “Elohim,” and that not allowing women to go topless is an insult to the aliens’ artistry.

“As long as men are allowed to be topless in public, women should have the same constitutional right. Or else, men should have to wear something to hide their chests,” proclaimed Nadine Gary, a Raelian priestess and “Go Topless Day” organizer.

Men who support the group’s mission are asked to cover their chests with pasties or bras.

Boston, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, San Francisco, Asheville, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, Denver, Chicago, New York and Washington, D.C., are among 49 cities playing host to the protests, up from 30 last year.

Under Massachusetts state law, “nudity” is defined as the following:

“Uncovered or less than opaquely covered human genitals, pubic areas, the human female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola, or the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. For purposes of this definition, a female breast is considered uncovered if the nipple or areola only are covered.”

“Men can take their shirts off anywhere they want. Why can’t women? It’s simple discrimination against half of the population. Is it not? It seems that way to me,” said Stacey, who is the spokesperson for the Massachusetts chapter of ToplessEquality.com.

“This is something I have always felt was wrong, that women can’t go topless and men can, and I would love to see it happen in Boston,” she told Boston Daily.

Pennsylvania law defines indecent exposure as “displaying one’s genitals in any place where other persons are present and the behavior is likely to offend, affront or alarm.”

“I have to look, but it doesn’t seem like we’ll be able to allow this,” Pittsburgh’s Public Safety Director Mike Huss told the Tribune-Review.

“We want women to examine how they feel about all women’s issues,” Donna Alexander, the group’s spokeswoman told the paper.

“From this, maybe they’ll look to the workplace, or how they run their homes. We’re a springboard for any rule or law women feel isn’t represented by their own ideals.”

It’s legal to go topless in North Carolina, but in 2011 a counter protest to “Go Topless Day” was organized by two former elected officials.

Former Asheville Vice Mayor Carl Mumford and former Republican Party County Chair Chad Nesbitt claimed their outcry against the march fell upon deaf ears.

The men called the topless event “child sexual abuse” and filed a complaint with the department of social services alleging children were exposed to obscene sexual displays.

“We have fought this every step of the way, including asking the county commissioners, mayor, city council members and even the local school board to support the resolution and ordinance [blocking the event], but we were either told ‘no’ or faced resistance from all of them,” Mumford said.

This year, the men are going after the police. Topless sex play in front of children is a felony in the state, but they say police have repeatedly failed to enforce existing N.C. laws on sexual performance in public spaces and in front of children.

Mumford and his supporters have scores of photographs of such lewd behavior at past “Go Topless Day” rallies.

“Operation Cop Watch” will offer cash prizes for photos that document police failure to protect innocent children at Sunday’s event.

Women in New York City won’t be arrested for roaming the city topless, reports the New York Times.

The state’s highest court ruled more than two decades ago that baring one’s chest in public – for noncommercial activity – is perfectly legal for a woman, as it is for a man.

The city’s 34,000 police officers were instructed earlier this year that if they encounter a woman in public who is shirtless but obeying the law, they should not arrest her.

The policy shift comes after several years of litigation and protest.

If it’s illegal for women to go topless in public in any particular city, they are encouraged to dress within the limits of the law by wearing pasties, body paint, or bikini tops.

But even if it’s legal, the group warns women and their male supporters they still risk arrest for “disorderly conduct” or “public lewdness” related to their nude display.

“I don’t understand these repressive laws,” the Raelian priestess Gary told the Huffington Post. “Is it because of this myth of original sin? Because women have somehow tempted men?”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Senator Ted Cruz: We’ll Win The ObamaCare Fight If We Don’t Blink


.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
.

Related video:

.

.

*VIDEO* Funny Or Die – Public Service Announcement: How To Fight Back Against NSA Snooping


.
H/T Independent Journal Review

.

Democrat Front Group Hyped As Hunters By Media In Gun Control Fight

Democrat Front Group Hyped As Hunters By Media In Gun Control Fight – Washington Times

The liberal media will do anything to pressure lawmakers to support President Obama’s gun-control agenda.

Politico published a story Wednesday with this headline: “Hunting Group Wants Background Checks.” The story gave the false impression that the millions of hunters in the U.S. support Mr. Obama’s push for “universal background checks.”

.
……….

That is way off target. In fact, 31 well-known hunting and conservation groups sent a letter to Capitol Hill Thursday expressing opposition to intrusion by the federal government into private firearm transfers.

Politico only cites one small group in its story, Bull Moose Sportsmen, which claims 5,000 members. The story gives no context for the size of this group in relation to other hunting advocacy groups, nor its prominence in the community. The single poll cited in the Politico story is one commissioned by the group itself and claims 72 percent of hunters support “criminal background checks with some exceptions.”

None of the major hunting groups which represent the millions of law-abiding sportsmen was mentioned, nor the polling of those members.

In fact, Bull Moose Sportsmen is a fringe organization run by Democratic activists that has been rejected from membership into the major gun and hunting groups’ umbrella organization because it refuses to reveal its funding sources.

The American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP) is a consortium of 42 organizations, including major groups such as Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, National Wildlife Turkey Federation, National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The groups together represent 6 million individual members.

Members of AWCP tell me that Bull Moose has been denied entry into their organization because it refused to reveal its mysterious funding sources.

According to some public filings, the “non-partisan nonprofit organization” gave $17,000 in the 2012 federal election, and all of it went to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado. It spent $117,540 in support of Mr. Bennet in the 2010 cycle. The group raised $354,228 in 2011 and spent $295,863.

While calling itself “nonpartisan,” Bull Moose Sportsmen is run by Democrats. Co-Founder Gaspar Perricone, who told Politico that, “Background checks fall within the ethics of responsible gun ownership,” is a former staffer for Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat. Politico also ran an op-ed by Mr. Perricone on Thursday entitled, “Hunters Chart Middle Ground on Guns.” The other co-founder of Bull Moose, Tim Mauck, was Mr. Udall’s finance director and was paid $4,743 by the senator’s campaign in 2012.

The real hunting groups do not want private transfers of firearms to be subject to government checks. On Thursday, most of the groups in the AWCP coalition signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to offer a five-point plan that would address the problem of gun violence.

Among the suggestions is to improve the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System so that it can effectively prevent access to firearms by those not legally qualified to possess them without criminalizing private transfers.

To make their collective position clear, they wrote that that, “We oppose unnecessary restrictions of our ability to attain and possess legal firearms and that have no foundation in addressing the factors that led [the Newtown] tragedy or like tragedies.”

The anti-gun media can slant its coverage to support Mr. Obama’s agenda, however hunters have been giving their guns to friends and family members for generations and don’t want to have to get Uncle Sam’s approval to do so now.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Philadelphia-Area Businesses Fight Violent Union Thugs

It Gets Better: Philadelphia-Area Businesses Fight Union Bullies – Washington Free Beacon

Several Philadelphia labor groups allegedly used feces, urine, spit, and fire to persuade businesses to hire union labor and area businesses are fighting back.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Monday ordered members of the International Board of Teamsters Local 107, Pennsylvania’s self-described “most powerful labor organization,” to stop assaulting and spitting on employees, vandalizing vehicles, and obstructing business operations at the Eureka Stone Quarry, Inc.

Jim Morrissey III, whose grandfather started the cement mixing and construction service company, launched the suit after striking drivers dragged a company mechanic from his truck after obstructing the road with nails – an incident captured on surveillance tape.

“He was scared to death, surrounded by six to eight guys he thought were his friends,” Morrissey said.

Local 107 secretary-treasurer Shawn Dougherty downplayed the NLRB ruling.

“This fella’s so litigious that anything that’s said or done with this particular labor dispute is exaggerated,” Dougherty said. “We normally don’t comment on the NLRB decisions.”

Morrissey says he is not anti-labor. He decided to appeal to federal authorities after concluding that local officials would turn a blind eye to the issues plaguing his business.

“I had no choice but the NLRB: They said they were going to put me out of business and they’ve put a tremendous amount of pressure on other groups to not hire us,” he said. “The unions in Philly run the show; it’s a big joke with the police and the politicians – they just look the other way.”

Leo Knepper, executive director at the Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania, said the legacy of union dominance in the “Keystone State” has created an aura of invincibility among labor groups.

“When anything threatens [union] interests, they react violently,” he said. “Unions have such a strong influence in local politics that it gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want because no one is willing to enforce the law against these guys.”

Morrissey says union intimidation tactics are no longer effective with the availability and affordability of surveillance.

“When you have them on tape, they can’t deny it,” he said. “Technology changes everything and the unions aren’t savvy enough to get that.”

No company has employed technology as devastatingly as Post Brothers Apartments, a real estate firm engaged in a drawn out and oftentimes violent campaign by the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council over a $38 million apartment development at the abandoned Goldtex shoe factory.

Post Brothers awarded half of its construction contracts to union shops. The council demanded 100 percent of the contracts and began picketing and vandalizing the site when construction began in 2012.

The company launched a public campaign of its own after workers discovered feces and urine scattered at the site, oil dumped on its parking lot, and asbestos installed in walls, according to Post Brothers CEO Michael Pestronk.

The company has posted YouTube videos of union leaders assaulting security guards, shared photos of smashed windshields on a public Google Docs account, and argued its case against the unions through its website, PhillyBully.com.

“Our employees feared for their lives, so we got the equipment for personal protection,” Pestronk said. “It wasn’t some masterful calculation: changing political institutions [or] buying politicians costs millions, posting videos to YouTube is cheap and it gets you public attention.”

The Trades Council did not return calls for comment.

The website is already paying dividends. A union member allegedly assaulted Post Brothers employees Chris Gardner and Matt Hunt in December with a crowbar after they attempted to park their car near the work site. Gardner was arrested for assault when he subdued his attacker, who was not charged in the incident.

The police dropped the charges on Tuesday thanks in part to the company’s photo and video evidence, “but mostly because our attorney threatened to sue the city, the police, and the [district attorney],” Pestronk said.

The young real estate executive said he hopes PhillyBully.com “sets an example” on how to combat union intimidation.

“They’re getting desperate so it appears [violence] has been ramping up,” he said. “The mainstream media is not calling attention to it, so it really helps to use YouTube to subvert them and make them pay attention.”

New media is not the only tactic businesses are using to curb union violence. The eastern Pennsylvania chapter of the Association of Builders and Contractors, which represents open shop construction companies, is now offering a $50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the union members suspected of burning down a Quaker meetinghouse construction site a few days before Christmas.

“We’ve seen a steady pattern of violence on open shop projects in Philadelphia—anytime open house contractors come in there’s retaliation,” said chapter president Mary Tebeau. “We’re afraid that business owners and developers will bypass this area, so to combat that we came up with a reward to punish those responsible for the bombing.”

A Philadelphia Police Department spokeswoman told the Washington Free Beacon that there have been no arrests in connection to the incident.

Robert Reeves, president of E. Allen Reeves, Inc., the firm building the Quaker meetinghouse, echoed Tebeau’s concerns, adding that bounties will not do much to deter future violence without institutional change.

“I think there’s a resurgence in violence because unions are contemplating their loss of market share,” he said. “I wish that leaders in the Philadelphia region would speak up against violence. They don’t tolerate it in schools, but they look the other way when it’s their supporters.”

Some politicians at the state level are looking to diminish the amount of influence wielded by unions at the state and local level through labor reforms, including right-to-work legislation introduced earlier this year.

“There are a lot of unfair policies enacted on behalf of Big Labor back when it had clout, but the demographics spell trouble for unions,” central Pennsylvania state Rep. Stephen Bloom said. “The Philadelphia area is still a bastion for union influence, but it’s waning there as it is across the state and the balance of power is shifting and inevitably we’ll get to the point where we’ll adopt labor reforms necessary for economic survival.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story