Before sexualizing children. Why not have a debate?

By Rubashov

Is it the ACLU’s fault?  Or is it the people who fund them who have changed? 

We all remember how the ACLU stood up for Freedom of Speech – even when it meant protecting that freedom for people with whom they had absolutely no sympathy.   It was the ACLU who famously set the parameters of First Amendment protections in the 1970’s, when the organization defended the right of the American Nazi Party to march through Skokie, Illinois, a town chosen by the Nazis for its ethnic and religious make-up.  Placing their loathing of the Nazis aside, the ACLU stood with the American Bill of Rights to argue that the Nazis had the right to transgressive speech – the right to knowingly offend. 

Of course, transgressive speech is the very foundation of comedy, and there was some wisdom in the suggestion that we laugh at the Nazis, their silly uniforms, and that flag.  Better to laugh at them, to tolerate them, than to become them, so the wisdom went. 

But times have changed.

The ACLU is under pressure from the people who fund it, from its donor class, as are politicians from all parties and persuasions.  There is a new public religion and it is in the process of driving out its competition from the public square.

And just as transubstantiation demands that its believers accept that bread and wine is changed into flesh and blood, so in this new religion, a person with a penis can be made woman.  It is mystical, faith-based, beyond debate or reason.  It is religion.

Central to this new religion is a persecution myth.  Just as the early Christians had their martyrs and their festivals of remembrance, this new religion has its Stonewall, its AIDS epidemic, its accounts of martyrdom.  The carnality of it – the sex – is all scrubbed from the accounts.  The public face of this new religion is Neo-Victorian in its use of language – “No Sex, please” – this is all about “Love”.

Proselytizing to children is central to all religions, but especially so to groups who make the oppression of the faith central to their ideology.  This was so with Jim Jones, David Koresh, the “Children of God” cult, and many others.  Did they not all operate under the banner that children be sexualized at the earliest possible moment?  Did they not preach endlessly about “Love”?  That “Love is the Answer”, “Love is Love”? 

Sex is as addictive as tobacco and like the sellers of cigarettes (or narcotics) they like to get them while they’re young.  So they come for the children.  Public libraries host “drag queen story hours” for little children, with readings by folks with names like “Lil Miss Hot Mess”.  Isn’t “hot” an explicitly sexual term?  School curriculums now include such varied activities as “condom races” – in which 10 and 11 year-old girls compete to be the first to put a condom on a model of an erect adult male penis.  All watched by their male classmates.  Magazines like Teen Vogue – specifically marketed to children – argue that prostitution is just a job, work like any other, with no moral or psychological concerns whatsoever. 

This is all part of this new public religion.  So a new law, signed by Governor Phil Murphy, mandates the teaching of people from history based on how their alleged sexual practices conform to one of a series of letters (LGBTQ…).  It’s a rather shallow way to teach, for how can the endless ways in which human beings order their lives really be bound and categorized by a half dozen letters – or indeed, a thousand? 

Within the last few days, a School Trustee in Hackensack had the temerity to express an opinion on the new mandate that failed to conform to the new public religion.  In response, Garden State Equality (GSE) – the “LGBTQ” equivalent of Hezbollah – went all jihadist on the trustee, demanding that she be forced into submission or made to resign and shunned thereafter. 

An email from GSE made it clear that they weren’t stopping with her:  “It’s imperative that each and every education official across New Jersey understands that our curriculum law must be faithfully implemented.”  Each and every.  There is no place for religious dissent. 

A GSE supporter reached out and noted that the trustee in question used the term “repugnant” to describe “the LGBTQ lifestyle.”  The term is generally used when describing something that the user finds “distasteful” or that the user is “incompatible” with.  It must be noted that many of our fellow human beings do find such sexual practices as oral or anal sex “distasteful” and that they are “incompatible” with same. 

We are not speaking here for Phil and Tammy Murphy, or Valerie Vainieri Huttle, or Jim Tedesco, or Gordon Johnson, or Loretta Weinberg, or indeed for the other politicians who have condemned the use of the term “repugnant.”  What they find “tasteful”, what they are “compatible” with, what their appetites bend towards is entirely their business.  And we would defend their endorsement of oral or anal sex as much as we defend the right of others not to enjoy such things.  Whatever floats your boat, as they say. 

But expressing one’s sexual preferences, one’s choice, is not welcome by the new “public” religion.  Blank conformity is what is expected.  Every public statement, written or spoken must conform.  The new religion allows no public expression of older religions.  All must conform… or they will be made to conform. 

Having gained significant cadres amongst elites in government, the media, in education, and with One-Percenters who control the corporate world, the new religion is attempting a top-down takeover of the public square – bullying out older religions, forcing compliance and general conformity of expressed opinion.  They seem to forget that Americans are contrarian by nature.  Nonconformity is the way with us and we will continue to practice it, even while being oppressed and punished for doing so. 

Of course, this is another reason why they want our children.  But then they forget that generations of Soviet indoctrination did not extinguish the seed of traditional faith in Russia or in Eastern Europe. 

This is an interesting topic that should be debated openly and honestly.  Instead, jihadists like Garden State Equality are concerned only with bullying and banning public dissent.  They don’t care if people dishonestly mouth those allowed saccharine platitudes, so long as they mouth them.

Instead of punishing questioning minds, why not debate them?  Before we allow government – in service of the new public religion – to continue to sexualize children, why not have an open and honest debate on the subject? 

Maybe a group like the Center for Garden State Families or the New Jersey Family Policy Council will set up a series of open discussions on the Murphy administration’s sexualization of young children.  Then they can invite folks like Senator Loretta Weinberg and Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle to explain what they like and don’t like – and how they came to embrace the new religion (HINT: Check their campaign finance reports, and you will know why).

Before the Murphy Democrats force one more unfunded mandate on the property taxpayers of New Jersey… have an open and honest debate about their need to sexualize children.

Phoebus votes to create Transgender Task Force

As President Ronald Reagan used to say:  "Personnel is Policy."

It didn't take long for Assemblyperson Gail Phoebus to go off the rails.  Since firing the conservatives on her staff just before Thanksgiving, her voting record clearly shows their absence. 

On Monday, Phoebus voted to establish a Transgender Equality Task Force.  The legislation, A-4567), is sponsored by liberal Democrats Valerie Huttle, Tim Eustace, and Nancy Pinkin.  Here's what it would do (taken directly from the official OLS Bill Statement):

This bill, as amended, establishes the Transgender Equality Task Force, which is charged with assessing the legal and societal barriers to equality for transgender individuals in the State, and providing recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor on how to ensure equality and improve the lives of transgender individuals, with particular attention to the following areas: healthcare, long term care, education, higher education, housing, employment, and criminal justice.

     The bill provides that the task force shall consist of 17 members as follows: a representative of the Department of Banking and Insurance whose duties or expertise includes insurance and banking services and policies as applied to transgender individuals; a representative of the Department of Human Services whose duties or expertise includes expanding access by minority populations to the department’s services or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of departmental programs, policies, or initiatives; a representative of the Department of Health whose duties or expertise includes expanding access by minority populations to clinically appropriate healthcare services or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of healthcare programs, policies, or initiatives; a representative of the Department of Education whose duties or expertise includes protecting the rights of minority students or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of educational programs, policies, or initiatives; a representative of the Office of the Secretary of Higher Education whose duties or expertise includes protecting the rights of minority students in the higher education system or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of higher educational programs, policies, or initiatives; a representative of the Division of Civil Rights in the Department of Law and Public Safety whose duties or expertise includes expanding access by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals to the department’s services or eliminating discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals in the delivery of the division’s programs, policies, or initiatives; and a representative of the Department of Children and Families whose duties or expertise includes expanding access by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth to the department’s services or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of departmental programs, policies, or initiatives with regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth; a representative of the Department of Corrections whose duties or expertise includes protecting the safety of minority populations or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of departmental programs, policies, or initiatives; a representative of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development whose duties or expertise includes expanding access by minority populations to the department’s services or eliminating discrimination in the delivery of departmental programs, policies, or initiatives; two public members to be appointed by the Speaker of the General Assembly, one of whom shall be a physician who specializes in transgender health issues, and one of whom shall be a transgender individual; two public members to be appointed by the President of the Senate, one of whom shall be aparent or guardian of a transgender individual, and one of whom shall be an attorney specializing in transgender rights; one public member to be appointed by the Governor, who shall be a representative of a social service agency that provides services and supports to transgender individuals; a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union; a representative ofGarden State Equality; and a representative of The Gender Rights Advocacy Association of New Jersey.

     The bill provides that the task force is to organize as soon as practicable following the appointment of its members, but not later than the 30th day following the appointment of its members, and that the task force is to select a chairperson from among its members.  The bill permits the task force to hold meetings at the times and places it may designate, and provides that a majority of the authorized members of the task force shall constitute a quorum. The bill also provides that the task force may conduct business without a quorum, but may only vote on a recommendation when a quorum is present. Pursuant to the bill, the task force is entitled to receive assistance and services from any State, county, or municipal department, board, commission, or agency, as it may require, and as may be available to it for its purposes, and The Division on Civil Rights in the Department of Law and Public Safety is to provide professional and clerical staff to the task force, as necessary to effectuate the purposes of the bill.   

     The bill requires that the task force prepare and submit a written report to the Governor and the Legislature, outlining its recommendations for advancing transgender equality in the State, not later than six months after its initial meeting. 

A-4567 ensures that the opinions of people with traditional or religious points of view are totally shut out -- along with the views of eminent researchers, medical professionals, scientists, psychiatrists, therapists, and experts in the field of child psychology.  This legislation is designed, in advance, to achieve an intended radical, far-left outcome. 

So get ready to pay more in health care costs after those transgender mandates are recommended and then voted into law by the Democrats who control both chambers of the Legislature.  Get ready to pay higher insurance premiums.

Here's Phoebus' vote (SOURCE:  New Jersey Legislature):

This is what happens when you get rid of conservatives who were Reagan-supporters from even before he was President and replace them with liberal lawyers who donate to Barack Obama.  What you get are votes worthy of Barack Obama.

Thursday: NJ Assembly votes on abortion

On Thursday, the New Jersey Assembly will vote to celebrate abortion in this country.  Yes, SCR-78 is a Loretta Weinberg special -- sponsored in the Assembly as ACR-119 by her ever faithful "me-too" Valerie Vainieri Huttle. 

Abortion is sad.  It is about emotional anguish and death.  Celebrating abortion is like celebrating war for its own sake.   How many ex-military pen testimonials about how much they liked killing?  Or how it was a great "life choice" to take an entrenching tool and shred another man's face until he was dead.

We may debate the ends, but the means of war and the means of abortion turn our stomachs.  It is a dark time informed by darker means. 

Nobody should lightly dismiss what a woman goes through when she finds herself unexpectedly pregnant.  Life is shockingly altered.  You are different, often ill and uncomfortable. Something is growing inside you that you cannot escape and if you don't take to it, find you cannot accept it, you want to claw it out of you and go back to how you were. 

Then the decision to terminate the pregnancy.  The knowledge that whatever that something is that you cannot accept inside you, it is real.  Those are human cells with a human potential. "It might have been a girl with hazel eyes like my mother."  "She might have loved music and walks at the shore and the cool touch of the wind."  But none of that will be.  This will remain a book unwritten. 

In the debate over humanity and viability, one thing is certain:  Abortion ends a human story.

We have recently seen a campaign to normalize the ending of these stories, by some, in what they self-describe as the "pro-choice" community.  Some actress gets up and talks about how great her abortion was.  Is she acting -- or just a psychopath?  How would we react to a military leader who stood up and told us how much he enjoyed roasting people with napalm?    

We need to be honest about abortion, as we do about war.  We should not "celebrate" either or defend it with chants -- whether they be "choice for women" or "USA, USA."  Like war, abortion is a terrible business.  A matter for adult contemplation -- not juvenile celebration.

The old Left knew a thing or two about educating people as to the truth of a thing.  A hundred  years ago, Europe was engaged in what became known as the Great War, and later, as World War One.  That war began with cheering crowds, celebrating.  After it was over, a triumphant parade was organized in Paris, with all the allies there to participate.  Soldiers from every winning nation were formed to march.  A wise soul suggested that a contingent of wounded soldiers be placed up front, which ended up being an enormous assemblage of many horribly wounded veterans -- les mutiles -- the mutilated.  It placed things into context and turned a juvenile celebration into an adult consideration.

As followers of the New Left's Herbert Marcuse, Weinberg and Huttle flit between "summer of love" rhetoric and an intolerant "tolerance" that they adopt when making laws.  And they are absolute ghouls on the subject of abortion.  Seeking to "celebrate" something that, like war, cannot really, with any sanity, be celebrated.

But then, there are the profits.  There is a business of abortion, like the business of war, and it is about market-share, and monopoly, and cashing in.  Oh all those New Lefties who grew up to be Wall Streeters. . . and members of the New Jersey Legislature!

Phoebus: Democrats "celebrate" death

Whether it is an act of love or lust or a combination of both, when a woman has sexual congress with a man and the outcome is pregnancy, what is growing within her is a part of life. Some say it is an unborn child, others call it a fetus.  Whatever it is, when you abort it, you end a story.  You end the she or he who might have been.  That much is certain.

We all know women who have faced this crossroads.  Who had to choose.  It is not a light decision.  It is not a happy time. 

Now come the Democrats.  Senator Loretta "Mother Roach" Weinberg and Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, who should know better.  They proposed a resolution "celebrating" this unhappy time. 

We get it.  There are some who are so proud that they cannot admit to an unhappiness -- it might bring with it doubt.  And so they tell themselves that "this is a good thing" and that they are glad for it.  They place what they've done on an alter and worship it.  For them it becomes "the sacrament of abortion."  For them, doubt must be shouted away and dissenters heckled down.

The Democrats' resolution used the opportunity presented by the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade to "recognize and celebrate the importance of continued access to reproductive health care for women."  Ah, those euphemisms!  It reminds us of the time a groups of lawyers, bureaucrats, and politicians gathered on the outskirts of a capital to work out another "euphemism."  Can you guess which one?

Let's cut the euphemisms, Roe v. Wade isn't about "reproductive health care" -- as everyone knows, it is about abortion.  Roe v. Wade legalized abortion.

Addressing her colleagues, Assemblywoman Gail Phoebus (R-Sussex, Warren, Morris) nailed it:

“Let’s be real. Roe v. Wade isn’t about women’s health care issues. To sit here and have the Legislature celebrate 58 million abortions since 1973 is abhorrent. Apparently gone are the days of claiming that ‘no one is pro-abortion,’ but only pro-choice. If we looked, I think we would find far more women who regret having abortions and have a more difficult task finding women who regret choosing life.

The reality is the decision legalized the aborting of unborn children.  Roe v. Wade redefined what a person is in the same vein as another low-point for our Supreme Court and our nation, the Dred Scott Decision.

“Our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, is clear:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“By serving in this legislative body, we are representatives of the people and we govern with their consent.  I take my duty seriously to protect the rights of all – born and unborn.”

Of course, the Democrats would rather ignore these words.  Too old-fashioned.  They have a new operating principle.  Or is it?  In many ways, what they are striving for, are a set of old 1930's sci-fi imaginings.  The total control, erotic nanny state as imagined by Aldous Huxley in 1931 is a very different totalitarian vision than the one conjured by George Orwell more than a decade later.  But both picked up the direction in which we -- with the help of Mother Roach and her sidekick, Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle -- are continuing down the path today.  So for your edification, we present this film adaptation of the novel, "Brave New World." 

Enjoy and remember, whether you are a Republican from Westfield or a Bergen County Democrat, you too can "be allowed to go back to your erotic training class and play 'hunt the zipper'."  Don't ask what it means, watch the movie.