Are NJ Legislators sexualizing childhood?

Less than a week after Assembly Speaker Vinnie Prieto (D-Sacco) promised to make New Jersey's historically high child poverty his top concern, that appears to have been pushed aside in favor of the top issue of the swingers' lobby -- women with penises.  You know how it is, poor children can't afford a lobbyist.  Rich and influential sexual swingers can buy whatever strikes their fancy.

The swingers want to see legislation (S-283) passed so that a man, with a penis, can become a legal "woman", simply by saying that he is seeing a therapist and then re-submitting his birth certificate to reflect his "new sex".  No surgery required. 

And it won't be recorded as an "amended" birth certificate.  It will be filed as the original.  The government will pretend that it can go back in time to correct the "perception" of the doctors and nurses who saw a child with a penis and checked "male".  The government will, in fact, lie and pretend that the attending physician checked "female" when, of course, he did not.    

This has long been the goal of a branch of therapy that is well organized and represented by a number of professional associations who lobby extensively.  They are followers of the Kinsey model of human sexuality, which gained traction in the 1950's.  This model embraces the idea that there should be no sexual taboos or restrictions, since all behaviors lay within the spectrum of sexual diversity, and that spectrum includes sex between the powerful and their subordinates, sex for pay, adult-child sex, and even incest. 

These therapists and the educators and politicians they influence promote the theory -- remembering that in the field of therapy, everything is "theory" -- that there are a "range" of genders, not restricted to male and female, and that all types of erotic preferences and lifestyles are variations of healthy sexuality.  They reject the labels normal and abnormal.  Nothing is abnormal, it just is. 

In 1999, the leaders in this field of therapy condemned Congress for withdrawing public funding from a controversial study by Dr. Bruce Rind (Temple University), Dr. Robert Bauserman (State of Maryland), and Mr. Philip Tromovitch (University of Pennsylvania).   These three experts in human sexuality advanced the idea that not all sexual intercourse between adults and children is necessarily harmful.

In 1998, their findings were published in the Psychological Bulletin, an academic psychology journal published by the often-cited American Psychological Association.  These psychologists analyzed 59 studies of college students who said they were sexually abused in childhood, and concluded that the effects of such abuse ''were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women.''

The study found that adult predatory sexual behavior towards children ''may represent only a violation of social norms with no implication for personal harm.'' The psychologists suggested that the term ''adult-adolescent sex'' or ''adult-child sex'' be substituted, in some cases, for ''child sexual abuse.''   

The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) strongly endorsed the study.  The study also received support from organizations like the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex; the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists; the National Coalition Against Censorship; and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

We list them, along with the American Psychological Association, because  Senator Joseph Vitale (D-McGreevey), the chairman of the senate committee through which the "therapy + penis = woman" legislation must pass, is fond of citing "experts" who support his position and dissing those who don't.  To be fair, he should know fully on whose team he is playing in advance of the 2017 primary, when that "team" will be detailed within the houses of worship that serve his district.

The idea that a government can alter a human being's genetic makeup simply by passing a law is a shade of King Canute.  It is also antithetical to Science itself.

Every Senator who supports S-283 should be aware of the inevitable conflicts that will arise when the attempt is made to brainwash young children into believing that a man can become a woman merely by "believing" it, finding the odd therapist to support you in your belief, and finally to alter a government document.  Vulnerable children will inevitably be required to undergo a species of the notorious SAR program.

SAR or Sexuality Attitude Restructuring, is a tool developed to increase students’ comfort with a broad range of behaviors.  During the SAR, films, slides, and audio of explicit sexual behaviors -- heterosexual, homosexual, group, oral, child-adult -- are projected on multiple screens for hours at a time, followed by group discussions.  In the 1970’s, SAR got the moniker "F*ck-O-Rama."  SAR is required for certification by some therapy associations.

Children's advocate Dr. Judith Reisman describes SAR as “a critical tool to reshape views of human sexuality”.  It desensitizes and disinhibits the brain, she explains, “to allow a shift in pedagogical attitude and performance”. 

On Monday, January 25, 2016, the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee will be holding a hearing on S-283.  The public hearing will be held at 1 PM in Committee Room 1, on the First Floor of the State House Annex in Trenton, New Jersey.

Members of the swingers lobby will no doubt be present to propagate their world view.  Those of us who have not yet undergone SAR retraining should also attend to add our voices... while we are still permitted them.

---

Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee will be holding a public hearing on S-283

MONDAY, JANUARY 25 - 1:00 PM

COMMITTEE ROOM 1, FIRST FLOOR

STATE HOUSE ANNEX

TRENTON, NJ

Speaker Prieto: Suspend the Bill of Rights

Speaker Vinnie Prieto stepped away from the podium yesterday to suggest that the Bill of Rights be suspended if it will save one life.  Later, Assemblyman Lou "man hair" Greenwald said much the same thing.  This phrase has become a kind of last refuge when they run out of logic:  "It is worth it, if it saves just one life."

Good thing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't think so, otherwise he would have surrendered to the Japanese Empire and the Nazis.  Quite a few "just one" lives would have been saved.  Of course our freedom would have been screwed and our country would have looked something like out of the video below, but hey, "if it saves just one life..."

Of course, Speaker Prieto ignores the thousands of lives sacrificed to an undefended border that allows violent criminals into America illegally.  When fellow Hudson County Democrat Senator Robert Menendez wrote a book in which he took leaves of his senses -- suggesting that the United States change its emphasis from patrolling our southern border with Mexico to focusing on our northern border with Canada -- Speaker Prieto sat in silent agreement.  But there the words remain, as a testament to the madness of political correctness:

“Good fences don’t make good neighbors with this wall.  The existence of the southern-border fence is bad enough, and its estimated four-billion-dollar price tag is mind-boggling.  Meanwhile, Americans appear to fret little about those lightly patrolled 3,987 miles on the Canadian border from Atlantic to Pacific.  Our border with Canada is twice as long as the border with Mexico.”  (Page 147)

“Solidifying the porous northern border should be a priority for the Department of Homeland Security.  And yet, as of 2007, far fewer than ten percent of the fourteen thousand U.S. agents were patrolling the Canadian border.  How is it possible that we haven’t been focusing on the danger of terrorists crossing the U.S. – Canadian frontier?  Instead, we have been listening to hot air from Lou Dobbs and his allies, complaining about people who would cross that border in search of jobs as gardeners, busboys, hotel workers, and maids.”  (Pages 148 and 149)

Speaker Prieto's hold on reality was just as tenuous when he supported allowing the United Nations to continue to vet refugee applications from Islamic war zones for placement of those refugees within the borders of the United States.  Speaker Prieto did this only days after the terrorist attacks in Paris -- in which at least one terrorist used Syrian refugee status to gain entry into Europe -- and just days before America suffered a similar terrorist attack in California.

While Speaker Prieto and the Democrats he leads in the New Jersey Assembly trust the United Nations -- with its employees from member states like Yemen, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, and Vietnam -- to vet refugees that include combatants from Islamic zones of conflict, many Americans are concerned that we may be importing Islamic terrorism into the American homeland.  And while Speaker Prieto and his fellow Democrats call for disarming law-abiding American citizens every time terrorists attack a military base, a recruiting office, or a Christmas party, many ordinary Americans question why they should be made defenseless in the face of the importation of terror into the United States.

So much of our illegal immigration comes from countries with violent crime rates many times higher than in the United States and we have no way of safely vetting refugee applications from Islamic war zones.  Speaker Prieto and the Assembly Democrats are adding to our hazards, while trying to take away our ability to defend ourselves.  They should be held responsible for every violent young man who slips into the United Sates and commits an act of violence here.  They should be held responsible for every act of terror nurtured by their words and actions.

Rasmussen: 77% believe Syrians pose risk

Democrat President Barack Obama has a plan to resettle thousands of Syrian immigrants in the United States.  Republican Governor Chris Christie opposes it.  So do many other Republican Governors.  But Democrat Speaker Vincent Prieto supports Obama's resettlement plan and Republican Leader Jon Bramnick says it is too soon to say one way or the other. 

The Rasmussen Polling organization conducted a survey of 1,000 likely voters on this subject.  The survey was conducted November 17-18, 2015.  The results indicate that there is a high level of concern among American voters, with 77% reporting that they are very or somewhat concerned when asked the question:  How concerned are you that giving thousands of Syrians asylum poses a national security risk to the United States? 

52% reported that they were very concerned, 25% somewhat concerned, 14% not very concerned, 7% not at all concerned, 2% not sure.  Women are more concerned than men:  53% to 52% very concerned and 5% to 9% not at all concerned.

Along ethnic lines concerned vs. unconcerned breaks down this way:  80% to 19% for white voters, 74% to 19% for black voters, and 70% to 28% for other voters.

Along party lines concerned vs. unconcerned breaks down accordingly: 93% to 6% for Republicans, 64% to 33% for Democrats, 77% to 21% for Independents.

Poor and working class Americans are more concerned, with the very rich being the least concerned.  Those earning under $30,000 expressed the most concern, at 80% to 19%; with those earning over $200,000 at 74% to 18%.

For more information, visit Rasmussen at www.rasmussenreports.com/

These figures could change should ISIS and the other arms of Islamic terrorism decide to change tactics (as the IRA did in the 1990's), but there is presently no indication that they will.  In the meantime, ISIS seems as determined to rid the Middle East of Western influence as the Rutgers SuperPAC appears determined to rid the Legislature of Republican influence.

It looks as though our political landscape will continue to be moved by the threats posed by unsecured borders, the resettlement of people from frontline zones in the war on terror, and by government policy that makes it extraordinarily difficult to enter American legally but easy to enter and stay illegally.  We live in interesting times that will complicate the lives of legislators.