From “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to same-sex “marriage” to conservative leaders wrapping themselves in the rainbow flag, defenders of Judeo-Christian traditions appear to be priming for some demoralizing culture-war defeats, says an author whose shocking new book retraces the contemporary origins of the sexual revolution.
The battles are lost, says Judith Reisman, author of “Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America,” if those fighting them keep failing to address the pink elephant hovering over each case – Alfred Kinsey.
A failure to understand the findings of Kinsey – and observe the documentation of how he “intentionally and nefariously conducted and skewed his research to present the most based portrait possible of human sexual behavior” – is epic, says Reisman. An “ignorance of Kinsey renders impotent any hope of a successful courtroom counter to the consequences of these grossly damaging precedents.”
For exhibit A, Reisman delves into key courtroom dynamics during the overturning of Proposition 8 and the “ruling that draws its justification almost entirely from Kinsey’s conclusions.”
“That’s their academic citation, their scholarship, their science,” says Reisman. “The heart of the matter is always science – and the science is based on a treasonous, sexual psychopath.”
While she lauds the recent congressional resolution opposing the overturning of the overwhelmingly voter-approved California ban on same-sex “marriage,” she warns that in the court of public opinion, “well-meaning supporters of Judeo-Christian traditions are fighting deep in occupied territory,” said Reisman, “where the enemy’s language, strategies and worldview reign.”
She cites recent coverage in LifeSiteNews.com, where a point-by-point rebuttal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s sharp pronouncements equating heterosexual and homosexual unions “misses the point.”
“Arguing about the sexperts misses the basic point,” says Reisman. “Who trained them? Who are they citing in their dissertations, etc.?”
Litigation, argues Reisman, provides the best platform to expose “the insidious influence of Kinsey’s work.” As “Sexual Sabotage” documents how Kinsey surrounded himself with “homosexual lovers and pornography stars, sex procurers, panderers and predators, each with his own deviance,” and he “required (them) to look like sober, sensible professionals in suits and ties, with short hair.”
The illusion of buttoned-down normalcy allowed Kinsey’s seminal work to present clearly criminal findings with nominal outrage, said Reisman.
As “Sexual Sabotage” reports: “‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Male’ reports data ‘on 214 male children’ … Kinsey asserted, ‘Of the 214 cases … all but 14 were subsequently observed in orgasm.’ Observed?! Who ‘subsequently observed’ (defined as ‘occurring or coming later or after’) these infants and boys being – yes – sexually tortured, timed and recorded? Who, of Kinsey’s team, did this under his direction? The youngest boy tested to ‘climax’ is ‘2 mon.’ old.”
Still, in the courtroom, where “knowledge of the sodomy lobby’s founding father is essential,” says Reisman, “our lawyers have been off on a long cricket break.”
She cites the backgrounds of the “sexperts” in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case who testified on behalf of overturning Prop 8. Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said he had concerns about the adequacy of the Prop 8 defense. Reisman says its accusers weren’t “adequately confronted.”
“Only one graduate school in America – The Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality – is approved to train various academicians to be sexuality ‘experts,'” says Reisman.
Sexual Sabotage reports this institute sold child pornography to Hustler magazine and advocates legalized pedophilia, child pornography/prostitution.
“Wardell Pomeroy, IASHS’s academic dean and Kinsey’s co-author, boy toy,” says Reisman, “requested funds from the ‘adult’ business to film child pornography (Happy Day v. Kentucky, 1980).”
Such criminal behavior is “germane to the bias of the sexperts,” says Reisman. “As sexology is the field that trains forensic sexperts for all sexually related cases, their fraud-child sex crime based foundation should always be exposed at trial. Will Liberty Counsel challenge the training of such witnesses in their planned amicus brief?”