Months before Hollywood and the liberal media launched their massive love-fest for Kinsey, the movie, your federal tax dollars were at work promoting a dreadful annual report that would have made the infamous sexologist Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey extremely proud. Each year since 1997, the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (FIFCFS) has published a report entitled America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. Once again, this 20-agency report has marshaled data that appear to support some very incredible claims. The federal report would have us believe, for example, that while more children today reject religion (or have no formal exposure to religion) and fewer children live with both parents, they are less likely to be "victims of violence" than were mom and dad when they were children.
That's right, according to the FIFCFS, families were much more dangerous for children back in the violent days of Ozzie and Harriet than in today's idyllic family life à la Ozzie and Sharon Osbourne. Even if common sense and experience tell us this is preposterous, nevertheless, it must be true, since it's supported by authoritative-looking tables and seemingly irrefutable statistics. After all, liberals would claim, America's Children bears the imprimatur of the U.S. Departments of Education, Defense, Commerce, Labor, and Justice, as well as such impressive institutions as the National Science Foundation.
How did this multi-agency forum find "objective" data to support the Kinseyan claims that intact, religious families are harmful to children? Simple: it imitated Kinsey, the master fraud, and eliminated facts that conflicted with its thesis. The FIFCFS study eliminates the pandemic consequences of Kinsey's gospel of pansexuality, which holds that any and all sexual activity should be considered normal. For example, the period from 1960 to 1999, according to the Department of Justice, saw violent crime increase 396 percent. This includes robbery, up 279 percent; aggravated assault, up 168 percent; murder up 70 percent; and forcible rape up 418 percent -- despite the fact that fewer women or children stroll our parks and streets alone than pre-1960. The "child well-being" analysts, however, attempt to hide the rape plague by stripping it out of their statistics on "violent crime" affecting children.
Most people definitely would consider child rape and other forms of child sex abuse to be serious indicators of "unwellness." Most parents, I am sure, would consider information about the dangers to their children from sex offenders every bit as important as (if not more important than) the National Ambient Air Quality Standards of the area in which they live. Table POP9A, "Children's Environments," in America's Children provides great detail on the threats to childhood wellness posed by sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and other air pollutants. Likewise, there is abundant statistical detail on family income distribution, child care, parental employment, diet quality, exposure to second-hand smoke, and so on, ad infinitum. However, the politically correct FIFCFS researchers have very conspicuously gutted from their report all child "unwellness" data that would undermine belief in the so-called benefits of sexual liberation. Consider these glaring omissions:
As I said above, America's Children is a report which would make Alfred Kinsey proud. Like Kinsey's infamous "research," it shamelessly manipulates data and lies by omission to promote a perverse agenda. It uses Kinseyan techniques regarding children's "well-being" to undermine marriage, religion, and parental authority, and downplay the seriousness of child abuse.
Are fraudulent, anti-marriage and anti-family data the rotten fruit of pansexual "training"? You be the judge. In the past few years, trusted government-funded researchers inflated rates of parental sex abuse by redefining "parent" to include, "boyfriends or girlfriends or adoptive step-parent [or] parent substitute." These researchers also defined a "family" predator as anyone in "a romantic or sexual relationship with a parent." This is a very vicious attack on parenthood and families, an attempt to make parents appear to be the real danger to children.
Who are these researchers? One of the most well known is Dr. Duane Alexander, director of the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, a spokesman for the America's Children publication. He also is a well-seasoned champion of ancient forms of "human sexuality."
Alexander vigorously defended his ongoing funding of Dr. John Money, who calls for an end to age-of-consent laws and whose surgical child sex-change program was exposed as a fraud and a failure.
Dr. Alexander claims that Dr. Money (who pioneered sex changes for children) has proven that no one is born psychologically male or female. Alexander explained that if parents raise their sons as girls, they will be "female," but if they raise their sons as boys, they will be "male."
Alexander savaged the parents of Dr. Money's most famous sex-change victim for the boy's stubborn refusal to complete the "scientific" process of making him a girl. Tragically, the victim of Dr. Money's "experiment" committed suicide as an adult. Alexander's unscientific and illogical conclusion as to why the boy rebelled at his forced gender change was that his parents didn't raise him consistently as a girl so it "didn't turn out well." Yet, amazingly, Dr. Alexander is still being funded by our tax dollars and is one of the federal "experts" shaping family policy.
Reliable scholars should be found to plot the timeline trends of sexual and child welfare from 1950 -- the beginning of the Kinseyan pansexual revival -- to today to correct other government reports that similarly hide the barbaric consequences of bringing back, legalizing, and professionalizing ancient, pagan pansexuality.